Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
expired
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>[[Category:Denied Wikipedia bot requests for approval|Archivedotisbot]]</noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:
<noinclude>[[Category:Expired Wikipedia bot requests for approval|Archivedotisbot]]</noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:
#DEDACA; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
#DEDACA; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].'' The result of the discussion was [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] '''Denied'''{{#ifeq:|no||.}}<!-- from Template:Bot Top-->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].'' The result of the discussion was [[File:Symbol neutral vote.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] '''Request Expired'''.<!-- from Template:Bot Top-->
==[[User:Archivedotisbot|Archivedotisbot]]==
==[[User:Archivedotisbot|Archivedotisbot]]==
{{Newbot|Archivedotisbot|}}
{{Newbot|Archivedotisbot|}}
Line 28: Line 28:


<!-- Bot tasks require consensus in order to be approved. Please list any relevant discussions here to indicate consensus for the task. If such input is not necessary (for instance, a task that is duplicating or closely matching an existing bot) leave this blank-->
<!-- Bot tasks require consensus in order to be approved. Please list any relevant discussions here to indicate consensus for the task. If such input is not necessary (for instance, a task that is duplicating or closely matching an existing bot) leave this blank-->
'''Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):''' [[WP:Archive.is RFC]], [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache]]
'''Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):''' [[WP:Archive.is RFC]], [[WP:Archive.is RFC 2]], [[WP:Archive.is RFC 3]], [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache]]


<!-- e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run, etc. -->
<!-- e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run, etc. -->
Line 121: Line 121:
Kww has no intention of even lifting the edit filter or discussing the details of it publicly. The data in question shows one bad user and many good users who added Archive.is links and Rotlink was not being operated by Archive.is. Allegations of illicit activity, bot nets and false identity that requires the complete nuking of a site on the basis of someone who's data doesn't even trace to Archive.is is a pretty poor excuse to punish the whole on the grounds of some boogieman. The RFC did not even recognize the good editors who added those links in the first place. It wasn't neutral and it did not even give fair representation to the two users who prominently declared that it would negatively impact their editing. The simple solution was ignored for the sake of preventing or removing the whole. Six months is far too late to suddenly spur the removal because someone disagrees with you. Kww made blind accusations and couldn't support them, but even the lengthy discussion into how those were unsupported did not deter the non-admin closer from a straw count of the !votes despite the entire premise being unsupported by the conclusion. The entire thing hinged on unsupported allegations of illicit activity, malware and that Rotlink was Archive.is, despite evidence to the contrary. I see absolutely no value in a "consensus" rooted in false pretexts, numerous users have made key arguments and Kww has brushed them off without answering them. I cannot support this bot because it represents a hail mary some six months after the fact and rooted in a direct opposition to the edit filter's very existence. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kww has no intention of even lifting the edit filter or discussing the details of it publicly. The data in question shows one bad user and many good users who added Archive.is links and Rotlink was not being operated by Archive.is. Allegations of illicit activity, bot nets and false identity that requires the complete nuking of a site on the basis of someone who's data doesn't even trace to Archive.is is a pretty poor excuse to punish the whole on the grounds of some boogieman. The RFC did not even recognize the good editors who added those links in the first place. It wasn't neutral and it did not even give fair representation to the two users who prominently declared that it would negatively impact their editing. The simple solution was ignored for the sake of preventing or removing the whole. Six months is far too late to suddenly spur the removal because someone disagrees with you. Kww made blind accusations and couldn't support them, but even the lengthy discussion into how those were unsupported did not deter the non-admin closer from a straw count of the !votes despite the entire premise being unsupported by the conclusion. The entire thing hinged on unsupported allegations of illicit activity, malware and that Rotlink was Archive.is, despite evidence to the contrary. I see absolutely no value in a "consensus" rooted in false pretexts, numerous users have made key arguments and Kww has brushed them off without answering them. I cannot support this bot because it represents a hail mary some six months after the fact and rooted in a direct opposition to the edit filter's very existence. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:BRFA doesn't deal with edit filters. If you're concerned about that, take it to [[WT:EF]] or [[WP:AN]]. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:BRFA doesn't deal with edit filters. If you're concerned about that, take it to [[WT:EF]] or [[WP:AN]]. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' Too much power in the hands of one user? Kww already has abusefilter. And that role is sure to lead to hardened views, not patience and neutrality. Kww even had to edit the BRFA to remove unsubstantiated claims. --<span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Certainly not appropriate at the moment given there's an open RFC about it. --<span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
::Why shouldn't this be dealt ''after'' the RFC? If you're concerned with power abuse, go to [[WP:AN]].[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 10:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Confused. Are you agreeing with me, trying to give me instructions, or both? I've expressed concerns with power abuse, and expect the closer of this RFC to consider the concerns. No, I'm not going to go to AN just because you tell me to. Especially with a username like that.--<span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;[[User:Elvey|Elvey]]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>([[User talk:Elvey|t]]•[[Special:Contribs/Elvey|c]])</sup> 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
::::LOL, I originally wanted to call myself Blocked User to avoid the FU acronym. Another person told ChrisGualtieri (not that MP) to do so. If you cannot trust me, you may consider that. I think the process should be restarted in a new section, where the bot is assessed with the two RFC's consensus in mind.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 16:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


