Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Archive 1

Page format
Just an idea - it might be better to change users into * user:nick format -- this way you can use this simple query 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. --Yurik 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated user
I just discovered that User:Joanjoc has a duplicated entry in the user list. --WinHunter (talk) 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 ca:Especial:Uncategorizedimages in a series of processes approved by the Catalan community, using AWB :-) --Joanjoc 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently the only way to get on the bot list is to get bot approval here, I am not sure how bots in other projects to can on this list. Btw, "using AWB a lot" 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. --WinHunter (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi :-) I'm using only AWB in the Catalan wiki, and I'm using this method to login; Sorry for my poor english... --Joanjoc 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) After run AWB I connect to the english Wiki using my english wikipedia user User:Joanjoc
 * 2) Then I change the language settings in AWB to use the catalan wiki. But not using my catalan wikipedia user ca:User:Joanjoc (sysop user, but no bot)... I'm logged in the catalan wiki with my bot user ca:User:JoanjocBot (approved here; ca:Viquipèdia:La_taverna/Arxius/2006/Abril, a user that doesn't exists on the english wikipedia)
 * 3) Using this thecnique I'm using firefox for my admin work in the catalan wiki ca:User:Joanjoc and Internet Explorer/AWB for my bot work in catalan wiki ca:User:JoanjocBot, doing different tasks assigned to bots from ca:Viquipèdia:Bots.
 * 4) 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...

Jpbrenna - duplicate. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. ForestH2 t/c 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * approved. alpha Chimp (talk) 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. --WinHunter (talk) 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. alpha Chimp (talk) 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. Highway 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. Martin 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

bot for non bot?
I've been doing stuff at WP:CFD 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. ST47 Talk 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've gotta go through WP:BRFA. alpha Chimp (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Elissonbot
My bot got approved today, but was placed in the users section. Can someone please move it to the Bots section? – Elisson • Talk 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. Martin 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! – Elisson • Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, it partially relies on people's good faith, as do all aspects of Wikipedia. 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.

--Starwiz 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've changed it, thanks. Martin 09:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I'd like it to run on Hungarian wiki too. What should I do? NCurse work 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added hu support for next version, this page is only for en. Martin 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? -- Selmo (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins are in automatically
does this mean admins are in automatically? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. Martin 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. --kingboyk 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? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

AWB out of WP policy
I was told 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? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 WP:BOT, but the new AWB rules were only to tighten existing rules, not to override them. Martin 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.
 * 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 AWB Rules of use. --WinHunter (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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 Wikipedia), 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 WP:BOT) 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. Martin 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. Martin 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. Martin 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Crossed wires here? I think he's complaining about being denied the right to use AWB? (see User:Tobias_Conradi). 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. --kingboyk 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 history of blocks, including for vandalism (30 June 2006), it's easy to see why you were turned down. --kingboyk 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." Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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. --WinHunter (talk) 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 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? alpha Chimp (talk) 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. --WinHunter (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I wonder what Martin thinks. alpha Chimp (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the rule of thumb be modified so that is not only has an edit count, but also has some language similar to User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof as requirement for acceptance and maybe also that it can be taken away for future blockable activity as per User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. --After Midnight 0001 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? Implificator 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and approval is only needed for en wiki. Martin 10:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you! Implificator 10:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Got bot approval, how do I get on the CheckPage?
See Bots/Requests for approval/PlangeBot - but then when I logged into AWB as PlangeBot it said I wasn't approved? --plange 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PlangeBot has been approved to use AWB. Alphachimp 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks / removals of commentss
please dont http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=81184778&oldid=81173866

This is violation of WP policies. Also you, Bluemoose have to follow it.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a violation of poilcies. You are being distruptive, stop it now. Martin 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. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left a warning on Tobias' talk. --Ligulem 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You should not thread people with block. AFAIK this also is a violation of WP rules. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tobias, I'm only familiar with the definition of "troll" from our own article. This matches with what you have been doing (i.e. antagonistic/disruptive/repetitive). If the word "troll" has some connotation I am not familiar with, then I apologise. Martin 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

deleting comments wihout saying so in edit summary
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * don't http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FCheckPage&diff=81227243&oldid=81224739


 * I readded the comment I deleted by accident almost imediately, though I'm sure the point of this is just to try and make me look bad. Martin 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Add your name
What does "add your name to the bottom of this list" mean if someone is going to remove all names without any comment? Wjhonson 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When you see a name removd it means it is processed, either approved (added to checkpage) or declined. --WinHunter (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that that occurred in my case. "Generally anyone with 500 edits is approved." Wjhonson 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You do appear to have been approved. Look at the checkpage. Alphachimp 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Urrr.... um... ok can I at least beat the guy who didn't alphabetize?... ok never mind, i'll just go stand in the corner now. Wjhonson 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Add my account on the list.
Thanks a lot in advance. --Chaohwa 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Have AWB installed. I am ok with starting on it under some sort of probation. Thank you.--Gkklein 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lightguy79

