I don't know if this has happened before, but a bot is up for RfA.

The bot is there to clean up redirects and to delete pages with broken redirects (ie the redirected page was deleted or has been moved). It's pretty uncontroversial and the RfA will probably pass--at least at the point it's at right now, but it does, once again, open the door to a lot of interesting questions.

For example, what happens if somebody hacks the bot and it goes on a deleting rampage. How many pages can it delete before somebody figures it out and blocks it?

Also, if they have a bot that does this, then what about a bot that analyzes contribs and blocks anybody who adds (for example) "ERIC IS A FAG!" to an article?

How about replacing the ARB-Com with a bunch of bots?

I'm just wondering if they really have thought this through....

There has been a bot up for RFA before, I'll have to go back and check the RFA logs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/ProtectionBot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/TawkerbotTorA

I think this policy addresses Bot approval. It appears to be outside the RfA process.

To become a Wikipediot Adminion is already the first step to becoming a Bot, as entities like Ryulong amply demonstrate, so why should they not cut out the middleman and save all the costs of unlearning humanity?

Jonny

Here is the B/RfA for this matter. They sent it to RfA because it needs a admin bit for it's functionality. Going to RfA might be the standard procedure but the process is not capable of making the technical judgments needed. Of course that doesn't deter participation. It is kinder treatment than many RfAs. I'm working on a KellyMartinBot in my garage right now.

Neither of those two succeeded. This one looks like it will.

It's interesting because ProtectionBot had quite a high threshold but it was withdrawn before the RFA was complete.

Two things about TawkerbotTorA:

- It was designed to block Tor nodes as Anon only (i.e. you could edit through Tor if you were logged in), rather than hard blocking them. When Runcorn did this, he was severely criticised. Consistency?

- On that RfA, alleged Poetlister sockpuppet Londoneye firmly opposed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=79637370

None of the other alleged sockpuppets showed up. So much for their alleged mass vote-stacking.

Maybe they will make a Rfabot and turn over all their future Rfa decisions to it …

Then they could submit the Rfabot to Rfabot to see if it will make itself an Admin …

We can only hope this will take Wikipedia down in a blue smoking halting paradox …

Jonny

I see what Kelly Martin was saying about the seething idiocy.



Haha. WP's bots are going to rise up and take over Wikipedia. At least it will be better run

The future of Wikipedia??:


Oh, please! Hasten the day!

Well it has got to hurt to be rejected for a prize they routinely hand out to talentless 15 year olds who spend their lonely summer in their room with a laptop. Now they give it away to inanimate objects. Ouch.

But then they'd have to make it a bureaucrat so it would have to pass RfB.