User talk:SmackBot

For general comments or one-off, minor or historical problems (more than two days ago is historical), or plaudits please use User_talk:Rich Farmbrough.

Click HERE to leave a message.

If you think SmackBot is currently making bad edits, leave a message here and it will stop.

Click here to STOP the bot and leave a message.

If you are not sure, be on the safe side and stop it - I don't mind - honest!

Please mention an article that has been affected.

Note: messages are moved to an archive
Replies will generally be on the user's own page, and copied to the archive if I find time.

Rich Farmbrough 08:48 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Reformatting references

Smackbot should not be reformatting references as in this edit [1]. Please disable this ASAP. WP:CITE explains, "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." Changing the refs in this way does cause people to complain, as you can see in this village pump discussion. I looked through the task requests for the bot and did not see any approval to reformat references, although I may have missed it, as BAG has let some bad tasks through before. In any case, references should not be automatically reformatted from one style to another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I need to make sure I am clear: I will block the bot if I notice it automatically reformatting references without approval. WP:CITE is clear that reference styles should not be changed from one optional style to another. I do not believe it can be very difficult to simply disable this functionality in the bot code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on the above note, I have blocked SmackBot because of this edit. If reformatting references is an approved task, please point out the BRFA and I will unblock immediately. Otherwise, please fix the bot to stop performing this task until the matter of whether bots should be doing this sort of thing is resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please know this is nothing personal; I simply do not think it is appropriate for the bot to be performing this task. I recognize SmackBot does a lot of good work, and I hope to be able to resolve this referencing thing very soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I noticed SmackBot has an automated "stop" feature, I will use that instead. However, please fix this problem before restarting the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

STOP

Please see the section "Reformatting references" on User talk:SmackBot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I tried to use the "Stop" method to stop the bot, but it did not work. I have blocked the bot for a week, although I am sure the problem can be resolved much faster than that. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XIV does not include permission to add names for duplicate references.

More importantly, this edit is very strange, as the bot is rearranging references that were already named references. That certainly cannot be an approved task; the reference order is always a matter of editorial discretion.

Also, this edit, which came after I employed the STOP button, still added names for references.

I have blocked the bot, but I will unblock it immediately when these things are fixed. Any other admin should also feel welcome to unblock the bot once the code is fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I said above, I do appreciate your work with SmackBot, I simply feel that the reformatting of references in this way is both an inappropriate task for a bot and an unapproved task at the moment. Perhaps a consensus will form to permit it, but in the meantime this feature should be disabled. I already started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:CITE#Replacing_duplicate_footnotes_with_named_footnotes, which should be allowed to run its course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it did work, you have your dates mixed. As stated on SB's user page it also implements WP:AWB general fixes. As far as Smackbots main run is concerned (dating tags) this can very well wait a few days. The broken refernces run however which is much shorter is needed on daily or more frequent basis. As to the original point you made the matter is under discussion elsewhere, and I have filed a WP:AWB feature request to limit ref naming in certain circumstances. in terms of ordering refernces at the point where several are cited this is numerical order and seems to be widely accepted. Rich Farmbrough 13:21 16 November 2009 (UTC).

I did have the wrong diff; this diff is dated 11:45, 2009-11-16, but my note was dated 01:20, 2009-11-16. Starting a discussion with the AWB people was a good idea. If you have disabled these AWB features in the meantime, let me know, and I will unblock right away. The problematic features are: rearranging references and adding named references in place of duplicate references. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK it apears possible to turn off ref tagging. I am reluctant to change the ordering it seems to me that everyone uses numerically increasing footnotes, you never see ^{[13],[3],[8],[1]} but ^{[1],[3],[8],[13]} - and disabling this would I think mean turning off a lot of value adds. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

People intentionally put footnotes in order with the best reference for a particular claim first and less specific or more general references later. I often see references out of numeric order in the papers I read, for this very reason. So a bot should not be overriding this editorial judgment to put the footnotes in increasing order; it would have to evaluate the actual references and decide if rearranging them makes sense, which is not a task that can be automated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think these discussions have run their course.^{1 [2]}, Rich Farmbrough 14:03 18 November 2009 (UTC).

The overarching policy here is not to change citations from one style to another if both styles are permitted. The discussion at WT:CITE doesn't seem to have come to any consensus to change the citation guideline, which says that using named refs is "optional". WP:CITE itself is unchanged.

This is not a change of style. That is talking about Harvard vs APA vs parenthetical vs XXX. And because something is optional doesn't mean it isn't desirable - editors may optionally add categories, may optionally put links in articles, may optionally use section headings. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Also, that discussion is only about the named footnotes, not about rearranging the order of references. Rearranging references is particularly problematic if you are replacing duplicate refs with named refs, because editors might have the refs in a specifically chosen order and have the footnotes in numerical order, but then changing to named refs causes the footnotes to become out of numerical order. The order of references has to be chosen by editorial discretion, and so in the presence of named refs there will be many circumstances when the footnotes should not appear in numerical order.

