I am told that devs aren't keen on making an exception. While they (at least
Tim Starling) agrees the current method is rather messed up. They were
talking about a more permanent solution.
A suggestion was that to make the spam autoblocker only black the edit if a
new spam link is being introduced and spam already on the pages do not get
affected. This comes at the expense of performance though.
Then there is the matter of the meta spam autoblocker page has started
getting very large. Soon it will not be possible to load the page.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Mark Wagner
<carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/08, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> From a technical standpoint: I agree with Brion. There are a whole
host
> of reasons why an edit might fail (locked
db's, protected pages, or
even
> the server dying), and the bot needs to be
designed to deal with
that. If
> your bot crashes, etc. due to an edit
failing: well that's your
fault as a
developer.
It would be nice if flagged bots were exempt from the spamfilter.
Spam URLs and protected pages are the situations that my bots can't
handle -- for everything else, the bot can either wait or try again.
This is something that I can agree with, if a user is trusted enough
to receive the bot flag in the first place (or "trusted not to make
spam/vandalism/controversial mass edits"), we shouldn't have to worry
about spam filtering them.
--Andrew Whitworth
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l