This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
It's about this edit.
A book is listed there, as a one-asterisk item. Beneath it are 2 entries from that very book, listed as double-asterisk subsets. The book itself is provided with all details available, but the subsets only need the title & page number, with a quote in one case. There were already a couple of superfluous details in the first subset, Qasr Bardawil (R14), which details triggered the bot. By superfluous details I mean the "cite book" template as such, and the URL: the URL wasn't needed, as it didn't refer to the concrete page, and once the URL is removed, the template also becomes unnecessary. (The thing is, a few years ago I think I could access the page via the URL and now I cannot, which makes the URL superfluous, even if it did contain the page number.)
The bot made 2 types of mistakes. One might not be fixable, but the second one can and should be:
1) It added three unneeded details to the subset (ISBN, author, date — all 3 already contained in one-asterisk line above);
and the worst problem,2) the author was added three times! in various forms (same person, same name, once correct, once with middle name, once with title "Professor").
Also, the "date" is not needed anyway, the "year" is enough for the vast majority of books (minor issue).
Regarding the page URL: Google Books seems to have prohibited access since July 2019. Maybe you know if this depends on where one tries to access it from? There have been discussions, but it's hard to guess how the Google Books access algorithm works. In any case, I have tried multiple country endings, such as .co.uk, .de, .fr, also at different times, because varying the endings often leads to different sets of pages being shown. In this case it didn't. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
{{harvnb}}
template has been malformed since it was added with this edit. The bot hasn't 'broken' anything but has revealed deficiencies in Google book metadata and the malformed {{harvnb}}
template. Not a bug.|date=
; no need for greater precision. So, if anything is wrong with this bot edit, it is that the bot used day-precision when it should have used year-precision for |date=
.Three cite parameters (|access-date=
, |archive-date=
, and |archive-url=
) have a canonical form with the dash, but an undashed form is also supported: |accessdate=
, |archivedate=
, and |archiveurl=
.
There is a bug in @InternetArchiveBot (aka IAbot) which causes it to ignore the undashed forms, and in some cases to add duplicate parameters. This triggers a visible error message, and categorises the page in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter.
I reported this bug nearly three months ago at phab:T291704. However, the bug has not even been triaged, and no fix has happened. Two weeks ago, @Cyberpower678 confirmed[2] that the bug was a priority, but that a solution was not on hand.
To avoid filing up Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter, I wrote a wee script which I run before invoking IAbot: User:BrownHairedGirl/CiteParamDashes.js. I also incorporate the fix in any AWB jobs I do. Several other editors do similar fixes as part of their routines.
Meanwhile, a lot of pages still use the undashed form, and some cleanup tools such as WP:Reflinks still add the undashed form.
Please can this fix be added to Citation bot, as a minor task? i.e. to be done only if Citation bot makes a substantive change. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
{{wontfix}}
|agency=Reuters
→ |work=Reuters
is correct when |work=
in {{cite news}}
is missing or empty.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Emoticon faces need the colons for eyes, which are included in many titles. I undid this revision. ~ AntisocialRyan (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
|website=
parameter|website=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]
Thanks for the prompt fix, AManWithNoPlan. This bot is hugely powerful, and does great work. Your constant improvements and very prompt bug fixes make using it a pleasure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done. BrownHairedGirl, if you believe Abductive is in the wrong, either ask the community via RFC or take it to WP:ANI. Enough is enough. --Izno (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
---|
@Abductive continues to game the bot's queueing system by make large numbers of single page requests while the bot is processing a batch job requested by Abductive. This has the effect of denying other editors access to the bot, because two of the bot's four channels are in use by Abductive. Both the batch jobs and the single-page requests are poorly-chosen. See the bot's most recent 1,500 edits, spanning 9 hours. the following observations are all based on that set;
I am posting this just to put it on record, without any hope of Abductive ceasing to abuse their access to the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
