| Revision as of 18:19, 14 October 2006 editTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 edits By which policy would this block be justified? User:Bluemoose policy? ~~~~← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:54, 1 July 2022 edit undoWbm1058 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators265,675 editsm removing over-categorization (via WP:JWB) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] {{Redirect category shell| |
|
==Requests for registration== |
|
|
|
{{R to project namespace}} |
|
<big>'''Please read the quick ] on the main page before requesting permission. In applying for AWB access, you indicate that you will abide by that agreement. Thank you.'''</big> |
|
|
|
{{R with old history}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
===Names=== |
|
|
Please add your name to the '''bottom''' of the list.<br> |
|
|
Example of code format: <small><nowiki>* {{AWBUser|Username}}</nowiki></small> |
|
|
* {{AWBUser|NovaSTL}} (note: This is a secondary account for AWB usage) |
|
|
:May I ask what is your main account? --] <sup>(])</sup> 05:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Email on its way. :) --] 06:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please use your primary account to email me. Also you may want to put a link in your secondary account's userpage to your primary account's userpage so that other users know it is a secondary account. --] <sup>(])</sup> 13:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{AWBUser|Patstuart}} |
|
|
* {{AWBUser|Caknuck}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion== |
|
|
=== Page format === |
|
|
Just an idea - it might be better to change users into <nowiki>* ]</nowiki> format -- this way you can use to get all the users without parsing wiki markup (which can be anything after this), and also have proper links on that page to instantly go to user's pages. You can format the page, make boxes, tables, etc - no need to rewrite a line of code. --] 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Duplicated user=== |
|
|
I just discovered that ] has a duplicated entry in the user list. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I see... an I don't know why... What I would really appreciate is my inclusion on the bot list, because I'm classifying hundreds of pages in ] in a series of processes approved by the Catalan community, using AWB :-) --] 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Currently the only way to get on the bot list is to get ] here, I am not sure how bots in other projects to can on this list. Btw, "" is not a valid reason to get on that list by any means, you have to operate a bot and perform only the approved tasks for the bot while in auto mode. --] <sup>(])</sup> 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi :-) I'm using only AWB in the Catalan wiki, and I'm using this method to login; |
|
|
#After run AWB I connect to the english Wiki using my english[REDACTED] user ] |
|
|
#Then I change the language settings in AWB to use the catalan wiki. But not using my catalan[REDACTED] user ] (sysop user, but no bot)... I'm logged in the catalan wiki with my bot user ] (approved here; ], a user that doesn't exists on the english wikipedia) |
|
|
#Using this thecnique I'm using firefox for my admin work in the catalan wiki ] and Internet Explorer/AWB for my bot work in catalan wiki ], doing different tasks assigned to bots from ]. |
|
|
#For this reasons I'm requesting to include my user "Joanjoc" on the AWB enabled bots list (although is not a bot), then I could use AWB with auto mode enabled from my bot "JoanjocBot" only on the catalan wiki... |
|
|
Sorry for my poor english... --] 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Jpbrenna - duplicate. ] ] 10:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Bot=== |
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, Can someone add my bot to the approved bots? My bot will be running with AWB. Thanks. <font color="blue">]</font> ]/] 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:approved. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== user2 -> user5 === |
|
|
|
|
|
I am proposing to use user5 template instead of user2 so that other aspects of the user (e.g. block log) can also be considered. --] <sup>(])</sup> 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. I don't see any reason not to do it, so I'll just incorporate it in the example. Feel free to change it back if you disagree. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== user6 instead === |
|
|
Since user6 has elements from both user2 and user5, I'm proposing that user6 be implements in place of user2 or user5. ] 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sure, why not, but what would be cool is one that has a link to the users last 500 mainspace contribs. ] 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===bot for non bot?=== |
|
|
I've been doing stuff at ] with AWB, and since the category moving is rather repetitive, could I have the automatic mode enabled? I could go through the list before starting to make sure I'm not editing anything I don't want to, like archives or the CFD page, and would be there supervising it. It would only be used in cases such as substed userboxes or large amounts or pages in a category. ]<small>]</small> 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You've gotta go through ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Elissonbot === |
|
|
|
|
|
My bot {{user|Elissonbot}} got approved today, but was placed in the users section. Can someone please move it to the Bots section? – <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ok, done. ] 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thanks! – <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 19:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Enabled Users section intro=== |
|
|
I really don't like the "enabled users" section introduction; there are a number of grammar mistakes and it isn't clear. Currently, it reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
: The following users are allowed to use this software. By default all admins are allowed, and any user can be added by any admin. |
|
|
|
|
|
