User talk:Yobot/Archive 11

Expanding templates

I would question whether edits like this should be done at all. Certainly the bot should not be making an edit just to expand template names without anything substantive being done to the page. There is no visible change to readers and it clutters watchlists. I would also argue that the whole concept of taking out abbreviated names is cluttering the edit window so we should not be doing it anyway. Was there some kind of consensus to do this? SpinningSpark 19:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark That had nothing to do with why Yobot visited. See Magiolatis' response just above this one. Bgwhite (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense at all to me. The edit I linked is bypassing a redirect. The edit in the thread above changed the order of header templates, to which Magioladitis replied with an edit that added quotation marks to a ref name (yet another thing that is unnecessary unless the refname starts with a numeral). My point is that I thought bots were not meant to make edits if the sole content made no visible difference or impact to the user. SpinningSpark 23:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I came here about the same matter as SpinningSpark and I also can't understand the answer. Please stop this. Thincat (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the bot until this gets answered. Where has there been a consensus to expand template names and bypass the redirect? I have looked through the bot approvals on Yobots page and don't see it. Arguably, the short names are actually useful as there is less clutter in the edit window. This seems to be more than a test run—I have been seeing these edits for months. SpinningSpark 17:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been wondering about edits like this, which placed quotation marks unnecessarily around a ref name, but otherwise did nothing. Is that a new thing that the bot has started doing? As for expanding template names, the shortcuts are useful for new editors to copy—easier to type and remember—so it's best to leave them. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see the edit I linked above also expanded templates: "further" to "further information". Magioladitis, that does need to stop, because it violates AWB rule #4. This was pointed out to you years ago when you were changing "see" to "further information". SarahSV ^(talk) 17:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not just a violation of the AWB rules, it violates the bot policy at WP:COSMETICBOT. To my mind, the quotation marks are not only another violation of this but also another example of edits that are potentially unwanted at all. Please provide the consensus for that one as well. SpinningSpark 17:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV the ref name you mentioned contains the illegal character "/". -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV Fro the template redirects check Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects, Feel free to adjust the list. Recently hundreds of redirect were removed from the list. Feel free to remove those that do not have consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark I already replied to Thincat below. It is a glitch due to code changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark I @Bgwhite: for the quotes. This is part of CHECKWIKI error #104. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: take note that Dexbot was also blocked for the same reason. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "reply to Thincat below". What is it you are saying is a glitch? Expanding template names? Is it fixed? It should not be for users to go through the AWB list. The only ones that should be there are ones that have consensus, unless there is a general consensus somewhere to bypass redirects, and that is for the bot operator to check. On the quotes, I see that and agree that in that example quotes are needed. SpinningSpark 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: The discussion referred to is at User talk:Magioladitis#Distracting and unnecessary edits Thincat (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed. I can't have control every aspect of this page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not the only one complained about. Thincat objected to {{main}} → {{main article}} as well, and I've certainly seen a great number of those recently. My question is more general: why are abbreviation redirects considered errors in the first place? Surely there needs to be a consensus to wipe them out before it becomes a bot task. In any case, such changes are COSMETIC and should not be done on their own, and I'm still unclear whether you have addressed that. SpinningSpark 18:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark The glitch is that these things usually don't happen because the CHECKWIKI lists is synchronized with the AWB fixes. When the first changes to include more pages tha AWB can fix then there is a problem. In the future Yobot should be replace with WPCleaner bot for this project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Removed. The initial idea behind it is tat AWB can't have a full list of redirects of every possible template. In some cases these templates are involved in wider changes. For example, hatnotes are merged and moved to the top of the page, etc. This is the best solution we have so far. And I mean since 2010. There are open requests to encourage programmers to help us further with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Bgwhite just turned off the piece of code in CHECKWIKI that was causing the problem with the ref names. Please unblock the bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This has become very confused. I already said above (after you had explained) that I thought the example given by SlimVirgin was correct to add quotation marks. If you have been adding quotation marks to all ref names as a matter of course rather than just ones with illegal characters, then that would be a bit more problematic, but I have accepted your answer and assumed that is not the case.

