Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 8 January 2007

ProtectionBot

Voice your opinion (82/13/7); Scheduled to end 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a request for a fully automated adminbot.

ProtectionBot is a bot designed and intended to by operated by Dragons flight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It is intended to combat the growth in high profile vandalism on the Main Page and Today's Featured Article occurring through unprotected templates and images, by automating the process of protecting these templates and images. Based on a review of Talk:Main Page, it appears that since December 15th there have been at least six separate occasions during which vulgar imagery was inserted into the Main Page by vandals exploiting unprotected templates or images. Undoubtedly there have been even more attacks on Today's Featured Article by vandals using similar methods, and Category:Protected pages associated with Main Page articles has seen steady business (mostly templates) as a way to ward off these attacks.

ProtectionBot is designed to combat these attacks by automatically protecting all templates and images appearing on the Main Page and Today's Featured Article, and then reverting this protection once they are no longer present in these high profile locations. In addition, it will protect the predictable elements (such as the next Picture of the Day) a day before they appear on the main page. While a vandal might attack a template or image more than a day in advance, this 24 hour window will give users a chance to verify that the protected content is clean (e.g. by looking at Main Page/Tomorrow) well before it is featured on the Main Page.

As is the current custom, to protect images hosted on Commons, ProtectionBot has also been given the power to upload local copies of those images and their description pages onto this Misplaced Pages before protecting them. They would be tagged with a template similar to {{c-uploaded}}, and when the local copy was no longer needed, ProtectionBot would mark them for speedy deletion with a tag that also reminds the deleting admin to restore any previous Misplaced Pages specific image description page content, as is customary. ProtectionBot would not be directly deleting anything.

The task of protecting the main page is an essential, but repetitious, one that can and should be automated to catch lapses before they become large scale embarrassments. Especially with content that is automatically rotated on a daily basis, admins have better things to do than remembering to protect and unprotect a dozen templates and images each day.

The bot has already been tested live on Misplaced Pages in an approved trial using my admin account, and though there were a few initial bugs, I believe they are resolved now and the bot could begin performing the described functions immediately, subject to approval. Dragons flight 09:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For additional technical details see

• User:ProtectionBot
• Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot

Questions for the bot operator

1. I've already stated my strong support for this bot, and I believe that this is already understood, albeit implicitly, by yourself (Dragons flight); however, I would like it to be stated explicitly here for the record (and for those opposers fearing an overpoweful admin-bot): if you ever wanted to add additional functionalities involving administrative rights (i.e. blocking, etc.) to your bot, would you take it to RfA for approval again, and would you support immediate de-sysopping and blocking of the account if it ever performs any task not stated explicitly in this RfA nomination or not explicitly approved in another RfA? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I meant additional functionalities not related to the protection of the Main Page; i.e. if another template is added to the Main Page or something similar, of course the bot shouldn't have to undergo another RfA. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I promise to get community consensus for any new features or changes from the behavior described above. As Raul654, Cyde Weys, David Levy and others, I think RFA is a strange way to go about determining consensus for a bot, and generally support a policy where all adminbot approvals are handled through Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval with wide community input solicited at the affected pages. However, if the community believes we must come back here to support changes then I would. Dragons flight 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2. What security measures have you taken to ensure that the machine ProtectionBot will be running on will not be compromised? I don't have any particular doubts about your coding ability, but is the machine properly protected against malicious hackers? Seeing as this will be an admin account, I think that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the account's credentials cannot be leaked. Shadow1 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The machine is physically located in my residence (which because the apartment owner is nuts, requires 3 keys to reach from the street). It is behind both a software and hardware firewall, kept up to date on system patches, and running up to date antivirus software. Dragons flight 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

While all of the above is good to know, I fail to see how the bot's login information would be more likely to fall into the wrong hands than that of any other account. Given the fact that Robert already has a proven track record (having never allowed his sysop account to be compromised), I would argue that there's less cause for concern than there is when someone seeks to become an administrator. —David Levy 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I inquired is because, in most cases, a bot's username and password information are stored somewhere on the system in cleartext, which could appeal to a hacker trying to gain access to an administator-level account slightly more than, say, stalking the admin and forcing them to reveal the password. Anyway, I like the security setup. Shadow1 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen a bot framework that stores the password in plaintext on the user's machine. PyWiki and AWB (the only two frameworks I am familiar with) both prompt to enter a password, which is not stored; what is stored is the session cookie. If the session cookie is stolen that may allow for some problems, but having the password compromised wouldn't be one of them. --Cyde Weys 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Will you agree that this Request for adminship is technical in nature only, and will not be used to bestow community administrator functions to this account (e.g. Closing xFD's; exercising clemency in releasing users from blocks; gathering material from deleted pages)? {This seems may seem obvious to some, but having it explicitly endoresed has merit). — xaosflux 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh. It's a bot, not an admin. It will do what I have said it will above, and not any of that other stuff. Dragons flight 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Why on earth are you refusing to release the code? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Werdna (talk • contribs).

Answer

General comments

• Please see a failed request for adminship for another bot at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA (as shown to me by Majorly). Cbrown1023 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps discussions, questions and responses to Oppose !votes could be moved to the discussion page. There seems to be sizeable comments in response to the points raised by those Opposing. It's likely this RfA could become quite long just with !votes. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• For those worried that the code may have some secret admin backdoor, I have read and understood it, it does only what it claims to do. The code looks good. HighInBC 17:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BAG bot policy enforcement:

  BAG members please endorse this section if you agree with this statement: Should this bot perform any sysop actions that have not been approved in BOTH WP:RFA and WP:RFBOT this account will be immediately blocked.

