[WikiEN-l] Servers down?

[AGK]

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
en.wikipedia.org

On 20/01/2008, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again?
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 10:10 PM, Christopher Grant <chrisgrantmail at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:25 AM
> > > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at 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 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> On 18/01/2008, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On 18/01/2008, Tim Starling <tstarling at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>