It appears you are running Yobot's CHECKWIKI job on your main account. Those edits appear to be circumventing the ongoing block on Yobot, which should pause all of its tasks until the bot is unblocked.

It also appears that you are saving edits such as [1] [2], which violate the AWB rules of use, even when made manually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mag, STOP using AWB if you can't turn off edits that do not affect rendering. Uninstall it from your computer if you can't control yourself. In your talk page archive on 31 December, you said "I already wrote in the ArbCom: I agree 'not to make changes that do not affect what the reader sees' as long as this discussion is active." You have broken this promise. Why should you not be blocked and have your AWB access removed? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM This is CHECKWIKI APPROVED TASK.Jonesey95 I thought I had only to stop during the evidence phase. OK. I'll keep it till the end of the ArbCom compltetelly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CHECKWIKI on its own does not override the AWB rules of use, or the bot policy, as you should be well aware! CHECKWIKI on its own does not approve anything, it is just a pet project of a handful of editors. Of course, if someone makes an edit to one or two pages, nobody will care. But when the edits are done in a bot-like manner, to numerous pages, they need explicit consensus and bot approval - and they need to be run on the bot account. As long as Yobot is blocked, it isn't appropriate to run Yobot's jobs on your main account, even if they use AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM This is your interpretation. Yobot is blocked for not doing what was meant to do. Since every other editor is allowed to contribute in this task, I can't understand why you want me, among all people, not to participate in a project I helped the most for years. I am very sad with this. I apologise for not understanding I had to keep away from these edit for the entire process (which takes weeks!!!) but not for trying to help CHECKWIKI project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM Are other are allowed to do these edits? Are other editors allowed to do this edits w/o AWB? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is an approved task. You made a promise and broke it. As for other editors, there is no prohibition on editors making manual edits that have no effect on the rendered page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95 OK. I extend my promise until the entire ArbCom is completed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, other editors are not allowed to make these edits in a bot-like way, with or without AWB. The AWB Rules only reinforce this general principle. The reason it is repeated in the AWB rules is because it is especially tempting to make some kinds of edits with AWB. Yobot also does not have authorization for CHECKWIKI #1 in the #16 BRFA, by the way. CHECKWIKI #1 is a classic example of something that is not actually an "Error"; it is perfectly valid syntax. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM Are all the errors in that list allowed to be done by me or other editors then? I can't recall the history of when Error 1 was added. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM Error was added in 31 December 2013. It generates less than 100 pages per month. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter, though, if you add an error to a list in your user space. Anyone can do that - I could make a list of some stylistic preferences of mine, too. How is anyone else supposed to know that you have added it, if you don't see project-wide consensus? The CHECKWIKI project does not have special privileges that let them overrule the bot policy and the AWB rules of use. Some of the other CHECKWIKI errors are genuinely errors, which is why it is OK to fix them - but CHECKWIKI is again irrelevant to that. In any case #1 is not an error, which I assume is also why Yobot did not have permission to fix #1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM This is just the proof when the error was added. The error list is not in my userspace! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, without an explicit bot request, there was not permission for Yobot to work on that error. A bot can't just randomly start doing new things without new approval. Moreover, the standard AWB rules of use prevent you, me or anyone from just randomly going to a hundred pages to fix it with AWB without special approval. The point of those AWB rules is that the community has repeatedly expressed the opinion that we don't want people going around making that kind of change, unless the situation is so special that there is consensus for a bot to go do it. Is there any guideline or policy that says that Template: may not be included in a transclusion, or should be removed if it is used? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM First of all, the list is not random. It is decided by a group of people how contribute/participate in the CHECKWIKI project. In the BRFA I have an sample list exactly because many of the errors change numbers, some were abandoned (for example you are familiar with the DEFAULTSORT addition which after the Mediawiki bug was fixed, CHECKWIKI removed it). CHECKWIKI errors are decided by consensus in the list. Ofcourse, you are free to contribute. As you may see I am mainly the person who implements the various decisions rather the person who actually proposes things. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do view the CHECKWIKI lists as somewhat random - it is made by a small group of self-selected editors without broad input from the community. Are new changes posted to the Village Pump, or elsewhere, before being added? Many of the errors are unambiguously errors, such as the wrong number of = signs in a title, which is why there are not too many complaints. However, error #1 shows that the list also includes things that are not errors. So a bot operator or AWB user would be unwise to trust that there is consensus for an item on the list merely because it is on the list, without using some common sense and getting feedback from the broader community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM The wrong number of = signs is fixed manually or by Dexbot. AWB tries and fixes few of them. On the other hand #1 was added because of people trying history merge to other Wikipedias as far as I remember. The change of errors is not that often I think. Sure, ay input that could make the project better and more accurrate is welcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magioladitis. I noticed that you've been filing quite a few BRFAs over the past 24 hours, and while I don't typically participate in that forum, I do keep an eye on it out of pure personal curiosity. I'm a little concerned that your flood of requests may overwhelm the process, especially if it continues much longer. I see that you've been encouraged to be more specific with each individual task, so it's natural that there will be multiple requests, but 20 in one day seems excessive to me. The BAG is stretched rather thin to begin with, and I'm worried that this will ultimately make things harder for you and other bot operators when BAG members and other contributors aren't able to keep up. Don't you think it's a good idea to limit further requests to the most important tasks, at least until some of the current ones are processed? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Most of them were already approved in the past and already performed by other bots. Unfortunatelly, Menobot is also not working since its owner is busy in real life. Since now CHECKWIKI is one bot down I think we have to hurry up to catch up with the increasing log. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't add any others today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: This was in response to a bunch of people demanding the many of the bot's tasks be revoked and re-examined/approved. Personally, I think it would have been easier for them to just open an RFC or to pull some mw devs into the discussion, but this seems to be what the people in the discussion wanted, even if they might not like the reality when it happens. As far as the process goes, chances are we'll just let them stay open quite a bit longer. Most on BAG are probably aware that other task requests take more precedence. --slakr^\ talk / 20:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr I agree with you. And in fact right now it gives the impression a cenrtalised discussion is avoided. There are posing questions to me like I am e person who wrote every single policy, the entire Manual of Style and the entire AWB code. I flattered but this not how it goes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you may have misunderstood my recommendation on your BRFAs that you limit yourself to 5 requests at a time as meaning "5 created per day". I'll restate it again more clearly: I recommend there be at most five requests total for bots you operate in the "Current requests for approval", "Bots in a trial period", and "Bots that have completed the trial period" sections at WP:BRFA. I am not suggesting that you withdraw any of the 14 open BRFAs you have now, only that you do not add any more until enough are closed to bring down the backlog. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]