  Endorse, — xaosflux 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  Endorse —Mets501 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  Endorse, and I might also push for desysoping both bot and bot operator depending on the circumstances. Betacommand 19:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, ProtectionBot will not be operated for the next week while this RfA is underway. It seems to me that if Dragons flight is willing, the bot should operate during this period, perhaps on the same basis as during its trial, both so we have the protection during the week, and so in the event of any issues involving the bot they can be addressed while the RfA is still pending. I've posted a thread to discuss this matter on the talkpage. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• AntiVandalBot could potentially cause more problems than this thing. -- Steel 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. I feel you made this statement by comparing AVB's massive activity (up to 100s of reverts and warnings hourly) with PBs rather low-profile potential activity (few uploads and protections daily). Still, points to consider include that 1. an admin bot can be shut down nearly as easily as a non-admin one and 2. every action, admin's or not, is reversible. With that in mind, I'd say both can do only little mess. Миша13 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My intention was to emphasise how little damage this bot could do by comparing it to another bot which is widely accepted amongst the community, yet much faster moving. I totally agree that neither bot can do an awful lot of harm. -- Steel 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support (first!) to let the bot run. Despite being an admin bot, I believe it is necessary for the 'protection' of the main page, as they recieve numerous accounts of vandalism.(was approved) Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 09:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support based upon the Bot RfA comments and amendments. (aeropagitica) 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - well-defined purpose and limited remit. Has been tested. Should be no problem, and safety measures are in place. Needed to resolve a recently disuptive episode of vandalism to the main page that resulted in many e-mails of complaint. Carcharoth 09:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support and welcome our bot overlords --Steve _(Slf67) 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I'm not the biggest fan of admin bots, however good nom, and the bots purpose seems needed Brian | (Talk) 10:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I don't mind admin bots as long as they have been tested and their purpose has been clearly defined. Gizza 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Steel 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per Gizza. This is badly needed. I'm not even sure if I feel that an RfA is really necessary as I it seems well supported at BRFA, but I guess an RfA can't hurt. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support clearly needed and safe to use. recommend to allow operation on personal account until this RfA is decided Agathoclea 10:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. About time. MER-C 11:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Kusma (討論) 11:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - it is deeply needed. Even with the excellent Shadowbot2 reports, we've had incidents on the main page recently. Martinp23 11:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Necessary, completely reversible. --Slowking Man 11:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Full support. Necessary. Actions are auditable by moving them to a separate account. A big red button on its page is enough to prevent harm. If the code isn't be publicly released, I won't bother me much - the bot's tasks are simple and if Dragons flight vows that there's no self-unblocking mechanism plugged in (why would there be any?), it's fine by me. (Bottom note: my healthy interpretation of the policies is that adminship is given to a person, not an account, so this RfA should IMO be a speedy promote.) Миша13 11:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Supportper Gizza. RHB 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, if it does not operate as desired or becomes obsolete, we can desysop at the drop of a hat (without the normal drama). This is a very low risk, high reward for the project thing to do, so let's do it. NoSeptember 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Dragons flight is already an admin and does a good job running bots and the reasons stated for why this account here needs admin rights are valid. Dragons flight can fully be trusted to use this account carefully and as explained (and for nothing else). This is not a cookie cutter RfA. So, discussion contributors should carefully check the motivation behind this RfA and think about how the underlying problem (protecting templates affecting the main page) should be solved without this bot if this RfA should not pass. Many thanks to Dragons flight for doing all this work. --Ligulem 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - this is needed urgently. IAR and common sense, please. Moreschi 12:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, IAR's status as policy is disputed, and common sense is actively discouraged. Urgent need is a good argument, though – Gurch 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

19. Support - There was a time when some admin actions, such as image deletion, could not be reversed. That time has passed. Thus, the only 'danger' represented by an 'admin bot' (like any bot) is that it will make numerous incorrect changes that would take a long time to clean up. However, this bot would be performing a very specific and simple task with a narrow scope. The chances of it 'going berserk' seem virtually nil and if it did the log of excess protections / unprotections could easily be used to create a list for equally quick reversal. Finally, bots which perform admin functions should be subject to more widespread review than normal bot approval requests and having an RfA may be a reasonable way to achieve that, but can we ditch the stuff about the bot not having accepted the nomination? Or does it have to be coded to do that... which it could. --CBD 12:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - Much needed — Lost 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support It is about time. --Siva1979 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support ← ANAS 13:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - good potential for solving a serious vandalism problem --BigDT 13:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, this one will solve a lot vandalism problems on Misplaced Pages, this is needed. Terence Ong 13:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Seems like a good idea —Pilotguy (ptt) 13:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 13:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
27. support: great user, answers to questions are awesome. (Actually, this bot could really help!)--Ac1983fan 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - definitely a useful bot. --tennisman sign here! 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. This is necessary. Nishkid64 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Completely necessary. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
31. This whole idea of an RFA is utterly unnecessary. The bot's op is already entrusted with the sysop bit, so I don't see the necessity of making him go through this extraneous process to get a second one. He's already trusted, and bot ops are responsible for the actions of their bots, so, granting this bit should just rely on Bot Approvals Group or bureaucrat discretion. If it malfunctions it can always just be blocked. RFA is entirely geared towards determining the acceptability of human candidates to be admins; try applying the process to a robot candidate whose human owner is already an admin makes no sense. --Cyde Weys 15:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    But...but... eww, adminbots! – Gurch 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

32. Support. I've been looking through dozens of template histories to find a vandal edit and in the meantime a giant penis was sitting on the main page. I don't want to do it again. – Elisson • T • C • 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    "a giant penis was sitting on the main page"? What, recently? Today? If you could give details, it would be instructive to work out whether ProtectionBot would have prevented this. Carcharoth 20:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

