Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ANI

[edit] Canvassing for bot approval

I am somewhat saddened to bring this report to the AN/I noticeboard, as this is an established editor whom I respect greatly as a contributor and developer, but in light of their actions, I feel I have no choice but to report it here.

First of all, let me establish the context for this report. In the spam guidelines, there is a section on canvassing. Asking for opinion and consensus is a natural part of the Wikipedia consensus building process, however, when canvassing occurs it dilutes a true consensus and turns the process into a simple majority. It also poisons the well - editors who would normally vote oppose may not vote because of a strong block of support votes, or vice versa. Now, to explain the specifics, Dragons flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently proposed a bot to perform protections on certain articles. In the process of proposing it, he canvassed quite heavily for it (in my opinion). Diffs include:

There's more, but those are what were readily available. To me, advertising on another BRFA is just blatant spam. Opinions? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I strongly endorse this instance of spamming, and you'd have to dig deep to find anyone more anti-spammer than me. This particular bot approval is needed urgently and vitally. It's been discussed extensively here and there is strong consensus that this needs done, like yesterday. Leave him be. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (double edit conflict)Well, it's not really spam when it's only on the most relevant pages. If he'd left the message to all the creators of feautred pictures, I think I'd care a lot more, but this is very focoused notification, informing of the proposal. Anyway, as you noted on the BRFA page, Peter, BRFA isn't a vote - only discussion, so these comments shouldn't matter. I think I went to the page based on the post on AN, and made a suggestion on the page - not a vote, a suggestion. I belive that this was probably Dragon Flight's aim when leaving the messages - to get ideas, which he has got in abundance there (and one can get ideas from oppose votes, to satisfy their reasons for opposition). Martinp23 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really consider this canvassing, and secondly, when we say canvassing, aren't we mainly talking about spamming messages? We have here five independently-tailored messages in five separate situations where he's encouraging people to support a bot. I think it's within his rights, as the bot's creator, to offer arguments as to why it is a good idea. It doesn't really make sense to say he's not allowed to talk about it at all, or that he must give the appearance of being neutral over whether his bot is approved or not. The one qualm I have is where he says to go !vote in support and provides a link, but that is a very minor quibble at best. --Cyde Weys 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the WP:SPAM section on canvassing and I must say I see no great issue here. One distiction made was the level of disruption made by the crossposting. This doesn't seem to like an "aggressive propaganda campaign" to me (unless you can provide more spamdiffs to support the claim), but rather "reasonable amount of communication about issues". Deliberate and single-purpose spamming is bad, while mentioning a discussion on related occasions is no worse than advertising a WikiProject in a signature. Миша13 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to leave a notice on the admin noticeboard, since admins have had to manually protect all these pages. The Bureaucrats' board because, after all, bot RFAs are a bit exceptional, and Bureaucrats close RfAs. The only edit slightly hard to justify (IMHO) was to Shadowbot's page, but it is a related bot... Note that one of those is not Dragons flight. Prodego talk 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group to further one's side of a debate." He did not systematically go out and ask for people to support the bot, nor did he only contact people who he knew would support the bot. He posted about it publicly on AN and other places (since only a limited few follow the bot requests page) and in doing so asked for input from the people the bot would most help — administrators — since only administrators can take care of Main Page issues. Move along folks, nothing to see here. —bbatsell ¿? 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I think WP:IAR applies here... nothing he's doing is hurting the project and in fact as Guy said this is a very urgent need.--Isotope23 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw the various editors here to the existence of the aforementioned bots RfA. The page was created 3 days before conditional approval was granted. It seems, I'm not the only editor aware of it's existence, with 3 !votes (as of 21:30 on 5th Jan) already having been placed before the RfA is listed on the main WP:RFA page along with the rest of the RfA nominations. The only page linking to the RfA at present being User:ProtectionBot - So, my main question, what's happening with the RfA ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not been listed yet, so the RfA hasn't officially started, so those !votes are early. I think the RfA will only be going ahead when full approval from BRFA is granted (correct me if I'm wrong) Martinp23 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be sensible to list the RfA now and once the result of the RfA is known, then the BRfA process can continue, it seems the BAG is getting ahead of process here and the talk of WP:IAR combined with an RfA that hasn't yet been listed leaves me a little uncertain as to whether the BAG was going to be permitted to give the bot sysop permissions in this case. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I prepared the RFA for when/if it became appropriate. It was not posted in part because I wanted to be sure what the functionality of the bot would be, and this has been subject to revisions due to discussions at BRFA. As it had not been posted, I have removed all early posting of votes to it, as I regard that as inappropriate. Personally, I feel adminbots ought to be handled entirely through BRFA (with wide community notice; not spam) rather than having two largely overlapping discussions, but many people seem to disagree with that, so I am prepared to do an RFA if that is what is to be required. Dragons flight 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was the first vote. I just figured it couldn't hurt to support early. (It so happens that I also think that a RfA isn't even necessary, but if it goes live I'll support it.) Melchoir 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think an RFA is necessary when the bot owner is already an admin. Bot owners are already responsible for everything their bots do. Giving a bot a sysop flag when the owner is already a sysop is a simple matter of deciding if the bot is a good idea — and since we all agree that this one is — it should be granted. WP:RFA is for granting sysop access to humans, and if you look at all of the normal questions and procedure that go on in RFA, you'll see that they're totally unnecessary and irrelevant when dealing with a person who is already a sysop and just needs a second flagged account for bot usage. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde. I had assumed, per the precedent set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA any bot with sysop functions would need to be approved through the normal RfA channel, since Tawker was already an admin at that point and he had to go through an RfA process. I realise there is a vast difference in what TawkerbotTorA and ProtectionBot do, but shouldn't the bot still have to go through an RfA process ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Per my own previous comments on Jmaxbot, I concur with Cyde. Raul654 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The user conduct described does not constitute canvassing or spamming within the meaning of any relevant policy, nor does it give rise to any of the concerns that those policies are meant to address. Moreover, any reasonable steps calculated to help solve the problem of inappropriate images on the mainpage and in our daily featured content are of surpassing and immediate importance to the reputation of the project. Letting administrators and bureaucrats know of a potential bot that could contribute to addressing this issue is not only acceptable, but highly commendable. I frankly don't understand the reasons for making this report and am saddened by the existence of a dispute between two of our best Dragons. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I'm by no means a bot expert, but I also agree with Cyde that a full-dress RfA should not be necessary for a situation like this. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that Dragons flight did nothing wrong and that an RfA should not be necessary. —Mets501 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As a tangential thought in response to the An RfA should always be necessary when seeking sysop status for an account - it is how the community decides if it is needed, and whom it is trusted with. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is obviously needed because the bot cannot function without it. And we already decided we trust this individual, unless that's changed since his RfA. What's left to talk about? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: for the record, the BAG recomended a RFA to get community for the concept... since admin-bots have been so... hmmm... feared. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be vanity to quote myself, however, taken from my wikiphilosophy:

