Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA

message: 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)
replies: text: ... nor is it a mudslinging match. — Werdna talk criticism 10:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...it is, however, a forum in which we are positively encouraged to comment on each others comments. I'm sure you'd be among the first to order "discussion not !vote". -Splash - tk 10:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, discussion is better than voting. — Werdna talk criticism 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-comments

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Is this a bot in search of a function? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You fail to realise Tawker lives in Canada. Thanksgiving in Canada is on Monday. WP:AGF. – Chacor 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Outside any serious evidence, I tend to DISAGREE that that account has been compromised.  If you really think it has, please build the case for it at WP:AN/I, not on various discussion pages. — xaosflux Talk 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered assuming that the account would be hijacked before Tawker would ever do what he did was assuming good faith.  Although by the vote in the Wikitruth's 2nd AFD, it appears that it's not been hijacked so that's not an issue anymore.  Anomo 11:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I warn against admining the bot right away 

message: 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)
replies: text: Technically, in determining consensus, the arguments themselves carry more weight than "votes". - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness, and there we all were forgetting that. ALoan's question is sensible, however: Werdna indicates that Jimbo (or "Jimmy") has said this bot might be ok (no idea what he actually said, of course) so this would be a similar excuse to the Carnildo debacle for varying the normal operating of RfA at the last moment. Given that such variation changes the rationale of the participants it'd be nice to know well in advance if this is going to happen. Without wishing to repeat all the arguments from the Carnildo case, is is worth pointing out that the ArbCom has found (or is soon going to) that that RfA lacked consensus, so some clarity in advance in this case is warranted. -Splash - tk 14:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not the current 75%-80% procedure for promoting is a sensible one (I myself like it), I think anybody would be having a hard case arguing that 4 out of 10 people opposing your nomination means that there is community consensus. That even when considering as suggested above that "arguments carry more than weight than votes" (this last statment is by itself problematic). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that the arguments put forward by (half of) the opposers are intelligent and significant enough to prevent the bot from operating right away. However, if we're given the sysop flag, we can hammer out the other details with the rest of the BAG. The rest of the arguments are, frankly, paranoia about bots with the sysop bit. None of them actually include any reason why bots should not have the bit. — Werdna talk criticism 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is backwards. You should hammer out the details with the BAG and then seek sysopping. There are many reasons given for why the bot should not have the bit; although it's easy to consider that they are not reasons when one finds them to be counter to what one would prefer. -Splash - tk 16:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, this is the first time the BAG has ever disagreed (at least to this extent) on a bot.  BAG IMHO is more so about ensuring that the bot isn't going to bring WP to it's knees than should adminbots exist.  As for consensus on this, I have no freaking clue.  I do think I agree w/ David Gerard that some of the oppose votes simply don't make sense here, but I'd say at least half of the opposes are very sound and if I were not the creator of this bot might convince me to sway my vote.  So, I'll leave it to our fine 'crats to figure this one out as I don't have a stinking clue -- Tawker 06:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of those oppose votes really are mindbogglingly stupid. Is a bureaucrat expected to count not-a-votes from people who clearly haven't a goddamn clue what they're talking about or, in a few cases, literally don't make any sense? - David Gerard 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Gerard, I say yes and no to your question. No, obviously they should not consider poor reasoning. Yes, they need to address the underlying misgivings that give rise to the misguided concerns. I've come to realize that RFA, one of the few set rituals on Wikipedia, functions as a mechanism to reinforce established community norms. When the misgivings are not addressed splits in the community thinking occurs. Smart discussion during RFA that address the poorly thought out reasons is the best way to go, I think. FloNight 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A good number of the support !votes are also based on reasoning that has, time and again, been pointed as flawed (principally that the bot can a)be stopped, b)'recalled', c)prevented from acquiring new functionality without a return to RfA etc ). -Splash - tk 16:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, a lot of people do a support cliché vote, however I am one of those who believe that people opposing a candidate should prove their point with a good argument, as Wikipedia is mainly driven through the good faith concept. Thus, personally (and note that I am a common with no administrative tasks), I expect the closing 'crat to pick the opposing comments, dismiss those that are not applicable ("Oppose per precedents: The Terminator, The Matrix, Appleseed, etc", to give a fictional example), and weight the opinions left against all the supporting votes, considering there are no sockpuppeting, nor vote harvesting. -- ReyBrujo 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, that isn't even a fictional example. — Werdna talk criticism 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  And a good number of support votes have no explanation whatsoever or are cliches. There is no reason to expect that those votes are more informed than the oppose votes. I happen to believe that the bot would be a good idea, and any bureaucrat can remove its sysop bit at any time if need be (without any hurt feelings on bot's side, obviously :) However, picking and choosing which votes are "valid" is extremely biased and should not be allowed. For good or bad, the community has spoken and that decision needs to be followed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a Steward would be required, however I've written an extension to MediaWiki that would allow bureaucrats to do so. — Werdna talk criticism 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So a bureaucrat can give, but they can't take away? - jc37 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It's both a policy and a technical issue, on smaller wikis, particularlly non-english ones, a rogue 'crat could remove everyone's sysop bit. On larger ones, the process of desysopping is harder, and is quasi-judicial rather than political, and rarely performed, so the need for a 'crat to desysop anyone is rare. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On one hand, I would think that a "rogue" would be undone by any other bureaucrat, but since removal is rare, I can see why it could be seen as not useful. - jc37 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus for TawkerbotTorA 

message: 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)
replies: text: With all due respect, your message pretty much gave me (and a lot of other people) the impression that you were talking about a human (your original vote really really looked like a substed in template "Checked the User's contributions and found that user TawkerbotTorA falls way short of my criteria for supporting. I encourage user TawkerbotTorA to not get discouraged- many Rfa's fail the first time around. Will support after several months of good editing and interaction with other users" - all I was asking if you cared to clarify because I thought you were confused about it being a bot and that this is going to be a very very big.  Indeed your original response to my message "A nomination called TawkerbotTorA not Tawker" led me to believe that that vote was made in mistake and hence I asked you if you wanted it stricken as I believed IGF that you were confused about the entire RfA. However, I'm not going to waste diskspace any more.... half of these votes are about technical issues, if they are addressed, it's important to note as such. As for the way you feel it wasn't my intention, I didn't care if you opposed I just wanted to make sure your !vote wasn't discounted. -- Tawker 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Tawker "tawks" down to people notwithstanding, I find that he seems to think he is above the rules and norms (as evidenced by the allegation above which he did not address- the "billboard" at the top of the nomination) to be even more reason why I should oppose the nomination of "TawkerBotTorA." Jcam 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because many of the votes are about technical issues does not make them invalid. If there are technical issues, then you can re-apply if and when they are sorted out. When a human RFA candidate has civility problems (just to take a common example) they aren't told 'ah well, we'll sysop you anyway, civility problems are easy to fix'. Why should bots get off any more lightly than ordinary RFAs? Cynical 08:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The technical details will be fleshed out with the bot approvals group, in full consultation with all of the bot approvals group, if and when this RfA succeeds. — Werdna talk criticism 10:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this RfA be closed by now - it's 12 hours over by my reckoning? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about this Rfa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Closing