Home
Introduction and rules
User manual
How to use AWB
Discussion
Discuss AWB, report errors, and request features
User tasks
Request or help with AWB-able tasks
Technical
Technical documentation

Requests for registration

Please read the quick guide on the main page before requesting permission. In applying for AWB access, you indicate that you will abide by that agreement. Also, this page is for requesting AWB Access for this wiki (English Wikipedia) only. Thank you.

Names

Please add your name to the bottom of the list using {{AWBUser|your username}}. If the list remains untouched for several days, leave a message on Alphachimp's talk page. Note that users with under 500 mainspace edits are rarely approved. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage.
Example of code format: * {{AWBUser|Username}}
Be sure you get your capitalization correct. Your name will be added as shown below.

Evilclown93 (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Over 80-90% of your mainspace edits are reverts, can you confirm that you possess the necessary editing skills to use AWB? --WinHunter ^(talk) 23:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patleahy (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
Metta_Bubble (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
Phoebe (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
Jet123 (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
S (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) - (Formerly known and already on the checklist as Seed 2.0)
AshLin (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
Codingmasters (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email).
Estoy Aquí (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) - I was previously approved as User:RedHotHeat but my account was renamed recently so that name should also be removed from the list.
ukexpat (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Bots

Please only list approved bots here

Requests for revocation

David Gerard (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

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

Evidence? --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)~~[reply]

incorrect. --Random832 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If spoiler tag removal was controversial, they'd be back already - David Gerard 09:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This request for revocation appears to be querulousness. My last AWB run implemented the spoiler guideline, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion

; Archives
	Archive 1 (July 2006 -> Present);

Please remove Gnevin , as i'm now using GnevinAWB (Gnevin 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Done [1] Reedy Boy 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]