33. Strong Support. I'm happy to support and have no concerns with the idea of a bot with sysop status, and I would also suggest Shadowbot2 is given a full bot flag (if not given one already) and is entrusted with a backup role in case there is any problem with ProtectionBot, you know, just in case. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support a needed bot and DF is certainly a very trustworthy person to run it. Anyone who thinks we don't need a bot for this should volunteer to do this task every day for the next 6 months :-) --W.marsh 15:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Strong support No concerns, it has only been coded to protect and serve (yes you may groan and vandalise my talk page for that), it cannot code itself, so it won't be going on a spree and/or code itself to block or delete. Unless penis becomes a featured article, it should solve the problems ;) --Alf 15:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong support; though I've been hesitant about giving a bot administrative rights in the past, I truly believe that this one is necessary. I speak from personal experience - it's no fun spending time protecting, unprotecting, uploading, and then deleting multiple images and templates each day, especially when you could be doing more productive issues that a bot couldn't do. Though my work was called "like clockwork" back in May, when I regularly did the protection work, a bot like this could be much more like clockwork than any human could ever be. Sure, there will be some issues with the bot malfunctioning, like with any other bot, but such errors are inevitable with any bot, and are still an improvement over human protection (which, as we've seen, can let things slip through at times). I've also appreciated the way Dragons flight has run this whole process: he has responded to my (and everyone else's) concerns, questions, and suggestions with great patience and concern, has taken the necessary steps prior to bringing this RfA, and has also shared the code with several people who requested it, myself included. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. I trust the owner so I trust the bot, and we need it. Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, a rare case where I'm willing to waive my requirement of having a lot of non-trivial experience in the main namespace. I trust the owner to be as accountable for this bot's actions as for his own actions. — mark ✎ 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Bot owner is trusted. The bot is operated for a very good purpose, and cannot function without the priviledges of an admin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support of course. This shouldn't even be an RfA, Dragons Flight already went through this process. Perhaps an RfA should also be undergone each time admins switch browser software or upgrade their computers?- CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    I can see it now. Strong Oppose – using Internet Explorer 5? What is this guy thinking? – Gurch 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

41. Support rationale seems to make sense -- Samir धर्म 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support, especially due to the recent incidents with vandalism to Main Page transclusions. G.He 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
43. It is an insult to ask a human to do a machine's job. —Cryptic 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Not on Misplaced Pages. Here, machines can only do machine's jobs, but humans have to do both – Gurch 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

44. Support, this bot is needed to help prevent further vandalism on the main page and I fully trust the creator. Naconkantari 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support I have read the source code, and if ran as is will act as a responsible and helpful admin. Any further tasks should require additional approval. HighInBC 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Actually it will be significantly better than a responsible and helpful admin. Even they have to sleep – Gurch 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

46. Support: Machines are good at rote, routine jobs - they don't get bored, and to the extent the code is good, they don't make mistakes. The Main Page article is by far the most seen page in Misplaced Pages, so minimize vandalism to it is very important. Let's use automation where it makes sense (as it does here) to free up the time of admins to do other, less rote and routine things where human beings really are needed. John Broughton | Talk 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. At first I was kind of worried about it going crazy and blocking everyone or something, but I realised that that really just won't happen. No administrator can be held responsible for the recent spree of vandalism on the main page, even if it could have been avoided by page protection. This bot is a solution to that problem. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Generally I'm cautious about admin bots but in this case its crucial that we don't allow the MP to be regularly vandalised as its often the first page a new user sees. --Spartaz 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Strong, strong, strong support. There's really no question here. —bbatsell ¿? 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why is there no question? Just H 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

50. Support. Any additional main page vandalism will not be tolerated, and I don't think we should overwhelm adminstrators to continuously protect those templates every day. I trust this bot and his operator. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support. I've opposed adminbots in the past, but I believe the circumstances here warrant granting adminship to ProtectionBot. The bot's scope is narrow and a need has been demonstrated. We shouldn't hesitate to use technology to combat vandalism, as long as the benefit outweighs the cost. SuperMachine 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support per my comments on ANI (or wherever the discussion was moved to). This will help to solve a problem that is very important to solve, and only in the most technical sense will the bot be performing an administrator function. Newyorkbrad 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Strongest possible support, though I reiterate my belief that RfA is not an appropriate forum in which to discuss this matter. —David Levy 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. We need this. -- Donald Albury 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why? Just H 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    RyanGerbil10 said it better than I could. Protecting the main page and its contents is very important, and protecting all of the templates involved seems to be more than human intervention can keep under control. -- Donald Albury 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

55. Weak support. I don't like bots as admins by nature, but this does look like a great bot and it would certaily use the admin tools well.--Wizardman 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Weak Support Seems fine, I would prefer it be open source, and don't really buy the reasons for it not being so, but it's not the end of the world, and it would be useful. - cohesion 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Strong support - as a member of the bot approvals group who has reviewed the source code, I see no problems with this bot. —Mets501 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Just don't start adding any functions that are not approved. ;-) Prodego 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    The temptation to do that and the lack of oversight to stop that seems to make what you said an very strong possibility. Just H 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    You seem to be implying that Robert is untrustworthy. This is contradicted by the fact that he's an administrator (and already possesses the technical capability to run the bot via his main account), and it adds a certain degree of hilarity to your claim elsewhere on this page that others have failed to assume good faith. You also seem to be suggesting that the proposed setup would somehow remove "oversight," and I'm baffled as to how this is so. —David Levy 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    My apologies. I did not mean to imply that Robert is untrustworthy. I meant to imply that anyone is untrustworthy of such power in Misplaced Pages at the current time. I meant no disrespect to Robert's abilities, which were confirmed through an rfa of his own. All i've been saying is that we should do other things first before giving control to potentially harmful machines-- I guess you could say, a retooling of the "source code" of Misplaced Pages's procedural structure. Just H 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

59. Support. Protection of the main page is paramount. Operating user is trusted. Thank you for creating this bot, Dragons flight. --Fang Aili 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
60. No concerns, opposition doesn't raise any significant issues and doesn't appear to be approaching the issue in a sensible way. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Strong Support. Absolutely necessary. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Can you elaborate on the necessity of needing this bot? Just H 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    The main page is viewed millions of times a day. There is no reason we should not have an automatic means of combatting this pointless and disgusting vandalism. The maze of templates and images connected to the front page is too much to do on a regular basis. Admins are not Gods. We must sleep. We must go to work. We must eat. We must live our lives. That is when the vandals strike. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks! That's all I needed. Just H 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