"Above average results" not at 35% on random categories unrelated to a topic or citation-related cleanup category. My runs get 85-90% edit rates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Abductive again. What to do?Today Abductive has had the bot run yet another low-return speculative trawl, this time on Category:Edible fungi Category:Edible fungi has 511 articles, conveniently close to the limit of 550 for categories. (Abductive has a long history of selecting categories whose size is close to the limit) × As can be seen from these 700 bot edits (search the page for The bot worked its way through this set from some time before 15:54 UTC to some time after 20:16UTC. This usually is the busiest period of the day for the bot, and today was no exception. The result of the bot trawling through Abductive's set — and deciding that in 78% of cases it had nothing to do — is that the bot was mostly unavailable to other editors for about four-and-a-half hours, because there was no slot available. Note too that this follows Abductive's claims yesterday that their category-based batches were fine, because they assert that by claimed careful selection they exceed a claimed 30% average for category jobs. That argument about other categories is bogus, because selection other editors achieve much higher edit rates by using other election methods ... and the claim is also bogus, because the choice of this category was so poor. I have now documented incidents like this repeatedly for about a month. AManWithNoPlan has twice reduced the size limit on category batches to curtail Abductive's abuses, an in the discussions I have seen nobody supporting Abductive's use of the bot, but about six editors denouncing this abuse of the bot. At least one editor has described it as a form of denial-of-service. I cannot know whether DOS is Abductive's intention, but the effect is DOS; and since this has been repeatedly pointed out to Abductive, their disruptive conduct is at best reckless. So I think it's time to ask Abductive to stop running any batch jobs on Citation bot, however they are constructed. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Since about 15:35, I have been trying intermittently to start a new batch job, but without success.
I have analysed the bot's last 500 edits, and after removing the edits for AManWithNoPlan's batch job, I am left with only 5 bot edits since 15:00:
17:28, 13 December 2021 diff hist +165 Marinobacterium Add: authors 1-5. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | #UCB_toolbar current rollback: 1 edit [rollback] [vandalism] 17:14, 13 December 2021 diff hist +4 Uchchhishta Alter: isbn. Upgrade ISBN10 to ISBN13. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Sanskrit words and phrases | #UCB_Category 2/283 current rollback: 1 edit [rollback] [vandalism] 15:07, 13 December 2021 diff hist +74 Amoeboid movement Add: doi-access, bibcode, pmc, pmid. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Chris Capoccia | #UCB_toolbar current rollback: 1 edit [rollback] [vandalism] 15:03, 13 December 2021 diff hist +226 User:Chris Capoccia/sandbox Alter: template type. Add: isbn, pmid, pages, volume, year, series, title, authors 1-1. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Chris Capoccia | #UCB_toolbar current rollback: 1 edit [rollback] [vandalism] 15:01, 13 December 2021 diff hist +161 User:Chris Capoccia/sandbox Alter: template type. Add: isbn, pages, year, title, chapter, authors 1-1. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Chris Capoccia | #UCB_toolbar
It's as if the bot had only one channel running consistently, with a second channel opening up occasionally.
What's going on? Is some big batch job being run which is making no edits? Or is the bot stuck in an infinite loop? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Cite web|url=https://www.thestatesman.com/supplements/north/revival-of-tripuras-ancient-literature-1502902441.html|title = Revival of Tripura's ancient literature|date = 22 June 2020}}
{{Cite news |url=https://www.thestatesman.com/supplements/north/revival-of-tripuras-ancient-literature-1502902441.html|title = Revival of Tripura's ancient literature|date = 22 June 2020 |newspaper=[[The Statesman (India)|The Statesman]]}}
Thanks for yet another prompt fix! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
|newspaper=Daily Sabah
... but also (wrongly) adding |last1=Sabah|first1=Daily
|newspaper=[[Daily Sabah]]
, linking the title{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html|title=Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms}}
→ {{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html|title=Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms|website=[[The Washington Post]]}}
{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html|title=Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms}}
→ {{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html|title=Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}
[4]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
That can be super hard to figure out. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you make a Wikipedia for “RichBoi Streeter” 2601:7C1:100:2DA0:34FC:A0BD:7AFE:D9A7 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
|title=Kunstakademie Heimbach - Seite nicht gefunden
Seite nicht gefunden
should be treated as as bad title (means "site not found")Technically, "page not found" (HTTP 404), but same effect.
