Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removing applications

  • I'm assuming that users who ask for AWB access may not be so active as to check whether they've been granted it every day, or even watchlist this page. Hence, I tend not to delete applications until roughly 48 hours have elapsed. Of course, they can always check the list of approved users, but for those whose applications are borderline, it helps if the record is maintained here. Comments? --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If you deem it necessary, that's completely okay with me. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not sure whether this is right. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In what way? --Rodhullandemu 07:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, administrators would never have their rights revoked because it's automatic with them. If this was to happen to non-administrative users, then that does not "balance the scales". Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about how long we keep applications listed here after being considered. There's no issue about removing rights; just as AWB can be granted by any Admin, it can also be removed by any Admin if it's misused. In borderline cases I usually seek a second opinion, but there is always the option of a user requesting a review at WP:AN. So I don't think the issue arises. --Rodhullandemu 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 06:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe... If R&E doesn't do it, then who will? It will help, but I think that was unnecessary. Thanks for the advice, though. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit counter tool

Links to a tool that doesn't work. Suggest the link is to Special:Preferences instead. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be slow, but I don't have a problem with it; the problem with Special:Preferences is that each user can see only their own info, which wouldn't be any use to us. --Rodhullandemu 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going to post the same, then realised, he meant on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Guide (i think), so have updated that. —Reedy 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I usually just click the "contribs" and then if there's an "older 500" bluelinked I know they have at least 500 mainsapce edits =) –xeno (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - done now. I was referring to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Guide which suggested users check their own edit count before requesting AWB. Not sure why it's appeared here (it was meant to appear on the template talk page but there's a few redirects and templating going on!! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing access for Bender235

