This is not a game. This is not some IRC funny-room. In that regard, I'd be particularly critical of the editors numbered 11, 13, 24, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 43 and 45. - Splash - tk 10:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked on the main page, but it's very busy, so I'm crossposting. I'd like to know how many blocks per month this bot will be expected to do, but accounts range from 250 to 1500. I'd like to know what these numbers are based upon. - brenneman {L} 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that Tawker and Werdna have the best intentions, and they are much more knowledgable than I about bots and proxies. However...
Two points: 1. This RFA seems premature. The scope of the project is constantly changing. First there are 1000 proxies to block, then 600, then 250. Is this an automated bot or a script? How will it be controlled? How can it be shut down? Who will have the passwords? All of these issues are in constant flux in response to questions and comments. Why was the Bot approval process only started today after the RFA was filed. Werdna wasn't aware of the proxy list? It seems like the operating specs should be nailed down before the RFA, not during; same with the bot approval.
2. I generated a list of current tor proxies in about 10 minutes, formatted and ready for blocking. See User:Thatcher131/Torlist. I used the list at http://proxy.org/tor.shtml, which is not the list Wernda proposes to use, and maybe there is a reason the list I used is not appropriate, but it was better formatted for what I wanted to do. I simply copied it from the browser page, and manipulated it in Word and Excel to get it in the correct {{ IPvandal}} layout. It would have been faster if I still had a copy of BBEdit lying around, but it still only took a few minutes. (Someone could probably write a simple script that would parse the IPs out of the list Werdna wants to use, if that list is significantly different.) I also trimmed the list to include only exit nodes. There are 359 on the current list.
If I can generate this list manually in 10 minutes, there doesn't seem to be too much need for a bot. A new list could be run once a week and a simple comparison script run to find new exit nodes not on previous lists, or even better, a script could take each weekly list and prune it of any already blocked IPs (assuming such is possible).
In short, I don't see this bot will be doing anything that can't be done with a couple of scripts and a little human help, so I see no reason to set aside the longstanding policy of not sysopping bots, even if the goal is worthy. Thatcher131 04:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As this attempt to win community support for the running of bots with admin rights seems to fail again, I find it interesting to look at how little opposition admins who run bots from their own accounts get. The famous Curps vandalblocking and anti-WoW bot was apparently blocked only twice during its carreer (and after Curps left, plans to have an official bot with this function were shut down). I have also seen very little opposition to Cyde using a bot to delete empty categories as part of his CFD work. I am sure that other bots or scripts have been run from admin accounts from time to time, but all of these are without official approval. Whether the actual clicking of the block button on a bot-generated Tor proxy list is done by a human or a script running from a human's admin account or an adminbot running from a specific account seems to make no big difference to me in the result, perhaps just in where we place the blame if something goes wrong or in who we hold accountable. An admin using a script from his own account is certainly responsible for all the script does, but isn't a bot owner responsible in just the same way? At least the robotic actions don't clutter up the log if they are done from a separate account.
If we deny the running of openly declared bots with admin functions, doesn't this mean we invite admins who have repetitive tasks to do to just IAR and run the bot from their own account and hope nobody cares? Kusma (討論) 08:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Tawker's account may have been hijacked. It started deleting and salting notable articles out of process and while that may look just like someone being really abusive, the account then said it was gone on a wikibreak with some vague excuse about thanksgiving (which is over a month away). So unless Tawker can be verified as still controlling the account, the bot may have been compromised, too. Anomo 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship was relocated here.
So, the bot currently has around 60% support. Given recent events, would anyone care to guess whether this is "consensus" or not? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does there seem to more than a few irregularities with this Rfa ? Granted, this request for adminship is different obviously, in large part because we are not voting on an actual person. Still, Jimbo did want this put to a vote of the community and as such, shouldn't it be under the same guidelines and standards (both written and unwritten) as other Rfa's ? A few comments: (1) The nominator was allowed to put a statement Just for public record directly under the heading of the nomination section. This comment is one which is there to sway the community to vote support. I haven't been here that long, but I know that there is a certain format for every Rfa which does not change. Are we now going to allow the candidate/nominator the option to have, in bold type, at the top of the nomination a statement which is favorable to the candidate before even the nomination statement ? Is this a precedent we want to set- a campaign billboard at the top of every Rfa ? Sort of like "Vote for User:John Q Wikipedia as admin- the obvious anti-vandal choice !!!"(2) After I voted oppose, the nominator quickly put a statement on my talk page here. I don't know how many (if any) other oppose voters received messages on their talk page, but I felt a bit insulted. Yes, I think my comments were a bit...unorthodox, but my point was that a bot admin is a big unknown. I didn't deserve to be told by the nominator that my vote should be struck out. I even received comments by Tawker after I made it clear the conversation was over. If, for example, I were to nominate someone on an Rfa and I(or the candidate) put messages on oppose voter's talk pages questioning their vote, it wouldn't be very long before the vote was cancelled due to tampering. I don't know if this has been done before, but I know Rfa's have been derailed by campaigning on IRC. Thoughts anyone ? Jcam 22:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've closed as unsuccessful at this time. If Jimbo wants to promote it he is certainly able to make that call and I'll flip the switch if he asks me to. If he chooses not to then we should make sure there is an organized place to coordinate humans making these blocks. Splash has pointed out he is willing to do that and I'm sure others would too, a few hundred is not so terribly many. That could be a workable solution until this can be coded into Wikimedia. I'd suggest working on the latter post-haste. - Taxman Talk 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a game. This is not some IRC funny-room. In that regard, I'd be particularly critical of the editors numbered 11, 13, 24, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 43 and 45. - Splash - tk 10:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked on the main page, but it's very busy, so I'm crossposting. I'd like to know how many blocks per month this bot will be expected to do, but accounts range from 250 to 1500. I'd like to know what these numbers are based upon. - brenneman {L} 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that Tawker and Werdna have the best intentions, and they are much more knowledgable than I about bots and proxies. However...