:This registration provides a large barrier to illegitimate use of this software, as with all aspects of Misplaced Pages it partially relies on people's good faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Users listed under bots have the automatic mode enabled, not all bots are automatic, hence not all of them are listed here as bots. |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest it be changed to: |
|
|
|
|
|
: The users listed below are allowed to use AutoWikiBrowser. All admins are allowed by rule, and any user can be added by any admin. Although this registration process provides considerable protection against the use of AutoWikiBrowser to vandalize or otherwise harm Misplaced Pages, it partially relies on people's good faith, as do all aspects of Misplaced Pages. Users are responsible for the edits they make when using AutoWikiBrowser. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Accounts listed under the '''bots''' heading have AutoWikiBrowser's automatic mode enabled. Not all bots utilize automatic mode; those that do not are not listed under '''bots'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ok, I've changed it, thanks. ] 09:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Question=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like it to run on Hungarian wiki too. What should I do? ] <sub> ]</sub> 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've added hu support for next version, this page is only for en. ] 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Can't use AWB even though I'm on the check page=== |
|
|
My name is on the approved user list, but I keep getting an error message saying that I'm "not allowed to use this". What's wrong? -- ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Admins are in automatically === |
|
|
|
|
|
does mean admins are in automatically? ] ] 23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Admins were all added by default to begin with, their names should already be on the list, of course new admins will need to add their name, but they can do it themselves if they like. ] 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::thanks for the clarification. More questions arise now: Why are admins in by default and can add themselves? Furthermore, if they are in or can add themselves, it means the rules of use do not apply to them? I mean there are admins out that do not follow all rules of WP. ] ] 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course admins have to follow the rules, but the point is that since any admin can edit the protected page they can add themselves. Admins have been given this trust by the community at RFA. In the extremely unlikely event that an admin was misusing the software or using it maliciously, and they refused to stop, further action would have to be taken - probably taking them to ArbCom. Admins most certainly are not above the rules, but they do however get the automatic right to use AWB since AWB usage is controlled through this protected page. --] 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::thanks for the reply. By stating "In the extremely unlikely event that an admin was misusing the software" you mean regular editors, e.g. me are more likely to misuse the software? If so, can you explain how you come to this conclusion? Is it because a regular user has not been given trust by the community at RFA? ] ] 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== AWB out of WP policy === |
|
|
|
|
|
that AWB works outside WP policies. This was given as a reason that any admin can do with editors what he wants (e.g. deny AWB access). If so, shouldn't this be changed? ] ] 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The reason admins can add themselves or anyone they like etc. is simply because it is assumed admins can be trusted to not break the rules. The rules most certainly apply to admins as well, of course an admin can still potentially abuse the rules, but then such is wikipedia, but they would certainly not be too popular! (though this is all theoretical; I know of no significant problems, and certainly nothing at all for months). AWB does not work outside wp policies or even guidelines, of course some new rules had to be created to suite AWB (which is what the message you were givenis referring to I think), as the only thing appropriate before was ], but the new AWB rules were only to tighten existing rules, not to override them. ] 09:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Martin, I was explicitly told by Winhunter, that in denying me using AWB there was no WP policy involved. This implies AWB works outside WP policy. |
|
|
:::<small>There is no WP policy involved here (since AWB is not from the foundation), it is up to the discretionary decision of any admin to decide whether a user have sufficient experience to use the AWB and whether or not there is any concern of a user will follow the ]. --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::Secondly, I know a lot of admins that violated WP rules, but admins are not checked for this as is required by _written_ AWB rules, and are in automatically. ] ] 10:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The rules apply to everyone. Of course sometimes rules get broken, but as long as no one is making more than the occasional mistake then it doesn't really matter (as with all rules on Misplaced Pages), this applies to admins as much as non-admins. AWB only works outside WP policy because WP clearly didn't have a policy (other than ]) to deal with this exact situation. If you want to slap a policy template on the rules then I don't think anyone would complain, but please stop changing the text in a manner that implies admins are in any way excempt from any rules. ] 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am not talking about occasional mistakes, there are admins that do this repeatedly and do not correct their mistakes. But I still see them in the list. I can imagine you yourself suggested to break policies by suggesting to put the policy tag on the AWB guideline. I think I only changed the wording in the AWB rules to reflect reality. ] ] 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Who is using this software to repeatedly make mistakes? Do not change the wording again, it is innaccurate, disruptive and causing me unnecessary stress. ] 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I don't know, why do you ask? That the false wording causes stress if it gets corrected is not the fault of correcting