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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I will try to figure out this. But it seems to be big but rare GIGO.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of Bjog. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1517 DOIs
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1516 HDLs AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The pubmed search does not allow you to search by title. You search by title keywords. On rare occasions we get false positives. It is very rare, I will look into doing a follow on search.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
CitationBot has egregiously damaged a citation in
this edit (bottom), where it relied on an incorrect doi to "fix" a citation by adding data from a different source. The assumption that the doi is always correct is unwarranted; there should be some kind of check or comparison between the original citation and what the doi pulls up. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like source-data GIGO based on the citation generator, but I think it would be safe to say that's GIGO that we can look for. -- Izno ( talk) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} these crazy page numbers are nuts. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
|url=
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/27036656/
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Strange. It cannot make up its mind which database to believe. Both answers are correct values.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=The Japan Times Online
|publisher=The Japan Times
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of Nrc, but see also User talk:Citation bot/Archive_15#Request: Smart acronym capitalization. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To handle "VizieR On-line Data Catalog: B/gcvs" which should remain like that. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I had to remove this |url=
manually before running the bot. (Also |journal=
, but that's something the bot couldn't be expected to handle.)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1552
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Facinating. The CrossRef database has no title. That naturaly fails to match old title. The patch after it is applied will not try to verify empty titles.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1558
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
They go by PLOS ONE now. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Self explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That is correct. Because of a coding oddity, the gadget API does not load the API keys. The fix is in the source code - I noticed this last week; but it is not deployed yet.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Self explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the exact issue? It might just be that I am tired too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
|title=
already (kinda) present in |chapter=
(and |encyclopedia=
) (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 19:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
|author=[[Example|Author1]]
with |author=Author1
|author-link=Example
etc.
The order should be |author=
, |author-link=
, not |author-link=
, |author=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|journal=The Building of Economics at Adela
for a book, which already has |title=The Building of Economics at Adela
|journal=
to {{
cite book}}. (2) Don't add |journal=
where the same content is present in the |title=
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1585 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
|date=09-23-2011
Interesting. MDY is not mm-dd-yyyy. I will change the code.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Basically, if the link doesn't start the title, remove it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|title=Series name:
Specific title with many words here
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
In |journal=
, when you've got a word that's only
consonants, or only
vowels, it's an acronym, and they should be in uppercase. Since Y can by either (most often a vowel), it shouldn't be considering in those.
I've done zillions of such cleanup, and I've yet to encounter a counterexample. If they exist, they are exceedingly rare, and can be bypassed manually. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1586
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
They are used extensively in species names.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
for species names is improper markup. For species names in |title=
, editors, and this bot, should use standard wiki italic markup: |title=article title about ''Spiecies name''
. The same would apply to the example case where the journal article title is italicized for I-don't-know-what reason. <em>...</em>
has a particular semantic meaning that is different from the mere rendering of text in italic font.Why is the citation bot blocked? I find that tool very useful. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
{{ Duplicate Issue}}
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1597
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
|publication-place=
is incorrectly changed to |location=
The
documentation for {{
Citation}} states that |location=
is an alias for |place=
. This parameter is used for "news stories with a byline, that is, the location where the story was written". It does note that earlier usage was for the publication place and for compatibility "will be treated as the publication place if the publication-place parameter is absent". The damage is therefore minimised, but it is regrettable that Citation Bot is changing editors' correct work to current standards into a outdated form.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk) 09:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
|location=
is by-far the most-used, so perhaps there should be a discussion at
Help talk:CS1 about the parameters. Usage:
|publication-place=
is not an 'upgrade' over the more concise and just as clear |location=
. The solution is to update the CS1|2 documentation to use location by default, like people expect. Publication place should be fully deprecated. If, for some weird reason, people insist on specified where something was written, rather than published (which is was all style guides recommend), then you can have a specific parameter for that (e.g. |writing-place=
or similar). Either way, the bot works fine as is.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
noping}}
ed into this conversation ...|location=
or |place=
when the template also has |publication-place=
, the latter is to specify the actual place of publication while either of the former specify the place of writing as one would find in the dateline of a newspaper article. This suggests a remedy.|location=
and |place=
use far outnumbers |publication-place=
use, perhaps we should:
|publication-place=
|dateline=
{{
cite news}}
or in {{
citation}}
when |newspaper=
is set|place=
or |location=
|publication-place=
and remove the code that emits 'Written at ...' We might also deprecate |place=
because: why do we need two synonymous parameters especially when one of them is so obviously preferred over the other?