=== Break ===
=== Break ===
Line 143: Line 150:
#Can I look at the source code for this bot? [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 15:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
#Can I look at the source code for this bot? [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 15:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
#:This is just a simple variation on Chartbot, an approved bot that dealt with the last revamp of Billboard (a revamp that left us with tens of thousands of dead links). I've never released the source. I could, but I would like to know why you want to see it.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
#:This is just a simple variation on Chartbot, an approved bot that dealt with the last revamp of Billboard (a revamp that left us with tens of thousands of dead links). I've never released the source. I could, but I would like to know why you want to see it.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

==closure==
I have closed the discussion per [[WP:IAR]]. Whether the RfC was neutral is not an issue; This is a BRFA, so can not alter the result. However, reading through the discussion, there is clearly not a consensus to run the bot, mainly due to concerns about legitimate archive links being removed and never replaced. I am aware I am not a member of the BAG, however this has sat here for several days, and frankly, there is no point keeping a stale discussion open when there is a clear consensus evident. --[[User:Mdann52|<span style="color:Green">'''Mdann'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdann52|<span style="color:Red">'''52'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Mdann52|<span style="color:Maroon">''talk to me!''</span>]]</small> 10:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
:Closure reverted by [[User:Kww|bot operator]] after discussion failed on my talk page. --[[User:Mdann52|<span style="color:Green">'''Mdann'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdann52|<span style="color:Red">'''52'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Mdann52|<span style="color:Maroon">''talk to me!''</span>]]</small> 13:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the close was both procedural (Mdann52 is not a BAG member) and substantive: the objections raised here are not valid objections to raise at a BRFA and carry no weight. While raw numbers certainly weigh against this bot, once one discards the arguments of "I wish the RFC hadn't said to do this", the bot would be approved.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The closure was inappropriate. At the very least, a BAG member should have done it. TBH, I haven't seen any objections since [[#Break]]. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
:Then let me be the first to object blatantly to this bot's currently stated goal and the heavy handedness the potential bot operator has demonstrated throughout this process (in violation of BOTCOMM). While I do agree that the RfC is correct, this is not the way to "do no harm" to wikipedia by directly orphaning links. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
::Then feel free to demonstrate how removing a link and placing a message on the article's talk page and in a central list that indicates what link was removed from where so that others can undertake the manual process of restoring it contravenes the RFC.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Your continual pestering, refusing to discuss the underlying issue, refusing to discuss the edit filter, and your continual pushing against editors explicitly expressed viewpoints is clear that you're completely the wrong person to be implementing this bot. The RFC is quite clear "I also suggested that the '''removal of Archive.is links be done with care and clear explanation''' to editors and suggested the folks at Archive.is work with the community to find a way forward" Your solution is taking a airplane dropped napalm on a forest rather than individually weeding out each invasive plant. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 23:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
::::I've been frustrated, certainly, but I think that's a pretty unfair accusation. I've addressed the underlying issues. I haven't disclosed ''details'' of the edit filter, but I've been upfront that it exists and what it accomplishes. What I've "pestered" is the notion that "''remove all links''" means "''don't remove any links unless you can find a satisfactory replacement for it before you remove it''." I listened to pushback and agreed to track all of the removed links in a central location ''and'' provide a message on the talk page of each article edited detailing the links that were removed. That's certainly "''with care and clear explanation''".&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 00:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Ok, you don't like the characterization, here's a explicit list of problems
:::::#You refuse to post the source code so that other editors can verify that the bot is doing what it says it will do. Posting the source code would allow us to verify that the actions conform to the request.
:::::#Your solution is to delete all the offending archive links outright and locate all the references into a central location. This causes more harm than good. A much better solution would be to write a bot that investigates each archive link and replaces it with better archives. That would be taking care and not damaging wikipedia to win the war against Archive.is.
:::::#Your lack of transparency across all aspects of this war (not explaining how the edit filter works, not letting us see the source code for the bot, blocking editors who express a viewpoint against your desired outcome, Slaping SPI blocks on without the formality of a sockpuppet investigation or significant duck quacking) is yet annother case where your involvement has actually dialed '''up''' the drama regarding this subject than diffuse it.
:::::For these reasons, you are most definitely not the person to be undertaking this bot task. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::#I have never posted the source for Chartbot, either. I don't post the source for anything I write.
::::::#People have tried to write fully automatic archive searching bots in the past. No one has ''ever'' successfully done so. They always wind up being semi-automatic, requiring an operator to make judgement calls that the bot cannot successfully do.
::::::#I don't want people taking advantage of defects in the filter to bypass it. That's ''why'' it's a private filter. Ask any admin with filter privileges and they will verify the filter is innocuous. Any blocks I have made have been upheld. I rarely open SPI investigations, and never for such obvious socks as Duke Olav.
::::::The problem here is that people persist in seeing some kind of bad faith on my part where there is none.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 13:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