User:Bender235 is using AWB to run a large-scale job to remove all use of the parameter "3" from reflist templates [1]. Although I pointed out on his use page that large-scale jobs require clear evidence of consensus, he is continuing to run the job. This is a clear violation of the AWB rules of use ("Don't do anything controversial with it.") and a violation of the bot policy that large-scale jobs should be approved. Therefore, I have removed his name from the CheckPage. If Bender235 agrees to heed the AWB rules of use, I have no objection to his name being restored. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kinda funny CBM abuses his admin rights this way now. By replacing {{Reflist|3}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} I was implementing a well-discused recommendation from Template:Reflist/doc#Columns, that says "Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided". Essentially, I was doing this per WP:BRD: I implemented the edit once, and did not restore it where someone else reverted. This does not violate any Wikipedia rule. Until now, User:CBM was the only one complaining about my edit, reverting Group (mathematics). Like I said, I did not restore my edit after CBM reverted, all according to WP:BRD (note that User:TimothyRias restored the edit).
I'm asking some admin to please restore my AWB rights. —bender235 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
BRD does not replace the need for bot jobs to be approved before they are run.
In the end, there was no reason to edit all the articles to simply disable 3-column formatting, since this can be done with a single edit to the reflist template. This is one reason that we ask for bot job approval - because soometimes the task doesn't actually require a bot job in the first place.
I have started the appropriate discussion at Template talk:reflist that should have happened before any bot job was run. If there is actually consensus that the 3-column parameter should never be used, I will simply disable it in the template.
The AWB abuse is a separate issue. AWB is a wonderful tool, but it is not intended as a way for single editors to impose their stylistic preferences on hundreds of articles. And AWB use is not a right; AWB comes with an extra set of rules which need to be follows. Edits that might be appropriate if made occasionally by hand can be inappropriate to make on a large scale with AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What I did was neither a "bot job", nor did I "impose my stylistic preference" anywhere. I was just implementing Wikipedia style guidelines and recommendations. You might as well find a couple of hundred edits of mine where I replaced double hyphens (--) with em dashes (—) (see MOS:EMDASH), "sq km" with "km²" (see MOS:NUM), or letter x with multiplication sign (×), all using AWB. For good reason, Wikipedia's rules do not require a lengthy discussion before implementing those kind of changes. --bender235 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I must concur with Carl's decision here. Bender, this was a controversial task in my opinion, and you lit up my watchlist with all these changes. I was actually going to your page to ask you to stop and gain consensus with a wider audience before continuing. That someone asked you to stop and discuss, and you kept going, was not a good action. I don't think AWB access should be restored at this time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain why WP:BRD does not apply here? Would it have made any difference if I implemented these changes w/out AWB? —bender235 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The spirit of BRD is to make consensus easier within the scope of single edits. However, large-scale semi-automated changes are far more problematic and require far more work for someone to revert if they disagree. To be clear, I don't disagree with your changes. But, there are doubtless many editors who have preferences on this matter and most of them probably didn't get the chance to participate in any discussion. How many people really watch templates? We don't have to discuss everything in a committee, but we at least need to cast some lines out and see if there are any reasonable rhetorical or technical arguments against it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if you didn't use AWB, it would still be a large-scale task that needed wider discussion, and that should be run by an approved bot. Bot operators can't avoid community discussion of their tasks simply by claiming that they made the edits under BRD. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Responsibilities_of_bot_operators. In this case, as I pointed out, no bot edits were needed in the first place, just a template edit.
The use of AWB here, though, especially problematic because AWB has more strict rules than regular editing. These rules are voluntarily accepted by editors who run AWB as a condition for using it. AWB editors have to go beyond the usual community editing norms to be even more careful about seeking discussion and responding to feedback. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see the argument, which essentially is that although no one actually opposed the change from {{Reflist|3}} to {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, and while Template:Reflist even encourages it, it was not okay to make these changes using AWB. This is really weird, but okay.
CBM said in his initial comment, my AWB rights would be restored if I "agree to heed the AWB rules". I'd like to say I do, but I'm not sure how. If implementing style recommendations in this case wasn't correct, then what actually is? Because essentially all I've been doing with AWB over the past couple of years were those minor style changes, like "--" to "—", "ft." to "ft", "29th October" to "29 October", and so on. I love using AWB, but do I now have to request CBM's permission for edits like those, just because they're "bot job" if applied to 1000+ articles? —bender235 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If you had been just doing some MOS work (e.g. double hyphens) I wouldn't have said anything. In this case, the recommendation you were following was not a style guide, it was just the documentation of Template:Reflist. As I pointed out on your talk page, template documentation is often completely at odds with reality. Moreover, if the "3" parameter were actually forbidden, the template simply wouldn't recognize it. So the fact that the template has the parameter but the documentation doesn't like it already shows that something is up. Perhaps the documentation was wrong, or perhaps old uses are grandfathered in, or perhaps the template just needs to be fixed. We don't know which of those is the case if someone just edits the articles and ignores the issue with the template.
AWB is a separate issue. Trimming bushes in every yard to beautify the neighborhood would require a community discussion. But if you borrow someone else's clippers to do it, that person could perfectly well ask for the clippers back. Similarly, the AWB problem was continuing to use AWB for the job after the issue was pointed out (see the two arbcom links I gave above). AWB users are supposed to follow the best possible practices in responding to feedback. Ignoring feedback and continuing the job is certainly not the best practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your point. I won't use AWB for this particular change from now on, until consensus has been established here. But still, I would like to have my AWB rights back, to continue my work fixing typos and other mistakes. —bender235 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll revert my edit to the CheckPage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO "a bot job, and impose my stylistic preference," is exactly what you did do. I am strongly Opposed to returning AWB access to this user. Mlpearc powwow 16:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake, I was implementing a recommendation from Template:Reflist, that essentially no one opposes, in good faith. Why do you act like I was vandalizing? —bender235 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not think you were "Vandalizing" I do think you missed used a privileged tool. Mlpearc powwow 16:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed bot to maintain checkpage

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot; a proposed adminbot which would comb the list for admins and remove them (as they're approved by default). I've also suggested it watch for renames and correct as needed. –xenotalk 14:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

There are a few entries with lower case starts, are they valid:

  • nneonneo
  • oniongas
  • tetraedycal
  • tofutwitch11

? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For page names the first character capitalization doesn't matter; it may be the same for usernames. Anyhow, I think the users would complain if they didn't have their access, unless they aren't using AWB anyway, in which case it doesn't matter for a different reason. --RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanished users

Does anyone know why we have three vanished users here? I assume they are not using AWB, and so do not need to be on the list. It look as as if User:ListManBot is doing this. [2] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ListManBot has a task to fix the entries of users, who change their username. I don't think vanished users should remain on the list, as by vanishing they dediced not to edit. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Archive_2&oldid=1140384316"