Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Denied.

SmackBot 42

Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Add DEFAULTSORT to pages which are sorted out-of-order in a category

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: backlog, plus estimated 1,200 per month

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Will be run off databse dumps intially. Establishes for every page in a category, that does not have an explicit sort, whether the addition of a DEFAUTLSORT will resolve the OOO.

Discussion

Basically simple. Rich Farmbrough 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there is currently an RfC about this very issue (Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC on Sortkey issue), I consider this a disruptive request, intended to change a discussion by creating a fait accompli. Pleae immediately withdraw this request, and only file it again after the RfC has concluded that this is indeed what the community wants. Fram (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, if any is needed: the same effect of correcting out of order sorting can often be achieved by removing the defaultsort, often initially added by Rich Farmbrough through Smackbot or AWB. This bot supports one solution to a problem largely created by the same editor, above other possible solutions. Also be aware that by adding a defaultsort instead of a category-specific sort (i.e. only adding a piped sort to the cat where the incorrect sort actually happens), often articles will be moved to the correct spot in one category, only to get sorted out of order in another category, where there were no problems until then. This is not a good problem-solving bot, but creates as many as it intends to solve. Fram (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"creates as many as it intends to solve" ^{[citation needed]} Rich Farmbrough, 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, that part may have been slightly hyperbolic... Fram (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Rich Farmbrough 05:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the RfC is still ongoing and I see no harm in waiting until a consensus is reached at the RfC before pressing on. In addition I can see a few unneeded edits where this bot will add a 'defaultsort' when there isn't a need, as such having the edits looked at, by a editor, before saving will beneficial. -- d'oh! _[talk] 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is no tearing hurry for this to achieve final approval, though there's no reason to stop the process dead in its tracks. It is not a response to the RFC, rather to User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#About_bots_and_categories_-_clarify_request. I'm not sure which edits you mean Do'h, the list currently generated for this exercise is designed to avoid that happening, and has not yet been used. Presumably a sample run or runs would confirm if there are problems. Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally, apart from some comments I just posted the RFC has been moribund since 5 November. Rich Farmbrough, 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I was talking about running a trial while the RfC was ongoing, it seem like a waste of time for you and BAG to trial a bot, when the consensus might go against the bot or special requirements might be required for the bot. Yes, looking back I can see I wasn't very clear on my previous comment, but my concerns lies with seeing 'defaultsort' added to articles which doesn't need them. Can I have a look at this list? and could you explain how does this list gets generated and what are the rules work out what articles get the 'defaultsort'? -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll upload a chunk of it. The way it works is to create a list for each category sorted as it would be on-wiki (discarding anything with a piped sort) then compare this with how it should be sorted, and establish which article or articles, needs a DEFAULTSORT to fix the OOO. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

How does the bot knows how the category should be sorted? -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It knows how to create a DEFAULTSORT, this is the same. Example: Red robin and Red zebra sort the same with and without, Red robin and Red Zebra sort wrongly without, correctly with. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately this BRFA is stalled by RfC on necessity of DEFAULTSORTING when sorting doesn't impact result and partially on locale consideration when sorting feature request. It is necessary for RfC to be resolved and beneficial for the project to wait on the resolution of the feature request, before an automated bot is run (as opposed to supervised AWB use). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Let's be honest, that RFC stalled. We have no resolution to the issue. And as we all know, grey areas are not fair game for bots: all we end up with is blocks, bans, accusations of fait accomplis... it's not good. For these reasons, I'm tempted, regrettably to mark this BRFA as Expired without prejudice for future reimplementation. Would anyone have any thoughts on that? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending the "BAG assistance needed" until the recent issues are resolved. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The topic of this RfC is whether this should be a hard rule, implemented on all articles, or a suggestion, only implemented on those articles where it is really an improvement."

This would apply to only the latter set of articles, and is therefore not blocked by the RFC. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What about removing (unnecessary) default sorts first and seeing if that fixes the problem? Personally, I would not release a bot into a gray area, as Jarry1250 points out. To me, there is no clear consensus what to do in the future in first place, let alone have a bot do it. A bot cannot "carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines" when the policy has an RfC and editors with split opinions. It is expected that humans would continue following current status quo, but a bot should not do mass-edits towards one or the other end. I tried to move the RfC to get something this request can be based on, but there isn't enough involvement one would expect for something this broad. I believe in being bold and generally good faith, but bots are just inviting page-long noticeboard arguments when approved for something less than uncontroversial. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell if a DEFSORT is un-necessary? You need to check every category that it is in to do that. Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. Rich Farmbrough 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC did not come to any resolution and did not stem any further discussion (that I know of). Personally, I recuse myself from denying/approving this request, as I proposed the second part of the RfC; so leaving the tl:BAN up. All I can advise it to seek wider discussion on the matter, like VP. As far as BAG is concerned, there is no link to consensus to do this task by bot, although the task itself seems to follow WP:SORTKEY guidelines.. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too see a decided lack of consensus, and recommend that this be denied. Gigs (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Sorry for the waste of time. MBisanz ^talk 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.