Revision as of 06:25, 9 December 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AutoWikiBrowser page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 7 days

• v
• t
• e

• Home
  Introduction and rules
• User manual
  How to use AWB
• Discussion
  Discuss AWB, report errors, and request features
• User tasks
  Request or help with AWB-able tasks
• Technical
  Technical documentation

• Changelog
• Developer discussion
• Modules
• Regular expression
• Sandbox
• Template redirects
• Typos
• Usage stats
• Userbox

Archives

January → February 2006 February 2006 February → April 2006 April 2006 April → May 2006 June 2006 June → July 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 October → November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March → May 2007 June → November 2007 December 2007 → June 2008 July 2008 → Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Before you post

Frequently asked questions

• When I start it up I get one of the following errors:
  • "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000135). Click on OK to terminate the application.", or
  • "To run this application, you must first install one of the following versions of the .NET Framework..."

  This error means your computer does not have the .NET framework version 2 installed properly. You can choose from various versions for download here, or you can run Microsoft Update and select version 2 of the .Net framework from the "Optional Updates" section, if you want the choice made for you.

• When I try to update to the new version 4.0, the updater freezes halfway through.

  There is a bug in the version 3.9 updater. If you encounter this problem, uninstall AWB, and then re-install the latest version from Sourceforge.

• Does AWB run on Linux or Mac?

  Not yet.

  • A Wine bug on AWB has been filed
  • AWB does not yet start in Wine with Mono 1.9 or native Microsoft .NET 2.0. (Wine 0.9.59, AWB 4.3.1.0.)

  See here for a status report of AWB vs Mono v2

  • Please note that problems with AWB on Wine/Mono or Wine/.NET are not reportable AWB bugs.

  A native version, PyAutoWikiBrowser (screenshots here), based on Python, is being developed for Unix-like systems.

• Does AWB work on other projects/languages?

  Many WikiMedia projects and languages are supported, see the "User and project preferences" option in the general menu. Other languages will be added on request, though at the moment the interface is always in English. You are also able to use AWB with third-party wikis, if you go to the General menu and select "User and project preferences", you can change the wiki there. The wiki must support the Bot API required by AWB. This means that it should have latest HEAD version of MediaWiki or something close to that.

• What interwiki link order does AWB use?

  The software reads the interwiki sort order from Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/IW, which is generally mirrored to reflect the order at m:Interwiki sorting order.

• AWB puts stubs after categories, though categories are always rendered the last by MediaWiki?

  According to WP:STUB#Categorizing stubs, By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. If your wiki uses other order, please let us know here.

• I don't like or use Internet Explorer; please use Firefox instead.

  AWB does not use Internet Explorer per se. It does, however, use the same web browser control (MSHTML) as Internet Explorer; the equivalent Firefox component does not provide the needed functionality.

• How do I open the page in another browser if I can't use the one in AWB?

  Right click on the edit box in the bottom right side of your screen. Select "Open page in browser"

• How do I edit a page that doesn't exist?

  Uncheck "Ignore non existing pages" in the "Skip articles" box.

• How do I skip certain articles?

  Use the "Skip if contains" and "Skip if doesn't contain" in the "(2) Set options" tab

• Can't you leave up a "stable" version, so I don't have to download new versions?

  It is important to keep people up to date with the latest versions, because their use of the software doesn't just affect them, but the whole of Misplaced Pages. As any bugs that remain will be trivial, hopefully releases won't be too frequent.

• How can I stop AWB clicking when it changes pages?

  This is a Windows sound theme setting. This page explains how to turn off the clicking sound.

  Alternatively, delete the following key from the Windows registry:

  HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps\Explorer\Navigating\.Current

• AWB randomly crashes upon page load on my system, and I always use a browser other than Internet Explorer when using Misplaced Pages.'

  You may have installed custom scripts incompatible with IE. Wrap the contents of your monobook.js into conditional:

               //Detect IE5.5+
               if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE")==-1)
               {
                   // Previous contents go here
                   ....
               }

• I get Just In Time Debugger Messages when loading AWB/loading pages

  In Internet Explorer, go to Tools --> Options --> Advanced. Make sure 'Disable Script Debugging (Internet Explorer)' and 'Disable Script Debugging (Other)' Are both checked. Press apply and close.