That leaves the original issue of expanding template names which you have not explained (at least not here). Doing that in isolation without a substantive change to the page as well is a violation of COSMETICBOT and that is why you are blocked. I have read the explanation you gave to Thincat, and if I have understood that correctly, it is inadequate. You say, I think, that AWB cannot distinguish between minor fixes and errors so fixes them all as a block. If the page has errors that AWB doesn't fix for any reason then that can leave just trivial changes. I appreciate your problem, but unless you have consensus to run a bot on those terms, you just can't work that way. Saying that's just the way the script works, or that's just what's listed in AWB is simply no excuse at all. That just means the tool is not suitable for these type of bot tasks. Why not check the the corrected text for errors before saving it? If the number of errors goes down, then save it, it is not trivial. If the number of errors stays the same, then don't save—the page needs a manual fix. If the number of errors goes up, stop processing, you are making things worse. Whatever the solution, it clearly needs to be general, not just remove specific fixes as people complain about them.

On top of that, I don't think we have had an answer on where is the consensus for expanding template shortcuts. It seems that the answer is that this is stuff that has built up in AWB over the years as a result of ad hoc individual user requests and nobody can now point to any documentation for those decisions. That is unsatisfactory, but as you have removed the specific examples complained about, I won't pusue that one any further. SpinningSpark 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Now the ref names with dashes are not shown as error in CHECKWIKI. We are back to the old status i.e. Yobot won't visit these pages and won't try to "fix" them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some WP:IDHT in your replies. You repeatedly return to the ref names issue, when that was never the issue originally raised and has long been answered. Let me try and make this simple; before unblocking you I want to hear one of the following from you,

• Point to a guideline that says template redirects are harmful and should be bypassed (that is, show that the change is not considered cosmetic)
• Point to a community consensus that template redirects should be bypassed as a matter of course
• Point to a bot approval that says it is ok for Yobot to mistakenly make a certain percentage of cosmetic only edits such as bypassing redirects
• Stop Yobot processing minor fixes altogether

Regards, SpinningSpark 11:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Thanks for clarifying because otherwise I would probably continue to a parallel discussion trying to answer to different isue :)

See this for instance [1]. What do you see there is that AWB was used to orphan redirects as consensus to move to more standard names. There is no certain guideline ASAIK but it is a standard practice in many cases. Not for all redirects but for certain cases. Another aspect is that AWB uses this trick since 2010 to cope up with various name alternatives of cleanup templates. The fact that many editors keep adding redirects there shows that there are people who want this as a low priority task. This is the argument in many bot requests anyway. That instead of having a bot to do this task all at once we could use AWB bots that perform general fixes anyway to do this as parallel secondary task.

If you check most of Yobot's tasks (I randomly opened Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 20 just now but most important is this Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16) you'll see that general fixes are allowed. It's clear that cosmetic changes should not be the primary task of the bot. Other bots have flaws though. The edit history of IntenetArchiveBot is a very recent example.

What is on the core problems though? Yobot, in order to perform CHECKWIKI fixes, is based in multiple external tools. CHECKWIKI is mainly maintained by Bgwhite. The page checks are done by WPCleaner maintained by NicoV. AWB general fixes are mainly coded by Rjwilmsi. I have a secondary role in most of them and I try to coordinate these actions but my programming knowledge is not in an expert level and my time is also limited. A full daily CHECKWIKI run requires many hours because I daily report bugs, suggest solutions and fix manually pages that the bot failed to fix.

Yes, I know. I could go and run each of the 114 errors separately. by creating 114 different scripts/ Well, this would require me to triple(?) the time I spent daily for this project. Believe me I already spent several hours. This is the reason I ask other to join in. I tried to move this task to Dexbot. Dexbot already fixes 3 more error. As expected, no programmer is willing to take the entire project.

Is there a solution for bypassing redirects not done a sole edit at least? Well, I already requested help for that: T132286.

Should all these redirect really be bypassed? No idea. I assume good faith and I assume that people who disagree can go in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and remove those who are not really needed.

If there is something I did not answer please tell me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, you invited me to look at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and remove any that don't have consensus, but the problem is that none of them do, and there's no need to correct them. "Infobox Philosopher" and "Infobox philosopher" both work. "See" is easier to type and remember than "further information". I see Fram asked in 2010 here whether there was consensus to do this. Was consensus established? If not, can you stop until it is? SarahSV ^(talk) 13:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It is also not reasonable to expect objectors to go into AWB and make corrections themselves. They may well not have the confidence or knowledge to do this. SpinningSpark 14:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You linked to a Phabricator bug above where you requested that bypassing redirects be made a cosmetic change. That shows to me that you accept that these are cosmetic changes and that pretty much rules out the first two options I gave you. The bot approvals you link to do indeed show that you are approved to make general fixes, but only if you have a substantive change to make at the same time. They certainly don't give approval for making the occassional cosmetic only edit. If anything, they seemed quite keen that you did not do this. Clearly, you cannot meet the third option either. You now either need to get BAG approval for this, that is, specifically get BAG to accept that occassional cosmetic-only edits will be made and on what terms, or else stop general fixes completely.