Hope springs eternal.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1607
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If |volume=73
exists but no |issue=
for a cite, but the bot adds |issue=73
based on e.g. doi, the bot should validate the |volume=
. If it isn't 73 at source, a user most likley added it in the wrong parameter.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)In most cases volume and issues are different, and a check should be carried out to see if |volume=73
was ever true to begin with. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 15:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
|volume=
. If not, add back original value. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 19:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Marking as {{ fixed}} since in GIT master now. Will go live at next update. I do not normally flag until live, but this is a feature and not a bug. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Since capitalization of foreign titles is often a matter of preference, these keywords will match a significant portion of these titles (French, German).
What I mean by this is that if you have, e.g. |journal=Revue d'Histoire littéraire de la France
or |journal=Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France
or |journal=Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France
, the bot should those alone. On those title, only the articles and preposition should be touched. E.g. |journal=Revue D'Histoire Littéraire de la France
→ |journal=Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France
. I don't know how feasable that is, however.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The number of bare references with DOIs has decreased by maybe 10 % from January to March, many persist: phabricator:P8395 (this also includes some pages in the Draft namespace). Should citation bot be more pro-active with those, for those who are using the gadget now? Nemo 13:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
|title=
too. {{
Cite journal}} |title=
and others should be left alone as well.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The first violation of the auto-capitalization code. This list should be pretty short.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not see it with Guglielmino, A.; Olmi, M. (2010).
"Revision of Nearctic species of Esagonatopus, with description of a new species from Florida (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae)". ZooKeys (70): 57–66.
doi:
10.3897/zookeys.70.764.
ISSN
1313-2989.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what's possible here, but this is worth investigating.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
In a citation like
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)The bot doesn't do much. However, following the ISSN reveals that the name of the journal is |journal=Pan-Pacific Entomologist
. The bot should be able to figure that
is better. (Likewise for {{ cite magazine}}.) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1617
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
|journal=
must be the name of a journal at the time it was published and printed on the journal, not some later name. Can we be sure that the ISSN is always assigned to a single journal name only? What happens if the name of a journal changes (perhaps only slightly)? Is it mandantory for the ISSN to be changed as well then?{{ fixed}}
I cannot reproduce this. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Running on the above reproduces it for me. Running twice will produce the final output. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1621
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
|url=
https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16510
|hdl=10088/16510
, see
[27]
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1622
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
The title is wrong and so it gets rejected. Perhaps differing only by single quotes isn’t too different
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I achieved the above by replacing |issue=
by |volume=
and running the bot on that.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relatively common error (happens a few times a month) that should be easily handled by the bot.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
to |chapter-url=
without also changing |url-access=
to |chapter-url-access=
|url-access=
has a value assigned to it, change parameter name to match the new url parameter name (|article-url=
, |chapter-url=
, |entry-url=
, |section-url=
); if |url-access=
does no have an assigned value, remove it
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1636
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1621
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
|journal=Sae Transactions
|journal=Aaup Bulletin
|journal=SAE Transactions
|journal=AAUP Bulletin
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1621
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1619 I think
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1622
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't really know what causes it, but I haven't been able to use the bot for several hours. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Fhocutt, Kaldari, Mattsenate, Maximilianklein, and Smith609: I believe one of the people listed as running the bot needs kick it and restart it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
More details: if journal and publisher are the same, but publisher is wiki linked then drop journal and rename publisher to journal.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have run the Bot on several thousand pages and have made a couple of dozens of improvements based upon my experiences. Enjoy! AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to temporarily add {{bots|deny=UTRS}} to the page to prevent getting messages on this page of these troll/fake unblock requests. If a real UTRS unblock request is made my the bot owner/operator (which seems unlikely per the discussion above) they should remove it again or do so when the bot gets unblocked. This should work per the explanation on User:UTRSBot. -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 21:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} seems to have stopped AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1681
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1682
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm at a loss how to describe this. A very nasty vandal was faking cite book entries. In one article 36 of them. Searching for other uses of the faked google books url "XAb6ZH5xjH8C" I hit Islamic views on sin and was trying to figure out if I could just delete the added passages.