“ Sysop status, or other special rights such as CheckUser, Oversight, or membership in a WikiProject, does not confer immunity to policy. Many users that get these special rights seem to get an ego complex and think that their contributions are somehow more valuable than others, or that their opinions should be weighted more heavily. This could not be further from the spirit of Wikipedia. Every good faith contributor is a valuable and respected part of the community, considered equally with any other good faith contributor. ”

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but what is the relevance of that statement to this issue? Newyorkbrad 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator I'm telling you you're all totally wrong and you're just supposed to do what I say otherwise I block you, whenever I feel like it. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The strong push to bypass the RFA process seems to be nothing more than a block of sysops who think their opinion is what matters and do not feel they need the approval of the community as a whole to ratify their proposal. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Of the five people who just here have supported not bothering with an RfA, three are sysops and two are not. I think you may be imagining things here -- the community has had ample chance to discuss this issue and virtually nobody, administrator or not, has opposed creating this sysop bot. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, Peter, the text of their comments were quite clear; I'm not sure why you're assuming an enormous amount of bad faith here, but it's troubling. The coder and overseer of the bot is an administrator; thusly, he has gained the trust of the community through his own RfA. The BRFA process is designed to determine whether there is a need for the bot, whether technical issues are present with it, and whether the mechanisms are in place to prevent errors should they arise (as they nearly inevitably do in man-made code). The user in charge of the bot has been granted trust, and the consensus on the BRFA is quite clearly in favor of the bot itself. That is why the editors above who support bypassing the RfA hold that position, and they made themselves abundantly clear. For the record, I think we should go through an RfA to remove even a smidge of doubt, and I'm slightly (but not significantly) unhappy with the precedent, but I refuse to assume the bad faith you assume above. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There was no assumption of bad faith, and I got five edit conflicts trying to reword my statement - but anyways. My main concern is that there seems to be no basis to circumvent the RfA, and yet they want to. Now some would say this is uncontested, which is a little annoying, since it makes me wonder what I'm doing, if not contesting it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )
    • I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation, Peter. I think the push to skip the RfA process is because the user in question is already a Sysop. Dragons Flight already passed an RfA, so unless he has become less trustworthy since then, an RfA seems redundant and the need for it has not been established. As long as the sysop-bit element of the bot is clearly defined during the bot request phase (which it was), then the community has more than enough opportunity to comment, and they did. In addition to these practical considerations, I'd like to offer one final realistic one. There are folks employing criteria in RfA that would, by definition, make it absolutely impossible for a bot to pass. Not because the bot isn't the Right Thing for the project, but because the bot has not written a featured article, has not accumulated X-thousand edits, and so on. There are both practical and realistic limitations to using the RfA that has nothing to do with a "block of sysops" working in concert to somehow thwart the rest of the project, and I feel such a suggestion doesn't do the hard working folks on the project justice. If you feel there is any such cadre working against the interests of Wikipedia, then that should be resolved separately and not involve the protection-bot effort that Dragons Flight is undergoing at the moment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My complains are not with the bot - I feel it is a neccesary tool in combating the problems we have had. My problem is how people are going about implementing it, since it seems to be circumventing policy. IAR is not a free pass to do as you would. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify something here that might reduce the controversy. Precisely what "sysop" functions will this bot be performing? No one wants a bot given the ability to inadvertently block users, delete articles, etc. and if someone were to propose giving a bot the ability to do these things I can see the argument for requiring a broad consensus evinced by something like RfA or an equivalent. But do I understand correctly that the only "admin only" function this bot will perform will be to protect templates? That seems to be a fairly low-risk situation and might not implicate some of the broader concerns. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples you provided seem relevant locations for such a notice. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can see how some people would like to see this get 'fast tracked', but really is there a need to bypass WP:RFA? The bot looks to me to be an interesting idea, but... the community's say is important. I mean if the bot is good, and you anticipate no objections, an RFA can't hurt. In my opinion, no user account should get the sysop flag without going through an WP:RFA. I mean really, if there are few objections to the bot, and the community is guaranteed to support the idea, then we might as well put it through an WP:RFA, 5 days is nothing. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the RFA would serve more then just getting approval for the sysop bit… the user already has approval for that. What the RFA would establish is community approval of the concept of a Sysop bot for this specific role…. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, Dragons flight has gone through an RfA already. Why should he be forced to do it again? Second, so many people are irrationally afraid of adminbots that maybe a bit of IAR (and process circumvention) would help to demontrate it in action and show that it's not a big deal at all? Миша13 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we used to have an autoblocking bot for vandals? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A thinking point to consider. When we perform a Request for Adminiship, is the RfA for the account, or for the person behind the account? If the answer is the former, then an RfA makes sense. But if we're determining whether or not the person is suitable for adminship, then a separate RfA becomes redundant. I think precedent suggests that Wikipedia considers the person to be the more important elemtn of the equation. Dragons Flight the person has already passed the RfA, and by necessity, the robot he creates is his responsibility. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand Dragons flight is not going through the RFA, the idea of the bot is. Any user account wanting the sysop flag has to go through it. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2 may be worth reviewing here. NoSeptember 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my question a few posts above, which may have been lost in the multiply threaded discussion. For editors, "the sysop bit" is an indivisible whole: one is either an administrator with all the buttons going with the job, or isn't. Is that true for bots? As I understand it (please confirm), this bot would only be tasks with protecting templates, couldn't it be constructed in a way that would not require access to the full "sysop bit" including the powers to block, delete, etc. that raise greater concerns? Newyorkbrad 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also please see this. It is from WP:SOCK, which is another term for alternate account. I guess in short, I am trying to say that I think the RFA is for the account, not the person. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Robert has done absolutely nothing wrong. The community has been clamoring for such a bot, and he's stepped forward to deliver it.
I also strongly believe that an RfA is both unnecessary and downright absurd. Robert already is a sysop, so the bot account won't enable him to do anything that he isn't already capable of doing (and trusted by the community to do). The bot itself has overwhelming approval, so there's nothing left to discuss (aside from technical specifics). Furthermore, "RfA" stands for "requests for adminship." A bot can't be an administrator, so the idea of requesting adminship for one is ludicrous. —David Levy 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, he was given the sysop bit with the understanding that he would be doing the edits. This is not a manual assist bot, but one that runs independently of human intervention. It matters little who wrote it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
But the community has already expressed its overwhelming approval of Robert's plan to operate the bot! What's left to discuss? —David Levy 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
