Commons:Requests and votes/Computer (de-adminship)

This RF de-adminship is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. De-sysopped [1]. giggy _(:O) 11:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Computer (de-adminship)

Links for Computer (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

This is a sysop bot account whose owner is White Cat. White Cat recently resigned their sysop status (here) and has now flagged their page as "Retired". I cannot envisage a situation where the community would grant sysop status to a bot account of someone who was not an active sysop. I'm sure if White Cat were to be an active admin again the community would consider the position however for now I believe that the sysop status is not appropriate here. Frankly I am unsure of the bot status aspect.

Votes

•  Remove sysop rights per my nom. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider this very indecent. Not that you care what I have to say... -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove sysop rights --MichaelMaggs 08:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove sysop rights -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep sysop rights this is a useful bot. Just because he resigned doesn't mean the bot is no longer trustworthy. Don't see any benefit in doing this. Majorly (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Casting a vote to  Remove sysop rights - allthough I'm not sure if this formal voting is necessary. To me it's pretty obvious that a user (presently) desysoped can't run a bot with sysop rights. Needless to say, if White Cat returns and gets sysop rights back - so should the bot. Finn Rindahl 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It isn't obvious to me. He's still trusted isn't he? Majorly (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove sysop rights. No SysOP-rights for Bots! Marcus Cyron 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove I trust the owner but it just doesn't make sense for a retired non-admin to have a admin account with a bot flag. It appears the bot hasn't completely retired, which is good. Taking away the rights wouldn't affect the bot's activity that much anyway. Rocket000 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove Owner is gone, this bot doesn't need sysop rights to work. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• aggainst the lot i will vote for  keeping the sysop rights. (As per Majorlys comment) abf /talk to me/ 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• I question whether +sysop was need in the first place, but given that White Cat is no longer an admin here, there is no question in my mind that the bot should have the bit removed as well. If there is need to have a bot edit protected pages in the future, we can easily replace this bot. I would want to revisit the bot's admin bit if White Cat comes back as an admin; as I said, I don't think it is required. For now,  Remove – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove Commented below. Patrícia ^msg 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove - 'tis logical to remove the rights. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove - No reason to keep for the moment. →Christian.И 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove No objections to reinstate if White Cat's adminship is restored through RfA or otherwise. - Mailer diablo 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep} - trusted user, no reason. Having to go through the readminship process for the bot account is silly. Adminship will expire in a few months anyway if unused. Guess this is a losing venture though. :(Patstuart (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The only "admin actions" the bot performs are edits to protected pages, if I recall. Do we want the bot running at all if the owner is away? I'm sure will say yes as it's useful, though I would contend that what seems to be its most frequent job (fixing double redirects) could easily be taken up by someone else...there are a stack of bots doing that task on EnWP. Because of this, we could simply block bot if we wanted/needed to stop it. Thoughts? giggy _(:O) 08:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Can I ask you to use only  Keep or  Remove templates, as it has happened in previous de-adminships, for the sake of clarity? Thanks for the help :). Patrícia ^msg 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a policy about giving or revoking +sysop on bots, and I think it's fine that we don't have it, as each case should be evaluated on an individual basis. There is in principle, and in a strictly technical point of view, no reason to revoke the +sysop flag from Computer. However, we're not asserting only the technical part, indeed I think that is the minor problem here.

The problem here is having a user who has resigned adminship on his main account, and potentially does not wish to edit here any further. Whereas we all know that such "leavings" are often short-lived (I'm not talking about White Cat in particular, but in the concept in general; see also meatball:GoodBye and meatball:RightToLeave), and it is true that White Cat voluntarily resigned, and all that, despite this, the circumstances were not tranquil; there was some brawling, several users were opposing White Cat's actions, and White Cat was reacting rather aggressively to the situation.

So, yes, theoretically White Cat is still a trusted user, but in practice there was much mess around this, and it doesn't seem very logical that a user who relinquished his sysop rights in order to leave, keeps an alternate account with such rights anyway. As far as I am concerned, given the issues that surrounded his de-adminship, he would have to go through a serious community discussion or even an RfA to get his rights back. His bot account should not be exempt from this.

I have no issues with keeping the bot flag. I have no issues with the existence of sysop-bots, when they are well justified: see User:MediaWiki Update Bot (which could not be in better hands, if you ask me).

I am saddened that we had to come to this situation, losing an admin and now going through yet another process that is probably not making White Cat any happier. But I honestly don't see any good reason to keep it. Sorry for the long comment. Patrícia ^msg 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Patricia speaks wisely. I won't comment myself but if the consensus comes out as I think it will, I'll go ask on Meta for this myself, although not do it, this being a home wiki. (note that Meta 'crats recently got their permissions changed, they can remove adminships and 'cratships as well as add them... we may want to consider that, or not... topic for another place, though) ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment. I am away at arms reach. I am retired not deceased.
  I left the community for the most part because I felt this wiki had become overly hostile and unworkable. Its mind blowing that people go out of their way to strip me of all access they can the second I look the other way.
  One thing everyone forgot was that I could have been very easily consulted about this. Has any one of you thought of asking me about this? Maybe I had forgotten I had a bot account with admin access. After all the bots sysop flag was only there so the bot could edit protected pages which it did more times than I care to count. I could have asked for the removal of the access myself. But nooooo. Last thing we want to do is consult me. I think I stand corrected.
  -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Access removed. I hope everyone is happy... -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Imagine that, someone actually asking you! Perish the thought! Majorly ^talk 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I really think the community should change this practice of avoiding discussion with the person most involved. A polite
        "Hey remember you resigned your adminship on commons? You still have admin access there via your bot Computer. You may want to fix that."
        can do wonders.
        -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)