Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html
Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their projects. They know the rules better than any steward. Would not that make sense ?
Anthere
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html
Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their projects. They know the rules better than any steward. Would not that make sense ?
Yes Anthere that would definately make sense :)
Waerth/Walter
On 11/1/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html
Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their projects. They know the rules better than any steward. Would not that make sense ?
There was an objection to this last time it was raised (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-Otober/032050.html), but the main reason it's not possible seems to be technical; there is currently no interface for bureaucrats to be able to do this (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3855).
Angela.
There was an objection to this last time it was raised (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-Otober/032050.html), but the main reason it's not possible seems to be technical; there is currently no interface for bureaucrats to be able to do this (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3855).
A letter disappeared from that URL. The correct link was meant to be http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032050.html.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
There was an objection to this last time it was raised (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-Otober/032050.html), but the main reason it's not possible seems to be technical; there is currently no interface for bureaucrats to be able to do this (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3855).
A letter disappeared from that URL. The correct link was meant to be http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032050.html.
Angela.
In that mail, Tim notes
It may be that there's not enough active stewards at the moment, and that may be leading to tensions. But I think the system we have has been quite effective in general, so if steward workload is a problem, we should just get more stewards.
But no, I do not think the problem is a workload frankly. If you look at the page, most of the pending requests are due to the fact people making a request do not follow the requirements (in particular first asking on their wiki and linking the request page on meta). And this is in particular for the bots. Many of those asking a bot just list a huge collection of languages where they wish the bot to be flagged. But that's about it. The problem is that all projects have different policies for granting bot access. Some projects have quite strict policies and others just do not have any policies. This is something very difficult for a steward to just know.
And at the prospective of having to go to each project in turn to ask.... well, energies are sinking :-)
Here are a couple of current examples
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Sau.C3.B0kindin request for a bot to work on two projects. There are two links One goes to a village pump, with no comments there The other link goes to a page in swedish, with one editor asking a question in swedish. The request on meta has been done 3 days after the candidacy on sv. What do we do ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Chobot Chobot, to work on about all projects Nearly no page where we can find approval. Andre gave approval where the bot had support. Otherwise, the bot is pending.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Santa As no consensus was visible, we waiteddddddd Good thing we waited, the user quited the project and was guilty of cp violations. Only editors on the project could know.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#RobotJcb Ahhhh, Dallas on meta...
So, no, the problem is not workload. The problem is editors not following a bunch of basic rules, such as gaining consensus on their project first And the positive side would be that bureaucrats on a local project would precisely know what the local rules are about granting a bot. This is all I want to point out.
ant
Anthere wrote:
Angela wrote:
There was an objection to this last time it was raised (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-Otober/032050.html),
but the main reason it's not possible seems to be technical; there is currently no interface for bureaucrats to be able to do this (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3855).
A letter disappeared from that URL. The correct link was meant to be http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032050.html.
Angela.
In that mail, Tim notes
It may be that there's not enough active stewards at the moment, and that may be leading to tensions. But I think the system we have has
been
quite effective in general, so if steward workload is a problem, we should just get more stewards.
But no, I do not think the problem is a workload frankly. If you look at the page, most of the pending requests are due to the fact people making a request do not follow the requirements (in particular first asking on their wiki and linking the request page on meta). And this is in particular for the bots. Many of those asking a bot just list a huge collection of languages where they wish the bot to be flagged. But that's about it. The problem is that all projects have different policies for granting bot access. Some projects have quite strict policies and others just do not have any policies. This is something very difficult for a steward to just know.
And at the prospective of having to go to each project in turn to ask.... well, energies are sinking :-)
Here are a couple of current examples
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Sau.C3.B0kindin request for a bot to work on two projects. There are two links One goes to a village pump, with no comments there The other link goes to a page in swedish, with one editor asking a question in swedish. The request on meta has been done 3 days after the candidacy on sv. What do we do ?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Chobot Chobot, to work on about all projects Nearly no page where we can find approval. Andre gave approval where the bot had support. Otherwise, the bot is pending.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Santa As no consensus was visible, we waiteddddddd Good thing we waited, the user quited the project and was guilty of cp violations. Only editors on the project could know.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#RobotJcb Ahhhh, Dallas on meta...
So, no, the problem is not workload. The problem is editors not following a bunch of basic rules, such as gaining consensus on their project first And the positive side would be that bureaucrats on a local project would precisely know what the local rules are about granting a bot. This is all I want to point out.
I support your approach and interpretation. We have some very impatient people Their desire to use bots seems consistent with that impatience. Doing things the "hard way" more often would have therapeutic value for them. :-)
Ec
Absolutely agree. Flagging bots gives me headaches that I try to avoid.
Snowdog.
Anthere wrote:
Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html
Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their projects. They know the rules better than any steward. Would not that make sense ?
Anthere
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthere wrote:
Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html
Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their projects. They know the rules better than any steward. Would not that make sense ?
Speaking as a bureaucrat who could end up with this awesome responsibility I admit that I favour a conservative approach to the use of bots and templates. The templates are relatively easy to identify and deal with, but I often wonder about those bots quietly carrying on their job in the background. There are probably also those bots that were set up a long time ago, and that should probably be deleted for lack of activity. All bots should be periodically reviewed to see if we still need them.
Bots are apparently now treated as some kind of special user in the user namespace, but I wonder whether they might be managed better if they had their own namespace. Any existing bot could also be moved there.
Ec
This is somewhat related, but could there be a function on the wikipedia or on meta to apply to a wiki, a bot to perform a certain function? Much like the US Cities bot, or interwiki bots now running? This would allow certain users, perhaps admins, to automatically perform certain functions, such as generate a large number of similar articles (US city stubs, for example), given an input file uploaded by a user.
Though, I think this is what a bot already does, and I just don't know how to start one.
James
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthere Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:44 AM To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] stewards and bot flagging
Please see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html
Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their projects. They know the rules better than any steward. Would not that make sense ?
Anthere
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org