Problems with other software

• Modified versions of monobook.js (e.g. to utilise popups, godmode-light etc.): AWB works, but page loading can be slow. Workaround is to disable Active Scripting in Internet Explorer - see AWB Tips and tricks for more information and workaround.
  • Bugs in monobook.js can cause AWB to crash or be unable to load pages. Use the same workaround, or refer to the answer in the FAQ above. If you've updated monobook.js and are experiencing problems, please verify the bug still occurs with a blank monobook.js before reporting it as an AWB bug.
• Misplaced Pages Skins other than monobook: AWB might not work with other skins due to the skins having bugs.
  • Known problem in Cologne Blue skin: see Bug 9806 and AWB bug report.
• NoScript (Firefox extension) or other XSS-related extensions: some features such as "Open text in browser" may not work correctly. Workaround for NoScript: Disable the "Sanitize cross-site suspicious requests" option.

Discussion

Image Policy

Why does it change Wiki links from underlines to spaces? Does this actually reduce page size? Cannot find any "policy" around what is included in "general" cleanup? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

its bad linking practice. β 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? — Sebastian 06:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See A Concise Beginners Guide to Editing Misplaced Pages. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...but it seems pointless with images and things where the page name is never shown... I guess I also thought that it would cost time for the engine to translate spaces to underscores? Maybe not...Thanks. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A Concise Beginners Guide to Editing Misplaced Pages even recommends using underscores! It seems there really is no reason to replace them, other than personal preference of the the programmer. But be that as it may; AWB is a good program, so maybe we should gracefully overlook such small idiosyncrasies. — Sebastian 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rules of use: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits

The "Rules of use" section requires editors using AWB to "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag...". I have been involved in a discussion of this rule with User:TreasuryTag at User talk:TreasuryTag regarding edits such as the following which, he contends, do not violate this rule: . I am interested in whether I am misreading the rule and its relationship to such edits as these. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Those all look minor to me, since there is a specific mention of both moving stub tags and removing white space. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to be making many valuable contributions by correcting typos. However, it seems (s)he hasn't set 'skip if no typo fixed' so some edits are being made consisting of only some of the trivial general fixes. While some general fixes are valuable on their own (bolding of article name, fixing external link format etc.), this user doesn't seem to be making the distinction. You're right to raise the query, and the user has not responded appropriately to your query. Rjwilmsi 16:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I never remotely suggested that they did not violate the rule. I suggested that the rule applied not to individual edits but to my use of the tool and pattern of editing - and I contend that that is not in violation of the rule. The fact is, if I turn on "skip if typo fixed" then the software will not make general fixes, such as removing un-necessary
tags, moving stub notices (which is important if not essential) and fixing links_like_this_with_underscores. Is there any technical way around this? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a simple, non-technical solution: don't save the edit if it's inconsequential. (As in "Check every edit before you save it." from the Rules of Use (again)). -- Mwanner | Talk 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I check every edit before I save it, for mistakes. Having to make a moral judgement of whether or not it is inconsequential - a psychological construct - defies the point of AWB. As it is, I have a low rate of such edits and feel that I fulfill the spirit of the "avoid" rule. Please do not speak as if you know all about AWB - a short while ago, you were astonished ("that's crazy") to find that it automated edit summaries! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I'm not especially familiar with AWB is really beside the point. What the rule asks of you is hardly a "moral judgement". It is a very simple rule. So far, three people have seen it as such-- two above, and one on your talk page. In the instances I found, in quite a short stretch of editing, there is no complexity at all-- they involved removing whitespace and moving tags. And if your instances of such edits are as rare as you say they are, it won't be much trouble to stop making them. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that any reasonable interpretation of "avoid" sets the threshold as a percentage of edits. Avoid, I think, can be judged on its own merits without considering them as a share of larger edits. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is this really that big of a deal? There are clearly non-minor edits (fixing underscored links), clearly minor edits (fixing non-displaying whitespace), and edits which may be minor but some consider important (moving stub/cat tags). Treasury Tag should avoid (as in make efforts to not commit) the obviously minor edits but the rest should be ignored (IMO). And what TT meant (I think) was that asking him to make a value judgment (As opposed to a "moral" judgment) for each edit was against the spirit of AWB. I'm not sure that is unequivocally the case. Rather, you shouldn't be forced to deliberate on a value judgment like that--if it looks minor, don't do it. If there is some doubt then I don't see the problem in just saving the edit. If, afterwards, someone informs you that the edit was minor, then look harder next time. As for the general approach of taking this rule and applying it literally, I would rather we didn't. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Protonk. TreasuryTag clearly wants to improve Misplaced Pages. Other editors may not choose to make such edits but as long as an editor makes more good edits than bad, Misplaced Pages improves. This rule is sometimes abused by people that simply don't like what another editor is doing. I am not suggesting this happened here but it happened quite recently in a battle over whether delinking dates is 'inconsequential'. We should be grateful to TreasuryTag for wanting to improve Misplaced Pages even in a way that may seem small to others and I say thank you, TreasuryTag .
The 'inconsequential edits' rule is not self-evident and it appears to be based on some pragmatic issue. Newcomers may find it discouraging to have this rule quoted without the reason for the rule. I can only imagine two reasons for this rule:

