If there are some issues that tool edits should be reviewed
differently than bot edits, then it is just another reason to make a
separate flag independent from bot flag for these edits. That way both
tool and bot edits could be filtered out and reviewed separately.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:31 PM,
Note this reply is written with my enwiki community member hat on, and in
no way represents anything official
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
It is complex and bureaucratic on the English Wikipedia, i.e., less than
1/890 of the projects.
I
I randomly opened RecentChanges page on enwiki and this is what I saw:
http://img.ctrlv.in/img/15/03/06/54f9d5645eb03.png from 50 edits, at
least 8 were automated, just as much interesting as any regular bot
edit.
It usually is even worse, anyway as you can see about 20% of all edits
you can see
Il 23/02/2015 15:03, Petr Bena ha scritto:
I don't believe that users would actually use it if this permission
was so hard to obtain as bot flag is (on english wiki). If there was
such a huge complex bureaucratic process for this, most of users would
just keep doing semi-automated edits as
2015-02-11 14:02 GMT+01:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org:
Keep in mind that it isn't always easy to tell 'tool' and 'bot' edits
apart. Several scripts can perform actions whose degree of automation
varies widely.
For my part, I make most of my semi-automated edits using my bot's
I don't believe that users would actually use it if this permission
was so hard to obtain as bot flag is (on english wiki). If there was
such a huge complex bureaucratic process for this, most of users would
just keep doing semi-automated edits as regular edits. The summary of
differences between
What if it a bot builder builds one?
On 22 February 2015 at 10:35, Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org
wrote:
What if a techie vandal builds a one-click disruption framework?
Il 15/02/2015 10:54, Petr Bena ha scritto:
I think it's pretty clear what I am proposing here :P there is a
What if a techie vandal builds a one-click disruption framework?
Il 15/02/2015 10:54, Petr Bena ha scritto:
I think it's pretty clear what I am proposing here :P there is a real
problem and this is a real solution. Regarding vandals would have fun
with that I think you are over estimating them,
I think it's pretty clear what I am proposing here :P there is a real
problem and this is a real solution. Regarding vandals would have fun
with that I think you are over estimating them, most of them are
barely able to use regular web based interface for anything more
clever than removing half of
Hoi,
S or T what language ?? What do you propose for Cyrillic ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 13 February 2015 at 18:22, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I would go with S or T depending on what you choose to call these edits. I
lean towards S.
This can be changed later of there is an
-- Every registered user would be able to flag edit as tool edit (bot
needs special user group)
Vandals would have fun with that, but bot group could be set up like that
(e.g. flood group)
-- The flag wouldn't be intended for use by robots, but regular users
who used some automated tool in
Whatever the translators to each language at translatewiki will do. These
letters are translatable.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2015-02-14 20:33 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen
What would be the letter for it then? s? t? a?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I think bot edits are most closely aligned with fully automated editing.
Perhaps semi-automated edit would work.
Pine
On Feb 12, 2015 10:34 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
I would go with S or T depending on what you choose to call these edits. I
lean towards S.
This can be changed later of there is an upswell of bikeshedding, but I
hope that people will be grateful either way. (:
Pine
On Feb 13, 2015 3:22 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be
I think bot edits are most closely aligned with fully automated editing.
Perhaps semi-automated edit would work.
Pine
On Feb 12, 2015 10:34 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-02-12 01:13 AM, Pine W wrote:
What would it take to implement a new tool edit flag userright
In
On 15-02-12 01:13 AM, Pine W wrote:
What would it take to implement a new tool edit flag userright
In the time-honored spirit of bikeshedding, I'd suggest that the right
name for this is automated edit rather than tool edit.
-- Marc
___
In my opinion this is pretty easy to implement so to answer what
would it take: few hours of coding.
@Gerard: I would like to make this change to mediawiki core, so it
would work everywhere. Question now is:
* Do we want to implement tool edit?
* Do we want to use thing made by This that and
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, This, that and the other
at.li...@live.com.au wrote:
How does a user prove that they're using a particular tool a way that can't
be faked? Something like OAuth comes to mind. All edits made via an OAuth
consumer are already tagged with a unique tag, and I would
First of all, this is why I am discussing it here, to avoid having
multiple people work on same thing.