|doi-broken-date=20 December 2021
to a ref. Ten minutes later, without any intervening edits having been made to the article, the bot ran through the article again (this time by AManWithNoPlan using the edit-window gadget), and removed the parameter it had just added. No other changes were made as part of either edit.doi.org is having issues rigbt now. Thankfully, For over a year, I have been reporting/fixing all broken DOIs, so i noticed this and I am undoing the bots marking as dead. It's less than one in a thousand DOIs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Why does the bot do this[5] when "co.uk" is in the resources? I have to remember to take it out. GBFEE (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to some advice. --SilverMatsu (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20080222222437/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20041220-0000/issue764.pdf |title=The ARIA Report, issue 764 |date=18 October 2004 |website=pandora.nla.gov.au}}
{{cite web |url=http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20041220-0000/issue764.pdf |title=The ARIA Report, issue 764 |date=18 October 2004 |website=pandora.nla.gov.au |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20080222222437/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20041220-0000/issue764.pdf |archive-date=2008-02-22}}
pandora.nla.gov.au
redirected to https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa//
, whereas others redirected to https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa//
without the pandora
part. A bit more digging and experimentation might reveal whether there is a pattern to which archived URLs still need pandora
. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 08:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |archive-url=
field - except in certain cases, like above where there is no source URL at the end, it's not a web archive URL thus belongs in the |url=
.{{cbignore}}
.. example.Yet again, @Abductive is hogging the bot by running two batch jobs simultaneously.
The latest bot contribs shows that the bot is simultaneously processing both:
More low-return speculative trawling, using half the bot's capacity, delaying jobs targeted at bot-fixable issues, and locking out single-request jobs. This is more WP:DE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, please find another place to argue. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
misuselightly. I do use it in this case, because I have clear evidence, documented above, that Abductive has been repeatedly misusing the bot in two ways: a) repeatedly flooding it with lists of article which lead to very low rates of change; b) repeatedly gaming the bot's queuing system to get the bot to simultaneously run two batch jobs for Abductive. Before you dismiss my complaints, please read the evidence, which is spread over several weeks in threads above.
claiming that your [BHG's] edits are the most importantis demonstrably false. At no point have I made or implied any such claim. On the contrary, I have repeatedly stressed the importance of getting bot to do actual edits rater than processing pages which need no changes, and I have explicitly stated that I regard the academic journal refs targeted by Headbomb as a more important task.[8]. So please strike that slur.
Bots exist to do tedious editing tasks. Your notion that editors have to do the tedious work before giving the bot a task is contrary to the purpose of bots.. Those unproductive, speculative trawls by Abductive repeatedly tie up 1/4 of the bot's capacity for days on end, because Abductive will not restrict their use of the bot to batches which actually achieve something. Yet Redalert2fan somehow thinks it is very uncivil of me to point this out.
this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. In the case of Abductive, I have documented that
obvious evidence to the contrary.
