This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 22 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:30, 22 April 2007 by David Gerard (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
 |
This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Misplaced Pages (also including other programs interacting with the mediawiki software). Although its target audience is bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.
This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. It is also not the place for general questions about the mediawiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.), which have generally a best chance of being answered at WP:VPT.
 Archives |
Ralbot's unmatched small tags
Recently when delivering the Signpost, Ralbot has been missing off the final <small> HTML tags, causing talk-page errors. Should this bot be blocked or not?? I'm not certain whether it should or not... --SunStar Net 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- No need for a block. Ral315 has been informed of the problem and it will be fixed for the next time that the bot delivers the signpost (hopefully). Until the bot is actually running with the error, a block is unwarranted. Martinp23 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I ran in to this, and found that it was already announced and that corrective measures would be in place. Blocking is not warranted at this time, but can be done if there are future malfunctions until they are repaired. — xaosflux 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- A recent software fix caused the malformed HTML to fail; otherwise, it would have been gracefully ignored. Will be fixed next week. Ral315 » 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great! —METS501 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- A recent software fix caused the malformed HTML to fail; otherwise, it would have been gracefully ignored. Will be fixed next week. Ral315 » 20:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Replace a whole page
Anyone happen to have a pywikipedia mod that replaces a whole page (as opposed to a regex edit)? If not, I'll almost certainly code this myself. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Once you generate the new pagetext for a page, you might use page.put(newtext, msg) to place it. Or do you need something else? Gimmetrow 04:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking something callable from a shell, like replace.py, that takes as input the page name and a file that has what I'd like the new contents to be (or, alternatively, the name of an external filter to run the existing content through to obtain the new content). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The first part is easy enough to code. If you have any knowledge of python you should be able to do it in five minutes, or I could if you wanted. Although, why exactly would it be faster for you to tell a program the name of a page and a file that you want posted to it instead of just copying the file into the page yourself normally? As for the second, what precisely do you mean? What kind of external filter are you talking about, and what would it do?--Dycedarg ж 09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have a number of scripts I currently run (see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Rick Bot), that produce page content that I have been yanking and putting into the page manually. I'm intending to make some of these fully automatic (cron jobs). I do most things in unix shell, so like curl (or wget) can fetch a page (to stdout) what I really want is a pywikipediabot command (probably putpage.py) to put a page (from stdin or a file). The surround from replace.py (show the diff, prompt if ok, various params) would be good to preserve as well, so this isn't just a 5 line wrapper around page.put. The external filter idea would be another way to accomplish the same thing. What it would do is set up the existing page content as the filter's stdin and capture the filter's stdout as the "new" page content. This would allow the content manipulation to be done by an arbitrary external program (like awk or sed or perl or ...), extending the pywikipediabot capabilities to any string manipulation language. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The first part is easy enough to code. If you have any knowledge of python you should be able to do it in five minutes, or I could if you wanted. Although, why exactly would it be faster for you to tell a program the name of a page and a file that you want posted to it instead of just copying the file into the page yourself normally? As for the second, what precisely do you mean? What kind of external filter are you talking about, and what would it do?--Dycedarg ж 09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking something callable from a shell, like replace.py, that takes as input the page name and a file that has what I'd like the new contents to be (or, alternatively, the name of an external filter to run the existing content through to obtain the new content). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have a modified version of replace.py that takes a new parameter (-content:filename) and replaces the content of a page with the content in the named file. I think doing this as a filter (per above) would actually be better (e.g. a new parameter like -filter:program), but this will suffice for now. If anyone wants my modified version or codes up a version invoking a filter, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Mass Link Replace
I've recently gotten a request that sorta scares me, so I wanted to get opinions from other bot owners. I should first say that I haven't gotten permission to run my bot in any namespace but "Talk", which this procedure would require — but assume for the moment that the bot has that permission.
The request is to change all wikilinks of WP:EA that currently point to the (inactive) Misplaced Pages:Esperanza so that the shortcut can be used by a new (active) Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance. It was followed up by a discussion at the Village Pump that yielded almost no comments.
A quick calculation showed a total of 47,000 pages that currently have links to WP:EA. At the moment I can't remember if that's just to WP:EA or also to Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. In any case, the sheer numbers make me nervous.