With such overwhelming approval, an RFA should be no big deal! No need to bypass our sock policy for this bot. I think our policy in WP:SOCK is quite clear on alternate accounts for admins. Personally I think it needs to go through an RFA. If there is such overwhelming support, it should be an easy RFA. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
1. As I said, I believe that conducting a request for adminship for a computer script is nonsensical. Computer scripts can't be administrators. I swear to God, if people start opposing this RfA because the bot hasn't participated in deletion debates or written featured articles, I'll personally remove such comments and issue warnings against committing further acts of disruption.
2. How many mutilated penises do you feel comfortable displaying on the main page while this farcical "RfA" occurs?
3. I think that this policy is quite clear. —David Levy 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to note, that there is a second bot User:Shadowbot2, that is capable of doing the same task, albeit without the admin buttons. Therefore, there is no rush to bypass existing standards for this bot, as we are well covered. No matter ,if and when the community gives this bot the admin bit, we already have a functional bot. Again I believe the only second admin account held by the same person is that of User:Danny, (second account User:Dannyisme), which Danny uses for Foundation work. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I don't know if you missed this or not, but I would also like to note, that there is a second bot User:Shadowbot2, that is capable of doing the same task, albeit without the admin buttons, as stated above. As much as we want everything automatic, this is not an urgent bot. Also I think our sock policy over-rides IAR. Agian, this bot is not that urgent. We have viable alternatives. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't "miss" that comment. You inserted it above my reply after I posted it. I've moved it to the correct location and replied. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I ran into a few edit conflicts at that time, and I probably did not do my copy pasting right, so sorry about that. :S Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I tried to re-order this in the right order, according to the time stamps. I see where where I blundered, and it is quite clear from my re-ordering. Again I am sorry about that. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You might want to note that the Main Page was vandalized again yesterday even though Shadowbot2 was running. Dragons flight 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
All that means is that not enough admins have opted in. Nonetheless the problem should be on the decline. Agian, this is not that urgent, we will live 5 more days, so hurry up and slap the bot on RFA. I am sure that people won't treat it like a normal human, but will look over the merits of the proposal. I don't think we have to worry about checking the account's wikipedia space edits or anything. I don't know if this bot really has the majority you say it has, and we won't know until it ends up on RFA now will we? I really do want to thank all involved for all the work (programming I know what this is like, debating ect.) Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was only because Shadowbot2 does not check the protection status of images in the scanned templates. Shadow1 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It was a template that was vandalized: Template:POTD_image/2007-01-05. Dragons flight 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No. I received a false report that 18 templates were unprotected. The one vandalized (Template:POTD image/2007-01-05) was not included in the list. I'm unsure of the chronology (and I think that the e-mail might have been sent after that template was removed from the main page), but I definitely wasn't notified of the problem. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, User:ProtectionBot would not have prevented that POTD snafu. Note the following on ProtectionBot's page: "Note that if any admin changes the protection before the ProtectionBot expects it to be concluded, then ProtectionBot will assume the admin knows best and not try to make any further changes to that image/template during the course of that appearance on the main page/featured article." - from what I can make out, in the latest incident, an admin came along and changed the template system being used for POTD (actually quite a good change), but forgot to protect the new templates. I suspect that the clause above in ProtectionBot's description means that vandalism will still occur when a well-meaning admin makes a change without realising the full consequences of the change being made. Human nature. Carcharoth 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No, ProtectionBot would have covered this (assumming it was seen between when it was added and when it was vandalized). The clause you refer to covers recent changes in protection level by other admins. If a template appeared on the Main Page and has never been protected, ProtectionBot assummes it ought to have been. Dragons flight 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. So ProtectionBot would have prevented that, which is good, though all this does depend on how closely vandals are watching the main page. I still think vandals will adapt to sneak into the small window of opportunity that is there for image vandalism, despite the semi-random feature. Getting back to how ProtectionBot won't overide a change made by another admin - ie. you programmed it not to wheel-war! :-) - can you think of situations where a well-meaning admin unfamiliar with the main page might unprotect a template or image while it is on the main page, and then forget to reprotect? If I am understanding the 'no wheel-warring' thing correctly, ProtectionBot won't prevent this kind of thing (cos it's not designed to stop humans being silly). I still think that ultimately the developers will need to come up with a system where this is all hardwired into the MediWiki system. Carcharoth 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
We are not "well covered." Shadowbot2 merely e-mails certain administrators to inform them that a problem exists. It does not repair the problems. Additionally, it doesn't seem to be functioning properly. Yesterday, it falsely reported that almost every template on the main page was unprotected. It failed, however, to detect that four main page templates actually were unprotected. As a result, penis vandalism occurred yet again. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, surely the community as a whole has a right to decide on whether or not it's comfortable in giving bots sysop access, be it through a standard RfA or proposing a new policy on sysop bots. If were going to IAR on this one, it sets a potentially dangerous and certainly unfair precedent where it can be done again to give any developer with admin access permission to create and run sysop bots with no input from the community beyond that which happens at BRFA. In fact, it seems IAR could also extend to giving any user sysop status if a few people decide it's necessary. There's Shadowbot2 which offers an e-mail report to admins when it finds an unprotected page. Sign up for the mailing list on that whilst this is going through the RfA process. Threatening out of process warnings (which could end up leading onto blocks, I assume ?) isn't on either and I would appreciate if you would strike that comment. RfA is supposed to be an open process, one where any editor can make any comment (within reason) on the whether or not it is appropriate to give the user (through just one account) sysop access. It's totally inappropriate to mention warning a user for commenting in a certain way on any RfA. As I've said, there are further options available to admins to let them know whether or not all the templates transcluded onto the main page are protected. This bot isn't the only option and it's not as clear cut or urgent as your making out. I really have no time for any admin who threatens to censor any RfA. Blackmail was too strong a word, but there's certainly an air of intimidation for anyone daring to Oppose. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk - Contribs 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, the community has a right to decide. It already has. Conducting a fictitious "RfA" while the main page remains at risk will accomplish nothing of benefit to Wikipedia.
2. Your slippery slope argument is silly. This is a very special case, and the community clearly recognizes that fact.
3. I'm on the bloody Shadowbot2 e-mail list. It failed yesterday.
4. I'm not "threatening out of process warnings." I explicitly referenced hypothetical RfA comments made in bad faith, and I stand by my promise to counter any such deliberate disruption. If someone opposes the RfA for an applicable reason (something that actually pertains to the bot), that's an entirely different matter. —David Levy 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest closing this section as there is no canvassing. Dragons flight should run an RfA for the bot, as not everyone might have noticed the bot discussion. --Ligulem 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

