UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Allow SysOps to Ignore Spambots

A Headline

You know the deal. Even if it doesn't pass, it gets forwarded along. "Look what Amazing is doing!!! D:" - Then, as if by magic, the modification gets installed. Alternately, Amazing is re-banned and stops talking in the 3rd person. Discuss. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Which extension are you recommending and how well does it keep the bots out? ~ _{04:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

That's a bit of an unintended hidden trap, because then it opens debate as to whether or not people want that specific extension. The idea here is that the policy would become null & void as soon as any extension created to stop SpamBots is installed.

On a personal, not-actually-part-of-this-policy level, I'm as fond of ReCapcha as the next guy. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 04:52, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Absolutely Not

This is just dumb. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:11, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Besides which, I can't think of a single case of a sysop being brought up for Misconduct for this reason, nor do I see how a charge on these grounds would ever stick. Sysops are volunteers, and are not required to engage in their duties in a timely fashion, or even at all, for that matter (though they'll likely get demoted eventually in the latter case). About the only time that neglecting to do your duty becomes an issue is when a sysop does so in a partial manner, but you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that ANYONE is partial towards spammers. —Aichon— 10:03, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I really don't see the point of this, either. I mean, even assuming it was a misconductable offense to ignore adbots (it isn't), how would you be able to even prove they were doing so in the first place? There's a lot of different things to be done as sysop, and there are numerous precedents for individuals focusing on only a few of those tasks. This is coming from a guy who's (been forced into) ruling on only two or thee A/VB and A/M cases in as many years with no ill effects. Unnecessary. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 10:18, 15 May 2011 (BST)

As the person creating all of the spambots, I will be very pleased with this policy, and demand that it is passed immediately.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:33, 15 May 2011 (BST)

But seriously, it isn't really necessary. Not particularly a reason against, but not really a reason for.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:33, 15 May 2011 (BST)

If we are doing anything it should be for the opposite. Sick of having to get bots then notice Revenant has been editing for the 20 minutes they were around unbanned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:21, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Uhm, not all of us use Recent Changes but when we do we use Dos Aquis. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:52, 15 May 2011 (BST)

As above. Bringing sysops to misconduct because they're not working hard enough at their unpaid internet job will never get traction as long as people retain a shred of common sense. Also holding the wiki hostage when we want things might work in the short run but probably won't do much to improve Kevan's general disposition towards us. --Zaruthustra^{Still a Mod in His Mind} 10:59, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Not saying it should happen but it'd be a hell of a lot more useful than this policy is imo. As it stands this policy is already in effect anyway, ops can and do ignore bots without any repercussions at all, unless you count what I said above. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:12, 15 May 2011 (BST)

He seems pretty good at noticing them when he isn't halfway through a heated argument. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:12, 15 May 2011 (BST)