Any thoughts or comments? Thanks! -- SatyrBot 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As long as you have a flag and edit lass than 10 times/minute, everything should be fine. You should also make sure the bot stops if you or the bot get a post on their talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not without specific approval for the task first, please, as it's a potentially controversial one. --kingboyk 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I assume that that would have been a given, but you are right, I should have mentioned it. Cbrown1023 talk 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely - as I said, assume I've gone through the process to get that permission. And I will before doing anything different from talk page edits. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I assume that that would have been a given, but you are right, I should have mentioned it. Cbrown1023 talk 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not without specific approval for the task first, please, as it's a potentially controversial one. --kingboyk 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be the easier if the new project chose a redirect name that wasn't already in use on 47,000 pages! (notwithstanding the fact that Esperanza is no longer active). --kingboyk 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
- The project's direct page is different - it's the shortcut that currently points to the inactive project. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- (added) Sorry - I misread your comment. You're right, but you have to admit, "WP:EA" is easy and logically should point to something like "Editor assistance". But that's not my concern - that's up to the project :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:EA is without doubt a good redirect for them, but I'm not sure how the community would feel about the usurpation and resultant 47,000 edits (mostly because Editor Assistance is new). Maybe we should just wait a few short weeks and see how the new project does? If, as I hope, it's successful, I can't see there being too much objection to this task. Better to use the redirect for a project that helps editors in distress than for a glorified MySpace, right? :) --kingboyk 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- This should go through a specific bot task approval due to it's huge scale. — xaosflux 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the potential controversy involved in changing these redirects, I thought it best to seek consensus on the matter at WP:RfD - see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 16. At present it seems unlikely that a change will be supported so the above discussion may be moot. WjBscribe 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Prolonged absence of Bot owner
Hi, I seem to remember that Bot policy requires Bots to have an owner active on Misplaced Pages- how long does an owner have to be away for this to become an issue? Hagerman has now not edited since Feb 6. HagermanBot generates a lot of questions from people who don't understand how it functions. Also, a number of requests for possible improvements to the Bot's operation have gone unanswered over the last couple of months. It's a useful Bot and is functioning as expected but it is a concern that there is no one to address issues with it. Just wanted your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, WjBscribe 14:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- (note: the above was copied from my talk page) I've emailed the bot operator to get a status on them. Bots need to have respondant operators. — xaosflux 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, a bot user is active if it responds to the queries brought up by his bot. (However, Hagerman bot is a different case then...). Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- February 6 is long ago in wiki time. Unfortunately we may have to consider this bot operator-less. I say "unfortunately" because HagermanBot is immensely useful.
- Let's see if he responds to xaosflux's email; perhaps if the op isn't coming back soon he can allow a clone to operate? --kingboyk 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've received notice that this operator has NOT left the project, and will be responding to feedback soon, reported as being away for work. Thank you, — xaosflux 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I say let the bot run until there is an issue the requires the operator's attention. InBC 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cydebot Block
(moved from my talk — xaosflux 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
(Copied from User_talk:Cyde)
Your bot has been blocked
Your bot has been blocked as a malfunctioning bot. Your bot was editing in excess of 50 edits/min, in violation of the Bot policy. Bot accounts typically should run at up to 6 edits/min, unless performing tasks deemed "urgent", when a top rate of 15 edits/min has been approved. As blocks are not meant to be punitive and you are an administrator, please feel free to remove this block and resume bot edits once you have adjusted your bot's edit rate. You should also feel free to immediately remove any autoblocks or other collateral damage related blocks hit as a result of this block. If feel you must edit at this rate, please talk page me and we can bring this to a forum where more community input can be gathered. Thank you, — xaosflux 01:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Note from Mindspillage
Hey, I noticed you blocked Cydebot. So, my question is: why—what harm was it doing?
Yes, I've seen the guidelines. But what are they for?
The bot has about 45000 more edits to make this run. A massively large-scale renaming effort with almost no potential for misapplication seems to justify the high rate.
What reason is there to block it? It's already done about 40,000 without performing incorrectly (that many would surely have given people enough edits to go by to lodge complaints, if there were any to make), and it's not significantly affecting server resources. If anything, the higher speed seems like a good idea to make sure it will finish during Misplaced Pages's lower-traffic days where it won't affect load so much.
The renaming of the image license templates to reflect the renaming of the guideline pages is an issue very near and dear to my heart... or my spleen, or something... :-) and due to the large amount of time it will take to do, the lack of need for supervision, and the minimal effect on resources, I am strongly in favor of an unblock so it can continue. If this isn't something you are willing to do, I'd like to know why, and to get more input. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
- Mindspillage, I've got a few comments on this bot and my block:
- I am not inclined to unblock this account until the operator is available to discuss it.
- As to the block reason, it is editing in violation of the bot policy, as for the reasoning (besides OMG POLICY VIO!), it is because bots editing at extreme speeds make it harder for independant edit validation, and can cause flooding of logs.
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/templates is only ~5 days old, but alread has rules in place requiring naming standards. The bot's replacements, while not modifying the displyed content of the page, do not appear to have been put through the normal discusion used when replacing template instances (especially 85000 of them), on WP:TFD (at least not one where I can find it).