I am horrified that editors are allowed to go into the AWB tasks and change them willy-nilly. A redirect bypass added to that list can result in several bots and hundreds of AWB users making that edit on thousands of pages. BAG generally requires that a bot task is carrying out a requirement found in guidelines or policy or if that doesn't exist then a link to a community consensus discussion. Allowing changes without some kind of quality check process means that the bot approval process can be circumvented just by tinkering with AWB's rules. SpinningSpark 14:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Yobot is ot the only bot working this way. See User_talk:AnomieBOT#Autosubst for instance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin the infoboxes have mainly to do wit AWB's functionality to enable it recognise certain pages as biographical. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Spinningspark I really don't know what is going on because the big long discussion above is too confusing. But some points..
  1. There have been many discussions about renaming template redirects. This is the original one and again here. Renaming has been going on for six years and has been fairly uncontroversial (SlimVirgin being one of the exceptions) if the renaming is being done while AWB is there for something else.
  2. It would be silly to have a discussion on adding/removing each template to be renamed. If you look at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects's edit history, you will see the additions/substractions being done by people who know what they are doing.
  3. If you have concerns over this, it's not appropriate to raise them here. The AWB talk page would be one place that would be better.
  4. AWB arrives at an article. If the reason for being there has already been fixed or can't be fixed by AWB, AWB will still do "general fixes". Template renaming is a "general fix". Putting quotes around a ref name is a "general fix". I fix broken brackets found by CheckWiki. I run the bot on them and it usually fixes ~2/3. The ones that weren't fixed did have "general fixes" applied. I then go back to the unfixed articles and do them manually.
  5. Where Magioladitis went wrong... he was overeager. He should not have started Yobot on articles when the majority would not have been fixed by Yobot. AWB did not yet have the ability to "fix" all cases of punction in a reference's name. This caused way too many articles to have only minor things changed.

Bgwhite (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• CheckWiki will now only check for # " ' / = > ? \. This will probably end up being enwiki only as enwiki's recommendations goes against MediaWiki's documentation and other Wikis docs. Bgwhite (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark and Bgwhite: the number of pages that are not actually fixed by Yobot decreased significantly in the last few months. If you read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/Archive_8#AWB_fixes.2Fdetects_more_of_some_errors you'll notice how many new cases are covered by AWB i.e. the margin between CHECKWIKI and AWB constantly closes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed more templates from the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Expanding templates: Arbitrary break

@Bgwhite: It is baffling that you think that Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive 23 § RfC on Template redirects amounts to consensus for bypassing template redirects in general. First of all, that discussion was never formally closed (or closed in any way for that matter) with a documented decision so it is difficult to tell what consensus it does show. But more than that, there was some very strong opposition in the discussion. To me, that shows that there is not any consensus for bypassing redirects, but just the opposite. At the very least, the action has to be considered controversial and therefore not a suitable task for a bot.

In that discussion, user:CBM said "The general principle is that redirects are not broken and there is no reason to replace a redirect by its target just for the sake of uniformity." User:Fram said "These replacements don't improve the encyclopedia, don't help readers or editors. Variety isn't a bad of harmful thing." That RfC was held on a backwater page where AWB programmers hang out and others who are likely to be sympathetic, rather than on a central policy page like VPP. If you can generate that kind of strong opposition there then you definitely do not have consensus. I am now completely convinced from that that my block of Yobot was justified and that you now need to seek community consensus for what you are doing, either in general or case by case.

