Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot

Edit stats for RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs)

      run at Fri Oct 5 19:54:05 2007 GMT

earliest	
number of unique pages	0
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

And then Skynet began to learn at an exponential pace... Never mind, nothing to see here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then people learned that I, Robot is a movie'. MessedRocker (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, to me it will always be a book. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from what I've heard, the short story was much better. The book was, I believe, a collection of Asimov's short 'robot' stories. Though I now have bad memories of an Asimov-Silverberg collaboration on a 'book of the short story', like they did for Nightfall. Let's see what I, Robot will tell me I've forgotten. Carcharoth 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I had forgotten that it was only the title of the collection. None of the stories were called that. Though there was an earlier short story with that name, which seems to have influenced the film. Fascinating. And Silverberg didn't collaborate with Asimov on any novel-equivalent. I was thinking of 'An Ugly Little Boy'. Carcharoth 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this.

I strongly am against a bot becoming an admin. I do not want me or anyone to be on the business end of a mistake. Bots do something wrong all the time, MartinBot, ClueBot, BetacommandBot, but it's no big deal...but when a bot has the mop, it could turn into a big deal. Just think about it, the bot could lock on to the wrong pages and delete large portions of pages. I strongly object to a bot being given the sysop tools. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All admin actions are reversible. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would be your worst-case scenario here? Admins are truly not that empowered -- they can delete pages, protect pages, edit protected pages, block, and that's about it. All of these actions are quite easily reversible by any other admin. I might point out that the worst that happened during our recent episode of hijacked admin accounts was the addition of vandalism to the Main Page, and a couple users getting blocked. A bot working on a very restricted instruction list is far less likely to do crazy things like this than a person. I might also point out that there are "bots" which run on Wikipedia that have read/write access to the site's database--with that access, you can do a hell of a lot more harm, but the people running these scripts are responsible and know what they're doing. I think the same is true here -- the only difference is that the risk associated an adminbot going rouge is quite minimal. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you just don't want it to happen. Perhaps it is no big deal, but it could cause damage to the project. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly fair, we risk causing damage to the project with every single user we promote. Just putting it into perspective. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click, click, all fixed! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are already running bots on their main admin accounts. Giving admin flags to bot-only accounts changes nothing in whether admin actions are done automatically. All it does is improve accountability (and so User:Cydebot should be an admin, too). Kusma (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is unneeded worry over nothing. Admin bots exist on other projects, such as Commons, where the "damage" could potentially affect every Wikimedia wiki site. Nothing has ever happened. Luckily, at the moment, the consensus seems favourable to making this bot an admin, so trivial concerns like these don't need responding to. If you care so much about the project, you'd support this, not oppose it. Majorly (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Lover, the bot probably doesn't run at a super-high speed, so fast it can't be stopped in time after only 5 or 10 bad deletions. It's no big deal, as until(1==2) said, click, click, done. I bet normal admins with out a bot can go at similar speeds with tabs. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I can delete stuff nearly as fast as any bot, when I have tabs and Twinkle. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Faster. I assure you that that was all manual, using nothing but tabs and copy-paste to speed it up. (Sorry, I can't permalink to logs, but the link should be correct or approximately correct for a while after I write this comment, unless I go on a deletion spree for some reason.) --ais523 17:42, 5 October 2007 (U T C)

Actually, you can permalink to logs, though the parameter doesn't seem to be documented. I've fixed the link for you so it stays good. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same thing, using a script that provides a drop down box of deletion summaries.[1] This is not a task that requires a great deal of thought, and a bot will simply reduce the work load. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, a bot that can only go berserk if someone finds a very clever way to hijack its coding should not be promoted, while humans that can decide they're annoyed one day and delete something random should be? -Amarkov moo! 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Note that I'm totally serious, too. Totally. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do people realize that most of the MediaWiki infrastructure is run by software not incredibly different from bots like this? If RCB will start deleting random things, why won't the wiki software itself do so? -Amarkov moo! 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's vote on parser.php! :D - cohesion 04:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or User:MediaWiki default, who according to my edit counter has 1310 deletions? (Note for users who aren't familiar with it: it's a script run by devs to update MediaWiki space, and so has dev rights even though they don't show on the account, allowing it to do anything. It has many fewer safeguards than the bot in question, because it can't be blocked or even desysopped.) --ais523 17:53, 8 October 2007 (U T C)