- I find isssue with this all together if there hasn't been wide spread agreement on this new style, but not to the point where I'd block the account. Nonetheless, as the end result on the page is nothing other then renaming the template, I don't even see this as an urgent need waranting the 15e/min rate (but also would not have blocked if it was limited to that).
- I've briefly looked through the prior bot approval's pages and can not find where Cydebot has been approved to process template replacements on the Image: namespace; (found one for the user: and userspace namespace), but as this bot has successfully processed countless CFD's and generally operates without much error I would not have blocked for that either.
- — xaosflux 03:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply to reply
100,000 edits isn't going to make a small footprint however you consider it. At such a scale, I simply don't see the point. No one is going to go through and independently verify those edits to any degree that makes the difference in speed matter. As for flooding logs, no one has complained of it as far as I can tell; it is bot flagged, of course, so stays off of recent changes.
The template name change was proposed about a month ago on the talk page of the Non-free content page (formerly called "fair use"), and no one has contested it; it's largely motivated by the rename of the image licensing pages to make the names consistent and adhere with the requirement that non-free content be easily machine-identifiable.
The gist is this: I don't see any substantive difference at this scale between 6 edits a minute and 50. If it edits at all, any difference in editing rate isn't going to have any effect that anyone will appreciate. While it'd be nice if Cyde were around, I don't think it makes a difference. If it actually malfunctions, sure, cut it off and go message him about it, but if not I just don't see the point. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- This bot is approved to make several other types of edits, are these being made simultaneously? Or are they being suspended during this run, if not they will be hard to monitor. This and other reasons are behind the limit on bot edit speeds. I've left a message for the others in the bot approvals group to leave more input here on this. — xaosflux 04:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cydebot was still doing its approved tasks, see . Now it kinda can't update the speedy deletion page which is unfortunate. :-\ --Iamunknown 05:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, and the contribs for which it is approved can be monitored by following that link (to answer your second question). --Iamunknown 05:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Additions to reply to reply
Kat pointed out that the template rename discussion started almost a month ago, so the 5 day comment is a bit off the mark.. but it should also be noted that this is a move not a deletion, so you wouldn't expect a discussion at TFD. The /template subpage is a working page to keep track of the actual rename project. As you can see from the edit history it's had quite a few direct participants. Based on the lack of material objections to the rather simple and uncontroversial edits being performed, I'm going to recommend that the bot be unblocked right away so that it can complete its current tasks before it runs into heavy traffic times during the week. --Gmaxwell 04:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see the longer history on that page now, was only led to the /template page though, as that is what was in the edit summary. — xaosflux 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose RFD would be more approriate. — xaosflux 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You mean RM? --Iamunknown 05:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except the redirects probably won't be deleted for a couple of months... not until people get used to the new templates. Until then we plan on having the bot go clean up all new use. --Gmaxwell 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I meant RfD, as that is the action that is basically going on, if these don't need to be deleted, then this has become a redirect replacement only, and again, what's the hurry? Redirects are cheap. — xaosflux 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wish you'd read more of the pre-existing discussions. The reason the pages need to actually be changed is that a primary driver for the change is machine readability of the license status from the wikitext of the image pages. Unless there is some indicator of the license status in the actual image page wikitext, someone working off the dumps or a database replica must operate a complete copy if the mediawiki parser, which is very slow, in order to have any hope of figuring out the license status of the images. The change addresses that issue, but not if the images are not changed. "Whats the hurry"?? This is a change that was discussed for a month... it's one that in addition to cleaning up a bunch of misconceptions, is needed to fulfill enwikipedia's obligation under the foundation licensing guidelines. --Gmaxwell 05:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just wondering... why was such a large task not proposed at WP:BRFA? —— Eagle101 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. — xaosflux 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, because the bot approval group has no oversight over image licensing procedures on english wikipedia, at least I can see no reason why it should or why I would have expected it to. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell 05:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed we don't, which is why the task would get approved whether or not I or other BAG members personally agree with changing, say, the album cover template (I don't). Provided there is commmunity consensus - or at least little likelihood of complaints - we approve; this would be easy to approve then because consensus is clear and it's Foundation policy too. Where we do have jurisdiction (see above for current ArbCom case where this seems to be in the process of being confirmed) is over bot activity. I daresay this task can be given a special waiver, but (as below) it has to be applied for first. Nobody except perhaps Jimbo has carte blanche to operate a bot at such high speeds without getting it approved first. --kingboyk 12:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, because the bot approval group has no oversight over image licensing procedures on english wikipedia, at least I can see no reason why it should or why I would have expected it to. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell 05:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. — xaosflux 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I meant RfD, as that is the action that is basically going on, if these don't need to be deleted, then this has become a redirect replacement only, and again, what's the hurry? Redirects are cheap. — xaosflux 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment
