Bot Confirmation: Move from "Other discussions" to "BOT approval requests"
← Older revision
Revision as of 11:40, 26 November 2012
Line 321:
Line 321:
* '''support''' It is a guiding tool, rather than a bot. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 11:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
* '''support''' It is a guiding tool, rather than a bot. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 11:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
*I've '''granted''' the bot flag as there has been no disagreement for almost two weeks.—[[User:Zhaladshar|Zhaladshar]] [[User talk:Zhaladshar|(Talk)]] 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
*I've '''granted''' the bot flag as there has been no disagreement for almost two weeks.—[[User:Zhaladshar|Zhaladshar]] [[User talk:Zhaladshar|(Talk)]] 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
+
+
==Bot Confirmation==
+
A discussion at [[Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Maintenance_reports|Administrators' noticeboard]] brings up for consideration a bot confirmation similar to [[Wikisource:Administrators#Confirmation_discussions|Admin Confirmation]]. Basic points suggested are.
+
# Bot and/or owner active on WS in the last year for auto confirmation (''follows Admin logic'')
+
# Bot owner is above admin (stewards, crats, developers, etc.) and active across wiki sisters in the last year for auto confirmation.
+
# Bots deflagged for inactivity may apply for reactivation.
+
:[[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] ([[User talk:Jeepday|talk]]) 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
+
+
::Can I change the emphasis to a review and prompt process (KISS principle). We don't make the flag process that hard to get, so it shouldn't be hard to remove. [noting that a flag for a bot allows faster edit rates, larger result pull and avoids usually visible RC '''AND''' also noting any admin-flagged bot undertakes a yearly confirmation process with its admin owner]
+
::* Either user or their bot active at enWS within the past two years (retain flag);
+
::If fail above (2 years of inactivity [to me this is the control point decision]), then
+
::* Prompt user, give 90 days of notice to demonstrate requirement for bot flag
+
::** response '''and use''' (retain flag); otherwise
+
::** no response or no use (trigger flag removal)
+
::Reapplication always available, abbreviated approval process possible. We can do this once or twice a year, so it becomes less burdensome. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 07:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
+
::: I '''support''' this proposal with the above amendments included. -- [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]] ([[User talk:George Orwell III|talk]]) 02:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
=Help=
=Help=
Line 1,367:
Line 1,383:
::I was largely teasing, referring to parameter invert_names. Of course it works and works well. However the documentation is not so hot; and the Wikipedia page referred to [[w:Personal_name#Name_order]] is currently a less-than reassuring (or even enlightening) mess. I can only hope it used to be clearer once. In any case, the sensible rule would be to name the Author in terms of usage in the works in question e.g. "Mao Tse Tung" even if current standards lean toward "Mao Zedong". Unless the name concerned is really well-known, there is often no way of detecting whether the original work had already reversed the name parts. Pop quiz: is "Chan Lean Fore" or "Lean Fore Chan" more correct? How do you know? The fact there is currently an Australian family with the space-containing surname "Lean Fore" is a (misleading) hint! [[User:MODCHK|MODCHK]] ([[User talk:MODCHK|talk]]) 10:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
::I was largely teasing, referring to parameter invert_names. Of course it works and works well. However the documentation is not so hot; and the Wikipedia page referred to [[w:Personal_name#Name_order]] is currently a less-than reassuring (or even enlightening) mess. I can only hope it used to be clearer once. In any case, the sensible rule would be to name the Author in terms of usage in the works in question e.g. "Mao Tse Tung" even if current standards lean toward "Mao Zedong". Unless the name concerned is really well-known, there is often no way of detecting whether the original work had already reversed the name parts. Pop quiz: is "Chan Lean Fore" or "Lean Fore Chan" more correct? How do you know? The fact there is currently an Australian family with the space-containing surname "Lean Fore" is a (misleading) hint! [[User:MODCHK|MODCHK]] ([[User talk:MODCHK|talk]]) 10:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
−
−
==Bot Confirmation==
−
A discussion at [[Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Maintenance_reports|Administrators' noticeboard]] brings up for consideration a bot confirmation similar to [[Wikisource:Administrators#Confirmation_discussions|Admin Confirmation]]. Basic points suggested are.
−
# Bot and/or owner active on WS in the last year for auto confirmation (''follows Admin logic'')
−
# Bot owner is above admin (stewards, crats, developers, etc.) and active across wiki sisters in the last year for auto confirmation.
−
# Bots deflagged for inactivity may apply for reactivation.
−
:[[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] ([[User talk:Jeepday|talk]]) 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
−
−
::Can I change the emphasis to a review and prompt process (KISS principle). We don't make the flag process that hard to get, so it shouldn't be hard to remove. [noting that a flag for a bot allows faster edit rates, larger result pull and avoids usually visible RC '''AND''' also noting any admin-flagged bot undertakes a yearly confirmation process with its admin owner]
−
::* Either user or their bot active at enWS within the past two years (retain flag);
−
::If fail above (2 years of inactivity [to me this is the control point decision]), then
−
::* Prompt user, give 90 days of notice to demonstrate requirement for bot flag
−
::** response '''and use''' (retain flag); otherwise
−
::** no response or no use (trigger flag removal)
−
::Reapplication always available, abbreviated approval process possible. We can do this once or twice a year, so it becomes less burdensome. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 07:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
−
::: I '''support''' this proposal with the above amendments included. -- [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]] ([[User talk:George Orwell III|talk]]) 02:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
== Getting a means for Mc that does superscript but not too high? ==
== Getting a means for Mc that does superscript but not too high? ==