You are wrong that this is not an appropriate venue. Every editor is responsible for the edits they make, regardless of the behaviour of the tools they are using. I believe it even says something like that on the AWB page. Yobot made the edits, so the issue is with Yobot. No regular editor can be expected to know that Yobot is taking its configuration from AWB. That might be an argument that I should be on AWB's case as well, but Yobot and its operator remain responsible for the edits it is making. SpinningSpark 14:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark You turn to putting me down and being condescending... You say "Baffling" as if I'm a moron and treating me as if I'm a child. If you happened to actually read what I said, I never said "consensus". I said, "There have been many discussions about renaming template redirects". Stop putting #($*@ words in my mouth. At the end of every Yobot edit summary, it says "using AWB", thus editors know AWB is being used. RFC's are usually announced in other spots too... Non-AWB users Fram and CBM made comments. "backwater" egads. There were no programmers in one message and one programmer in the other. As hundreds of AWB users are running around doing the same thing and AWB has been doing this for 6 years. 1) you are unfairly picking on Magaladits. 2) There is no grave threat of AWB doing harm to articles. Keeping Yobot blocked is running afoul of WP:BOTISSUE and WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. You are making things up and putting words in people's mouth to keep Yobot blocked. I said it before and I'll say it again, "If you have concerns over this, it's not appropriate to raise them here." Your issue is not going to be resolved here, especially in the "backwater" of a user's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Read this User_talk:Od_Mishehu#Redirects_to_stubs for instance. The statements above only reflect a general idea on the redirects but do not talk about special cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now twice been pinged here, so my 2 cents. Magioladitis, go to some central location (VPP or some such), start a discussion with plenty of input (RfC), and get a clear consensus for your changes. Otherwise, don't do them. They have been controversial for years, and you should try to get this out of the way once and for all. I personally oppose such edits, but if consensus is in favour of them, then so be it. Fram (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark and Fram: According to this discussion, there is consensus not to have redirects to stubs. Fram sorry for pinging you again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

But this discussion isn't about stub template, it's about changing "main" to "main article" or "fact" to "citation needed", no? Fram (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that is one user on their own talk page claiming there is a consensus. No link to said claimed consensus is provided. One user doesn't make a consensus. Further, the claimed consensus was at a Wikiproject. Local consensus is not the same as community consensus. Having said that, I doubt that anyone outside Wikiproject Stub Sorting would be concerned about stub templates so I'm not overly concerned about those ones. SpinningSpark 19:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: to comment on that (Whether there is consensus to bypass redirects of stub templates). -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about stub tamplates was at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Use AWB to gradually reduce the use of moved stub tags?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion someone has to go and clean the list of redirects. We should only keep those that are vital for AWB tagger. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yobot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

SpinningSpark has an issue with AWB and renaming redirects. For example, renaming {{cn}} to {{citation needed}} or {{-}} to {{clear}}. Until the template issue is resolved, SpinningSpark will keep Yobot blocked. I'm not disagreeing why Yobot was blocked, just the reasons for continuing the block. The original reason was, Ok, I've blocked the bot until this gets answered. Answers were given and the problem fixed. The main problem ended up not being with Yobot. Yobot was not the only bot blocked for this. Yobot is the only one still blocked. The original issue was resolved, but Spinningspork said, Ok, but that's not the only one complained about. and went on talking about template redirects. The rest of the discussion, ~75% of the entire discussion was only about template redirects. SpinningSparks demands are: 1) Stop doing redirects and show they are not harmful. 2) Show consensus to do redirects 3) Show bot approval where AWB can do a certain percentage of cosmetic edits. 4) Stop doing the original edits. There are hundreds of editors and bots that use AWB, so why single out Yobot? The renaming has been in AWB since at least 2010. So, there is no immediate danger of errors being made. When I asked "What I want to know is your policy based justifications for keeping Yobot blocked? What is the immediate danger of keeping Yobot blocked while hundreds of others run around doing the same thing?", the response was, "Well that's an OTHERSTUFF argument. Yobot is the one that came up on my radar. Let's deal with that one before worrying about what other bots are doing. If they are all using AWB then it will be one fix fits all in any case." I pressed further on what policy is the justification and they said WP:COSMETICBOT was the policy reason. However, that no longer applies as that issue was fixed. I've repeatedly asked them to take their issues with AWB to a proper forum and not a user's talk page. They have refused. It's apparent that SpinningSpark is holding Yobot hostage until their demands of AWB are done. This is not a valid reason to keep one bot hostage out of hundreds doing the exact same thing. The proper way is to have them bring up their issues in a proper forum and not punitively block one bot because it showed up on Spinning's radar. Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC) BAG xaosflux responding to a question by SpinningSpark at BAG talkpage, As far as malfunctioning bots: if a bot is off task and won't stop: block it - once the operator has identified the cause and agreed to repair it the block should not be needed.. The issue of bad input data has been repaired. SpinningSpark still wants no bots to do template redirects and not do cosmetic edits. As pointed out, anyone using AWB will be doing template redirects. As pointed out below and the BAG talkpage, many bots are doing cosmetic edits, but not on purpose. Why is Yobot being held hostage until SpinningSpork's demands that AWB be "fixed" and all bots doing one cosmetic edit be terminated are discussed? Bgwhite (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request because the bot's operator is currently blocked, and I don't think it is appropriate for anyone other than the bot operator to request unblock anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MSGJ You are the one who requested Magioladitis to be blocked. You have commented in the Yobot section on the BAG's talk page. That makes you invovled. Anybody can request others to be unblocked. Judge, jury and executioner. Bgwhite (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG xaosflux responding to a question by SpinningSpark at BAG talkpage, As far as malfunctioning bots: if a bot is off task and won't stop: block it - once the operator has identified the cause and agreed to repair it the block should not be needed.. The issue of bad input data has been repaired. SpinningSpark still wants no bots to do template redirects and not do cosmetic edits. As pointed out, anyone using AWB will be doing template redirects. As pointed out below and the BAG talkpage, many bots are doing cosmetic edits, but not on purpose. Why is Yobot being held hostage until SpinningSpork's demands that AWB be "fixed" and all bots doing one cosmetic edit be terminated are discussed? Bgwhite (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