So, basically, y'all have blocked Cydebot from doing obviously valuable and necessary work simply because someone didn't file Form 27-BXT? Can we please stop wasting time filing TPS Reports and get back to writing an encyclopedia? Kelly Martin (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, it was blocked due to fast editing rate. See WP:BOT. —— Eagle101 05:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is a demand for a shrubbery. Please get out of the way of getting real work done and unblock the bot already. If the devs have a problem with the edit rate, I'm sure they'll let us know. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then I suggest that you make that recommendation to WT:BOT. I believe the edit rate is there for good reason... what would happen if the bot went nuts and did 1000 screwups before someone could grab an admin. If we trust bots not to screw up, and want them to go at faster rates, then bring it up on the bot policy page. —— Eagle101 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't know what the reason for the edit rate guidelines, I suggest you refrain from enforcing (or even arguing) them. This bot has already made thousands of edits on this task without error; expecting it to suddenly start doing so is slightly paranoid. Again, I believe that you are demanding a shrubbery. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I may be, I don't know, lets see how this whole bit plays out :) —— Eagle101 06:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You'd best ask your friends at ArbCom. BAG approval is needed, not to satisfy our "thirst for power" (do you think I actually enjoy this mundane task?!) but because it's technically necessary. --kingboyk 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't know what the reason for the edit rate guidelines, I suggest you refrain from enforcing (or even arguing) them. This bot has already made thousands of edits on this task without error; expecting it to suddenly start doing so is slightly paranoid. Again, I believe that you are demanding a shrubbery. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then I suggest that you make that recommendation to WT:BOT. I believe the edit rate is there for good reason... what would happen if the bot went nuts and did 1000 screwups before someone could grab an admin. If we trust bots not to screw up, and want them to go at faster rates, then bring it up on the bot policy page. —— Eagle101 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. This is a demand for a shrubbery. Please get out of the way of getting real work done and unblock the bot already. If the devs have a problem with the edit rate, I'm sure they'll let us know. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Point that bothers me
What bothers me about this, I suppose, is something that bothers me about discussing admin action in general that is often overlooked: lack of admin action is an admin action, too. How many admins saw the bot working or knew what it was going to do and thought "oh, there goes cydebot" and let it be? That's a decision, too. It made thousands of edits on this run already; there must have been at least a few who did. Those who don't act don't have to register their opinion or provide rationales for not acting, of course, which makes it hard to say if others care or not, and I don't want to undo someone's block in non-urgent circumstances without clearly showing that sentiment swings the other way. But I know of several admins who don't object, and currently of only xaosflux who does.
I don't, in general, follow bot goings-on; I'm paying attention to this one only because I care about the template renaming. What I see as someone not deeply involved in it is that something was happening that was outside the guidelines, but wasn't doing anything substantively rather than procedurally objectionable, and the reasons I've seen that the guidelines actually exist for don't seem to be a factor, as they either don't make a difference on this scale or, like the contributions by namespace filtering, aren't an issue.. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the block was made due to a violation of bot policy (fast edit rate, max is 15 edits per minute, it was going at 50). —— Eagle101 05:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eagle 101, I approved it editing at a rate of one operation interval sleep per operation or 1 edit per second, whichever is slower. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Errr... where did you approve it editing that fast? Generally bots don't edit that fast to prevent too much damage should something error out.... Then again I'm not a member of bag. —— Eagle101 05:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you run the bot at 15 edits per minute the task will complete in about 90 hours, which can be done easily if you host it on toolserv. Or you can just leave your computer on. —— Eagle101 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um. This batch. By the end of the transition every non-free image on enwiki will be be touched. Also add time lags from pipeline bubbles in the decisions to keep or get rid of templates that have to happen before the bot can run, and such.. and you're taking about making the process take months for no particular reason. It was my understanding that Cyde intended to run at higher speeds during low traffic times. The fact that this is unproblematic is demonstrated by the fact that it ran for many hours without incident, and also made similar edits at low speeds all week last week without trouble.