• Somebody worried that Misplaced Pages can't afford to make too many edits. But see Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance
• Somebody thought that other editors need protecting from seeing too many edits in watchlists, recent changes, article edit histories etc.

It is much easier to comply with a rule if you know the reason. I propose that we find out why this rule exists and add some text to the rule. Lightmouse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, look, if it's a bad rule, it should be changed. I don't see anyone proposing to do away with it. Personally, I find it difficult to see how such edits improve Misplaced Pages. I mean, take a look at an article before and after such an edit-- where is the improvement? Incidentally, I agree that TreasuryTag has done a lot of useful work. What got me looking at his edits originally was seeing a whitespace&tag-move edit to an article on my watchlist with an edit summary of "general overhaul", which seemed a rather grandiose description of a nothing edit. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to criticise an edit, we need a reason why it is bad. If it does a small amount of good ('trivial', 'inconsequential', 'insignificant'), Misplaced Pages readers are better off. If it is neutral ('useless' 'unhelpful', 'waste of your time'), that is fine for Misplaced Pages readers too. It is only when there is harm that we need to worry. We have discussed a rule, not a reason. I propose that this rule is deleted unless it is modified to explain the reason for its existence. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The rule contains its own explanation; here it is in full: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." (emphasis added)

One of the primary resources that it wastes is editor's time: every edit that shows up on a watchlist will cause one or more editors to take a look at what was changed (especially when accompanied by an unhelpful edit summary). What makes this edit worthwhile? -- Mwanner | Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether an edit is worthwhile or not worthwhile. I am too focussed on watching for harm. There are always trivial edits and obscure summaries in Watchlist, RecentChanges, ArticleHistory. I can't get worked up about it. It is clear that it bothers you and I am not sure what to say except it doesn't bother me. Lightmouse (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely watching for harm is easier if there are fewer unnecessary edits to wade through? The rule has been in place since January 8, 2006, when AWB was six days old. Apparently it has been thought a good thing by a lot of people for a long time. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• To answer your first sentence: I agree. Supervision is easier if there aren't many edits.
• To answer your second sentence: I don't agree. A rule isn't good just because it has existed for a long time. The 'waste resources' assertion is a popular misconception in conflict with: Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance. Until proven otherwise, I don't believe that TreasuryTag has any significant effect on the technology of Misplaced Pages.

Lightmouse (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was good because it was longstanding. I said that because it was longstanding, it appears to have been accepted by a lot of people. And if you agree that supervision is easier if there aren't many edits, doesn't that alone justify the rule? -- Mwanner | Talk 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Developers PoV

We know that Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance exists, however, it doesn't mean that we shouldnt. AWB has had usage statistics since 3/3/2008. AWB has been used for over 5 Million edits since then, with nearly 2.8 million on the english wikipedia alone. This obviously doesnt include those where it wasnt reported, and other similar cases... Not sure what % total of the edits this accounts for, but it is significant. Most of the edits are on WMF wiki's, and in which case, accounts for well over 4 million edits. "Page edits since Misplaced Pages was set up 267,921,188" - 1% of the total number edits, in the last 9 months alone

We try and reduce the strain/load on the servers as much as possible, and with the API edit being open, we should be able to reduce this further (however, we are blocked partially due to some big API bugs, that mean we cant get a full implementation). This would reduce bandwith and similar constraints (same as bringing the diff's internal to AWB), and help further.

There is an outstanding feature request as to differentiating between that of changes (general fixes mainly), that have visual differences, and those that don't. I do agree, that those that only change whitespace and such by AWB, and therefore make no difference to the actual look/feel of the page, certainly are "bad"/"wasteful" edits.