it. ] ] 17:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The reason I ask is that you just said "there are admins that do this repeatedly and do not correct their mistakes", I am asking you who they are, so any misuse of the software can be stopped. ] 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yes, there are admins that violate policies, but you asked "Who is using this software to repeatedly make mistakes?". I am not aware of such a usage of the software. ] ] 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Crossed wires here? I think he's complaining about being denied the right to use AWB? (see ]). In which case, yes, no admin is obliged to add you. Martin has the final say should there be any dispute. He writes the software and provides it for free, and he also gets the rap when things go wrong, so he gets the final say over who uses ''this powerful tool''. --] 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::And on that note, mate you do have rather a long block log. Martin has the final say but with such a , including for vandalism (30 June 2006), it's easy to see why you were turned down. --] 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::#How come you think I am complaining about being denied AWB access? Where do you get this from? Did I understand correctly, not the rules written here, but Bluemoose decides who uses the software? So it is really a project outside WP policies, i.e. not governed by WP policies but by one user, Bluemoose? I think before complaining being denied access I complain about written rules that are different from applied rules. |
|
|
:::# '''"it's easy to see why you were turned down."''' - can this be explained? Should we include this in the above written rules? "If you once were blocked with the accusation of vandalism and if you have more than 20 entries in the block log you will be denied AWB access, no matter what the underlying reasons were, no matter whether the blocks were later on considered invalid." ] ] 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::#The accesss to the software is not governed by WP policy but by the rules/discretion of the software developer (naturally), however the edits made through AWB is governed by WP policy, maybe you want to distinguish that. |
|
|
::::#I don't see any unblock action in your block log which is due to the invalidation of the block. --] <sup>(])</sup> 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::#of course these are two things and I allways distinguished them. But I think it is not correct to have written rules that are different from those applied by you and Bluemoose. |
|
|
:::::#I did not claim that you can see this in the block logs. ] ] 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Suggestion:Banned Users=== |
|
|
I'd like to suggest adding a list of users (at the top of the AWB check page) whom we do not wish, for whatever reason, to use AWB. Why? If I were to choose to remove a user from AWB, my removal (along with a possible short explanation), would be at the top of the list for other admins to see if they consider approving that user. It might also be good to have AWB pop up a short explanation when they try to log in. Comments? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:That seems to be a good idea, though I would recommend the list be on top of this page so that the admin approving would have a easier time, also put the list in a fully protected page and transclude it here so that we can be sure only admin edited the list. --] <sup>(])</sup> 05:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Excellent idea. I wonder what Martin thinks. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would suggest that the ] be modified so that is not only has an edit count, but also has some language similar to ] as requirement for acceptance and maybe also that it can be taken away for future blockable activity as per ]. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Wikinews=== |
|
|
Does this work for Wikinews, and if so, where do I apply for approval for my Wikinews edits? ] 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, and approval is only needed for en wiki. ] 10:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Okay. Thank you! ] 10:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Got bot approval, how do I get on the CheckPage? === |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] - but then when I logged into AWB as PlangeBot it said I wasn't approved? --] 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:] has been approved to use ]. ] 02:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
===Thank you=== |
|
|
Beside all the latest talk here, Bluemoose-Martin, if you are the programmer of the software, thanks a lot for providing it. AFAICS great work. ] ] 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Personal attacks / removals of commentss === |
|
|
|
|
|
please dont http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=81184778&oldid=81173866 |
|
|
|
|
|
This is violation of WP policies. Also you, Bluemoose have to follow it. |
|
|
|
|
|
] ] 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not a violation of poilcies. You are being distruptive, stop it now. ] 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::AFAIK Calling someone a troll is violation of WP:CIVIL, removing contributions on talk pages is also violation of WP policies. ] ] 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've left a warning on Tobias' talk. --] 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You should not thread people with block. AFAIK this also is a violation of WP rules. ] ] 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== deleting comments wihout saying so in edit summary === |
|
|
|
|
|
* don't http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FCheckPage&diff=81227243&oldid=81224739 |
|
|
] ] 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Your edits to ] === |
|
|
|
|
|
from ] ] ] 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please stop readding . You have done this numerous times already and it was rejected. If you continue readding it, I will block you without further notice. --] 15:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*By which policy would this block be justified? User:Bluemoose policy? ] ] 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC) |
|