}}

Surely, in the interest of finding a resolution, the bot operator should be willing to disable the AWB general fixes being discussed - which are not the main bot job anyway, just extra things that are also being done. Then the bot can continue doing its main task, and whenever AWB is fixed the bot might be able to resume doing other side fixes as well. It is very hard to see why the operator would refuse to disable extra edits that are not the purpose of the bot job in the first place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I can't seem to find any evidence of "hundreds of bots" making template-redirect only edits. Looking at talk pages, I see edits by ‎Lowercase sigmabot III (archiving), InternetArchiveBot (no cosmetic only changes), and ‎DYKUpdateBot (adding DYK info). Looking at articles, I see ‎Bender the Bot http to https, which I believe is a specifically approved task), ‎Dexbot (changing an url into a template and other tasks), ‎Xqbot and AvicBot (fixing double redirects), ‎InternetArchiveBot, and ‎BG19bot (the only one that may look similar to Yobot in my long watchlist). So that's one bot that may do similar things to what Yobot was blocked for (I haven't looked close enough to see if BG19bot really is similar or not). As for AWB: AWB explicitly disallows cosmetic-only changes. Template redirects are cosmetic only changes. So unblocking Yobot to allow him to make cosmetic-only changes (with or without AWB) is a bad idea. Fram (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See, my impression from comparing revisions is that using template redirects does lengthen the page loading time a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Which, if confirmed, may be a good argument to get consensus for these edits. For the moment, they still violate policy though as unapproved cosmetic-only changes. Fram (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram Why do people keep putting words in my mouth? I never said, making template-redirect only edits, I said, There are hundreds of editors and bots that use AWB, so why single out Yobot? SpinningSpork wants Yobot blocked until AWB is fixed in regards to the template issue (demand #2 Point to a community consensus that template redirects should be bypassed as a matter of course) and all bots not make cosmetic edits. They are using Yobot to make a point. My bot, BU RoBOT, OmniBot 5, BattyBot, Yobot, BattyBot, Fluxbot are some bots that use genfixes to correct issues in some approved tasks. If the issue has already been fixed, AWB's genfixes will be still be applied, thus causing a cosmetic edit. Gathering articles from dumps, databases or CheckWiki all invole lag time from when the issue was detected to "fixed". Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Who cares that there are hundreds using AWB? Yobot is not blocked because he uses AWB, he is blocking for violating cosmetic editing rules, which is disallowed for bots, and disallowed by AWB rules. If there are hundreds of editors using AWB often to make cosmetic-only edits without any complaints or blocks, then you might have had a point. Otherwise your "everyone does it" argument is simply invalid. That people 'can use AWB to edit against or without consensus doesn't mean they are allowed to do so. Spinningsporks statement you quote doesn't say "correct AWB", it says "get consensus for your edits". Fram (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary by Spinningspark. I blocked Yobot for violating WP:COSMETICBOT. The particular issue I saw was bypassing template redirects such as {{main}} → {{main article}}. Yobot was making these edits without making any other change visible on the rendered page. In this thread on Magioladitis' talk page Magioladitis explains that some edits like this are inevitable because of the way the bot works. In the subsequent discussion here it became apparent that there is not even consensus for making such edits at all. Bgwhite has argued that these edits have been made for years by "hundreds" of bots. However, it is now plain to me that editors have also been complaining about them for years. In this RFC on the AWB talk page there was a failure to get consensus to make them. Yet the edits continued to be made by bots and the complaining editors are simply ignored.