There were several small edits attempting fixes, and at least one person recognizing and deleting bogus text, but then I was confused by 'somebody' fixing the fake cite books. Um, what? (Search for "XAb6ZH5xjH8C')
Citebot 'fixed' ISBN to various values in 9 different entries without noticing they were all the same URL! Amazing... Shenme ( talk) 23:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
ISSN doesn't count, because it's a garbage identifier.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking into. We are leery of {{
cite news}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
In
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)The bot fails to add |journal=The Language Learning Journal
. Possibly because of a title mismatch. However, there is a doi, and that should be good enough to bypass title mismatch 'safeguards'.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Extended content
|
---|
Link to the Issue on GitHub with links to documentation someone needs to read and use https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/issues/948 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#CiteSeerX and Citation bot. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It is good the bot is blocked. Now it can stay blocked until the ability of editors to edit wholly anonymously is removed. This is WP:TEACE, either by username or by revealing your IP; but citation bot currently has the facility to bypass both of those constraints. —— SerialNumber 54129 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of progress could likely be easily made with by updating
User:Smith609/citations.js and
Wikipedia:Citation expander and other scripts to output the username (if they don't already, I notice the way
User:Smith609/citations.js and
MediaWiki:Gadget-citations.js gets usernames is different than
User:Headbomb/citations.js, maybe something needs to be updated?), and make the Username box in
[52] be mandatory. Those are really low hanging fruits. More could be identified if we
knew how the bot was activated.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Discussion continues in block discussion
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 01:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The pull has been merged and pulled through; CiteSeerX links will no longer be added.
Decline reason:
There is currently no consensus to unblock this bot. Several editors have pointed out that it violates bot policy by not clearly identifying the editor who has triggered it. Some others have suggested that this could be accomplished fairly easily. It appears that the bot's operator is not very active on Wikipedia anymore. It might be better for an active editor to take it over and make it compliant with the bot policy. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm keen to know whether this is a solution to a hypothetical problem, or a real problem. Has anyone ever used the edit summary to contact a user who was activating the bot? What was the outcome? Has anyone ever needed to contact an editor who operated the bot, but been unable to because they were anonymous? What was the outcome?
Headbomb: it sounds like your suggestions are
Is there anything I've missed? Would these changes be sufficient for you to lift your opposition to the bot being permanently blocked?
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 10:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I tried to be coy and avoid directly pointing it out, but anyone worried about the bot leaking IP addresses is saying clueless idiotic stuff. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to think about why. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
the Wikipedia user directing any given edit must always be identifiedand
users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit,are being flaunted. It matters not that the bot does other "useful work"—so have many now-indef'd editors over the years. Bot operation clearly does not fall within the scope of WP:IAR, and it is fallacious to demand examples of misuse when policy is being so flagrantly abused.Also pinging Xaosflux, who has been discussing this elswehere. Cheers, —— SerialNumber 54129 11:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I hate to dive into the middle of a discussion here but this is absolutely kafka-esque to read from the outside. Look, I see a few general points here that need to be summarized:
1. The blocking editor, User: JJMC89, wants both issues resolved--the XCiteSeer links AND the lack of identification of editors who use this bot. As I understand it, at this point only logged-in editors remain unidentified. IPs are tracked for editors who are not logged in. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like we are 1/2 + 1/4 of the way done here--that's 3/4! We are well on our way.
2. Some people are interested in if the bot is really doing or capable of doing harm. Some people are interested in what really necessitates an indefinite block. Still more people are worried about whether bots should follow this or that policy. But all of that is mind-numbingly detailed and misses the big picture.
3. The big picture is, forget about blocks for a second. It would be a darn nice feature to be able to see who is using the bot, wouldn't it? Then you could work with them, or give them a barnstar, or give them tips, or even learn from them if you are just learning about this bot like I am. Whether or not the block is in place, it would be really good to just collect this automatically from editors so that there is no hassle for them or for the rest of us checking up on edits. And if we were to solve this problem, we wouldn't have to worry about this or that policy or whether the bot is dangerous. The best possible scenario, as I see it, is having this feature and then having the bot unblocked. Remember, we are trying to make an encyclopedia with good references.