Im wondering if its worth having an actual widescale community review/RfC type thing to see what the wider opinion of people is, and therefore try and establish some consensus for this

—Reedy 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs an RFC, I imagine that people would vote to keep it (unfortunately). I like to think that people behave rationally even without rules. I think that most editors use AWB for significant edits most of the time. Only a tiny number of edits are insignificant. You probably saw this rule quoted in respect of date delinking. That was a dispute about the meaning of 'inconsequential' and we have seen similar comments here that the term is value laden. Perhaps we should update the rule to say that 'in most cases, inconsequential means invisible to the reader'. That would have avoided the dispute about date delinking and also address the points made by Protonk above. Lightmouse (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can't solve this by a tweak to the tool: if all it finds in a given article are trivial changes, it shouldn't open it for editing. Isn't that the straightforward approach? -- Mwanner | Talk 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to your argument that a longstanding situation judged to have lasted the test of time, should not be changed: the option rather than restriction on AWB has existed for ages. We have the option to turn offthe inconsequential edits - which will in turn stop some good edits - and forcing it shold never happen. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't say that "a longstanding situation judged to have lasted the test of time, should not be changed," I said "because it was longstanding, it appears to have been accepted by a lot of people." We still do work by consensus around here, and longstanding acceptance is one indication of consensus.
And how, exactly, does my proposal stop good edits from happening? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while that approach seems straightforward, it will definitely hurt some users who are not making only minor edits. When AWB finds only trivial changes, but the editor is also manually adding significant content, AWB should not disallow the edit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems easy to handle-- the manually added content would override the minor-edits switch. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were proposing removing the ability to edit that article -- perhaps you were proposing to remove the ability to save it? If so, that would work for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, I did propose initially that it wouldn't bother to open an article that only needed minor edits. But either approach would work. I dunno. It strikes me as a little odd to worry about losing the incidental, manual edits to articles that are being looked at only because they have extra whitespace or a tag out of place-- in that case you could almost as well have the tool look at a random selection of articles. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably use AWB in a different manner than you're envisioning. I frequently use the list comparer to find the difference between two sets of articles, such as articles at WP:DEP and articles at Category:Dead-end pages, and work through improving every article in that set. I'd hate to lose that ability just because AWB thought there were only minor changes to be made, not allowing me to add things like refs. Sure, I could dump that list to a temporary user subpage, but it's not nearly as convenient.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to limit AWBs function(s) at this time. But that's just me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it needs limiting either-- I'm just tossing around an idea. And I'm seriously handicapped by not being a user. I'm just here because I didn't much like the way I saw the tool being used by one user. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the edits appear to be within the realms of the stub guidelines. (Atleast the ones above were) §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we must be talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking about the AWB rule that says "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag..." (from here), which, I contend, this edit violates. How do the stub guidelines enter into the question? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SS says to move the tag, I think part of the issue is that "inconsequential" edits need to be made more clear of exactly what they are. I wouldn't call all "General Fixes" minor and inconsequential. I think we must look at what the devs say and community approved guidelines, if all else fails just ignore everybody and do your own thing! I think the AWB "rules" are outdated and need to be updated to the current norm for what is and isn't appropriate use of the tool. This seems to be part of all the recent discussions here is that nothing is 100% clear-cut. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the rule is spelled out at Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial" (emphasis added). The Rules of Use apply to using AWB-- they don't attempt to embody all other Misplaced Pages policy. Until and unless their is consensus to change AWB Rules of Use, it seems to me that they should apply to edits made with the tool. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There also comes the case where the editor has to relaize that through the tool they are editing Misplaced Pages. Therefore the two guidelines should coincide and not push against each other. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well-put! WP:SS encourages such edits; what is special about AWB that means it's not to be used for them, when that's what it's incredibly good at? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

• We need an "expert" list...
• I need to add three lines to an Infobox on every player that has that Infobox...? The Category contains people that may, or may not have the infobox. Suggestions?

-- Mjquin_id (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Import the category
2. Switch find/replace on and replace }} with lines you need to add}}
3. Check the "ignore if no replacement made" box
4. Stare blankly at a screen clicking the "save" box for as long as it takes.

I'd strongly advise making one change, then viewing the saved version in your browser (both in page view and in the edit window) to avoid any nasty surprises. – iridescent 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And if step 4 drives you nuts, read the AWB help pages on the list comparer. If there are just 1 or 2 infoboxes in question, you can compare the list of players to the list of pages that transclude the infobox, and take only the pages that are in both sets. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(adding) When doing step 4, make sure it's only replacing the right }}! If there's an unsubsted template on the article (a stub template, for example), don't let it add the lines to that as well! – iridescent 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Special pipe trick

Is there a way to do a category pipe trick that will look for a page name of January 1 and make the pipe January 01? -- Mufka 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AWB and web standards

In this edit made with AWB, a ref was converted to be a named reference, in the form <ref name="Lent"/>. I thought per web standards the correct form was <ref name="Lent" />? Do I have this wrong? Hiding T 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

w00t, web standards don't know anything about that tag. MaxSem 14:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AWB question

I am wanting to use AWB on another wikia, but for some reason I keep getting the error "There was a problem loading the page" and won't edit anything. 68.226.0.35 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

- Choose the link at the top, and use that version of awb —Reedy 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I just need my founder to realize how to give me 'bot' access. Do you know how to do that so I can tell him? 68.226.0.35 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage format —Reedy 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have that page set up, but it still keeps saying User name is not enabled to use this. and redirects me to that page you listed. 68.226.0.35 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The founder needs to go to special:userrights on the wikia and check the box or whatnot that says "Make this user a bot". However, you should set up a second account to become the bot. --Izno (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversial edits by Lightmouse

One of the rules of use concerning AWB says, "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding." Various discussions at various times have been held involving Lightmouse's use of AWB to make controversial edits, more specifically his use of the tool to delink dates and make other changes. He is now using AWB in full force to make these edits, often at the rate of more than one article per minute (for example, he edited 75 articles in 8 minutes using AWB on December 8, which is 9.375 articles per minute or one article every 6.4 seconds), which in itself appears to contravene the spirit if not the letter of the AWB rules. Also, concern has been expressed on Lightmouse's discussion page about his use of AWB to make the exact same edits in the exact same article numerous times, despite having full knowledge that these edits are erroneous. In my opinion, that constitutes "edit warring", although others disagree, in part based on an interpretation that the edit warring policies do not apply to "trivial" edits. All these issues need to be addressed in a comprehensive way, not only with Lightmouse but also so that other editors know the limits of AWB use, if any. Thank you. Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. This has been discussed at length in multiple places, including at least 2 RfCs which have been announced via {{cent}} and show a strong consensus to allow this. Also, a discussion here which you participated in and a subsequent follow up at WP:AN allowed any user to help set articles in line with the MoS. I understand that you don't dislike Lightmouse's edits, but the proper place to bring up your views right now is on the RfCs. - NuclearWarfare _{My work} 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that the rules of use concerning AWB were overruled sub silentio? In other words, it's now OK to make controversial edits with AWB regardless of the AWB rules of use and it's now OK to make several edits per minute using AWB regardless of the rules of use? And you're also saying that the ongoing RFCs support Lightmouse's actions even though the RFCs have not yet concluded? How odd that you would make these on-their-face dubious assertions, especially for someone who currently is a candidate for administrator. By the way, Date delinker, an alternate account of Ohconfucius (see his posts below), is making the same kinds of edits as Lightmouse using AWB. Tennis expert (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"...even though the RFCs have not yet concluded?" Yes, it's all over bar the shouting.

"...especially for someone who currently is a candidate for administrator" How is that supposed to be relevant to anything? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

After looking at both RfCs, the debate in August, Featured Articles and Featured Lists (as well as the candidacy wikispaces ), Tony1's page of general consensus before the change to MOSNUM was made, and the relevant ANI thread posted on WT:MOSNUM, I would not say that Lightmouse's edits are "controversial". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel they're controversial, but if he's not doing it with AWB he'll simply carry on with his own script, so it's a losing battle as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunate, really, because it's the encyclopedia that suffers in the end. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• "I feel they're controversial... Unfortunate, really, because it's the encyclopedia that suffers in the end." You have a right to your opinion - the community at large disagrees overwhelmingly. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Care to point me to where they disagree? I see one RFC with questions asking which exact wording should be inserted (or not inserted) into WP:MOSNUM. I see another RFC asking if date linking purely to gain autoformatting should be "deprecated" (not removed immediately with bots/scripts/pitchforks). Anyone with even an inkling of understanding of the word "deprecation" knows that it means "stop using, but leave existing uses in place" or alternately "stop using, but remove existing uses in the course of normal editing". Or is there another RFC which establishes that date links should be "removed with any and all means necessary, including fire!"? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• < BIG YAWN > Ohconfucius (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Right, as I suspected, you (and nobody else) have consensus for this kind of widespread change, you're just wishing upon a star. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• < ZZZZzzzz.... > Ohconfucius (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)