It's clear that this could be quite a sticky situation and something does need to be done to sort out the danger of vandalism appearing on the main page. I would suggest, in the interim however, that User:ProtectionBot is give a temporary sysop flag whilst it's decided what to do next, be it an RfA or propose a new policy on granting bots sysop functionality. I don't see a great number of concerns over the bot malfunctioning and destroying Wikipedia, rather, it seems to be concern at what passing RfA means and it's effect on policy, i.e does it say

  1. The user has been trusted sufficently by the community to be granted sysop status and consiquently any and all additional accounts that sysop may wish to operate (provided they are solely for the use of the sysop) can be conferred with sysop status too

or

  1. The user has been trusted sufficently by the community to be granted sysop status for the one and only account presented at the RfA, and that any and all additional accounts for which the sysop requests sysop functionality need to go through the RfA process.

Until some sort of consensus is decided on what exactly passing an RfA means, then there's little point in discussing policy on bots with sysop functionality, however it's a debate that probably needs to happen sooner than later, and if the former statement is the consensus of the community, some sort of policy will likely need to be drafted on if and when it is appropriate to grant bots sysop functionality and of course, whether or not the RfA process can be ignored for all developers needing sysop access in order to design bots and other applications. Quoting IAR is fine to start with but after a while, there starts becoming a need to create a rule to be followed, not ignored, which provides the same basic freedom but with the necessary limitations to protect the community. If we, as a community decide we want bots with sysop functionality, we will need to look at the testing arrangements for sysop bots, who ultimately makes the change on the account permissions and the various safety measures in place to ensue the bot doesn't, once operating with sysop functionality, start to be given additional functions by it's developer(s) or if malfunctioning, doesn't do damage that cannot easily and quickly be stopped and reverted. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate proposal

  1. This bot be provisionally approved and flagged to run under the aegis of Dragons flight's sysop flag for 30 days (no RfA), and reevaluated at the end of that time.
  2. Several sysops with bot experience be designated to monitor the bot's performance, to make sure that it is not doing anything untoward and also that no templates needing protection are being missed.
  3. This being an urgent situation, this instance not to be regarded as a precedent for future bots with sysop rights, and discussion to continue on the broader policy questions presented.
  4. A Bugzilla request be submitted to the developers (if not already done) that would allow a bot to be able to access a sysop's protection function, but not other sysop functions such as blocking or deletion.