4. But all that's a bit of a hassle for User:AManWithNoPlan or anyone else who works on the code for this thing. So let's all put our heads together and ask. Is that possible to set up? What are the challenges of doing so? What's the timeframe? And, dare I say it, what do you need in order to get this thing done? Is there any way for us to help you? After all, that's the point of this entire exercise. This bot is clearly a useful resource. So let's get it up and running, safely, for all our sakes. And let's please discuss how to do that rather than who is right or wrong about this or that academic issue. When we are done with all that jazz, why don't we then pop on over to the relevant policy talk pages if we want to talk about if this or that makes sense or is fair--perhaps with a link to this discussion. While these are weird circumstances, and while I have my own comments, it does seem like continued discussion of that sort doesn't really belong on a user's talk page after an unblock request. So tell us, Man, how do we get this train rolling? Prometheus720 ( talk) 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
|author = [[Michigan Legislature]]
|author = Michigan Legislature
plus |author-link = Michigan Legislature
{{
open access}}
templates. Newspapers.com is not open access. The content of the articles hosted there may be free-to-read, but is, most certainly, not free-to-be-reused. Suggested style for cs1|2 templates linking to readable clippings at Newspapers.com is at
Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. There was discussion about the use of {{open access}}
and {{
free access}}
templates with these citations on the
talk page.|last=
and to |first=
because when those parameters are used, cs1|2 renders authors names in last-first order while that same author's article at en.wiki is titled in first-last order. For editors who want both of an author's last and first names wikilinked, |author-linkn=
is required when the author's name is split between |last=
and |first=
. Because |authorn=
is the whole author's name, there is no need to require |author-linkn=
. The cs1|2 documentation can always be made better, but at least for this case, is consistent; when a parameter should not be wikilinked, the documentation so states. You can wikilink both |first=
and |last=
but that sort of makes for nonsense:
So, let me get this straight: This extremely useful bot, which is so valuable that it even has a link in the "tools" menu on the left side of the screen, has been blocked for two months because someone is upset that it doesn't report who clicked the "expand citations" button and triggered the bot's completely automated edit to an article. This is ridiculous, and a perfect example of someone
disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.--
Srleffler (
talk) 17:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The current block of this bot is based on a misunderstanding of the policy. The outstanding issue is whether the bot is obligated to report the identity of the user who triggered it. The policy cited is WP:BOTMULTIOP, "Bots operated by multiple users". This section of the policy is about a bot that is shared between several operators. Users who merely trigger a bot are not "bot operators". The relevant part of the policy is WP:BOTCONFIG, where the fourth bullet begins "Providing some mechanism which allows contributors other than the bot's operator to control the bot's operation is useful in some circumstances..." [em. added]. The policy explicitly allows bots to be controlled by individuals who are not "operators" of that bot. That is exactly the situation with citation bot. There is no outstanding reason why the current block should be continued. -- Srleffler ( talk) 02:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
the policy referenced does not apply AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am marking this declined in an effort to clean up the queue of unblock requests from blocked users. I have no opinion to share on what should be done with the bot. However, the unblock request process is not a suitable one for resolution of this matter. Uninvited Company 22:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
For any watchers not yet aware, there is a discussion at
WP:AN#User:Citation bot unblock discussion is stalled. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 03:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} flag for archive
The only support needed is for identifiers. This would expand, e.g.
