This does get tiring, especially when it's been >20 times this year. I
suspect we're all doomed to the eternal *sigh* - this problem doesn't seem
to be improving, especially in Europe.
Anthony
User:AGK
Again?
On Jan 18, 2008 10:10 PM, Christopher Grant <chrisgrantmail(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Somebody
once told me the number of incoming links (which must change
color) also factors into the amount of disruption when a page is
deleted. Is this true or would the latter issue be (calmly) handled by
the job queueueue?
If the bot was to move the page first, then delete it this should not
happen.
-Chris
On Jan 19, 2008 6:28 AM, James R. <e.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure some of the keen programmers around would like to see the bot
> code
> for any such sysop-based bot that might hit BRFA just to look for any
open
> errors or programming holes in the code. But
for the unfortunate bots,
we
> always have access to the tools we need to
remove it.
>
> Another idea is have a Wikipage that has the bot controls in it, and
have
> it
> full protected so that admins can start and stop the bot whenever a
> problem
> occurs. e.g. BotName looks at [[User:BotName/controls]] and sees that
the
> param in the edit box is
"botstatus=on;" and then continues its duties
at
> the sandbox. If it sees
"botstatus=off;" it kills the process
altogether
> and
> waits a certain period before trying again.
>
> I've seen it around, just cannot remember where I found it ;)
>
> - E
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:25 AM
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Servers down?
>
> > Are closed source bots prevalent? Isn't part of the BRFA process
> > evaluation of the underlying code? Any admin bot should probably be
> > relatively slow, and make up for the slowness with long periods of
> > uptime. Some of the paranoia is a bit farfetched - it shouldn't be
> > incredibly difficult to get well designed bots that don't screw up,
> > and notice when they do. It might be exceptional among bots, but it
> > should still be possible. Bot RfA's have been doomed from the outset
> > recently, because most of the !voters don't have the technical
skills
> > to evaluate whether or not its well
designed (myself included).
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2008 6:28 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2008, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 18/01/2008, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > What's wrong with giving bots sysop access? Are you worried
they
> >> > > might
> >> > > rise up and overthrow the human sysops?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > More or less. There's lots of paranoia on en:wp about admin bots
> going
> >> > batshit in sorcerer's apprentice mode. Though I don't think
it's
> >> > warranted, as *anything* an admin can do is easily reversible
except
> >> > history merges. (Making those
*easily* reversible is one for the
> >> > wishlist.)
> >>
> >> But that's not true when bots are involved. A human can only screw
up
> >> at roughly the same speed as
another human can fix it, so it's not
a
> >> big deal, but a bot can screw up a
million times in a few minutes -
> >> that's not practically reversible without using another bot to undo
it
> >> all, which takes a lot of
preparation (the bot needs to be written,
> >> tested to make sure it's not going to screw things up even more,
and
> >> approved - that's likely to
take a day or so at least).
> >>
> >> Personally, I wouldn't object to open source admin bots ("With
enough
> >> eyes, all bugs are shallow."
or whatever the quote it), but closed
> >> source ones are too likely to go wrong and are thus too risky (the
> >> chance of them going wrong is still quite small, but the potential
> >> damage is enormous, so the risk is still high). Also, an open
source
> >> bot can probably be modified by any
programmer to fix its own
mistakes
> >> quite easily, doing that with a
closed source bot requires the
author.
> >> (So a closed source, supervised bot
wouldn't be so bad, but I'd
still
> rather not have them.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l