Comments? Newyorkbrad 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 100% support from me. —David Levy 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to have the proviso that should it be possible for the devs to split admin functions, it can only be used by bots and not by human editors, and only after some sort of policy is agreed upon. If split admin functions can be carried out, I don't see as great a need for putting bots through the RfA process as they are absolutely limited by the functionality granted to them and developer(s) expanding any bots functionality is less of a concern. Apart from that rather lengthy add-on, I'm happy to support either my own proposal, Brad's, or any combination of the two. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do I think of Kelly Martin when someone says something like this? No one remembers that? We don't need a redux of that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This may not be not feasible. In recent testing I have seen dropped Mediawiki session cookies, which I suspect are caused by trying to use my account for normal editting while a bot run is in progress. If this interpretation is correct (and I'm not entirely sure, I'm still investigating it), then it would make it impossible for this bot to run concurrently with my normal editting behavior. Dragons flight 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, have ProtectionBot temporarily assigned a sysop flag, on the understanding that it will be withdrawn after the testing period, and a full RfA run to gain approval and permanent admin status. ie. support Brad's proposal, with the change I suggest. Carcharoth 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first part of Carcharoth's proposal as a "friendly amendment," but if the 30-day trial is successful, I don't think an RfA should be necessary. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept a temporary sysop flag for it subject to community review, but if it is working at the end of 30 days and there are no complaints, I don't see much sense in stopping it, hauling it through RFA, and then restarting it again. If we are going to go this way, I would ask that whatever review is demanded occur before the end of the trial period. Dragons flight 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The possibility of 4 exists in the code, if I recall correctly (I was not an editor then, this is from combing archives), when phase3 when operational some editors were excited that now users would be able to request only certain admin rights. Obviously this never materialized, and there is no interface to do it. But it could be done. Whether it will be is another story, I don't think it is really a priority, since there are only likely to be a few admin bots. Prodego talk 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is possible if your browser and bot use the same cookie file. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok as a member of WP:BAG there are a few things that need to be cleared up. This bot is not yet approved, it is still in the trial phase. I gave Dragons Flight limited approval for testing of the bot on his account. Before approving this bot fully I see several issues that need to be handled. There has been no suggestion from the BAG to bypass RfA, In fact I support a RfA, I agree IAR cannot be applied here as giving a bot sysop privileges (via IAR) can open a can of worms that we don't want opened. As for the issue of wiki-spamming this was just spreading the word as WP:BRFA is NOT a very high traffic page, all Dragons Flight was doing was letting people know that such a bot was in the process of being created. Regarding the use of shadowbot there are a lot of holes in that method of protecting the main page. But that is the best that could be done with a non admin bot. there are many images and templates that are used daily and rotate this is a lot of work for all admins involved as any active admins know we take a lot of work and one less major pain, and is a lot less stress for us and for Wikipedia. I Propose a RfA but before this bot can be posted there it will need unanimous BAG approval. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. We know that some technical concerns remain to be addressed. Much of the above discussion is based on the assumption that the bot will receive approval from the BAG (though I don't see how you can justify the need for "unanimous" support from a body with no official authority).
2. The application of WP:IAR would mean setting aside some technicalities, not bypassing consensus. No one is proposing that the will of the community be ignored. We're saying that the community already has spoken (and the bot should used as soon as possible).
3 If it's determined that further discussion is required, so be it. But to refer to said discussion as an "RfA" would be ridiculous. Again, computer scripts can't be administrators. Robert seeks a sysop bit for his bot, not "adminship." RfA is not an appropriate forum. If we must, let's take this to the village pump or even RfC. But let's do it now. There's no valid reason why the technical approval must come first. —David Levy 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think opening an RfC or Village Pump thread now would affect the RfA (which has been written but not yet posted)? Annoyingly, it looks like there needs to be a preliminary discussion about whether long-term approval (after the 30-day trial) should be granted through RfA or a Village Pump discussion or an RfC. Incidentially David, I don't think the spread-out discussions and the small discussion at the Bot Approval Group, show community consensus. They show consensus by part of the community, but RfA regulars may feel that they were bypassed unless they are notified in some way. Notes can be dropped off at all venues, and at {{cent}}, but I agree that discussion should take place in one location, and that RfA might not be the best place (though the existence of the discussion should be advertised there). Can we get this wrapped up in 30 days (well, less than that now)? When does the trial end? Carcharoth 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting an alternative to the "RfA," not a supplement. As I said, I don't oppose the solicitation of additional feedback (provided that it's done immediately). I feel, however, that RfA regulars have no special standing in this instance, given the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with a request for adminship. Of course, all Wikipedians are entitled to comment, and the matter can be advertised in every major forum of even peripheral relevance (including RfA). I merely object to the idea of conducting the actual discussion as an RfA, as that would be entirely nonsensical. (We would basically be pretending that the bot is a person.) We can create a dedicated project page and list it in all of the aforementioned locations (thereby negating the issue of which is the correct one). —David Levy 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentially, the right question to ask of the community is probably, "should the BAG be granted the power to give bots a sysop flag, or should there be additional community oversight of the process?" Carcharoth 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That's one question to ask, but the pressing issue is that surrounding this particular bot. There really aren't very many valid applications for a sysop bot, so this won't be a routine matter. —David Levy 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As WP:BAG we don't want the stress/responsibility of bypassing RfA's for granting bots admin priv's (please note that I used admin privileges as we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not). having a small group of users (BAG and passer byers) is not a method of granting a community consensus on whether they want a bot doing certain admin actions. As Wikimedia Foundation policy currently has it there are three ways of getting adminship, having a foundation level user grant it, (WP:OFFICE), per arbcom or RfA's, as B-crats shouldn't grant adminship to users without a community consensus, this is currently done on WP:RFA on the English Wikipedia. As with previous BRfA's that needed admin priv's we have had a RfA and let the community decide. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a point of history, the only bot to ever run with admin privledges was approved at ANI with neither a BRFA nor an RFA. I would suggest that B-crats (whose role is of course to determine consensus in such matter) should not need to be bound to the formal structures of RFA if a community consensus can or has been shown elsewhere. Dragons flight 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping in here (I'm on a bit of a break at the moment), but if there is a strong enough community consensus to grant an admin flag to a bot, then it should be no problem to have that demonstrated at RFA. If there isn't enough consensus to cause the bot to pass an RFA, then that's a pretty clear statement that there isn't consensus to make it an admin. It should be no problem for the people who have feelings on this bot to register them at RFA and avoid having the need to cause hurt feelings on any side by going outside of our normal processes. Essjay (Talk) 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, enjoy your break. But since you stopped by ... I agree that RfA would be appropriate for a bot that were going to exercise pervasive sysop powers. But here, from what I understand, the bot (if approved) is projected to do one very narrow aspect of an administrator function–protect templates, and nothing else. To suggest that the bot requires "adminship" for that is a bit of a misnomer, and while I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world to put the bot through the RfA process, it seems to me to be more to the point to come up with a means in which concerns are alleviated by ensuring through technical means that it can't do anything other than protect templates rather than exercise the more potentially controversial adminship powers such as blocking, deleting, etc. Newyorkbrad 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Except, (and this is in no way a suggestion that I think this would happen, but an observation on what could happen) it's really hard to know what features may come up after adminship is granted. As we all know, it's pretty hard to get adminship revoked, and I can say from experience, when you're running a bot, there's a lot of temptation to add new features. (I'm constantly wanting to add something new to my EssjayBots.) We've had problems in the past with admin-bots; the famous Curps-bot was by no means uncontroversial, and it has only been a few months since Marudubshinki was desysopped for repeatedly running an adminbot after being told not to do so.