to
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Flagging as {{
wontfix}}, since the level of complexity is too high after careful investigation
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I removing citation bot blocking templates from Wikipedia. And fixing all ‘bad’ behavior as I go. Do not upgrade ISBN to ISBN13 unless year is 2007 or newer. Special code for Oxford Online Encyclopedia, since the URLs are DOIs, just the wrong ones! I hope this will fix all unreported bugs. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} flag for archive
Note the dots.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I will try to figure out this. But it seems to be big but rare GIGO.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of Bjog. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1517 DOIs
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1516 HDLs AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The pubmed search does not allow you to search by title. You search by title keywords. On rare occasions we get false positives. It is very rare, I will look into doing a follow on search.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
CitationBot has egregiously damaged a citation in
this edit (bottom), where it relied on an incorrect doi to "fix" a citation by adding data from a different source. The assumption that the doi is always correct is unwarranted; there should be some kind of check or comparison between the original citation and what the doi pulls up. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like source-data GIGO based on the citation generator, but I think it would be safe to say that's GIGO that we can look for. -- Izno ( talk) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ wontfix}} these crazy page numbers are nuts. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
|url=
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/27036656/
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Strange. It cannot make up its mind which database to believe. Both answers are correct values.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=The Japan Times Online
|publisher=The Japan Times
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of Nrc, but see also User talk:Citation bot/Archive_15#Request: Smart acronym capitalization. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To handle "VizieR On-line Data Catalog: B/gcvs" which should remain like that. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I had to remove this |url=
manually before running the bot. (Also |journal=
, but that's something the bot couldn't be expected to handle.)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1552
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Facinating. The CrossRef database has no title. That naturaly fails to match old title. The patch after it is applied will not try to verify empty titles.
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1558
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
They go by PLOS ONE now. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Self explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That is correct. Because of a coding oddity, the gadget API does not load the API keys. The fix is in the source code - I noticed this last week; but it is not deployed yet.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 15:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Self explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1568 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the exact issue? It might just be that I am tired too.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
|title=
already (kinda) present in |chapter=
(and |encyclopedia=
) (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 19:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
|author=[[Example|Author1]]
with |author=Author1
|author-link=Example
etc.
The order should be |author=
, |author-link=
, not |author-link=
, |author=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
|journal=The Building of Economics at Adela
for a book, which already has |title=The Building of Economics at Adela
|journal=
to {{
cite book}}. (2) Don't add |journal=
where the same content is present in the |title=
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1585 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
|date=09-23-2011
Interesting. MDY is not mm-dd-yyyy. I will change the code.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 22:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Basically, if the link doesn't start the title, remove it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|title=Series name:
Specific title with many words here
(
t)
Josve05a (
c) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
In |journal=
, when you've got a word that's only
consonants, or only
vowels, it's an acronym, and they should be in uppercase. Since Y can by either (most often a vowel), it shouldn't be considering in those.
I've done zillions of such cleanup, and I've yet to encounter a counterexample. If they exist, they are exceedingly rare, and can be bypassed manually. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1586
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 23:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
They are used extensively in species names.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
for species names is improper markup. For species names in |title=
, editors, and this bot, should use standard wiki italic markup: |title=article title about ''Spiecies name''
. The same would apply to the example case where the journal article title is italicized for I-don't-know-what reason. <em>...</em>
has a particular semantic meaning that is different from the mere rendering of text in italic font.Why is the citation bot blocked? I find that tool very useful. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
{{ Duplicate Issue}}
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1597
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
|publication-place=
is incorrectly changed to |location=
The
documentation for {{
Citation}} states that |location=
is an alias for |place=
. This parameter is used for "news stories with a byline, that is, the location where the story was written". It does note that earlier usage was for the publication place and for compatibility "will be treated as the publication place if the publication-place parameter is absent". The damage is therefore minimised, but it is regrettable that Citation Bot is changing editors' correct work to current standards into a outdated form.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk) 09:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
|location=
is by-far the most-used, so perhaps there should be a discussion at
Help talk:CS1 about the parameters. Usage:
|publication-place=
is not an 'upgrade' over the more concise and just as clear |location=
. The solution is to update the CS1|2 documentation to use location by default, like people expect. Publication place should be fully deprecated. If, for some weird reason, people insist on specified where something was written, rather than published (which is was all style guides recommend), then you can have a specific parameter for that (e.g. |writing-place=
or similar). Either way, the bot works fine as is.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
noping}}
ed into this conversation ...|location=
or |place=
when the template also has |publication-place=
, the latter is to specify the actual place of publication while either of the former specify the place of writing as one would find in the dateline of a newspaper article. This suggests a remedy.|location=
and |place=
use far outnumbers |publication-place=
use, perhaps we should:
|publication-place=
|dateline=
{{
cite news}}
or in {{
citation}}
when |newspaper=
is set|place=
or |location=
|publication-place=
and remove the code that emits 'Written at ...' We might also deprecate |place=
because: why do we need two synonymous parameters especially when one of them is so obviously preferred over the other?