- Cyde asked me via email what would be as safe rate to conduct this rather large set of edits from a server load perspective. As far as it 'going nuts' goes, with it simply doing a 1:1 template name replacement there is pretty much no risk of that, and with some 40k edits already made it's not likely to do any harm at this point. --Gmaxwell 06:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Last I checked, bot operations were approved as a result of a bot approval request, how did this approval process run? — xaosflux 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Additionaly, it appears the operator has set this to run even faster then that delay . — xaosflux 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- No it wasn't, it's running with a higher interval.. above.. i.e. slower. :) --Gmaxwell 06:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Additionaly, it appears the operator has set this to run even faster then that delay . — xaosflux 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what it says, but that doesn't address my comment. I know it did not follow the letter of procedure, but what I want to know is how it was actually causing harm, and if anyone who saw it edit has objected to any of the edits it was making or thought its going slower would be a substantive improvement. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eagle 101, I approved it editing at a rate of one operation interval sleep per operation or 1 edit per second, whichever is slower. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note, This thread is getting in to many issues that may be easily resolved once the operator is available, is there an assertion of immediate urgency on why this can't wait? — xaosflux 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please let me know where to send the shrubbery. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Gmaxwell how many images was this task going to hit? —— Eagle101 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Most recent estimate I heard was that there were around 400,000 non-free images on enwiki... but that sounds a bit off to me but they are hard to count because our current tagging isn't very machine readable (I can't just query the database to find out). It's in that general ballpark. Cyde won't be editing them all right now, because some templates are up for deletion rather than being renamed. Only the ones that people are sure aren't changing are being renamed now.--Gmaxwell 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I did not know, in any case, when Cyde gets on he can explain why he did not do a simple WP:BRFA, and went past what our current policy says is the fastest you can go. I'm sure its all just a mistake :). Unblocking the bot now probably won't do anything as it likely has errored out. —— Eagle101 06:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- At this point I'm tempted to put the BAG pages up for deletion, I do not believe that the community would approve of this sort of disruption of actions which are harmless and uncontested. Nor do I think the community would approve of the makeup of the bag or the methods for their selection. There is no technical or editoral reason for this disruption. And as far as I can tell at this point the BAG is simply obstructing valid activity in order to make a point about their authority to do so. If that is the case, it is reasoning made in error: no users group has the authority to disrupt valid edits just to show off their power to do so. --Gmaxwell 06:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a bit much, considering I was in bed asleep at the time! You might want to see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed_decision#Automated_editing too. --kingboyk 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was the actions of one admin, I don't think he minds if it is unblocked, and was probably expecting cyde to be around. I really don't know much more then that. All I've been doing is explaining why he probably did what he did. Perhaps this was a case of WP:IAR, on the part of Cyde? I mean the block is valid per WP:BOT, but it might have been a case where WP:BOT should be ignored. —— Eagle101 06:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a random member of the Community passing through, I'd like to point out that as I see it the reason we have BAG is that most of us do not understand BOT policy (or more precisely the rationale behind it) and so defer to those who do. Unless someone can show that BAG has completely lost the plot I suspect it would survive MfD. In any event, as only one BAG member has commented in this thread it seems a little premature to draw sweeping conclusions. WjBscribe 07:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I find myself with little option but to agree with you, Greg. There was no reason for Xaosflux to believe that Cydebot's edits were harmful; there is no reason for him to insist on waiting to "speak to the operator" before unblocking either. As far as I can tell, the reason for this block is nothing more than "I was not consulted and I have granted myself the right to be consulted". This is, quite simply, disruption of important and legitimate efforts to improve the encyclopedia, for the sole reason of protecting personal power. As such, it is totally unacceptable. If this is reflective of the normal behavior of the bot approval group, then the bot approval group needs to be either restructured or disbanded. I am reasonably certain that has never been any demonstrated community consensus for the bot approval group's rules, procedures, or authority. I am also reasonably certain that many of the bot approval group's policies are arbitrary and have no technical or editorial merit, but exist merely to exist. The edit rate rule is quite certainly one of these arbitrary policies. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Technical problems introduced by bots editing at extreme paces go beyond the processing power of the database and caching servers. Linus's Law teaches us that given enough watchers, all problems will be uncovered. Unfortuantley we do not have an infinite supply of watchers. When a multi-purpose bot goes off to make thousands and thousands of edits in a short time, it makes it even harder for the watchers to determine if it's other purposes are having issues. It also makes it hard to detect other problems (e.g. Recent Image Changes (warning large link) now is only availble for the last 7 hours of edits. Running at full speed (as listed above) would make this log max out at 83 mins.) While some options (i.e. hide bots in the RC log) are in place to help alleviate this, they have limits (i.e. you have to hide ALL bots). My block is not "just because I can" but becuase I have good faith concerns over this operation, and at the LEAST feel that further community input is warranted. — xaosflux 07:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, I would have blocked this bot for editing at this speed even had I not been in the approvals group. — xaosflux 07:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, so we looked at it, it's fine, lets move on. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Technical problems introduced by bots editing at extreme paces go beyond the processing power of the database and caching servers. Linus's Law teaches us that given enough watchers, all problems will be uncovered. Unfortuantley we do not have an infinite supply of watchers. When a multi-purpose bot goes off to make thousands and thousands of edits in a short time, it makes it even harder for the watchers to determine if it's other purposes are having issues. It also makes it hard to detect other problems (e.g. Recent Image Changes (warning large link) now is only availble for the last 7 hours of edits. Running at full speed (as listed above) would make this log max out at 83 mins.) While some options (i.e. hide bots in the RC log) are in place to help alleviate this, they have limits (i.e. you have to hide ALL bots). My block is not "just because I can" but becuase I have good faith concerns over this operation, and at the LEAST feel that further community input is warranted. — xaosflux 07:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- At this point I'm tempted to put the BAG pages up for deletion, I do not believe that the community would approve of this sort of disruption of actions which are harmless and uncontested. Nor do I think the community would approve of the makeup of the bag or the methods for their selection. There is no technical or editoral reason for this disruption. And as far as I can tell at this point the BAG is simply obstructing valid activity in order to make a point about their authority to do so. If that is the case, it is reasoning made in error: no users group has the authority to disrupt valid edits just to show off their power to do so. --Gmaxwell 06:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I did not know, in any case, when Cyde gets on he can explain why he did not do a simple WP:BRFA, and went past what our current policy says is the fastest you can go. I'm sure its all just a mistake :). Unblocking the bot now probably won't do anything as it likely has errored out. —— Eagle101 06:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- While you all get hot under the collar about your precious free image crusade, what exactly is wrong with {{albumcover}} anyway? Why waste server resources renaming it, when 99.999% of album covers are copyright?! --kingboyk 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting to be informed why moving {{albumcover}} to {{Non-free album cover}} is worth the server resources. The bast majority of album covers aren't freely licenced. Why not leave albumcover as is and just create a new {{Free album cover}} template? Are people not capable of reading the blurb on the template or what?! Is this a prelude to removing all album covers from Misplaced Pages? --kingboyk 15:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- It allows third part users to remove non free images simply by killing anything with a template starting with "Non-free" on it.Geni 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks. --kingboyk 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- It allows third part users to remove non free images simply by killing anything with a template starting with "Non-free" on it.Geni 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Another bot for now?
While we're waiting for word from Cyde, would it be alright to have another bot work on the template renaming (at a much slower pace, of course)? -- Ned Scott 07:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is there another Bot flagged to do this sort of work? WjBscribe 07:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- This debate has brought up many things! I won't personally enforce any blocks on bots performing this task at the approved rate while this debate is ongoing, but others may if the proposed bot is not approved for the task. FWIW, new bot approval requests are handled at WP:RFBOT. — xaosflux 07:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is such a minor housekeeping task, though.. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the request to be approved should go by quickly, and a case for going faster then what WP:BOT allows can be made. Anyway hopefully this will get sorted out by the time I wake up. ;) —— Eagle101 07:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hypothetically if Xaosflux speedy approved the replacement Bot there is a crat around who might be willing to flag it. But per Xaosflux's question above- where's the urgency if its just "minor housekeeping" that this Bot would do? WjBscribe 07:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I won't block it unless it's racing. I would not be inclided to speedy approve this task, but to maintain neutrality while this debate is in progress I wouldn't deny it either. Other bot approvers are availble though. — xaosflux 07:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hypothetically if Xaosflux speedy approved the replacement Bot there is a crat around who might be willing to flag it. But per Xaosflux's question above- where's the urgency if its just "minor housekeeping" that this Bot would do? WjBscribe 07:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the request to be approved should go by quickly, and a case for going faster then what WP:BOT allows can be made. Anyway hopefully this will get sorted out by the time I wake up. ;) —— Eagle101 07:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is such a minor housekeeping task, though.. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- This debate has brought up many things! I won't personally enforce any blocks on bots performing this task at the approved rate while this debate is ongoing, but others may if the proposed bot is not approved for the task. FWIW, new bot approval requests are handled at WP:RFBOT. — xaosflux 07:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
MartinBotIII is approved for "template substing and renaming per consensus" (or, it should be :)), so if it's urgent, and the bot is needed, I can have it complete the task at an edit rate of 9-10/min by Tuesday/Wednesday (guess). However, it would probably be better to wait for Cyde to get back and finish the job for himself. As for the 50epm rate - I find it surprising that a bot can possibly fetch the wikitext of a page, and put the new wikitext, at such a rate (though this is probably the fault of my internet connection). The bot was editing in deifance of policy, both on the maxed out edit rate and the lack of approval, both of which could be valid reasons for a block. However, it seems that the task was simple (and the operator experienced), and not something that one would expect any admin to block for (BAG or not is irrelevant - any admin has the power to block bots). This does not excuse the edit rate, which should have been specifically requested if required, but again it is at the discretion of the particular admin whether to block or not. For 40000 pages, an edit rate of just 8/9 per minute will get them done in a couple of days (MartinBotIII is doing such a lengthy task now) - the concern that it would take months is nonsense :) Martinp23 09:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You missed a zero. It was 400,000 pages, which I had at 18 days at 15 e/m. I agree that 50 e/m should have been specifically requested, but at any rate, I had an idea that might fix some of the shrubbery concerns. Now, it's getting late where I am and I reserve the right to change my mind in the morning, but it's posted at Misplaced Pages Talk:Bot policy. --Selket 10:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops - sorry. I read 40k a few times above, and it stuck :) Martinp23 10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as for the speed, I do have a server on a nice campus network. I actually could go a lot faster than one edit per second ... but the devs assured me that wouldn't be such a good idea :-P Cyde Weys 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Heh. /me is jealous. --kingboyk 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse block
I endorse the block. Nobody - except perhaps Jimbo Wales - is excluded from the bot rules. If Cydebot were running at a little over 15ppm, I would personally have turned a blind eye. 50ppm is, however, over 3 times the limit.