I've been following this with a little interest best this is on my watchlist. I've not followed everything. BHG grabs my attention due to the working of bare-URL identification bot runs. But it is reasonable to discuss whether a bot startup can be modified with an algorithm to avoid unfair usage; or perhaps documenation if further. I'm not in the greatest of standing at the moment, but Wbm1058 has a few hours left on my watchlist and couldn't help but notice the comment (I think its been their for a long time). ": Secret to winning the Race Against the Machine: become an expert bot programmer, and hope that the bots don't learn to program themselves. HAL?". That comments been there for a long time, got me to dreaming about becoming an "expert bot programmer" (I've got lost from when input ceased to be from 80 column punch cards so a bit too late in life methinks). Wbm1058's seems to know something about bots and might be able to comment/mediate here? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm: per this discussion is this process a violation of Toolforge Rule #6: "Do not provide direct access to Cloud Services resources to unauthenticated users"? Or has this been Toolforge admin vetted? wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
how we all use this limited resource together in the most efficient way. I think we need some guidelines on how to do that, and I will try to draft something. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
high-readership, so the conclusion that articles with weasel word tags
attract readersisn't true. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
use the bot judiciouslyis demonstrably false.
do not game the systemis demonstrably false.
uncivilis bogus, because David's complaint was civilly-worded and is demonstrably true.
For the last 35 minutes, the bot has been editing only individual page requests by Abductive, which as usual are stacked high. See the latest bot contribs.
No edits have been made on behalf of any other editor since my batch ended at 21:24 etc. The bot has given no response either to my batch request, or to an individual page request I did as a test.
What's going on? Why is everyone else apparently locked out? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Abductive, a good start would be not to submit "a bunch of my jobs". Do one, wait until it has finished before you submit another. Given how this bot shares a general resource, I assume that you are causing widespread collateral damage. Your runs are making the tool unusable to normal editors. I have stopped using this tool to fill out citations in articles as I edit them because I now expect failure to be the only option. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The bot saved up a bunch of my requests, then disgorged them all at once.You should not have had "a bunch of jobs". If you know how to write a batch run then you definitely know by now not to submit another job until the previous one has finished or 24 hours has elapsed without a response. What is "a timely manner" for a background batch run? As opposed to a single editor who has worked on a single page and needs to verify the citations or collect the remaining metadata from the DOI? Answer: a week v ten minutes max.
In the last week, there have been several prolonged periods when access to this bot has been severely impeded by the actions of two editors: @Abductive and @Whoop whoop pull up. Both editors have repeatedly flooded the bot with series of category requests made alongside long series of individual page requests.
The effect of this practice is to allow one editor to lock up two of the bot's four channels for significant lengths of time. Even when some channels appear not to be in use, the vast queues of requests from these two editors prevents the bot from processing requests by others.
Whatever these editors' intentions, the repeated effect of their actions is similar to a denial-of-service attack.
Most of this disruption could be avoided by a simple rule, which I set out below. It may be that this could be implemented by technical restrictions, but I do not want to make assumptions about either the technical possibilities or the willingness of the maintainers to volunteer their time to code any changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
When an editor requests that the bot process either a batch of articles or a single article, they must not make another request until that article or batch has been processed. An exception is permitted where an editor has within the last 24 hours edited an article to add or modify a reference; in that case they may make a single page request for that article before other requests have finished processing.
using it to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to process lots of articles, submit a single batch request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
\n
. For example, on Windows there is Notepad++; on Linux try Kate. There are lots of alternatives for every platform. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC) whether the article has other citation errors that need to be fixed: I agree, but that comment misses the point.
arbitrary notions of correct usage. There is nothing at all arbitrary about deploring tying up bot for ages with low-return-batch-jobs. There is nothing at all arbitrary about deploring the practice of one editor systematically tying up two of the bot's channels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic |
---|
|
minor and aesthetic edits. All my batch jobs are to clear up WP:Bare URLs, on articles which I have laboriously identified as having one or more bare URLs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Covering Part Ii/Iii/Iv/Vi/Vii/Viii/Ix/Xi/Xii/Xiii/Xiv/Xv/Xvi/Xvii/Xiii ... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The PMC link is guaranteed to always bee free. URLs often are not, and they often change, unlike DOIs and PMC. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There's been a regression or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
dx.doi.org is having some issues right now. So, I am going back and fixing the few that pop up. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 29, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.