The bot repeatedly performed edits that lack consensus and are often not discussed anywhere before they start (see #Poorly discussed bot tasks). The bot blatantly violates WT:BOT, but I don't think many people really care. The part of WT:BOT violated is this:
This would not be so bad if the bot edits almost always turned to be largely supported after they start, but that is not the case. One of the last such bot runs is replacing the call to "pedialite" template in the mainspace with "projectlink|wikipedia", exemplified in diff.
The owner of the bot is User:CodeCat. They know that there is some opposition to their method of procedure with the bot; this vote is not the first measure taken to deal with the problem (see #Measures taken) but rather a last desperate attempt after other measures, especially repeated discussions, failed.
CodeCat seems to think that when they have a taks for the bot in mind that is not proposed anywhere, then because it is unopposed at this time, it is thereby supported by consensus. Therefore, they seem to think that every single run of their bot is supported by consensus at the point at which it starts, since at that point no one has yet disputed the bot run. I could be wrong about this, but it seems to follow from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/August#CodeCat pushing original_research. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Updated with references to other sections of this talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Debotting MewBot is a measure designed to be of moderate severity. In particular, it does not involve desysopping CodeCat or removing their AWB rights. It is not meant as a way to punish; it is meant to prevent continuation of violation of the bot policy and continuation of undiscussed bot runs with significant opposition. Since AWB rights removal is not proposed, CodeCat will have the technical means to continue non-consensual mass editing even if the vote passes, which is a big if anyway. If the vote passes (again, a big if), it will be a signal that the community actually supports WT:BOT and that the silent implied consensus for the abandonment of open consensus-forming processes was not really there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
In #Rationale, I claim measures were taken to communicate to CodeCat that this way of procedure with the bot is not okay. What follows is the supporting evidence for my claim. It is probably incomplete, since to find anything in these horrible LiquidThreads on CodeCat talk page is a nightmare.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
What follows are some bot tasks run by MewBot that, as far as I know, were either discussed in wrong places (Grease Pit for a change massively impacting mainspace) or not discussed at all. It serves as supporting evidence for #Rationale.
Caveat: This report is based on how I remember things and on quick on-wiki research. The bot page and bot talk page do not seem to contain anything like links to discussions. Finding out what was discussed and where is rather hard. Please, post refuting information below, such as links to discussions where the things actually were discussed.
Bot task | Example Diff | Series of Edits | Diff date |
---|---|---|---|
Change genders like f|p to f-p | Diff | Series | 8 May 2013 |
Add {{context| to context labels | Diff | Series | 4 June 2013 |
Add lang=en to context templates | Diff | Series | 16 June 2013 |
Change/reorder parameters on en-noun | Diff | Series | 25 August 2013 |
Change {{form of|...}} to {{nominative plural of...}} etc. | Diff | Series | 6 January 2014 |
Change {{mk-noun|g=m|…}} to {{mk-noun|m}} | Diff | Series | 17 June 2014 |
Change {{pedialite}} to {{projectlink|wikipedia}} | Diff | Series | 12 August 2014 |
Note that the bot flag was originally requested in Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2010-03/User:MewBot for bot status for adding Dutch inflected forms.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat's typical modus operandi is as follows:
A case in point is change from {{pedialite}} to {{projectlink|wikipedia}}. They run it without a prior discussion. I challenged the run in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/August#Not renaming template pedialite, using my time and attention, and also that of other editors. When the outcome of the discussion was that the changes should not have been done, I asked CodeCat to undo the changes in Undoing pedialite changes in mainspace on their talk page; they refused, claiming that "There is no consensus for replacing {{projectlinks|wikipedia|...}} with {{pedialite|...}}.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
{{pedialite}}
, {{pedia}}
or {{projectlinks}}
. On the other hand, I don't understand why you're asking me to undo this. Was Wiktionary better off when there were somewhat more transclusions of {{pedialite}}
and {{pedia}}
, and somewhat less of {{projectlinks}}
. It seems like you're asking this more to make a point, and to give me yet another opportunity to trip up and fail to meet your expectations, just so you can point your finger at me once more and say "see, it's evil, we must kill it!". A self-fulfilling prophecy very much akin to a witch hunt. I can assure you that you can't just weigh my actions with a duck. —CodeCat 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
{{pedialite}}
; see User talk:DPMaid#Restoring pedialite. It was quite easy, but still laborious a bit, since running AWB is laborious. The claims made above by CodeCat about how hard it would be ("That is going to be very hard to do") show lack of sincerety and a bucketful of excuses ("I don't understand why you're asking me to undo this"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)@Dan Polansky: are you going to open this vote? DTLHS (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:inflected form of did not show consensus for deletion. That did not prevent MewBot from replacing all uses of the template with other templates, as is currently apparent from https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MewBot&offset=&limit=5000&target=MewBot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Replacing {{etyl}}
with {{inh}}
, apparently with no discussion showing consensus (I could be wrong). Example edit: diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
MewBot went on to replace {{C}}
with {{topics}}
in the mainspace without first ascertaining consensus, e.g. in diff. In Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace, it subsequently became apparent that such consensus is indeed seriously lacking. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)