We all know that most everything on Wikipedia is driven by consensus (I almost said "everything"), and adminship certainly is. The best way we have to determine consensus is through RFA, and that's what we should use (especially since the people we trust to monitor bots, the Bot Approval Group, has said above that this should go through RFA). While there is certainly excitement all around for getting going as quickly as possible, one of the important things we have to think about (and this is always implicit with bots) is what is the least disruptive way to go about this. In this case, bypassing RFA, while it might be convenient, is going to cause a lot of hurt feelings and ill-will between users, and there really is no reason to do that. If the bot is supported, it will pass RFA with no problem, and the damage done to the community by bypassing RFA isn't necessary. Essjay (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop referring to this as "adminship." A bot is not a person, and Robert merely seeks a technical arrangement for his bot. Just as the bot's approval would be revoked if it were to be abused, its sysop designation would be yanked in the blink of an eye.
As noted by Betacommand, the BAG doesn't wish to bypass the participation of those who frequent RfA. By all means, let's post a big message there (and elsewhere) inviting everyone to participate in a formal discussion to determine consensus on this matter. But to treat this discussion as a "request for adminship" would be to pretend that Robert's bot is alive. —David Levy 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As for whether this is adminship or not, the bot is getting an admin flag, it will have access to all features an admin has, the ability will be there for it to be programmed to use all of them. I see no need to argue over semantics, so we can decide not to call it "adminship" but it doesn't change the fact that it will have full amdmin powers, and if the programmer decides to use them, they will have the ability to do so. (Might not have permission, but that doesn't stop it from working if they decide to do it.) As for desysopping it, I can't do that as I'm not a steward, so I'm not comfortable assuming someone else will be willing to do so. Essjay (Talk) 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect Essjay, giving me access to a second account with a sysop flag provides me no greater or less technical ability than I have now. It just makes my life easier as a programmer and makes it easier for myself and others to monitor it. If I wanted to be evil, I could have done want Curps did and simply run it, but I disagree with Curps' approach and feel it ought to be segregated. I can understand that some people disagree with creating sysop bots in general, but the attitude that an admin shouldn't have easy access to a seperate admin account for developing and running otherwise approved bots is mysterious to me. Dragons flight 09:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I never made any of the above points. I'm quite aware that you could have chosen to run the bot without permission, though there is now precedent on what happens in those cases since Marudubshinki; I'm glad you decided to put it under a separate account. I realize the benefits provided by a separate account, and never questioned them. I don't disagree with this bot, if the community supports it, and haven't said I do, though I've opposed other adminbots in the past (both because I felt they were bad ideas, and because the community did not approve of adminbots). And finally, I don't have an attitude that an admin shouldn't have easy access to a separate admin account for an approved bot; I'd be happy to see that. What I have said is that the appropriate place for you to get that access is at RFA, and I stand beside that; with the single exception of a Foundation order to sysop someone, all accounts that are assigned an admin flag get it because of a successful request for adminship, and this case should be no different. Essjay (Talk) 10:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
From my point of view, requiring an RFA, above and beyond a successful BRFA, cannot be construed as "easy access". You are free to have the opinion that "this case should be no different", but I continue to believe that the case of all adminbots is very different from the function RFA was intended to handle. Dragons flight 11:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
All of the accounts to receive the "sysop" designation via RfA have been those of humans. It's called "requests for adminship" because people can be administrators. A bot is not a sentient being. It cannot be an administrator. —David Levy 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, it isn't called an "admin" flag in MediaWiki. "Admin" is a term used by this community (and others) to refer to people.
2. As Robert noted, the bot's sysop designation will not enable him to commit any nefarious acts of which he isn't already capable. If Robert so desired, he could go on a bad-faith rampage (blocking random users, deleting random pages, and continually unblocking himself), and there would be no way to stop him until a steward intervened. The community trusts Robert not to do any of that; that's why he's an administrator. —David Levy 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Essjay, what do you (and the other bureaucrats) think of the idea (suggested above) of temporary adminship for the bot to make it easier to run trials? The BAG have approved the trial. Could the bureaucrats grant temporary adminship for the length of the trial? (30 days I believe). I think a successful trial would alleviate a lot of concerns at RfA, and make the whole process go a lot more smoothly. Carcharoth 07:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, on this one, I think I'd defer to Redux, Angela, or Rdsmith4 (deliberately leaving out Danny, to avoid an offic-esque look) because they are both local bureaucrats and stewards, so they have the ability to both grant the permissions here, and remove them. I'm not comfortable granting a permission temporarily that I can't guarantee someone will be willing to remove; I'm doubly unsure of granting a permission on the stipulation it can be removed at any time if necessary when I can't guarantee that will be carried out. Essjay (Talk) 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, a bot cannot be an admin. There is no "normal process" that applies to this situation.
No one is objecting to the idea of conducting formal discussion regarding this matter. We're objecting to the notion of holding a nonsensical request for adminship for an inanimate entity. —David Levy 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Regarding your "we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not" statement: I assume that you meant to reference MediaWiki (not Meta-Wiki), but I don't understand your claim. The user rights log contains hundreds of instances of the word "sysop" (and zero instances of the word "admin"). "Admin" is a position within the community, not a user rights designation.
2. Again, Robert isn't seeking "adminship" for his bot. He's seeking the "sysop" designation, and we have no formal process through which to handle such a request. That doesn't mean that we should fall back on the closest process that we happen to have (thereby anthropomorphizing a computer script). It means that we should devise a new process that makes sense. —David Levy 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Our usual process for deciding whether programs should be allowed special user rights designations is the bot approval system. That system is good for determining whether a certain task should be performed automatically, and whether the given piece of code is capable of performing the task without unacceptable errors.
RfA, on the other hand, is a system for determining whether human users should be granted adminship, which includes a user rights level but also indicates a social standing within the community. The process is designed to determine whether an individual is trustworthy and familiar with our policies. To apply those standards to a piece of code makes no sense at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

