| Revision as of 20:21, 7 January 2007 editPeter M Dodge (talk | contribs)4,982 edits Reply to Martinp23 →Someone please explain to me...← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:21, 7 January 2007 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits Current status questionNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *This could be easily done with ANY bot framework - - so where's the specific risk? Please clarify. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | *This could be easily done with ANY bot framework - - so where's the specific risk? Please clarify. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Current status question == | |||
| (cross-posted to bot approval page) With the RfA now pending, is ProtectionBot currently operating during the RfA period? I hope that it is, at least on an ongoing trial basis. ] 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:21, 7 January 2007
Someone please explain to me...
Why can't the source code be revealed? AWB would require much less modification to be an effective vandalbot, and its source is freely available to anyone who cares. -Amarkov edits 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, I have read it and it seems to be safe releasing the source. HighInBC 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If Dragons flight released the source, I would withdraw my opposition. My only significant beef is the needless secrecy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Dragons flight has stated (see comment under Oppose #1), "The code has been released to trusted members of the community for review, but it will not be made public. I feel the risk of people adapting certain functions to create powerful vandalbots is too great." Perhaps other users who have seen and reviewed the code can comment on this issue. This seems a plausible concern to me but an even bigger concern to me is that releasing the code would allow the vandals to try to reverse-engineer ways around it (compare WP:BEANS). Newyorkbrad 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no WP:BEANS here. This is nothing that couldn't be done with the freely and openly available pywikipedia framework. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, pywikipedia framwork, the perl wikimedia module, or just plain html scripting can get the same results. The functions this bot performs are not difficult to reproduce. What's more, the code would not be able to perform admin functions on a non-admin account anyways, so it is really just the recursive unprotected template/image finder. If the bot is functioning, then this list of unprotected pages will not be a threat. I read the source, I see no reason to keep it a secret, but I respect the authors right to do so. HighInBC 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Earlier today, I was thinking the same thing as you, HighinBC, but I've realised the potential issue with releasing the code. I'm going to break WP:BEANS here (on the understanding that the code won't be released), in order to enlighten everyone. The simple matter is that the bot code could be changed to automatically vandalise every unprotected page, perhaps before the bot would be able to protect, and cause the vandalised page to be protected. This is a very serious possibility, allowing vandals to easily impose mass vandalism (esp image vandalism). I anyone thinks that this comment is severely WP:BEANS, blank it. Martinp23 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- This could be easily done with ANY bot framework - including my own - so where's the specific risk? Please clarify. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Current status question
(cross-posted to bot approval page) With the RfA now pending, is ProtectionBot currently operating during the RfA period? I hope that it is, at least on an ongoing trial basis. Newyorkbrad 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)