'''Question''': {{U|Kww}} Since you are advocating for the complete obliteration, would you be willing to put this task on hold to let me write a bot that goes through and tries finding appropriate replacements at webcite/Internet Wayback? As evidenced by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L%27essenziale&diff=613555471&oldid=600927327] there are still plenty of archive.is urls that can be successfully replaced. That it's festered for so long after the RFC closed is indicative in my mind that we can afford the time to do this right rather than go straight for the delete first. Removing the Archive.is urls makes these articles difficult to find, whereas we can use [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.is%2F the link search] to find all the places it is used and properly deal with fixing them. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 12:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:*Why not write a bot that reads the list that my bot creates and aids a user in selecting the appropriate alternative archive or creating an archive itself? There's no reason at all that a bot like that needs to have the offending links in place to operate.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 13:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Because the first thing you do is <big>'''BREAK'''</big> wikipedia. How many times do we need to say this to get it into your head that this a complete non-starter. By deleting the archive.is links you force random editors who want to solve the problem to have to hunt down your bot's list, whereas by leaving them we have the Link searcher to find them. As to not wanting to publish how things work, I refer you specifically to [[Linus's Law]] as to why your "I don't want to share" is a huge gaping hole. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 13:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::The RFC result which was to ''remove all links to archive.is''. Without qualification. Without reservation. Without requiring replacement first. The consensus was not to ''leave all links in place until some indeterminate future date when people get around to dealing with them''. Do you have any objections that would not require that the RFC had come to a different consensus than it actually did? That's the reason you see me as "pestering": you would disagree with any implementation of any bot that implemented the RFC result.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}Heck, I'll even pseudocode the 1st pass proactive fixer for you to show how easy it is
::::For each page listed in the LinkSearch query
:::::Use a regex to find all the cite templates that contain a reference to archive.is
:::::For each hit in the regex
::::::Extract the URL for the referenced item
::::::See if Internet Wayback has a hit for the page
::::::See if WebCite has a hit for the page
::::::If neither have a hit, try submitting the page to Internet Wayback
::::::If Internet Wayback fails, try submitting the page to WebCite
::::::If either Wayback or WebCite got a good hit, replace the archive.is url with the Wayback/WebCite url.
::::::If neither got a hit, then do nothing with the citation template
:::::If at least one change happened, append a hidden maintenance category to the page for human checking of the page (i.e. exercising extra care)
::::See It wasn't that difficult to pseudocode the careful replacement of the archive links in addition to providing a quick way for us to verify that the replacements are good. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, since you seem hell bent on implementing over the will of the community, go right ahead but be prepared to have a edit war over every last change this bot makes as causing a loss of information is vandalism. Options have been presented for how you could minimize the loss, but your stubbornness to minimize the loss indicates to me that this solution is not endorsed. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:Devil's in the details. Sure, I can write ''pseudocode'' to do anything. Now actually deal with writing real code that looks for the date of the archive.is archival, compares it to the date available in Wayback, and then determines whether the archive in Wayback archives the intended data. If that fails, figure out whether the content that the archive is intended to preserve is still presently in the page, because submitting today's webpage content for archival may do nothing to help with the content of a page that was archived 18 months ago. It's a ''manual'' job to be done with the assistance of a script by interested editors. It's beyond the scope of any bot written in actual code as opposed to pseudocode. I've presented a method for minimizing the loss, with every removed entry doubly transcribed, both in a central archive for people that want to make a little Wikiproject out of rearchiving and on each individual talk page for people that are only interested in each individual link. If you want me to replace the actual removed parameter with a wikicomment about the removal, I could do that to. I'm working in good faith here to assist with any effort to rearchive links, but I don't think the restoration can reasonably be put in front of the removal: it's an open-ended task that will take years to complete.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 14:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