Hope springs eternal.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1607
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 17:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If |volume=73
exists but no |issue=
for a cite, but the bot adds |issue=73
based on e.g. doi, the bot should validate the |volume=
. If it isn't 73 at source, a user most likley added it in the wrong parameter.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)In most cases volume and issues are different, and a check should be carried out to see if |volume=73
was ever true to begin with. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 15:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
|volume=
. If not, add back original value. (
t)
Josve05a (
c) 19:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Marking as {{ fixed}} since in GIT master now. Will go live at next update. I do not normally flag until live, but this is a feature and not a bug. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 14:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Since capitalization of foreign titles is often a matter of preference, these keywords will match a significant portion of these titles (French, German).
What I mean by this is that if you have, e.g. |journal=Revue d'Histoire littéraire de la France
or |journal=Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France
or |journal=Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France
, the bot should those alone. On those title, only the articles and preposition should be touched. E.g. |journal=Revue D'Histoire Littéraire de la France
→ |journal=Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France
. I don't know how feasable that is, however.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
fixed}}
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The number of bare references with DOIs has decreased by maybe 10 % from January to March, many persist: phabricator:P8395 (this also includes some pages in the Draft namespace). Should citation bot be more pro-active with those, for those who are using the gadget now? Nemo 13:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
|title=
too. {{
Cite journal}} |title=
and others should be left alone as well.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The first violation of the auto-capitalization code. This list should be pretty short.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 14:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not see it with Guglielmino, A.; Olmi, M. (2010).
"Revision of Nearctic species of Esagonatopus, with description of a new species from Florida (Hymenoptera, Dryinidae)". ZooKeys (70): 57–66.
doi:
10.3897/zookeys.70.764.
ISSN
1313-2989.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what's possible here, but this is worth investigating.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
In a citation like
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)The bot doesn't do much. However, following the ISSN reveals that the name of the journal is |journal=Pan-Pacific Entomologist
. The bot should be able to figure that
is better. (Likewise for {{ cite magazine}}.) Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1617
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
|journal=
must be the name of a journal at the time it was published and printed on the journal, not some later name. Can we be sure that the ISSN is always assigned to a single journal name only? What happens if the name of a journal changes (perhaps only slightly)? Is it mandantory for the ISSN to be changed as well then?{{ fixed}}
I cannot reproduce this. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Running on the above reproduces it for me. Running twice will produce the final output. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1621
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
|url=
https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/16510
|hdl=10088/16510
, see
[27]
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1622
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
The title is wrong and so it gets rejected. Perhaps differing only by single quotes isn’t too different
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 01:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I achieved the above by replacing |issue=
by |volume=
and running the bot on that.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relatively common error (happens a few times a month) that should be easily handled by the bot.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
to |chapter-url=
without also changing |url-access=
to |chapter-url-access=
|url-access=
has a value assigned to it, change parameter name to match the new url parameter name (|article-url=
, |chapter-url=
, |entry-url=
, |section-url=
); if |url-access=
does no have an assigned value, remove it
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1636
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1621
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 18:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
|journal=Sae Transactions
|journal=Aaup Bulletin
|journal=SAE Transactions
|journal=AAUP Bulletin
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1621
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1619 I think
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 02:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1622
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 16:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't really know what causes it, but I haven't been able to use the bot for several hours. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Fhocutt, Kaldari, Mattsenate, Maximilianklein, and Smith609: I believe one of the people listed as running the bot needs kick it and restart it. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
More details: if journal and publisher are the same, but publisher is wiki linked then drop journal and rename publisher to journal.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 20:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have run the Bot on several thousand pages and have made a couple of dozens of improvements based upon my experiences. Enjoy! AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to temporarily add {{bots|deny=UTRS}} to the page to prevent getting messages on this page of these troll/fake unblock requests. If a real UTRS unblock request is made my the bot owner/operator (which seems unlikely per the discussion above) they should remove it again or do so when the bot gets unblocked. This should work per the explanation on User:UTRSBot. -- Redalert2fan ( talk) 21:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} seems to have stopped AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1681
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1682
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm at a loss how to describe this. A very nasty vandal was faking cite book entries. In one article 36 of them. Searching for other uses of the faked google books url "XAb6ZH5xjH8C" I hit Islamic views on sin and was trying to figure out if I could just delete the added passages.