62. Needed admin bot, if something goes wrong which I doubt, then it could quickly be blocked and desyropped. Jaranda 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    See previous supporter. Just H 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Can you elaborate on why it's not needed? Idontlikeit isn't a real reason to oppose. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Likewise "I like It" isn't a real reason to support. Just H 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    But "we need it" is an excellent reason to support. So come up with a reason why we don't need it for a real argument. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

63. We shouldn't even have to go through all this silly bureaucracy just to re-approve a bot that has already been approved and to grant redundant sysop access to a user that already has it. Adminbots should be approved on RfBA, with an announcement and a link there from RfA. But since we're doing this anyway, I will of course support. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Please note this bot HAS NOT BEEN FULLY APPROVED it as been tested and final approval hasnt been give yet as it hinges on this discussion

64. Yes To all those people who oppose on code: What I would get from that is a distrust in the bot operator. AGF for wiki's sake! To those afraid of admin-bots: Guess what, we've entered the age of wiki where we need some automation in order to keep up with everything. Do they still built cars by hand at each step? No. The time has come where we need this. Get over it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
65. Certainly. It's necessary and the people involved are trustworthy. Sandstein 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. Vandalism to the main page is a concrete reality, while many of the reasons for opposition so far have been fear of hypothetical problems resulting from bot malfunction. As User:Cyde said below, "If it malfunctions (which is unlikely), it can easily be blocked by any of our over 1,000 administrators." This bot will do a great amount of good, and it would be well to recall that neither sysopping nor admin actions are irreversible, and a bot can be easier to reign in than many humans. Dar-Ape 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support John254 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Protection of the main page is an important task but shouldn't distract administrators from other duties. This bot is the perfect solution to our recent problems. Canderson7 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Support. I think this RfA is totally necessary given that a new account is being sysop access. There are not enough contributors voting in the average RfBA for that to suffice. I am convinced both through personal experience of mainpage FA vandalism and the arguments made in favour of Protection Bot here, at WP:ANI and at its RfBA that this Bot will be highly beneficial to Misplaced Pages. Its operator is a trusted member of the community. WJBscribe  21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Weak Support only insofar, and on condition precedent that, bot will perform duties detailed in nomination.-- danntm _C 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. About time. - BanyanTree 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support, I've dealt with the tedium of protecting the images (and forgotten to do so for up to five seconds after updating sections of the Main Page) before; in the hands of a trusted user, anything that helps to automate the process is more than welcome to hold the mop. Just make sure its password is a bit harder to guess than those used to control the robots of Hollywood. :) GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. You've convinced me. I think the risks are being overplayed and the benefits outweigh them. — Trilobite 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Strong Support - I'm tired of seeing shock images added to templates used in templates used in today's featured article, and watching RC patrollers tripping over themsleves to find the source of the vandalism (and often causing collateral damage in the process). Having this automated and having the code not public are just common sense. Savidan 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support - good useful adminbot. Commons uses adminbots for ages and it does not create problems. Alex Bakharev 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
76. As I said in the request for approval, Super-Über-Mega-Speedy SUPPORT. This is a very one-of-a-kind situation, and cuts to the very core of Misplaced Pages's ability to be any kind of trusted website. I'd admonish the opposition to try and protect every image and template that appears on the main page, all the time. We still haven't gotten it right after about a month of this nonsense. Grandmasterka 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
77. Support, unequivocally. We need this. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support. I, for one, welcome our new ProtectionBot overlords. We'll make great pets. -GTBacchus 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support For great justice. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support, I can see the huge benefits of giving this the +sysop bit. Daniel.Bryant 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Support- he shall be our new God! JorcogaYell! 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Support, there is nothing stopping Dragons flight from continuing to run it on his account. Having a seperate account is more honest and allows seperation of these bot edits.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant Oppose Security through obscurity is not. If the bot could do real damage if someone finds a buffer overrun, it's imperative that we all be able to check it for bugs. Moves instantly to support with release of code. Hipocrite - «Talk» 09:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   The code has been released to trusted members of the community for review, but it will not be made public. I feel the risk of people adapting certain functions to create powerful vandalbots is too great. Obscurity cannot replace security, but at the same time that doesn't mean we ought to hand the script kiddies weapons to use against us. Dragons flight 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   List, please, along with CV's of the individuals (related to computer security) and statements the bot has no errors or malicious code? Are these individuals security professionals? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Why would the bot contain malicious code? The code's author is an administrator. They already have access to an administrative account, with which they have been trusted. If they wanted to abuse this privilege, they could do so. All they're doing here is requesting an additional account from which to run a bot.