MediaWiki default may not be the best example of admin-like bots :P Mr.Z-man 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If humans can do this task faster than a bot, why do we need bots? :-) The next question will be why some humans like doing boring repetitive tasks that bots could do, and some hate doing such tasks. Carcharoth 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there's something to be said about the relaxation that comes from doing a mindless task. Before becoming an admin (and a few times since), I'd GUS userboxes into my userspace, and manually update the links (by "manually", I mean I'd make all the necessary edits, though I used BBEdit's find-and-replace to do the actual updating of the user's code). Kinda nice to just "switch off" for a while, especially once you get into a rhythm. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary?

I am leaning towards User:Freakofnurture's views on this voting. If a person has gone through the admin process we shouldn't make them go through it again for every tool they plan on using. The BAG is plenty structured enough for validating the new tools, and is better suited for verifying code, and testing than RFA. I don't mean to be rude, and I say this with good faith, but many of the people that "vote" in RFA are ignorant of many of the details regarding how these things run and work.

This entire problem is one of semantics and intersection of a technical term with a non-technical audience. "Bot" is causing problems. Historically people have used this term of course for any software that has to interact with some interface in a non-ideal human-mimicing sort of way. This term in the general public though makes people scared. People think it's something more complex than it is, and want to treat it like a person. It needs to be voted on obviously, because it is a robot, which is like a person.

We need to think of bots, and maybe present them, like tools. We don't vote on whether I can use scripts on my account. My user scripts are currently 323 lines of code, written by various people, not including the dynamically loaded parts. RedirectCleanupBot is only 80 lines of code. The problem is presenting bots to a general audience, and having them vote on them. It's unnecessary. If a person has adminship, then we trust them. If a bot goes through the BAG process then the code is good. 80 lines of perl are not about to become self-aware and take over Wikipedia. Discussing that as if it's a possibility is ridiculous. - cohesion 04:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I both support RedirectCleanupBot getting the flag and that this process is followed for flagging a bot +sysop. When you think about it, many people ignore bot edits so that means less oversight than a human admin (thus higher theorical risk). The BAG is excellent for the technical aspect of botness, but I agree that allowing a bot to use priviledged operations require wider concensus, if only to approve that the task itself is valuable enough to flag the bot. — Coren ^(talk) 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just get a consensus at WT:ADMIN and WT:BOT, and it can be that way. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out WP:BRFA gets far less attention then RFA. Regardless of whether RFA is needed or not, BRFA is not enough. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia about an admin bot, though I highly disagree with it, is understandable to a certain extent. I don't see why an admin bot wouldn't or shouldn't have the support of the entire community, which is what RfA is all about. I'd say that this is exactly the proper venue for this; considering the fact that RCB is likely to be promoted, I don't think having a bunch of non-techies weigh in is particularly damaging (though I do think that, if someone doesn't have a clue about how it all works, they probably shouldn't be opposing, as they're doing so out of blind ignorance). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ok. I don't feel strongly about this, or think it's particularly bad in that it's damaging. I just don't think it's required. I do think the combination of BRFA, RFA, and standard policy is enough though. For example, in this case we have CSD:R1. If the bot doesn't follow that then there is a problem. The community has already spoken on that topic, RFA has decided that WJBscribe can be trusted with adminship, and BRFA has said (in process I know) that the bot functions as expected. I don't see any need for more. - cohesion 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason for this is because it isn't being run on WJBscribe's account. I imagine there would be some complaints if a new account was given +sysop after a quick discussion on WP:BN and WP:BRFA and then started deleted things with "BOT" in the deletion summary. Mr.Z-man 06:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it's reasonable to have this RfA to establish that the community is okay with an account having both the bot and admin flags, I think in the future it would be highly unnecessary.