There were several small edits attempting fixes, and at least one person recognizing and deleting bogus text, but then I was confused by 'somebody' fixing the fake cite books. Um, what? (Search for "XAb6ZH5xjH8C')
Citebot 'fixed' ISBN to various values in 9 different entries without noticing they were all the same URL! Amazing... Shenme ( talk) 23:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
ISSN doesn't count, because it's a garbage identifier.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking into. We are leery of {{
cite news}}.
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 03:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
In
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)The bot fails to add |journal=The Language Learning Journal
. Possibly because of a title mismatch. However, there is a doi, and that should be good enough to bypass title mismatch 'safeguards'.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}}
Extended content
|
---|
Link to the Issue on GitHub with links to documentation someone needs to read and use https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/issues/948 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#CiteSeerX and Citation bot. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It is good the bot is blocked. Now it can stay blocked until the ability of editors to edit wholly anonymously is removed. This is WP:TEACE, either by username or by revealing your IP; but citation bot currently has the facility to bypass both of those constraints. —— SerialNumber 54129 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of progress could likely be easily made with by updating
User:Smith609/citations.js and
Wikipedia:Citation expander and other scripts to output the username (if they don't already, I notice the way
User:Smith609/citations.js and
MediaWiki:Gadget-citations.js gets usernames is different than
User:Headbomb/citations.js, maybe something needs to be updated?), and make the Username box in
[52] be mandatory. Those are really low hanging fruits. More could be identified if we
knew how the bot was activated.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Discussion continues in block discussion
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 01:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The pull has been merged and pulled through; CiteSeerX links will no longer be added.
Decline reason:
There is currently no consensus to unblock this bot. Several editors have pointed out that it violates bot policy by not clearly identifying the editor who has triggered it. Some others have suggested that this could be accomplished fairly easily. It appears that the bot's operator is not very active on Wikipedia anymore. It might be better for an active editor to take it over and make it compliant with the bot policy. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm keen to know whether this is a solution to a hypothetical problem, or a real problem. Has anyone ever used the edit summary to contact a user who was activating the bot? What was the outcome? Has anyone ever needed to contact an editor who operated the bot, but been unable to because they were anonymous? What was the outcome?
Headbomb: it sounds like your suggestions are
Is there anything I've missed? Would these changes be sufficient for you to lift your opposition to the bot being permanently blocked?
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 10:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I tried to be coy and avoid directly pointing it out, but anyone worried about the bot leaking IP addresses is saying clueless idiotic stuff. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to think about why. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 13:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
the Wikipedia user directing any given edit must always be identifiedand
users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit,are being flaunted. It matters not that the bot does other "useful work"—so have many now-indef'd editors over the years. Bot operation clearly does not fall within the scope of WP:IAR, and it is fallacious to demand examples of misuse when policy is being so flagrantly abused.Also pinging Xaosflux, who has been discussing this elswehere. Cheers, —— SerialNumber 54129 11:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I hate to dive into the middle of a discussion here but this is absolutely kafka-esque to read from the outside. Look, I see a few general points here that need to be summarized:
1. The blocking editor, User: JJMC89, wants both issues resolved--the XCiteSeer links AND the lack of identification of editors who use this bot. As I understand it, at this point only logged-in editors remain unidentified. IPs are tracked for editors who are not logged in. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like we are 1/2 + 1/4 of the way done here--that's 3/4! We are well on our way.
2. Some people are interested in if the bot is really doing or capable of doing harm. Some people are interested in what really necessitates an indefinite block. Still more people are worried about whether bots should follow this or that policy. But all of that is mind-numbingly detailed and misses the big picture.