Change of Username
I am registered to use AWB as Aravind Parvatikar. I had requested for a change in username to IndianCow, which was approved on [02:02, 22 February 2006] Now AWB doesn't recognize me as a valid user..--IndianCow Talk  22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've unapproved your old username and approved your new username. Alphachimp 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you IndianCow Talk  13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Add my account on the list
please add me as well --Acidburn24m 01:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * approved. in the future use the section at the top. Alphachimp 13:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for authorisation
if you would be so nice as to add me to the list... :) Ans e ll  04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * approved. in the future use the section at the top. Alphachimp 13:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Change of username please
After my RfA passed there were concerns it may confuse. Was GIen now Glen S (notw it was an uppercase i in the original. Thanks  Glen  17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you are an admin you can change your name yourself in the checkpage. --WinHunter (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Case sensitive?
Hi, I am approved to use AWB, but get the error message "Anskas is not enabled to use this". Could this be to do with the capital letter in my username (I am on the CheckPage as "anskas")? Thanks. —anskas 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is case sensitive. fixed now. Martin 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB misuse be Spartaz, Dmcdevit, Rory096, and J.smith
The users Spartaz, Dmcdevit, Rory096, and J.smith have mass deleted youtube.com links from articles using AWB. Their summary (Rm links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL using AWB) was misleading - to say the least, there is no such guideline on the WP:EL page and the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:external links is clearly against removing the links. I suggest that their AWB permission might be removed. Cacycle 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This claim is unfounded, I didn't even use AWB for these edits. --Rory096 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * After rereading WP:EL and calming down a bit I retract the notice above and now think it might have been a more or less was a legit use of AWB. I apologize, Cacycle 04:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive60 had some discussion from a while back regarding the unreliability and unverifiability of youtube.com. The discussion is archived, but may be worth reading. --Dual Freq 05:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to use AWB
I would like to use AWB. Thanks. -- Imdanumber1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to use AWB. Thanks. -- bwmoll3 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Working
Hey, not working for me. I see something about case-sensitive. is my username down as lewisskinner or Lewisskinner?  L.J.Skinner WOT?|CONTRIBS 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you've been listed incorrectly with a lowercase "L". Not that I can do anything about it...just happen to be reading the page, debating whether or not to apply myself. The list is on the main page here. -- AuburnPilot talk 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the capitalizing issue, let see if it works now. --WinHunter (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone please change Taebot to TaeBot? It is case-sensitive and therefore is not letting me use AWB for the TaeBot account.  Thanks, taestell 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done--WinHunter (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000135).
Added section header for organization. -- Silver Star ★  14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded the thing, unzipped it, etc, started AutoWikiBrowser.exe under WinXP, and it said "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000135)." -- Boracay Bill 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. This error means you don't have the proper .NET Framework installed. -- Silver Star ★  14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Username correction
Please change my username on the Check Page from "R\'n\'B" to "R'n'B"; the old version required the backslashes, but the new one that I just downloaded doesn't. Thanks. Russ (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. -- nae'blis 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot Approval
How does a bot get approved for AWB? --69.112.104.162 16:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You get approval for the bot first at WP:BRFA, and then you get acess by requesting it. -Amarkov blahedits 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious
I'm curious as to why I was rejected, you might not remember an answer but I'm just wondering if you do. - Scotsman <font color="DarkGray">talk  03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the guide in the mainpage, you are currently having <500 mainspace edits and therefore being rejected. --WinHunter (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I was misreading my edit count and was taking into account others. My mistake, thanks a bunch. <font color="DarkOliveGreen">Scotsman <font color="DarkGray">talk  15:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed...
I had wanted Elaragirl(AWB) approved, but it looks like that you put my main account for approval. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 08:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added Elaragirl(AWB) as well. the wub "?!"  10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New name
Could someone please move "London UK" to "AxG", as I have changed my name, thanks. <font color="midnightblue" face="comic sans ms"> AxG  <font color="green" face="comic sans ms"> (talk)  10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Alphachimp 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mistake?
Paragaph: "Also, to reduce bureaucracy, you will not be notified when/if you are added to the list of enabled users. (Instead, keep this page on your watchlist; when you see your name has been removed, you should find you are able to use AutoWikiBrowser) You may add to your user page when you've been added to the list."

should either say 'added' since it's talking about the list of enabled users or it should refer to this discussion page instead of itself (itself, being the 'project page'.