we need to make this discussion closed there will be an RfA or there will not be bot approval. as stated before we all want this concluded. As the BAG we have stated that we need community support. Unless you want to wait a month to figure out how you want this done the best way is a RfA, and a b-crat has also stated that we need a RfA. what else will it take to get this started? this will not be a case of IAR we have clearly stated our position. Essjay as b-crat and as BAG. I know some users consider BAG a body with no official authority yet per WP:BOT {which is a policy and not a guideline)

Prior to use, bots must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. State there precisely what the bot will do, observe and participate in the discussion, and await authorization from someone in the approvals group.

thus this issue has been settled. If there is community support for a bot with this function it will be shown there if not the community shall have spoken in a consensus. If this is not acceptable solution we can close the BRfA and kill ProtectionBot. I do not want to see that I think the Idea is a very good one, I just want a clear consensus reached quickly and have ProtectionBot up and running after the RfA since the bot trial has already concluded. Hoping the best Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether people are actually reading my replies. By all means, bring these matters before the community via formal discussions to determine support. Place enormous notices at RfA and every other relevant forum. Just don't treat said discussions as "RfAs." Computer scripts are not people. They cannot be administrators.
Incidentally, I await an explanation of your claim that "we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not." If I'm missing something, please bring it to my attention. —David Levy 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