   Also, how would it be "exploited"? The bot accesses and submits data just as an administrator would, only in an automated fashion. Of course you could try to compromise the machine on which the bot is running, or crack the password to the account, but those things would work against any administrator. Are you going to oppose every RfA because thje nominee isn't a security expert? – Gurch 15:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   To your first point? Trust, but verify. To your second, does the bot break and execute arbitrary commands as an adminstrator if an article to be protected has a title that includes Ascii-114? I'm not a python expert, but someone is, and someone who would love to make the main page a redirect to www.wikipediahacked.com certainly is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Why would it do that? That would be silly. Anyway, remember this bot only protects images and templates on the Main Page. A template can't get onto the Main Page without an admin adding it, or through being selected as one of the "- of the day" templates, which have fixed names (changing the naming scheme would require an admin to edit the Main Page). So even if there was such a vulnerability, in order to exploit it, you'd have to be an administrator – Gurch 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   What if the template that was about to go on the main page has the following string on it? "<!-- this template is designed to make flags appear to be correctly rendered - ] -->" and the bot then checks User:intelligenthacker, which intelligently has a buffer overflow on it. The buffer overflow has the bot unprotect the main page, redirect it to a single link to , which contains a day-zero mozilla firefox exploit that wipes hard drives? "oops?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well then why would it do that? It checks the list of templates transcluded onto the Main Page. If Template A is transcluded into Template B which is then transcluded into a page, MediaWiki helpfully lists both transclusions in the list of templates on that page. The bot doesn't have to check the wiki-code of a page, it checks the list of templates. So it wouldn't go anywhere near a simple link – and especially not a link inside a comment, which doesn't render as a link anyway – Gurch 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   May I ask how you insert a buffer overflow in a pure text enviroment? The bot cannot be sent binary data from a wiki page. As far as I know, Python does not support run-time compiling like perl does, I may be wrong but it seems like a null issue since non of the bots input is binary. HighInBC 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I was one of the users who requested, and received, the code from Dragons flight. Though I will be the first to admit that I'm not the most familiar person with python, the code was done very thoroughly (with multiple comments by the programmer, always a good and helpful thing!), and the bot has performed what it was programmed to do in its trial run. In addition, I have full confidence in Dragons flight; any inadvertant issues in the bot's code, I'm sure, would be rectified immediately. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Who has examined the code for security flaws? When something is going to be run from the root account of a remotely secure system, it gets examined for security flaws. While the admin bit is not the root account, it's certainly one with priority. Where is the security audit? Who did it? Why do we think security through obscurity works? How could a bot which is apparently so simple have code that is more likley to be misused, and thus requires secrecy that is not already out in the public in AWB? Like I said before - security through obscurity is neither secure nor obscure. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here... do you have a serious problem with the way admininstrators are currently selected? Forget bots... if we require "security audits" for them, then surely we would have "security audits" for all administrators? Are you suggesting this is necessary? Would I pass one of these audit thingummys? Is Misplaced Pages now the Department of Defense? I think you'd better have me desysopped, I'm too scared to touch anything now – Gurch 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I am able to evaluate the qualifications of users and their likleyhood of being vulnerable to exploits based on their edit history. This is a security audit, and it is done in an open-source fashion, as hundreds of experts on Misplaced Pages scour over the individuals edit history, in addition to running various scenarios hypothetically past the code of the administrator (asking questions). I am unable to evaluate the likleyhood of this bot being vulnerable. Neither are you, unless you are both a python security expert and privy to the code. Are you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   No. There's this thing called "trust". You're also forgetting, this is a wiki. The whole point of wikis is their relatively relaxed rules. In a perfect world, anyone would be able to do anything. We only hand out administrative rights to certain users because if we handed them out to everyone, they would be abused. I am certain Dragons flight will not abuse his position. The only remaining risk is that the bot might screw up. I consider this unlikely, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, provided Dragons flight's intentions are good. Go have a look at the edit history of Main Page. Note that a number of administrators have inadvertently done all sorts of things to it – blanked it, moved it, added messages to it, replaced it with a discussion about Christianity. In every case the damage was undone quickly. None of those administrators were desysopped, because it was clear that it was an accident and had good intentions. Everyone is entitled to screw up once in a while – this isn't explicitly policy, but it's part of Assume Good Faith. I have, myself, screwed up hundreds of times. I just broke a template before I came here. I expect this bot to screw up far, far less than any human administrator has ever done, so I really don't understand all this "security" and "access to code" stuff being thrown around by a number of people, and I certainly don't see it as a reason for opposition, unless the opposer is opposed to having administrators at all... – Gurch 23:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose, at least until the bot accepts or declines the nomination. If the bot cannot do either of its own volition, I will go ahead and assume that all the support voters are completely unfamiliar with the rules that govern RfA. Tomer 11:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I also regard this to be on the same level as "canvassing" so-often decried elsewhere. Tomer 11:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Note that it does not show Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: on the page for some reason, and many of us probably won't notice. Anyway, I think there is no need for a RfA here, just promote and if there is any faults, it can simply be de-promoted or blocked. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 11:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, believe me, I noticed that right away. What your counterargument glosses over, rather nonchalantly, is the difficulty of "simply ... de-promot" an admin. "Or blocked" is a non-sequitur, since the primary manglehandler of this bot is already an admin, who can whimsically remove a block applied, no matter how justifiably, and with impugnity, since the 'bot is the issue here, and the biggest weight that can be held over the botrunner's head in such a case is "removal of an inappropriate block", rather than the more eggregious "abuse of administrative functions", which can be hustled off to the 'bot, which can't defend itself. There's a very unsettling precedent being set by this RfA. Tomer 11:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Of course you will notice that the ordinary text please indicate acceptance... if you are going to post here. However, I recommend that you don't expect everyone to notice that. Also, if it needs to be blocked for any reason, e.g. a bug, malfunctioning it is causing damage, and then it is, the owner of the bot is not going to just unblock it and focus on trying to fix the bug/problem/whatever. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   W/o prejudice to User:Dragons flight, I'ma hafta slap a on the above assertion... Tomer 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   ""? I'm not against your decision to strongly oppose, I just want to point out that not everyone will notice that it hasn't actually been accepted by the bot itself. By 'that all the support voters are completely unfamiliar with the rules that govern RfA.', you sound like you expect everyone to notice that (which for example, I didn't). I can respect your decision to oppose to a certain extent, but not your reasoning. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 13:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Sheesh, the account creation process makes several reference to the user as a human being. Should we block all bots because they aren't human users? --W.marsh 15:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   We'd be better off rewriting it to refer to the user as a bot, and then blocking all human beings – Gurch 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose. While this is a great idea, admins who update main page areas should and must be the ones to do it, as the whole part of the package. If they fail to do it, then we need some better sysops. As for the featured article, any admin can check for any unprotected templates or images used on the page, especially with the new feature that shows if it's protected or not. We don't need a bot for this – we need competent admins, and if that fails semi-protect all templates and images as standard. --Majorly (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Nothing to see here, I've been persuaded not to oppose. But I'm not supporting. --Majorly (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Bots are meant for automating menial tasks. Competent admins are needed for more pressing issues, where crucial decision making is required, not for automated tasks like these ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I guess you, me, and everyone are all "failed admins" then, because the main page has been repeatedly vandalized. Rather than complaining about that and wishing our humans would function perfectly like robots (something we're not so good at), it makes sense to offload the task to a robot that can handle it perfectly. Remember, the goal here isn't to become fully automatic machines, but to create an encyclopedia, and if shock vandalism is being displayed on the main page then we obviously need to do what is necessary to fix it. --Cyde Weys 15:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   "If they fail to do it, then we need some better sysops." Of course we need better sysops. The current ones are rubbish. Absolutely useless. Complete imbeciles, especially that "Gurch". He's a right asshole. Show us a thousand people who know exactly how to maintain the Main Page, more effectively than us, and are prepared to do so for nothing, and we'll all happily resign – Gurch 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I fail to see how those people who have helped out protecting, unprotecting, uploading, and then deleting images and templates on the Main Page can be characterized as incompetent. We've done our best job, but we all are human, unlike the proposed bot, and things will inevitably slip through. I can tell you from experience that it's tedious work (and I'm proud to say no vandal ever hit the Main Page while I was nearly the only one doing the work), and I eventually moved on to other things after more administrators started helping out. A bot would drastically reduce the chances of something slipping through the cracks and also allow us to spend more time on more productive tasks that a bot can't do. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)</small> 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think Gurch just might have been employing some sarcasm in his comment about administrators. --W.marsh 15:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Of course he was; my comment was in response to the original opposer. Apologies that I didn't make that clear, as I had only indented for ease of reading. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   No idea why my comment is causing so much discussion. This is so going to pass, so I think the opposers and neutralers should be left alone as it just isn't necessary. I'm not changing my mind... =) --Majorly (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Semi-protecting all images and templates is a terrible idea. For one reason, it makes no sense to do something sitewide that would have large consequences in shutting people out from editing the encyclopedia just to keep main page vandalism in control. Having a bot handle full protection of stuff on the admin page is a much more sensible response. Also, semi-protecting wouldn't even work; the vandalism is done by aged accounts already. The only option is full protection, and the best way to do that is automatically. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Although the bot is doing a great job, I also don't like the agree of it being and admin.Ganfon 14:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Could you please clarify/expand? If it's doing a "great job" as you said yourself, why shouldn't it be let do it? "I don't like it" is not a very good argument... Миша13 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   "The bot is doing a great job"? It only has one edit! 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savidan (talk • contribs)

