Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Yobot 55
Operator:

Time filed: 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB / WPCleaner

Source code available: -

Function overview: Remove/Fix invisible unicode characters from pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):


 * Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 16
 * Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 13
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive291

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 300 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Regex: \u200E|\uFEFF|\u200B|\u2028|\u202A|\u202C|\u202D|\u202E|\u00AD can be removed. Regex: \u2004|\u2005|\u2006|\u2007|\u2008 can be replaced by space.

Discussion
pending Administrators'_noticeboard. — xaosflux  Talk 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

the discussion seems to conclude that tis is a useful bot task and it is preferred if a bot does it instead of a normal account. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think that discussion is ready for closing, please list at WP:ANRFC, the uninvovled notes of the closing party will be reviewed. — xaosflux  Talk 16:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need an admin to close this BRFA unless a BAG member can close it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it will close as support for a bot task, assuming so I'll be good with getting this right to a trial, seems like an overall useful task. — xaosflux  Talk 12:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion closed. Rationale is "consensus that these changes be performed, and that they must be via a bot account". -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive291. — xaosflux  Talk 16:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK to trial. Please include edit summary link that clearly describes the task a link for more information either to the BRFA or somewhere on the bot userpage(s). Edits unrelated to this task should not be bundled in.  Please provide link to a range of diffs and any issues you find here after the trial. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

WPCleaner autogenerates edit summaries and does not allow custom edit summaries. WPCleaner also has no way to count edits and stop after a number has reached. AWB can't do the task in bot mode without general fixes activated due to a bug (removal of non visible characters is condsidered as null edit under AWB's understanding). -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * diffs
 * I had to do the saving manually i.e.by pressing Ctrl+S to every single page
 * No general fixes will also result in not adding npbs in the various places it may be needed.
 * After running AWB I will still have to run WPCleaner to remove the pages from the CHECKWIKI list. WPCleaner does that while AWB does not.


 * to your notes above:
 * The trial edits look good and the edit summaries are good.
 * Limitations of your chosen software that require additional development are outside the scope of a BRFA - please address with the development teams.
 * Re "npbs" do you mean ? Regarding "the various places" - is this related to the replacements that this task should be making?
 * If you need to run something to update project work tracking pages in low volume, that is OK.
 * — xaosflux  Talk 04:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. But I may use WPClenaer in some cases instead which auto-generats their own dit summaries.
 * OK. Am I allowed to perform general fixes as llong as the main task is performed or not?
 * Yes. If we allow general fixes I can do some extra invisible character replacement. No big deal.
 * OK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the WPCleaner summary going to look like? — xaosflux  Talk 15:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those aren't as useful for other editors - and without task link don't explain why what they may otherwise determine to be a cosmetic edit are exempt due to the community discussion above - so I'd say no to that type of edit. — xaosflux  Talk 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for as "and all other genfixes" - personally I don't think it's the best idea - but that's not as an approver - would like to get a few other comments from others regarding that here. — xaosflux  Talk 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Input requested (Presenting both pro- and con- summaries of my thoughts) here: Bots/Noticeboard. — xaosflux  Talk 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the main task is in itself cosmetic, but supported, I see no reason why GenFixes shouldn't be allowed. Magio has demonstrated that he can keep to the restrictions of only applying genfixes if the main task has made a change to the page contents.  The edit summary must be clear, and if asked, Magioladitis must be able to explain where in a given edit the main bot task is being carried out.  If he can't then the edit violates COSMETICBOT, and approval can be swiftly modified to disallow general fixes for this task.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the main task is not hardcoded in the general fixes, it's easy to have appropriate skip conditions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I am commenting as a community member, not as a BAG member, in accordance with my recusals from both CHECKWIKI and Magioladitis tasks. I support the use of general fixes in this task provided "Skip if genfixes only" is checked and the edit summary indicates general fixes may be applied. I see no reason to deny the use of general fixes running alongside a main task. This is how cosmetic fixes should be implemented; alongside major fixes. (I still don't think this fix is major or desirable, but as always, I yield to consensus.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that my comments above were as a community member and not a BAG member as well. I will not be involving myself in this in a BAG capacity unless asked to.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll pile on with the non-BAG commenting: In my personal opinion, since whitespace- and non-printable-character-changing diffs are often hard to see in the diff window, I suspect adding cosmetic general fixes into the mix will be a major drama magnet for an editor who has recently himself been involved in a lot of wikidrama. But if Magioladitis wants to take that risk, I won't oppose it. Anomie⚔ 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anomie In the drama top 10 this is quite low because of the good edit summary and the zero mistakes. Moving punctuation is the first place of drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anomie In the drama top 10 this is quite low because of the good edit summary and the zero mistakes. Moving punctuation is the first place of drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

JFYI: One more of the problems of invisible characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * with GenFixes, since the edits are fine and Magioladitis has been keeping to the restrictions on when to use them, as well as no opposition to allowing him to use them.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 08:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.