I didn't impose the limit; I don't know who did and on what basis. What I do know is that however noble the task, folks can't go and unilaterally decide to ignore it. By all means let's have a discussion and quite possibly agree that Cydebot can go faster for this task; for now I endorse the block. --kingboyk 11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with kingboyk, whilst this task might be fine to run at a higher speed it should be discussed before it is allowed to continue doing so. Adambro 11:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good block; non-urgent task that doesn't need to be run faster than the agreed-on rate. I see no reason to break the rule for this specific case, and a change of the general rule (for which there are good non-technical reasons) should be discussed beforehand. Kusma (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You people are being completely pompous idiots. The only reason for the rate limit is to protect the wiki. A developer - that is, someone competent to decide - has approved it. You can "endorse" the block all you like, but you are in fact not competent to decide. Stop acting like you know more about the systems than the people who run them - David Gerard 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's a personal attack. Please retract it. --kingboyk 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, that is out of line. If you cannot make your point without name calling, then perhaps you need to think longer before posting. InBC 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me. You are acting like completely pompous idiots in this instance. The rest is simple factual statements - David Gerard 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm back
Okay, I'm back. What is needed of me now? As far as I can tell, I did everything correctly. If anything, I am only guilty of going over the BAG's heads and asking the CRO and devs directly about what kind of editing rate I should use. I'm sorry I didn't notify — I didn't realize it would somehow be a problem — but now that everyone knows, I think Cydebot should get back on its task. There is a lot more work to do and this is a change that is definitely wanted by the Foundation. --Cyde Weys 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. Best submit a task approval request I suppose; approval should be a formality if the Foundation want this done. As for the edit rate, we've not had a case like this before. If you have some "official" sanction perhaps provide details of that and we can rubber stamp it? BAG don't proclaim to have authority over the Foundation or the devs :), it's just as per above these things need to be cleared on wiki first otherwise other folks will think "Cyde can do it, my task is just as important, I'm going at an edit a second too").
- In the meantime, I'll unblock your bot (if it's not been done already). --kingboyk 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've unblocked. Off the record etc etc, if I were you I'd carry on but keeping the edit rate down for now. --kingboyk 14:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that this bot is still racing. Currently running at an average speed of: 20e/min on this task alone, and an aggregate rate of 25e/min as it appears to be running multipe task threads. As this isn't to the extreme that it was at before I'm not going to wheel war over the block, but really would like to know why it needs to run at 166% of the maximum approved rate. — xaosflux 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I said on my user talk page, I unblocked it because Cyde was back (which is normal procedure for bot blocks unless they're totally rogue), and unofficially recommended he carried on at 15ppm max, pending a proper bot task application. If you reblock because it's racing that's fine by me (and presumably by the other editors who agreed with my endorsement of the original block). No wheel warring is necessary or implied if you reblock due to changed circumstances :) --kingboyk 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that this bot is still racing. Currently running at an average speed of: 20e/min on this task alone, and an aggregate rate of 25e/min as it appears to be running multipe task threads. As this isn't to the extreme that it was at before I'm not going to wheel war over the block, but really would like to know why it needs to run at 166% of the maximum approved rate. — xaosflux 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've unblocked. Off the record etc etc, if I were you I'd carry on but keeping the edit rate down for now. --kingboyk 14:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(moved from my talk — xaosflux 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
- Lets be clear, I think bot policy is important and needed. But what we do not need are meat-bots enforcing the bot policy. If the BAG is going to disrupt harmless activities because they run at 50e/min vs 15e/min, without any clear technical or editorial reason beyond "we said not to" then I think it doesn't deserve to exist and it should be replaced with something more competent and less dysfunctional. And there really is no technical reason the editing can't run at that rate.... Most tasks shouldn't run at that rate for editorial reasons and sometimes technical ones, but most tasks will not need to touch anywhere near this number of pages. Most tasks are also not making an utterly trivial change to image pages which is almost impossible to do incorrectly. --Gmaxwell 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- See my response on:WP:BOWN (ultra short summary: Technical issue:log flooding; blocking I would have blocked this even if I wasn't on WP:BAG for the same reason). — xaosflux 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- What log flooding? It is bot-flagged. And why would you think that something showing up as a continuous drone for a week is better than it showing up more frequently for a day? So if I push a temporary change to mediawiki to suppress the creation of RC entries in the image namespace for cydebot, you will have no more objections? --Gmaxwell 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would be one of the logs, another would be anyone trying to review the contributions of this bot during it's run's through Special:Contributions, as this bot does work on things other than this task. If this would have been brought to bot review I would have suggested that it run under a unique account for this special task, especially if it will be running at abnormal rates. Note, that these concerns are purley from the technical nautre, but the actual reasoning for the edits appears to be getting questioned by other above (I really don't care myself which template is used). — xaosflux 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding special:contributions, even 15e/min will quickly scroll them off unless you're looking by namespace. Once you look by namespace there is no issue.