3. The big picture is, forget about blocks for a second. It would be a darn nice feature to be able to see who is using the bot, wouldn't it? Then you could work with them, or give them a barnstar, or give them tips, or even learn from them if you are just learning about this bot like I am. Whether or not the block is in place, it would be really good to just collect this automatically from editors so that there is no hassle for them or for the rest of us checking up on edits. And if we were to solve this problem, we wouldn't have to worry about this or that policy or whether the bot is dangerous. The best possible scenario, as I see it, is having this feature and then having the bot unblocked. Remember, we are trying to make an encyclopedia with good references.
4. But all that's a bit of a hassle for User:AManWithNoPlan or anyone else who works on the code for this thing. So let's all put our heads together and ask. Is that possible to set up? What are the challenges of doing so? What's the timeframe? And, dare I say it, what do you need in order to get this thing done? Is there any way for us to help you? After all, that's the point of this entire exercise. This bot is clearly a useful resource. So let's get it up and running, safely, for all our sakes. And let's please discuss how to do that rather than who is right or wrong about this or that academic issue. When we are done with all that jazz, why don't we then pop on over to the relevant policy talk pages if we want to talk about if this or that makes sense or is fair--perhaps with a link to this discussion. While these are weird circumstances, and while I have my own comments, it does seem like continued discussion of that sort doesn't really belong on a user's talk page after an unblock request. So tell us, Man, how do we get this train rolling? Prometheus720 ( talk) 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
|author = [[Michigan Legislature]]
|author = Michigan Legislature
plus |author-link = Michigan Legislature
{{
open access}}
templates. Newspapers.com is not open access. The content of the articles hosted there may be free-to-read, but is, most certainly, not free-to-be-reused. Suggested style for cs1|2 templates linking to readable clippings at Newspapers.com is at
Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. There was discussion about the use of {{open access}}
and {{
free access}}
templates with these citations on the
talk page.|last=
and to |first=
because when those parameters are used, cs1|2 renders authors names in last-first order while that same author's article at en.wiki is titled in first-last order. For editors who want both of an author's last and first names wikilinked, |author-linkn=
is required when the author's name is split between |last=
and |first=
. Because |authorn=
is the whole author's name, there is no need to require |author-linkn=
. The cs1|2 documentation can always be made better, but at least for this case, is consistent; when a parameter should not be wikilinked, the documentation so states. You can wikilink both |first=
and |last=
but that sort of makes for nonsense:
So, let me get this straight: This extremely useful bot, which is so valuable that it even has a link in the "tools" menu on the left side of the screen, has been blocked for two months because someone is upset that it doesn't report who clicked the "expand citations" button and triggered the bot's completely automated edit to an article. This is ridiculous, and a perfect example of someone
disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.--
Srleffler (
talk) 17:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The current block of this bot is based on a misunderstanding of the policy. The outstanding issue is whether the bot is obligated to report the identity of the user who triggered it. The policy cited is WP:BOTMULTIOP, "Bots operated by multiple users". This section of the policy is about a bot that is shared between several operators. Users who merely trigger a bot are not "bot operators". The relevant part of the policy is WP:BOTCONFIG, where the fourth bullet begins "Providing some mechanism which allows contributors other than the bot's operator to control the bot's operation is useful in some circumstances..." [em. added]. The policy explicitly allows bots to be controlled by individuals who are not "operators" of that bot. That is exactly the situation with citation bot. There is no outstanding reason why the current block should be continued. -- Srleffler ( talk) 02:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Citation bot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
the policy referenced does not apply AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 02:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am marking this declined in an effort to clean up the queue of unblock requests from blocked users. I have no opinion to share on what should be done with the bot. However, the unblock request process is not a suitable one for resolution of this matter. Uninvited Company 22:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
For any watchers not yet aware, there is a discussion at
WP:AN#User:Citation bot unblock discussion is stalled. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 03:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
{{ fixed}} flag for archive
The only support needed is for identifiers. This would expand, e.g.
to
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Flagging as {{
wontfix}}, since the level of complexity is too high after careful investigation
AManWithNoPlan (
talk) 21:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I removing citation bot blocking templates from Wikipedia. And fixing all ‘bad’ behavior as I go. Do not upgrade ISBN to ISBN13 unless year is 2007 or newer. Special code for Oxford Online Encyclopedia, since the URLs are DOIs, just the wrong ones! I hope this will fix all unreported bugs. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
{{ notabug}} flag for archive
Note the dots.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)