   I presume this is a reference to the Bot's operation from Dragons flight's account prior to this RfA. WJBscribe  23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose All you have to do is protect images that appear on the main page or in featured articles. That's not very onerous, is it?--Brownlee 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, yes, I think it is. For a small group of volunteers, half of whom aren't even awake when the page "rolls over" to the next day, and all of whom have other more important things to think about, to maintain one of the world's most-used websites in their spare time, knowing if they put a foot out of line either side they'll either be desysopped or see a giant penis on the front page? I think "Onerous" fits the bill quite well, actually – Gurch 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   All you have to do is type your signature out manually every time you use it, but everyone just uses automation because doing so otherwise would be tedius and pointless. You're basically asking humans (other than yourself of course) to spend several extra hours every week protecting templates when a bot could do the job better. --W.marsh 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict with Gurch) (and W.marsh too) Apparently it is, since we've let it happen a few times already. Nobody's perfect, this is no organized process and everyone's working here voluntarily, so if there's a way to plug some holes here by automating the process (bots, unlike lazy people, are thorough and will follow given instructions to the letter, 24/7 if needed), why not give it a chance? Миша13 15:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not just images; this latest rash of main page vandalism has been on unprotected templates. This is the kind of stuff that is much more easily understood by a computer. --Cyde Weys 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate your concerns, Brownlee, but I can tell you from experience that it's a very tedious job; a bot would be much better for an automatable task such as this, and would be, on the whole, more reliable than its human counterparts, who could be doing more productive things with the bot taking care of this task. See my above support comment for more information on this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   To quote Cryptic, it is an insult to ask a human to do a machine's job. You aren't volunteering your own time for this, obviously, so why would you stand in the way of an automated version and force other people to waste their time with something that a machine can handle? --Cyde Weys 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Strong Oppose • For a few reasons. First of all, I am not comfortable with a closed source administrative bot. This is a free and open encyclopedia, and any bot running on it, especially in the administrative department, should have freely reviewable code, so that we may be sure that the bot is not being used as a backdoor to other administrative functions, or as a way for the op to avoid sanctions for contentious actions. Secondly, I do not see a bot as an intelligent enough being to determine what needs semi-protected, protected or unprotected. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   May I make a request since Wizardry Dragon doesn't want a closed source bot might I suggest that Dragons Flight e-mail him a copy (Wizardry Dragon will not release the code) but as with any powerful bot, who has access to the code should be limited. Betacommand 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   • Security through obscurity doesn't work. Especially not in a free and open encyclopedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   No "intelligence" is required. The bot is not a general-purpose page protection bot; if anyone thinks that, they haven't read the nomination. It is only going to protect and unprotect templates and images that are on or have been on the Main Page. For such templates, the following logic applies and always has done: Is it on the Main Page? If yes, protect. If no, unprotect. Semi-protection doesn't enter into it, as templates on the Main Page should always be fully protected. Administrators do this at the moment and have been doing it for as long as the Main Page has had templates. I say again, no "intelligence" is required. It's a simple yes-no decision dependent only on one condition – whether the template is transcluded onto the Main Page – any human or bot can answer this simply by looking at the list of "Pages transcluded onto this page" – Gurch 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think you understand the bot then. There's no discretion involved. All it does is make sure that every template and image used on the front page is fully protected. There's no wiggle room in that, no decision-making required. --Cyde Weys 16:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Who unprotects the pages then? How do we know when the pages need unprotection? How do we go about unprotection? This bot just has the appearance of needing a lot more thought before being given the bit. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Please read Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot: It states "Intended to automatically protect templates and images appearing on the main page or today's featured article, and unprotect them when they are no longer in these high profile locations". Templates that are protected before will not be unprotected. So the bot remembers what it protects and unprotects only that. --Ligulem 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Firstly, Dragons flight doesn't need any "backdoors" for administrative actions - he's an admin already. Secondly, it's very good that the bot doesn't think - it follows rigidly a set of given rules, like "all images and templates transcluded on the Main Page should be fully protected", which makes it less prone to errors than mere humans. Миша13 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   If he wanted to do something controversial, there's always a chance the admin could use his/her admin bot to dodge sanctions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Are you suggesting that Dragons Flight will do this? If so, that would be a much bigger problem than giving a bot the sysop bit. If you have evidence that Dragons Flight cannot be trusted with adminship, then please present it immediately. If not, then your example doesn't make sense, because you're asserting essentially that he might. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Much more established sysops have gone rogue in the past. I'm merely saying that one of my reasons for opposition is the potential for backdooring. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Any actions outside of ProtectionBot's narrowly defined scope would be grounds for immediate desysoping of the bot. It would also likely lead to a review of Dragon flight's actions. Since every action of the bot will be logged, it wouldn't make any sense to use it for "backdooring". I think you should withdraw this particular reason for opposition. SuperMachine 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   "Dodge the sanctions"? You would expect that a responsible steward desysop one account (the bot) belonging to a user and not the other (the main one)? Just as I would block all bots/alternate accounts owned by a banned user, the removal of the sysop flag should be treated identically. Миша13 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   If that happened he would be emergency desysoped along with the bot account and taken to ArbCom see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki for an unauthorized adminbot use. the same will happen here. Betacommand 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose per, surprisingly for me, Hipocrite. If this gets dealt with, I'll remove my opposition. There's honestly too much secrecy as is in some departments involving the bit, and having a secret code with a select group of "trusted" members of the community doesn't do it for me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
7. If you don't want to release the code, that's fine by me. There may very well be risks of vandalbots; I don't know, having not seen it. But I refuse to trust something I haven't seen. -Amarkov _edits 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   How many Misplaced Pages administrators have you seen in person? Should all the others resign immediately? Миша13 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   You haven't seen me. Good thing, too; I'm ugly as sin. Do you want my resignation in writing? – Gurch 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   A human administrator will not break if something unexpected shows up on a page. But will this bot break if it reads some random non-ASCII character? Will certain things cause it to start unprotecting the pages? I don't know, and while I trust the people who have evaluated it, that doesn't mean they've considered every possibility. -Amarkov _edits 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   If it malfunctions (which is unlikely), it can easily be blocked by any of our over 1,000 administrators. Unlikely hypotheticals aren't a good reason to oppose an RFA that deals with a very real, insidious, and non-hypothetical problem of main page vandalism. --Cyde Weys 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Also, please note, unlike a human admin, this bot does not even know how to unblock itself, and is not programed to do so if it could. In this manner it is as blockable as any bot. HighInBC 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Nothing that displays on the main page would ever need to be unprotected; it's only the things linked to from there. And if main page vandalism is so insidious that we must have an adminbot to deal with it, what's the deal with all the opposition to such a simple thing as semi-protecting pages linked to from the main page? I suggest you resolve that before trying to explain that a bot with admin powers is necessary. I don't doubt that it could be blocked, but if its task is so important, damage will be caused in the time before someone actually notices that it is doing something wrong. You could just release the source code; if you needed to make a vandalbot, it would be much easier to just tweak AWB to remove the checkpage. -Amarkov _edits 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Protecting pages linked (not transcluded) from the main page is a non sequitur. We can handle that issue separately from the current issue of making sure no vandalism appears on the main page. I do not understand whatsoever your opposition that we must handle everything simultaneously, or do nothing. --Cyde Weys 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I didn't make myself clear. People who oppose semi-protecting articles on the main page oppose it for a reason, and you should figure out what that reason is before making a bot to do something like this. And there's still the issue with the source code. There is no reason why it would be dangerous to give it out, unless it has functions I am not aware of. That a user I trust testifies that it does not have such functions makes it a lot more complicated, because that would mean there is no reason at all it can't be given out. -Amarkov _edits 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, I see the problem. A little explanation is needed here. This bot will protect and unprotect templates TRANSCLUDED onto the main page. It will NOT protect or unprotect pages LINKED TO from the Main Page. The featured article of the day will never be protected or unprotected by this bot. Does that clarify things? – Gurch 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose I do not trust most humans under the shaky structure of Misplaced Pages, lord knows what a bot would do. I won't support a bot until there's a far more stable policy making procedure in place. Just H 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Um... is there a reason for this random phobia? I don't think it even makes enough sense to be a phobia; what in the WORLD does policy making procedure have to do with anything? -Amarkov _edits 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Will it ease your concerns when I say that this particular "Terminator" doesn't even know how wield a gun? Миша13 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   The code will do exactly what it is supposed to, that is what code does. It does not have neural nets like the terminator, it cannot have ideas of it's own. Do votes based on fictional universes count? HighInBC 18:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm going to assume this is a joke and should be discounted as such, because I don't even want to begin to start the list of all of the ways in which real-life programs differ from the fictional killing machines in The Terminator. --Cyde Weys 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm appalled at the borderline personal attacks and lack of good faith above, and ultimately that's what is behind my phobia. This isn't an rfa for the bot, it's an rfa for the person holding the strings of the bot, and per the comments above, I have very little confidence in the average "string holder" on Misplaced Pages, notwithstanding the fact that the disruption caused by the bot would be beyond what any human could do. Just H 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Your original justification for the oppose, a fictional movie, made no sense, and people called you on it. Nowhere has anyone personally attacked you, and everyone has shown the appropriate level of good faith for someone who is claiming that a bot program is like the killer robots from a movie. As for your latest comments — if this is indeed an RFA for the "person holding the strings", then it would be a duplicate RFA, because the bot op in question is already an admin. Can you clarify? What "disruption" are you talking about from the bot?! It just protects things on the main page! Please offer up at least one argument that makes sense. --Cyde Weys 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, first off, my original justification for this was not a movie, but rather the point behind the movie: if robots get too much power, humans won't be able to control them. That goes for something protecting pages just as much as any other robot with control over something. Second, this isn't about Dragon flight's abilities, this is about anybody's abilities: I do not trust the vast majority of the policy structure on Misplaced Pages as it is now. I would like to help fix that, but in the meantime, granting more powers to anyone or anything when there's any question is a bad idea. And no matter what my justification for my comment is, I have the right to it, and it's the bureaucrat's job to take it into account, not you and or anyone else. If you're going to rebut my comment show some decorum, regardless of your opinions on it. Thank you. Just H 20:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, you've finally made the nature of your opposition known: it has nothing to do with the particulars of this situation; you think Misplaced Pages is broken somehow, and you'd say no to pretty much anything that comes along. It's not the bureaucrats' job to merely count votes; they will look at the discussion and see some of the more ... curious of oppose reasons. --Cyde Weys 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I was never hiding the nature of my opposition, Cyde. I do not trust any robot with admin powers at the current time due to the state of Misplaced Pages now. If that wasn't clear to you initially, I apologize. And yes, it is the bureaucrat's job to look at the votes, so I ask you to let them do it rather than trying to do it yourself. If you'd like clarification, that's fine, but nobody has the right to judge anybody else's comments except for the bureaucrats. Just H 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose - Not until I see source for this bot, if there is source available, then please tell me where it is. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I've heard someone say it's available here. :) Миша13 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps I should clarify, it needs to be open source, with the source available to all. The bots functions are not suspect to being abused by anyone that is not an admin. So until the code is opensource, sorry I cannot support. Not for something like this. —— Eagle 101 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Open and free source is only the wiki way. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   In addition I would like to note that this bot is not that urgent, we have User:Shadowbot, which can cover while this bot is being approved. It has been fixed to check the images, and I am sure User:Shadow1 has fixed it. —— Eagle 101 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   He has. Shadow1 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   It is urgent - the vandals are looking for ways to circumvent our protection all the time. But noone's rushing this RfA right now, so no worries. And I welcome Shadowbot as an alternative and extra measure. Миша13 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Sounds good then! Again my only reason for opposing is the lack of open source code. If that is rectified I am willing to reconsider my stance. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 19:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   The most recent instance of main page vandalism had nothing to do with an unprotected image. It resulted from an unprotected template. Not only did the bot fail to report that the template was unprotected, but it also e-mailed list subscribers (myself included) a false report that 18 other main page templates were unprotected. —David Levy 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'll say this again: The only reason that the bot failed was due to a change in the MediaWiki "Page protected" text. I've since made the bot check if the text is editable for its protection check. In addition, I think you'll find that the template was deleted before the bot could perform its scan. If you want, David, I can decrease the scan interval. Shadow1 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   1. I don't know why you expected me to know this when you never added such an explanation to the page on which you and I discussed the problem.