Two points: 1. This RFA seems premature. The scope of the project is constantly changing. First there are 1000 proxies to block, then 600, then 250. Is this an automated bot or a script? How will it be controlled? How can it be shut down? Who will have the passwords? All of these issues are in constant flux in response to questions and comments. Why was the Bot approval process only started today after the RFA was filed. Werdna wasn't aware of the proxy list? It seems like the operating specs should be nailed down before the RFA, not during; same with the bot approval.
2. I generated a list of current tor proxies in about 10 minutes, formatted and ready for blocking. See User:Thatcher131/Torlist. I used the list at http://proxy.org/tor.shtml, which is not the list Wernda proposes to use, and maybe there is a reason the list I used is not appropriate, but it was better formatted for what I wanted to do. I simply copied it from the browser page, and manipulated it in Word and Excel to get it in the correct {{ IPvandal}} layout. It would have been faster if I still had a copy of BBEdit lying around, but it still only took a few minutes. (Someone could probably write a simple script that would parse the IPs out of the list Werdna wants to use, if that list is significantly different.) I also trimmed the list to include only exit nodes. There are 359 on the current list.
If I can generate this list manually in 10 minutes, there doesn't seem to be too much need for a bot. A new list could be run once a week and a simple comparison script run to find new exit nodes not on previous lists, or even better, a script could take each weekly list and prune it of any already blocked IPs (assuming such is possible).
In short, I don't see this bot will be doing anything that can't be done with a couple of scripts and a little human help, so I see no reason to set aside the longstanding policy of not sysopping bots, even if the goal is worthy. Thatcher131 04:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As this attempt to win community support for the running of bots with admin rights seems to fail again, I find it interesting to look at how little opposition admins who run bots from their own accounts get. The famous Curps vandalblocking and anti-WoW bot was apparently blocked only twice during its carreer (and after Curps left, plans to have an official bot with this function were shut down). I have also seen very little opposition to Cyde using a bot to delete empty categories as part of his CFD work. I am sure that other bots or scripts have been run from admin accounts from time to time, but all of these are without official approval. Whether the actual clicking of the block button on a bot-generated Tor proxy list is done by a human or a script running from a human's admin account or an adminbot running from a specific account seems to make no big difference to me in the result, perhaps just in where we place the blame if something goes wrong or in who we hold accountable. An admin using a script from his own account is certainly responsible for all the script does, but isn't a bot owner responsible in just the same way? At least the robotic actions don't clutter up the log if they are done from a separate account.
If we deny the running of openly declared bots with admin functions, doesn't this mean we invite admins who have repetitive tasks to do to just IAR and run the bot from their own account and hope nobody cares? Kusma (討論) 08:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Tawker's account may have been hijacked. It started deleting and salting notable articles out of process and while that may look just like someone being really abusive, the account then said it was gone on a wikibreak with some vague excuse about thanksgiving (which is over a month away). So unless Tawker can be verified as still controlling the account, the bot may have been compromised, too. Anomo 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship was relocated here.
So, the bot currently has around 60% support. Given recent events, would anyone care to guess whether this is "consensus" or not? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does there seem to more than a few irregularities with this Rfa ? Granted, this request for adminship is different obviously, in large part because we are not voting on an actual person. Still, Jimbo did want this put to a vote of the community and as such, shouldn't it be under the same guidelines and standards (both written and unwritten) as other Rfa's ? A few comments: (1) The nominator was allowed to put a statement Just for public record directly under the heading of the nomination section. This comment is one which is there to sway the community to vote support. I haven't been here that long, but I know that there is a certain format for every Rfa which does not change. Are we now going to allow the candidate/nominator the option to have, in bold type, at the top of the nomination a statement which is favorable to the candidate before even the nomination statement ? Is this a precedent we want to set- a campaign billboard at the top of every Rfa ? Sort of like "Vote for User:John Q Wikipedia as admin- the obvious anti-vandal choice !!!"(2) After I voted oppose, the nominator quickly put a statement on my talk page here. I don't know how many (if any) other oppose voters received messages on their talk page, but I felt a bit insulted. Yes, I think my comments were a bit...unorthodox, but my point was that a bot admin is a big unknown. I didn't deserve to be told by the nominator that my vote should be struck out. I even received comments by Tawker after I made it clear the conversation was over. If, for example, I were to nominate someone on an Rfa and I(or the candidate) put messages on oppose voter's talk pages questioning their vote, it wouldn't be very long before the vote was cancelled due to tampering. I don't know if this has been done before, but I know Rfa's have been derailed by campaigning on IRC. Thoughts anyone ? Jcam 22:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've closed as unsuccessful at this time. If Jimbo wants to promote it he is certainly able to make that call and I'll flip the switch if he asks me to. If he chooses not to then we should make sure there is an organized place to coordinate humans making these blocks. Splash has pointed out he is willing to do that and I'm sure others would too, a few hundred is not so terribly many. That could be a workable solution until this can be coded into Wikimedia. I'd suggest working on the latter post-haste. - Taxman Talk 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)