:It looks like no one is supporting your revert of the closure here, Kww. To me, legal issues seriously threaten Wikipedia. If anyone/any bot constructs links from Wikipedia to blacklisted sites, then this should be prohhibited without question. As there is no consensus this should really be closed.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:: {{noping|Forbidden User}}, could you explain what you mean? {{noping|Kww}} isn't proposing to add links to blacklisted sites, but to remove some links to blacklisted sites. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 16:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah I was confused. I meant to refer to the one who does not support removal of archive.is links by this bot. Sorry, Kww.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 16:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::::In case the [[User:Kww|bot operator]] is still watching the page, I'd suggest putting info about the RfC and other archive sites (like providing a link to web.archive.org) so as to satisfy ''A) why the community made this decision and B) what alternatives are available to them to deal with rotlink''. Ideally the link can lead directly to the search result for archives of the now-dead link. Here I give my '''support''' on the issue. By the way, though [[WP:PNSD]] has been demoted to essay, I don't think the ''number'' of "votes" matters more than the ''quality'' of the arguments. Through the discussion, I can see that most opposing arguments are vague ones like "you are breaking Wikipedia" or "consensus has changed" (read [[WP:CONLEVEL]] - "consensus" here cannot trump the RfC). Though Kww has repeatedly stated that this is not a place to discuss whether the links should be removed, there are still editors who refuse to listen, which is undesirable. ''If'' people has to stress that there is no consensus, then just open a RfC on the '''bot'''.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I'd like to add that it is best if the bot scatters its removal edits to different articles and make limited edits (like 500 per day) so that editors can take follow-up measures in time without getting exhausted. It'd be even better if it can build a list of articles ''containing'' archive.is links, dividing them into '''cleaned''' and '''not clean''' articles for patrollers to help![[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 15:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
{{hat|This is something repeated from [[WP:Archive.is RFC 3]]. The opinion can be found there.}}
*I still find that the RFC which was closed by an inexperienced closer and '''NON-Admin'' carries as much weight on the decision as this. {{ping|Hasteur}} is completely right on this, the lack of transparency and the commitment to purging Archive.is links has gone far and beyond what can be considered normal operation - its deeply personal and Kww should not be the person to operate such a bot whilst also being the sole implementer and re-activator of the edit filter which was removed by another admin in what appears to be wheel-warring. The RFCs have been tainted with demonstrability false accusations to garner support for removal. Just prior to "Rotlink" was the [http://web.archive.org/web/20130727194715/http://ws-dl.blogspot.de/2013/07/2013-07-09-archiveis-supports-memento.html Web Science and Digital Libraries Research Group's post] on the Momento support and tools to one-click archive and export the link (right to the script) for Wikipedia use. I find it laughable that the ease of its implementation and its public release falls exactly in-line with Rotlink and the problem, yet the blame is assigned to the Archive.is operator despite Rotlink taking from Archive.is blog posts and messing up basic information to give legitimacy to the edits. The RFC should have been read as the removal of all bot-added links (easily found) and left the whole of user-added links untouched, but there seems to be quite a bit of [[Wikipedia:Fait accompli]]. The rush to remove them so they cannot be re-added and the continued push to strong arm a normally invalid consensus as a final say is bad. Considering this BAG started during a vocal and public questioning of the original RFC - the motive is apparent. I find it ironic that this BAG was closed and reopened by Kww because a BAG member didn't close it yet Kww doesn't accept the return or re-discussing of the original closure Kww found favorable. This BAG is no-consensus and the RFC discussions comments added to this (by extension) serve as a pretty clear rejection, but I'll let till a ''real'' member of BAG make the decision. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 05:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's come back after the RfC instead of repeating things mentioned in the RfC. No [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], and no irrelevant misinformation.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 06:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::First, ''prove'' the accusations to be false. You've flipped a few times on your side when asked for evidence.
::Second, you are not the one to say what was/is the consensus. That's utter disrespect to the "non-admin" closer and everyone participating in RFC 1, and let me remind you that you and I are no admins as well (consider why).
::Third, you've repeated your dissent to an action not being done a few times at different forums. [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] does not help an opinion gain support. This'd be my whole reply to this condemnable act.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 09:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

==Bot discussion==
After the RfC, any BAG members are welcome to go through the bot here. Thank you.[[User:Forbidden User|Forbidden User]] ([[User talk:Forbidden User|talk]]) 10:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

{{BotExpired}} RfC was closed a long time ago. This disappeared from the main [[WP:BRFA]] page in June 2014, so I'm giving a formal closure for posterity. I do not see this happening as currently formulated. — [[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#060;">Earwig</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]''</sup> 02:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].''<!-- from Template:Bot Bottom --></div>

Latest revision as of 02:55, 4 December 2015