Also, the list of versions has a ". :" which should be replaced with ":" --Seans Potato Business 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, done. Thanks. alphachimp  21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slight nitpick
On the end of the ==Guide== section, a period should be added. { Slash -|- Talk } 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the page protected, anyways? { Slash -|- Talk } 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We're attempting to control access to AWB functionality. By requiring listing on the check page, we are able to effectively limit AWB access to those who have abused it in the past or intend to abuse it in the future. alphachimp  00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the opposite of what you said. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the last part, yes. alphachimp  03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so only users who are listed can use it. Thanks for the clarification. { Slash -|- Talk } 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwikilinks
Is there a reason why this page has no interwikilinks? Just curious, wanted to click back to the Dutch CheckPage... and found out I couldn't. Cheers, Niels |en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a great idea. I'm adding them now. — M ETS 501 (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added more interwikis to the Dutch Checkpage after you adding them here. Cheers, Niels |en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser for other wikis
I am trying to use AutoWikiBrowser for our own MediaWiki based wiki. I put the address into the custom box and it lets me login, but Its says I am not authorised to use it. Do I have to have my name on wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage or can I put it on my own check page on my wiki? I have tried but it doesn't seem to work. Johnkendall1 09:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no checkpage, it should just work fine. I've seen it on some custom wiki's, that it just has trouble getting the login hooks, and then cant work properly... Reedy Boy 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My bot
fr:User:Kyle_the_bot

Question
I want to move my AWB edits from my main account. If i set up a User:GnevinAWB to run AWB can you give access to me or is it more complex ? (Gnevin 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
 * In the same way you can setup new accounts for bots, so its creation is registered under your account... I cant see there being a problem. Reedy Boy 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no idea where to look for that can you point me in the right direction ? (Gnevin 08:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Its listed as this. Saying to click and register via that link whilst signed in.

"'To log the creation of the bot account under your operator account click here while logged in.'"


 * If you did that, i think that will be enough to prove that its your account =) Reedy Boy 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:GnevinAWB(Gnevin 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Alphabetize the list
Might I suggest alphabetizing the list of approved users and admins? Would make it easier in the event you're looking for a name. PaladinWhite 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AWBUser
Why does the template have two edit counter links? -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 03:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Me and Martin decided to add it. We thought that the quicker query/api count may be useful Reedy Boy 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that actually makes 3 now. One says "edit count" and the other says "count". They seem to go to the same place. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... Thats true. Reedy Boy 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Martins fixed it. Reedy Boy 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for revocation

 * Using AWB to make controversial edits (removing spoiler tags without consensus), edit warring with AWB. --Random832 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Using AWB to make controversial edits (removing spoiler tags without consensus), edit warring with AWB. --Random832 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence? --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, don't you think it might look like the fix is in, if you seem to be investigating a complaint to which you may be an involved party? Milo 07:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely nothing to do with AWB. I've never used it because it esn't run on my operating system. However a request for revocation based on allegations of misuse would, I expect, come with evidence. --Tony Sidaway 07:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. None of the edits are shown with 'using awb' in the summary. And even if he was using it in a bodged bot mode, the speed of edits would be much greater. Reedy Boy 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [ incorrect]. --Random832 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If spoiler tag removal was controversial, they'd be back already - David Gerard 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You [ removed them again] when they were put back and then others accused those restoring them of edit warring. The obvious reason people haven't restored them as quickly as you've removed him is it's a lot easier to remove them with AWB then to restore them (since AWB can't tell where they go). --Random832 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I did erroneously do the same edit more than once in some places, but when alerted to it I have apologised and taken care to make sure those articles are off the to-edit list, per my user page. Is that "edit-warring"? I don't think so. I note, by the way, Random832's use of user screw ... - David Gerard 21:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oooh. I think i looked at the wrong persons contribs.... Ooops Reedy Boy 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

AWB is not a tool for manufacturing consensus. Claiming the lack of tags on articles now is evidence of consensus against them is extremely damaging to the project. --Random832 18:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you considered arbitration? Though they'd probably demand a user conduct RFC first - David Gerard 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's even necessary, I think this is strictly an AWB issue (though it may skirt the edge of the bot policy). --Random832 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This request for revocation appears to be querulousness. My last AWB run implemented the spoiler guideline, Spoiler, as it stood and stands; those who object to the guideline objected to its implementation at all, whether by AWB or any other means. This is basically an attack on daring to edit per the guideline at all - David Gerard 22:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Controversial? fact. Wide support on the mailing list (see User:Jimbo Wales - the mailing list is the no. 1 place for meta-debate), and plenty of support elsewhere as well.  Notably in the articles themselves, which are almost universally still spoiler tag free.  It is safe to say that very close to 100% of the spoiler tags were redundant (in plot sections), unnecessary (in works subject to substantial critical review) or fatuous (nursery rhymes).  Those arguing for spoiler tags appear to be very reluctant to go to the article talk pages and actually provide some rationale for the spoiler tag.  I wonder why? Anyway, AWB is not a bot. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this an AWB issue? 45,000 edits were performed. There was no huge kerfuffle on those 45,000 pages, no mass reverts.  No edit warring using AWB.  This was a classic case of "The dog that did not bark".  There are merely a few hand-wringers standing around bemoaning a heap of edits performed on pages that they don't themselves edit. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)