On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but that's not what I wrote in the paragraph above, "Just reject them." I'd include the same restrictions for administrators.
Why? We trust admins.
There are too many administrators that may be well-meaning, but skim without understanding instructions, or don't bother to fix double redirects, or are quite simply technically incompetent.
Sack 'em.
I'd thought queuing edits would be OK, with no restrictions for administrators. Don't have any idea how hard to implement here. In my long ago database days, it was a feature that was implementable in foxbase, so I'm sure that the fancier tools of today would be easy.
It just sounds like a lot of work for not much gain. There is absolutely no problem whatsoever with people making fast edits *except* on the rare cases of vandalism. Much better to *detect* the fast edits, alert an admin, then block them if they're a vandal. In any case 1 per 20 seconds is very slow...there are plenty of times I've edited faster than that, and waiting for the edits to be queued would get very tedious very quickly. And for what benefit?
It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions. Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.
It might be possible, but it's not desirable in a shared environment.
???
And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.
I didn't realise that, thanks.
Steve