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)
--
Definitely worth discussing. For ENWP, I suggest bringing this up on VP:T.
Thanks,
Pine
On Feb 11, 2015 12:45 AM, "Petr Bena" 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 the same
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
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.
The question is, how would it be different from the usual
bot accounts. L
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 c
Petr Bena 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
> out and most of
On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, "Petr Bena" 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
_
On 11 February 2015 at 09:33, Petr Bena 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 actually even ne
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 to
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" 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
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 thi
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, This, that and the other
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 assume that it is
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" wrote:
>
> As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use,
> with no need
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 medi
Please excuse the combined replies.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Pine W 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 and other major wik
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
Hi,
We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
applications that are being used by users. (Like AWB etc).
These applications now have to ask for password, which is kind of safe
given that they are open source and running on computer of the user,
so at some point giving them
Hello,
Le mercredi 11 février 2015, 16:59:45 Petr Bena a écrit :
>
> We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
> applications that are being used by users. (Like AWB etc).
> It sounds pretty simple to me, so why we don't have anything like that?
The reason currently give
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
> possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in proprietary
> software.
For me, allowing as many people to use our libraries as possible.
Bryan
--
B
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Guillaume Paumier
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le mercredi 11 février 2015, 16:59:45 Petr Bena a écrit :
> >
> > We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
> > applications that are being used by users. (Like AWB etc).
>
> > It sounds pretty simple t
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than
> the v3.
GPL v2+ is a superset of GPL v3. I don't know why you find that so hard to
understand.
> [...] I do not think it is possible to add Apache code into Medi
On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
> possible, or protecting against our libraries from being used in proprietary
> software.
For
On February 11, 2015 at 12:53:54, C. Scott Ananian (canan...@wikimedia.org)
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> I’m still not entirely convinced that the GPLv2 allows more licenses than
> the v3.
GPL v2+ is a superset of GPL v3. I don't know why you find that so hard
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> And, as a result, since MediaWiki is licensed under the v2+ rather than
> v3, we cannot accept Apache-licensed code into core.
>
We cannot. But our users can. And our users can also combine with GPL
v2-only code.
The set of acceptable core
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
>> What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
>> possible, or protecting against o
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2015-02-11
If anyone with better wiki kung fu than me could take a look and figure out
why the table of contents is not rendering on that page like it does on all
the other [1] ones, I would appreciate it.
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Dan Andreescu
wrote:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2015-02-11
>
> If anyone with better wiki kung fu than me could take a look and figure
> out why the table of contents is not rendering on that page like it does on
> all the other [1] ones, I w
Both pages you linked have a table of contents for me.
Dan
On 11 February 2015 at 11:01, Dan Andreescu
wrote:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Scrum_of_scrums/2015-02-11
>
> If anyone with better wiki kung fu than me could take a look and figure
> out why the table of contents is not rendering
From developer point of view session looks much more easy to implement
than signed api calls. I wouldn't even need to change the code of
application for it to work.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Chris Steipp wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Guillaume Paumier
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>
I know this and that is why I started this thread :)
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Guillaume Paumier
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le mercredi 11 février 2015, 16:59:45 Petr Bena a écrit :
>>
>> We have OAuth for browser based programs. But nothing for desktop
>> applications that are being used by user
On 2015-02-11 10:06 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
>
>> And, as a result, since MediaWiki is licensed under the v2+ rather than
>> v3, we cannot accept Apache-licensed code into core.
>>
> We cannot. But our users can. And our users can also com
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> On February 11, 2015 at 11:49:15, Bryan Davis (bd...@wikimedia.org) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Tyler Romeo wrote:
> > What is more important: allowing as many people to use our libraries as
> possible, or protecting against our
On February 11, 2015 at 15:32:00, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote:
Companies don't need to give back with GPL either, even if they make mods.
They only need to do so if they distribute. There's lots of Apache2
projects that have a very large amount of contribution, so maybe this would
happen, b
*OOjs UI 0.7.0* has been released today. It will be in MW from 1.25wmf18+.
We've tried hard to avoid breaking changes when possible, but occasionally
they will happen. The last time there were breaking changes in a release
was 2014-12-16 (wmf13), 137 OOjs UI commits ago.
*Breaking changes since l
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
c
Alex Monk wrote:
>On 11 February 2015 at 09:33, Petr Bena 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? Doe
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 th
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 wrote:
> Yes, the question is however, if this passed "consensus" on english
> wikipedia and I made a patch for mediawiki, assuming
40 matches
Mail list logo