Well it came up in the discussion you started at WP:CITE, and the concern was that they would be in non-numerical order. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Like I keep saying, I will be very happy to unblock the bot as soon as you assure me these features have been disabled, or when it is clear that the guidelines have been changed to make these things mandatory. But establishing consensus for making them mandatory will be a slow process, so simply disabling the features in the bot is the best way forward in the short term. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a bureaucratic block, and a shame. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

I am not trying to be solely bureaucratic. I don't believe the bot should be doing this sort of thing, since it goes against our fundamental practice to not change references from one style to another in any mass way. In addition to this, there is no bot approval to do it. I have tried to stay out of the conversation at WT:CITE to see what other people's opinions are. Since yesterday, someone else commented there against making named references mandatory. I don't understand your reluctance to simply disable these features and perform only the tasks for which the bot is approved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I did say I would turn off named refs. The ordering of already named refs, which I have had a few enquiries about, all of which were satisfied with the explanation would require me to reduce the usefulness of the edits across the board, because I would have to turn off all general fixes. I would offer this: if someone comes spontaneously with a genuine case where ^{[13],[3],[8],[1]} was superior to ^{[1],[3],[8],[13]} I will find a way of resolving that problem. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

You can simply comment out the appropriate part of the bot's source code, without disabling all the other general fixes. At worst you will need to recompile the code. As someone who runs several bots and has plenty of programming experience, I can't accept the claim that you have no control over the code that your own bot is running.

However, if you need to disable all "general fixes", that is not actually such a big deal. The bot is approved to perform certain specific tasks; the "general fixes" are already a side issue, not a core part of the bot's functionality. But this is not necessary, just recompile the code without the controversial features. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's previously brought up a similar issue that regarded this bot implementing changes that would normally be left up to personal preference, I too found the answer that individual changes can't be disabled somewhat troubling, and more so now. I don't fully understand why this is so, but if it is, I think it might be time to rethink the fundamental workings of this bot. It can't be "all or nothing"; and truth be told, I haven't found the general fixes so useful that the answer shouldn't be "nothing", if there is no middle ground. Equazcion (talk) 08:51, 20 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This is not the discussion for a this. If you have a problem with the style of order of references (which is minor IMO) , you should bring it up at the subsequent MOS talk page or even the AWB talk page. The bot, in essence, is a "general fix" bot, so the general fixes parameter is important. Tim1357 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the discussion for this if there's an underlying concern. This particular issue of footnotes isn't something I particularly care about. However it seems that the bot's actions are directly controlled, and continually change according to, changes made to AWB's general fixes. Those changes to AWB's general fixes are not approved by the bot approval group, since they aren't meant to be applied automatically to all articles via bot. Either they should be subject to such approval, or the bot has to be modified so as not to be entirely subject to them. Equazcion (talk) 06:16, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are right, however General Fixes is usually uncontentious, and usually appreciated. If detailed approval is insisted upon, then we have some options available, but they will doubtless consume many megabytes of talk space and many hours of editor effort. Rich Farmbrough 09:36 21 November 2009 (UTC).

Is there any way you can use a version of the AWB code that doesn't change live according to AWB's developers latest changes? In other words, can you work off your own copy of the AWB code, applying the latest updates manually when you see fit, rather than it occurring automatically when AWB is updated? I don't want to see every change to the general fixes spawn a new discussion, but at the same time, the fact that changes to an assisted process automatically change a fully automated one is still a problem, as added features for the former don't need to be quite as non-contentious as the latter. Equazcion (talk) 09:50, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I am still prepared to unblock the bot immediately once these features regarding references are disabled. Please advise me here or on my talk page and I will unblock ASAP. We could continue talking about these things while the bot is running if you simply disable the controversial features until the end of the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#General_fixes_in_Bot_mode -- Although that still doesn't address your purely immediate concern. Equazcion (talk) 13:07, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I think that getting BAG approval for a fixed (non-changing) set of general fixes would be a good idea, if these fixes are going to be run automatically. But the only motivation for this block is the specific changes to references, and I am hoping to lift it ASAP. There is a strong bias against changing references from one format to another, but most of the AWB general fixes are uncontroversial. So (just to be clear) the broader issue of other general fixes does not affect the block. SmackBot does a lot of good and useful work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I can agree to that. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Didn't Rich get approval to do general fixes? Doesn't that include fixing references? And where is the policy that states , as you say, " to not change citations from one style to another if both styles are permitted"? The fact is, that it takes something that looks like this ^{[40][21][32][1]} and makes it look like this ^{[1][21][32][40]} which is undoubtedly a better syntax. Let us remember that the bot only re-orders references if they are right next to eachother so it really does not change anything, except that they are in ascending order. I think we should lift the block on SmackBot, and let it get back to work. Tim1357 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to see the bot get back to work, and I am prepared to unblock is ASAP as soon as the unapproved features are disabled. There is no reason that they could not already be disabled, but I have no control over that.

The guideline in question is WP:CITE: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style.[note 2]". I reviewed SmackBot's bot request and none of them included rearranging references or changing duplicate footnotes to named refs. A bot approval is for a certain particular task, it does not include permission to run arbitrary other fixes in addition to the named task.

For uncontroversial extra "fixes" I would just ignore the lack of approval, but in this case there is a reason why a bot should not be rearranging references. It is very reasonable for editors to manually put citations into a particular order, putting best citation first and more general references later in a list of multiple footnotes. Since a bot cannot tell which reference is the best, it is inappropriate for a bot to be rearranging them automatically, sine this may result in putting a worse reference before a better one. The order of references is something that requires human judgment.

Similarly, the use of the same footnote text with different footnote numbers (that is, the non-use of named references) is a footnote style that some editors adopt and which is acceptable to WP:CITE. Longstanding agreement is not to change articles from one optional style (no named refs) to another optional style (using named refs). The bot should not be doing this.

As I said, will unblock the bot ASAP once these are disabled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I can agree to that. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC).