Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MDP23 (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 7 January 2007 (→Someone please explain to me...: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 or perlwikipedia - so where's the specific risk? Please clarify. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We get it. The point is that we want to make it as hard as possible for people to do that. Would you like Tawker to release the source for AVB too? That would be incredibly stupid too. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Peter, I'm sure that perlwikipedia doesn't allow you to find all unprotected pages/files linked from one, does it? Martinp23 20:41, 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)

A member of the BAG ended the trial after one day and instructed DF to shut down the bot here, and DF did as he requested, so no, it's not running. —bbatsell ¿? 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest continued trial operation during RfA period

If Dragons flight is willing I would like to see this bot continue operating on a trial basis during the RfA period, both so we have the benefit of its services during the next week and so that in the unlikely event of an issue arising the RfA !voters could consider it. Comments? Newyorkbrad 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)