   2. It might help if the bot were to scan the page with greater frequency, but isn't 00:00 (UTC) the most important and obvious time at which a scan should occur? —David Levy 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry, I was thinking of a conversation I had on IRC. However, in any case, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. The bot does scan at 00:00 UTC; it scans hourly. However, I'll probably change this to something a little faster. Even then, though, I don't see how my bot is any different from ProtectionBot, other than that it's proactive and scans more often than mine does. Shadow1 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose If the code isn't public, I'm uncomfortable granting the mop. Xoloz 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why would you like the code to be public? If it's due to security concerns, Dragon's flight has already had the code reviewed by numerous trusted users. If it's because it might be operating outside of its scope, this can easily be monitored through the logs. SuperMachine 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    The code needs to be reviewable by anyone who wants to review it. If he won't accept a request from a brand-new user account, then a computer programmer or security researcher from outside Misplaced Pages will not be able to review it. If he will give the code to anyone at all upon request, regardless of their tenure or established trustworthiness, then he may as well release it publicly in the first place. In addition, Misplaced Pages is a 💕, and creating an adminbot that handles the main page is much more of an official approval of the software than is giving bot flags to all manner of individuals; the software must be free. —Centrx→talk • 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. Automated "sock" accounts sould not be given admin rights. One per customer please. 198.22.123.103 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Anons can't vote in RfAs. -Amarkov _edits 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    Yes they can.