Abuses:
I would consider this to be more like something like minor edit for
which you also don't need a permission. People who deal with vandals
probably shouldn't filter out users based on
This is true but I don't understand why we can't have something like
OAuth for applications. I don't think it should be something complex.
User would just generate some token in mediawiki interface that
would be some long string which they would give to application, which
would then login to
Il 11/02/2015 14:07, This, that and the other ha scritto:
Chris Grant wrote in message
news:caf_zkbp-abgzgcy4lqqvbtxur-2tjo8opmbwxtrosfvihuc...@mail.gmail.com...
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
Please excuse the combined replies.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely worth discussing. For ENWP, I suggest bringing this up on VP:T.
Probably better to host the discussion on Meta, since it affects all wikis.
Then you could advertise it on enwiki
I believe that majority of users will not like to have to ask for some
extra permissions in order to use some feature and so they will not
ask for them and not use it. So in case this tool edit flag was
restricted to some special permissions, users would keep using
automated tools and their edits
I'm still thinking about this. A designated tool flag that (1) is assigned
to trusted users as a userright like autopatrol and (2) could be used for
multi-edit rollbacks as well as other semiautomated edits, could be quite
useful for both watchlist screening and recent changes screening. The flag
Hoi,
What does this have to do with English Wikipedia ? It is useful
everywhere.. Why limit the scope ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 February 2015 at 10:33, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming code would be
correct would it be merged to core of mediawiki or is there any other
requirement? Does it actually even need to pass consensus on
wikipedia? I think this would be
Definitely worth discussing. For ENWP, I suggest bringing this up on VP:T.
Thanks,
Pine
On Feb 11, 2015 12:45 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I think I proposed this once but I forgot the outcome.
I would like to implement a new feature called tool edit it would be
pretty much
It's relevant for all projects and languages.
I haven't done it in a while, but I had my periods of massive AWB editing,
and other RC patrollers rightly complained about it and asked me to do such
things with a bot account.
thinkingoutloudThe question is, how would it be different from the usual
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it. Bot flag
gives you higher api limits which can be abused, but this would just
work to make it easier for users to hide out your edits. The
permission could be individually
Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The rationale is pretty clear: there is a number of tools, like AWB
and many others that produce incredible amounts of edits every day.
They are spamming recent changes page -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges can't be filtered
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it.
If anyone can use it, wouldn't the smarter vandals just use it to avoid the
RC patrollers?
-Chris
Hi,
I think I proposed this once but I forgot the outcome.
I would like to implement a new feature called tool edit it would be
pretty much the same as bot edit but with following differences:
-- Every registered user would be able to flag edit as tool edit (bot
needs special user group)
-- The
On 11 February 2015 at 09:33, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming code would be
correct would it be merged to core of mediawiki or is there any other
requirement? Does it
It's funny, it just so happens that Anomie and I are working on something [1]
right now, based on the existing change tagging infrastructure, which is quite
similar to what you are asking for, and with much the same purpose in mind.
There have been discussions at [2] and [3] relating to this
Keep in mind that it isn't always easy to tell 'tool' and 'bot' edits
apart. Several scripts can perform actions whose degree of automation
varies widely.
For my part, I make most of my semi-automated edits using my bot's
account, but many users also have separate 'flood' accounts for use with
Chris Grant wrote in message
news:caf_zkbp-abgzgcy4lqqvbtxur-2tjo8opmbwxtrosfvihuc...@mail.gmail.com...
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it.
Hi Petr,
Petr Bena schreef op 11-2-2015 om 7:50:
I believe that majority of users will not like to have to ask for some
extra permissions in order to use some feature and so they will not
ask for them and not use it.
Don't break your head over this.
1. We build this tool edit feature (or not).
Maarten's thinking works well with my train of thought also.
What would it take to implement a new tool edit flag userright,
associated filters for recent changes and watchlists, and automatic
applications of the flag to uses of rollback, AWB, etc when the user of
those tools has the right to the
Alex Monk wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 09:33, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the question is however, if this passed consensus on english
wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming code would be
correct would it be merged to core of mediawiki or is there any other
39 matches
Mail list logo
