Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Technical 13 (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 6 August 2013 (→Suggested change in request instructions: Well... More of a question to help eliminate a problem.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AutoWikiBrowser 6.3.1.1


Archives of this page


Requests for registration

Please read the guide on the main page before requesting permission. In applying for AWB access, you indicate that you will abide by its terms.

Also, this page is for requesting AWB Access for this wiki (English Wikipedia) only. Other projects have their own check pages and you should ask administrators there to add you.

Please add your name to the bottom of the appropriate list (user or bot) on this page below using *{{AWBUser|your username}} ~~~~~. Enter your user name exactly as the software displays it, for example in the 'Basic information' section of your preferences. Do not use underscores instead of spaces or change the case of the first letter. Note that all usernames begin with an uppercase letter or a symbol.

If the list contains undecided entries that are over 48 hours old, please change {{noadminbacklog}} to {{adminbacklog}} at the top of this page.

Note that users with under 500 mainspace non-automated edits are rarely approved. You only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you have fewer than 500 mainspace non-automated edits. Administrators are automatically approved and do not need to list themselves.

If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. If you will make many or fast automated edits using AWB, you may wish to use a separate (or bot) account for the purpose.

Suggested change in request instructions

Wouldn't changing *{{AWBUser|your username}} ~~~~~ to * {{AWBUser|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ~~~~~ eliminate any issues with Enter your user name exactly as the software displays it, for example in the 'Basic information' section of your preferences. Do not use underscores instead of spaces or change the case of the first letter. Note that all usernames begin with an uppercase letter or a symbol.? Technical 13 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users

 Done INeverCry 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure this is a good idea given your recent problems interacting with other users. I'm not sure you have the deftness of touch required to deal with any complaints or issues with your use of this tool. Spartaz Humbug! 05:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria are extraordinarily clear cut, unusually so. Other than users with a history of blatant vandalism, there is no reason not to give it to someone with more than 500 mainspace edits. I don't see anywhere in the criteria stating "Users that may not be good at handling criticism shouldn't get it". PING! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but there's admin discretion involved and I am using my discretion to not give you access to AWB because of my concerns about your level of competence. If another admin really wants to grant it to you, that's fine, but (a) I disagree with that decision and (b) I strongly suggest that he/she/they peruse the AN and ANI threads that pertain to you before doing so. Keilana|Parlez ici 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where on AN or ANI have I demonstrated incompetence in regards to editing? I have never had a sanction applied from any administrative board, so I would suggest the fact that I have raised threads there about harassment as totally irrelevant to my ability to use AWB. PING! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the above decision. Unfortunately, with your recent behavior, I can't say I fully trust your competence to use a tool like this. It also appears that you're still hat hunting, and since your requests for actual flags have been declined, you're now looking for alternate permissions. Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Retrolord: Your recent behavior on your talk page and on AN when faced with criticism makes me believe that you won't respond well to criticism of your use of AWB. This is a problem because AWB is an incredibly powerful tool, and knowing how to use it right is paramount. There's a learning curve and you will probably screw something up, God knows I did when I started using AWB, and someone will come by to your talk page and inform you what you messed up and how to fix it. If you don't listen to that, you could create a huge headache for everyone who has to clean up the mess. Keilana|Parlez ici 08:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PING! Could you please provide relevant recent examples where I have been subjected to critiscm and acted in a manner so egregious that sanctions where applied, or if no sanction where applied, please explain the significance of the example. Thank you. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am having difficulty understanding that assertion. I was critisced little, and I don't see how my responses could be interpreted as incompetence to use AWB. Please review this decision, and apply the criteria. PING! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 08:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'm standing by my decision to not give you access to AWB at this time, sorry. To clarify, I did not say that you criticized people on AN, but that you were criticized and took it particularly poorly. You also did not respond well to BWilkins' good faith attempt to help you, which makes me concerned that you will not be amenable to receiving help with AWB. Come back in a little while when you've shown that you can handle someone criticizing your edits better. I understand that there's not a hard and fast policy saying that I can't give you access but I think applying a little bit of IAR/admin discretion is appropriate here. Keilana|Parlez ici 09:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please clarify this statement. Bwilkins was told never to post on my talkpage again, then did so, I don't understand how my reaction to that could conceivably be considered as incompetence to edit. Ping! 09:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify. I believe your concern is with my ability to handle criticism. I only intend to use AWB for very minor edits, such as in my GA reviews. Please apply a bit of WP:AGF, and don't deny me the tool on the grounds I might not react well to something that probably won't happen. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 09:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you ban editors from your talk page due to disagreements, when you've been blocked three times in the last month, and when you don't take no for an answer and then backlash at others - it's hard to believe that you're not going to have issues with interactions with others due to the use of the tool. Keeping tools and rights away from you and allowing you to work on interactions with editors in a mainstream way is the best way to allow you to develop collaborative skills. Dusti*Let's talk!* 09:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said I intend to use it purely for GA reviews, which I am somewhat experienced with. The criteria do not include block logs, consensus, collarboration or any of that. They state, plain and simple, 500 edits. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 09:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not grant you AWB rights. If another admin wishes to after reading this discussion and the ones I suggested earlier, they are free to do so. I would love if that admin dropped me a note so we could discuss first, but they are in no way obligated to do so. Keilana|Parlez ici 09:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{unresolved}} I'll leave this open for further review then. Please keep in mind that A) I intend to use it for only minor changes in direct relation to my GA review work. B) The criteria are quite clear cut, and state simply that a user needs 500 mainspace edits. C) Apply Good Faith. D) Don't take into account threads started by me at AN or ANI regarding harassment, as they are entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand here. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 09:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will be my last reply, but when you've got more edits due to AN and AN/I posts than mainspace edits as of late, you have three blocks within the last month, you've been denied the reviewer right, and you're under a topic ban - you're not likely to be granted the access. Two admins have already declined this request, and I don't believe you wish to continue here. Your edits are going borderline disruptive at the moment. And when you post a request here, and then post a helpme request on your talk page moments later stating you have an outstanding request here, that shows a lack of maturity. Again, you don't need AWB to process GA reviews, and you've been doing them quite fine without it. Cheers, Dusti*Let's talk!* 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done can be reconsidered when people have no complaints to make about the user. There is more than just number of mainspace edits to consider, there is whether the user is constructive with those edits (so not just reverts). This is revealed by looking at the contribution history. The next check is the talk page of the user to see if people are happy with the edits done by the candidate or not. Some complaints are acceptable, but when there are a large number then that will first need sorting out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

Please only list approved/trial approved bots here and add a link to your bot approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&oldid=567393082"