- "actual reasoning for the edits appears to be getting questioned by other above", difflink?
- I think it's also interesting to note that relative to the overall editing rate rambot's runs were at a much greater speed than cydebot's edits here. I can't help but see Xaosflus's complaints as nothing more than a pointless power game.
- Since I have already approved the higher rate the argument is moot. --Gmaxwell 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered the simple question of what position gives you the authority to approve of it. I'm not meaning to be disrespectful, and am probably showing my ignorance in even asking, but if you're approving as a dev or a board member or whatever please just say so :) --kingboyk 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- A process to approve bots exists not only to ensure that they comply to technical specifications, but to ensure they are performing tasks that the community wants / needs. An important aspect of that is documenting the task so that anyone can understand it upon later review. That is why the bot approval process is done on-wiki, in the open, with a community discussion period. I am infering (perhaps wrongly) from your reply that you are declaring yourself to be an absolute authority when it comes to approving this, where has the community vested you with this role? As this is getting heated, I am going to go have a nice cup of tea and revist this later. — xaosflux 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would be one of the logs, another would be anyone trying to review the contributions of this bot during it's run's through Special:Contributions, as this bot does work on things other than this task. If this would have been brought to bot review I would have suggested that it run under a unique account for this special task, especially if it will be running at abnormal rates. Note, that these concerns are purley from the technical nautre, but the actual reasoning for the edits appears to be getting questioned by other above (I really don't care myself which template is used). — xaosflux 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- What log flooding? It is bot-flagged. And why would you think that something showing up as a continuous drone for a week is better than it showing up more frequently for a day? So if I push a temporary change to mediawiki to suppress the creation of RC entries in the image namespace for cydebot, you will have no more objections? --Gmaxwell 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- See my response on:WP:BOWN (ultra short summary: Technical issue:log flooding; blocking I would have blocked this even if I wasn't on WP:BAG for the same reason). — xaosflux 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lets be clear, I think bot policy is important and needed. But what we do not need are meat-bots enforcing the bot policy. If the BAG is going to disrupt harmless activities because they run at 50e/min vs 15e/min, without any clear technical or editorial reason beyond "we said not to" then I think it doesn't deserve to exist and it should be replaced with something more competent and less dysfunctional. And there really is no technical reason the editing can't run at that rate.... Most tasks shouldn't run at that rate for editorial reasons and sometimes technical ones, but most tasks will not need to touch anywhere near this number of pages. Most tasks are also not making an utterly trivial change to image pages which is almost impossible to do incorrectly. --Gmaxwell 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be empire-building, rather than protecting the wiki. Stop assuming competence of areas you are not competent to decide upon, especially when directly contradicted by a developer, who is competetent to decide upon said area - David Gerard 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The edits per minute rule was never subject to the devs opinion, while it's clearly a techcnical matter. If the developers are saying that there's no harm in going over 15 epm, then the rule becomes automatically arbitrary without any strong argument other than the BAG feud wanting it to be. -- drini 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- And yes kingkboy, greg's is a dev. -- drini 20:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where on gmaxwell's user page does it say that he is a dev? Why have I had to ask several times in what capacity he approved it, before getting an answer? (and then get shot down in flames for asking). I can't be expected to know everybody and I've politely asked more than once. The real answer, of course, is that I'm not a member of the IRC cartel, no doubt this is playing out in that arena right now.
- As for empire building, I can disprove that notion by resigning from the group, which I am happy to do right now. --kingboyk 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think this fuss might have been avoided had there been a note on Cydebot to the effect: "Approved by dev:whoever to run at 50edits/min for task whatever". This would have at least explained the situation to anyone questioning the unusual edit rate. Is that empire building or common-sense public notice? Gimmetrow 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)