People seem to forget that all of Wikipedia is a computer program. If MediaWiki screws up, you can lose revisions and entire pages (as I've seen happen on someone else's poorly-maintained wiki), with no way to get them back except database hackery. If a bot screws up, you get an easily-identifiable list of things to revert. We don't need the community's consensus to add code to the wiki, even though that code can alter even more things than admins can -- so why should it take the community's consensus to run a very simple script to edit the wiki? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. A bug in MediaWiki could, in the worst case, allow someone to run malicious code on the Wikimedia servers, potentially giving them access to things like raw server logs (think CheckUser but without the limits) and maybe even internal Wikimedia mailing lists (not sure where those are kept). Even a simple SQL injection vulnerability could give an attacker full access to everything in every Wikimedia database, including user account information, oversighted revisions, and the content of private wikis. And of course they could modify those, without leaving any traces in logs, just as easily as read them. Myself, back in January I found and fixed a very simple HTML/JS injection bug in MediaWiki that could've potentially allowed someone to hijack the account of anyone who had JavaScript enabled and visited a page with certain Wikimarkup on it. And of course, MediaWiki is thousands of times more complex than this bot, so it's thousands of times more likely to have such bugs. And if a malicious user couldn't hack MediaWiki, it would still be easier for them to hijack the account of a human admin, who tend to do things like have guessable passwords, log in over insecure networks or run complex and highly insecure software such as web browsers. Compared to all that, I think the risk involved in a single adminbot being compromised is pretty damn insignificant. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't give people ideas! :-) Carcharoth 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need community consensus that things should in fact be done by an automated process (i.e. is the action desirable in all cases?). RfA probably isn't the right venue for that, but it's what we have right now. -Amarkov moo! 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Just as a reminder to the closing B-crat. In order to give a Bot +sysop, the Bot permission must be assigned first, not the other way around. A bot can be made a sysop, but a sysop cannot be made a bot (via Makebot, that is). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a little complicated. The Bot flag is usually only given after final approval at BRFA and BAG will want a trial before they give final approval (rather than just reviewing the code and testing it elsewhere as they have been able to do so far). The trial can only be done once the Bot has +sysop. However, there is nothing to stop a steward from adding +bot to an admin account on the request of an en.wiki bureaucrat using Special:Userrights. I suspect there may be further discussion about whether this Bot should have a flag - the flag is not of practical consequence to how the Bot will operate (as the Bot is going to be deleting, not editing and the flag just hides edits from RC) but in the interest of transparency I would certainly like the account to have both flags. WjBscribe 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions show up on recent changes. Do bot deletions? --Carnildo 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I told that the flag would not effect deletions (they would continue to show up in the RC feed). WjBscribe 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends if the "show bots" option is turned on. I don't think the rate of this bot requires a bot flag anyways. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a flag is not technically necessary - the question is whether a bot flag is a beneficial element of transparency. WjBscribe 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the bot to be flagged even if not required: it just shows unambiguously that the process is automated and should not be handled by a human. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot flag will keep the deletions out of the Recent Changes. I've tried this on a TestWiki, and the bot in question (+sysop, +bot) deleted a sample page and it didn't show up in the recent changes. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, in that case the matter will need a little further thought... WjBscribe 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can try this at the wiki I mentioned. I can make you and your account sysops, bots, crats, etc., as I'm a steward there. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 14:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but its OK - I have the necessary access on a different test wiki. WjBscribe 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coren that I think both flags would be nice. Transparency is always a good thing, and with as much rampant paranoia as is running around this RfA, the fewer crevices for paranoid ideas to fester and flower in, the better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a bug that should be filed on bugzilla. Either 'crats should be allowed to give a sysop the bot flag, or they shouldn't be able to give a bot the sysop flag either. Either way the current situation is broken. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is intentional by the MediaWiki developers. Cbrown1023 talk 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]