I understand that the specific examples complained about in this thread like {{main}} have now been removed from the AWB list. A consensus has been pointed to for bypassing stub templates. However, have all the ones that don't have consensus been removed? I'm not seeing any kind of declaration on that on this page. For instance, infoboxes were raised on one of the old threads. Is that still in the list. Bgwhite argues that this is an issue that should be taken up with AWB. Yes it should, and it should also be taken up with BAG for allowing bots to make general fixes without controlling what the contents of general fixes are. However, I would be remiss in my duty as an administrator to release a bot from a block knowing that it will (or might) continue to make edits without consensus.

There is also still the original issue of cosmetic-only edits. Magioladitis explains that these are due to CHECKWIKI and AWB getting out of step. As I have been writing this Magioladitis has declared on Bgwhite's talk page that they are now back in step (it would be good if he declared that here too). However, Yobot is a serial offender for this problem and has been blocked numerous times for it. Can Magioladitis please explain how this "getting out of step" happens and what how he intends to prevent it happening in the future? SpinningSpark 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now raised this as a general problem at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#General fixes and cosmetic edits. By the way Bgwhite, I don't have a grudge against AWB. I use it myself occassionally. SpinningSpark 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:COSMETICBOT yet again

[2] Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ramaksoud2000 A bad code in the page confused both Anomiebot and Yobot. Bgwhite fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What about these? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for cosmetic edits after repeated warnings. Magio, the first of Rob's examples was purely an insertion of whitespace just minutes after you declared the problem fixed and very soon after the previous unblock for the same issue. In my opinion, reviewing admins should not now unblock until the BAG discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 13#Request to modify Yobot authorization has concluded. Reviewing admins should also note that there is currently a request for Arbcom to look at this issue. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SpinningSpark 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark my reaction to this is User_talk:Magioladitis#Errors_7.2C_19.2C_25.2C_83. I voluntarily quit from fixing 4 errors. Bgwhite will continue the evaluation and Yobot's list will become even smaller. We can ofcourse finish the Yobot full re-evaluation too. I wait for the results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Please see the recent edits from the Magioladitis account editing at high speeds and making the same edits as Yobot. In some cases, even keeping the task numbers in the edit summaries. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 unrelated to the task you reported as broken. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing at a rate of 30 edits/minute on your main account without the bot flag because your bot is blocked is an issue whether it was related to the reason your bot was blocked or not. (And I've never really agreed with the whole "block evasion" aspect of your block a few days ago - one can't evade the block of a bot, really. That's not what this note is about.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

30 e/m? The "Fix spacing between percent" is not one of my bot tasks yet and "Fix sections" was mainly done in area that the bot did not do. For instance, I fixed "Links" to "External links" which is not appropriate for bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Simplify wikilinks

I just wanted to mention another unnecessary edit made by the bot [9] Necrosis Buddha 18:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

NecrosisBuddha This is not cosmetic. This is CHECKWIKI error #64 fix and it is performed by many bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? What was the effect on the rendered page of that edit? That is, the rendered page as seen by a Wikipedia reader. SpinningSpark 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark CHECKWIKI error #64 is approved and long-standing. All CHECKWIKI fixes are considered not cosmetic. more than 4 bots have been approved to fix this. yobot has been approved to do that in 2010! In fact there are even bots that fix this as sole edit. If there is going to be a change on that then it has to be discussed in WP:CHECKWIKI or somewhere else. This is the problem I am trying to describe: Too many pages, too many definitions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My question was not whether or not it is in CHECKWIKI, or what other bots do it, or whether it is approved. My question was in what way is it not cosmetic? Declaring all CHECKWIKI fixes to be non-cosmetic is no answer at all. You continue even now to not get the point about cosmetic edits. SpinningSpark 23:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark OK if this is a cosmetic edit then bots are allowed under certain circumstances to make cosmetic edits. This is done by consensus. Do you agree with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find an exact definition about is a "cosmetic edit". Where is it? I can't find it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Magio, I feel we just go around in circles with you and repeatedly come back to the same place. Bots are allowed to make cosmetic edits, but not cosmetic-only edits unless they have explicit permission (which is never granted). How you do not understand that, after all those ANI cases and previous blocks, well, it's just beyond me and I give up trying to explain it. Rule 4 on the AWB page pretty much defines a cosmetic edit and the policy is at WP:COSMETICBOT. SpinningSpark 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark We obviously disagree then. Because I believe that simplifying this link can be done even as sole edit. How do we clear out this? See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 2 for instance. BAG confirmed this in 2010. CHECKWIKI asks people to simplify links at least since 2009. Yobot was also confirmed to do this. CHECKWIKI list is handled by many bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark I am excited. We may have found the reason behind all this disagreement. I hope we resolve this one way or another! We RfC or something like that about the definition of cosmetic edits and if there can be exceptions to the cosmeticbot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The only definition I recall for cosmetic changes was a python script that was working till 2009 and was doing very few things and at some point it got broken too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