    No they can't. Please see WP:RfA on commenting in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections: "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment" Миша13 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose, code is not open. Genuinely secure code is secure no matter who reads it. (Willing to change !vote if this is rectified in time to audit the code). Seraphimblade 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    It isn't the security of the code that is the issue. The issue is that the code could with some basic changes do some things that would be rather damageing to wikipedia. I would rather that those attacks were not made any esier than required.Geni 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose. Gwoissa398 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    The above user has been blocked indefinitely. Blocked users may not participate in RfAs —bbatsell ¿? 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    And the reason being ... ? Миша13 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    The reason being that it was a vandal's sockpuppet. Against an anti-vandalism tool. Go figure. :] --CBD 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    You misunderstand I think- Миша's question was about the reason for the vote before it was struck through. Not the reason for discounting the vote. WJBscribe  00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose. Bot needs to be open source. --- RockMFR 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    That is not the fact, many bots are approved without being open source. HighInBC 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    This is not a bot approval. This is an admin approval. Hence, if this user would like my support, they need to publish the source code. My opinion will not change until that happens. --- RockMFR 00:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Strong Oppose. Admin users should have only one account with extra priviledges. Wiki is Freaakky. 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    Per the policy on multiple accounts: The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin powers. If you leave, come back under a new name and are nominated for adminship, it is expected that you will give up admin powers on your old account. (You may do this quietly with your old account and not have to show a link between accounts.) You should have only one account with powers greater than those of a regular editor. And I support this. Wiki is Freaakky. 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)