(From a bag member). IMHO, We (BAG) should not be determing if sysop status should be granted to an account at this time. If the userrights system were to be updated to define certain permissions only (e.g. EditProtected, Delete) without the other permissions I may lean more towards it though, assuming the community assented that BAG should do this. It is (or should be) that noone is advocating making this script a real administrator (at least at this time) with authority to do things like close xfd's. That being said in order for this bot to function it will need to be added to the sysop group, and WP:RFA is the way to get that done. This request would need to only use sysop rights for approved bot actions, and that must be enforcable as much as possible. I'd suggest that the RFA would include a vow from the operator that this account would only preform certain actions (altough we've had many campaing promises on RFA's that didn't last) and/or vows from multiple other admins that they will continually block this account for violating the approved functions (I'd be in that camp). In short, this needs to go to RFA IMHO. — xaosflux Talk 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a less active BAG member, and a bureaucrat, I agree. Take it to RFA. Essjay (Talk) 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur precisely with Essjay; thank you, Dragons flight, with taking it to RfA. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the matter has gone to RfA. And now we have users declining to support on the basis that bots can't be administrators. (Where have I heard that before?) One user snarkily opposed the request because the bot had not "accept[ed] or decline[d] the nomination" (and "assume[d] that all the support voters are completely unfamiliar with the rules that govern RfA"). Had this individual not subsequently posted legitimate arguments, I would have removed the original comment (deeming it a bad-faith act of deliberate disruption). —David Levy 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How about you, Xaosflux? Did you read my replies? I don't understand why my argument that we should refer to the discussion as something other than an "RfA" has continually been construed as an argument that there should be no discussion. —David Levy 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is simple: Wikipedia is built on community consensus. RFA is the proper forum for consensus regarding sysop functions. if you want a bot to pass, you must satisify conditions laid out by the BAG. if you do not, then it will not be approved. A condition of this bot's acceptance is passing RFA. Full stop. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1. You believe that "RFA is the proper forum for consensus regarding sysop functions." I, conversely, see no evidence to support the contention that it's the proper forum in which to establish such consensus for anything other than a human. It's called "requests for adminship," and bots cannot be admins.
2. "Because we said so" is not a legitimate argument for why something is right. Jimbo himself doesn't apply such logic. Furthermore, your "full stop" remark was rather rude.
3. I'm still waiting for you to elucidate your claim that "we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not." Again, if I'm missing something, please bring it to my attention. —David Levy 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The right is called sysop. A bot cannot be an administrator. It can be a sysop. RFA is where you go to get the sysop bit. A bot op that wants the sysop bit for his or her bot should petition there. Until there is a seperate venue for bots, that is the way it should and will be. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1. If the right is called "sysop," why did you previously claim otherwise? Were you mistaken, or were you referring to something different that I'm failing to grasp?
2. "RfA" stands for "requests for adminship." As you've acknowledged that a bot cannot be an administrator, how does it make sense to conduct the discussion in that venue?
3. Again, proclaiming that something is correct is not a valid means of establishing such a contention. Citing your position with the BAG as a means of declaring the BAG's declaration that something will be a certain way is not the same as proving that it should be a certain way. Your The BAG's opinion is worth no more than mine or anyone else's, and I find it ironic that you're using your citing the BAG's non-consensus-derived status as means of overriding the need for community consensus regarding the proper means of establishing yet another community consensus. —David Levy 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am NOT a member of BAG, thank you. I would remind you also that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1. I somehow confused you with Betacommand. My apologies. The crux of my argument, however, is unaffected; a BAG proclamation does not establish that something is the correct course of action.
2. I don't see the relevance of your WP:NOT citation. —David Levy 21:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I did read your replies, I simply do not feel that there is a community support to allow the bot approvals group to approve the sysop flag to accounts; should the community support that, I would not have a problem exercising it. — xaosflux Talk 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you certain that you read my replies? I never said that we should "allow the bot approvals group to approve the sysop flag to accounts." Over and over again, I've plainly stated that I don't object to the idea of conducting a formal discussion to determine community consensus. I object to the idea of labeling said discussion an "RfA" (because bots can't be admins). I'm merely arguing that the discussion should be called something different and held on a different page (while still prominently linked from RfA and various other forums). That's all. —David Levy 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am certain, and I respect your opinion. I also agree that a bot with a sysop flag is not an "administrator" (see my statment on the RFA). I'd welcome a community discusion on changing the way that 'crats are instructed to give out sysop or other flags for technical means, but I don't think that here or RFA is the place for it. A proposal would be a good start, and listing on WP:VPP perhaps. — xaosflux Talk 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
On this, you and I are in agreement. Indeed, we need to develop a new process through which to handle such requests. —David Levy 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current status question

(cross-posted to the RfA page) With the RfA now pending, is ProtectionBot currently operating during the RfA period? I hope that it is, at least on an ongoing trial basis. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think conversation about this is at the RfA talk Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template doc pages

Just wanted to note that the bot doesn't need to protect template doc pages per the Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern (example: template:cite web/doc). Just a minor point. Good luck for the RfA! --Ligulem 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)