NecrosisBuddha to be fair, as an "unnecessary edit", so was your revert. "Do not revert an edit because it is unnecessary." Although dropping a note on the talkpage of the editor (or BotOp) in question is certainly the way to go. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:43, 9 Tevet 5777 / 08:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this being blocked

I have just found that it obliterated the WP:CRIC banner at Talk:Tall Bennett and no doubt the same problem has occurred elsewhere. If the bot is inefficient because of poor analysis, development and testing, then blocking is the correct course of action. What a waste of time. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Get real, that edit was in 2012, five years ago. If this is the only time you have noticed Yobot's 4.7 million edits in five years then you really don't have much to complain about. It is certainly not cause for a block unless you have evidence that the problem is still occuring now. SpinningSpark 19:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark, you get real. That bot is an interfering nuisance and always has been. Just because I have for once decided to raise the issue instead of correcting and moving on, does not mean the Bennett article is an isolated instance. Telling people to "get real" is a breach of WP:CIVIL. I suggest you learn some manners and use some WP:COMMONSENSE. End of conversation. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Since 2012, I have rewritten the KingbotK plugin code in C# and later replaced with custom module. This error dies not re-occur. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Digging to 2012 is patently absurd. A bot operator cannot be expected to even still hold copies of code ran half a decade ago, let alone answer for why the error occurred. There are issues with Yobot, but this is most certainly not one of them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if he had reported it five years ago and Magio still hadn't fixed it there would be something to talk about. But vague assertions that this is not "an isolated incident" just don't cut it. SpinningSpark 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking

At this stage I am going to unblock Yobot. My understanding of this closure at Bot requests for approval is that Yobot currently has no approved tasks, all approvals have been withdrawn and need reapproval. The bot therefore cannot legitimately run in any case for the time being. Hopefully, any new approvals will restrict Yobot to editing in a way that is acceptable to the community. SpinningSpark 18:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Pál Hermann

Hi Yobot.

I ask you for help because you helped me improve this wiki page in the past.

Kleuske for some reason keeps insisting to move English and Dutch pages to Paul Hermann. My grandfather's used Pál Hermann for his music compositions, although he also used Paul when performing as a cellist. As all that is left of him are his compositions, IMSLP and German/French/Hungarian wiki pages have accepted Pál, I would like to undo Kleuske moving of the English and Dutch wiki pages to Paul, but she refuses (see her talk page). Also there was another composer Paul Hermann (1904-1970) active in Berlin, which is what the Italian, French and German Pál Hermann wiki pages explain as disambiguation. As cruel destiny will have it, this namesake of my grandfather was a Nazi composer.

The sources of the name Pál Hermann are my grandfather's birthcertificate, the manuscripts of his music compositions as made accessible through http://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Hermann%2C_P%C3%A1l and also the recent scholarship in LA based Colburn School of Music in his name Pál Hermann as is the publicity cellist Clive Greensmith gives to Hermann's cello concerto.

Could you help out? Many thanks and greetings from Italy, Pvangastel. —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Request of article deal edit.

Hi i am requesting that pls improve as ideal articles Shyamal K Mishra and detect me what is multiple issue.... Rishi Kumar Maurya (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Help me to Edit Heading of a Wikipage

Dear

The wiki page title "Parliament Security Services" may please to edited as "Parliament Security Service".

The "S" in "Services" need a deletion.

Please help us to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulksingh1001 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)