Wikinews:Bots

This page is an official policy on the English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WN:BOT WN:BOTS

Wikinews Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view Content guide Style guide

Administrators Arbitration Committee

Accreditation policy Archive conventions Avoid weasel words User blocking policy Cite sources Conflict of interest Copyright Dispute resolution Criteria for deletion Criteria for speedy deletion Don't disrupt Wikinews   to illustrate a point Fair use Image use policy Naming conventions Original reporting Page protection policy Reviewing articles Three revert rule Username policy

Etiquette

All bots must be approved here to run regardless of if they need a bot flag. Non-approved bots may be blocked at an administrator's discretion. This may be for reasons such as flooding recent changes. The bot flag will not be granted to any bot that does not have the {{botblock}} template on its userpage. A bot's userpage should clearly state the bot's intended purpose, and other relevant details. See also Wikinews:Global Bots.

Bots on Wikinews

Active bots

These are bots that have made any page edit or logged action within 30 days:

• BOT-Superzerocool (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• CalendarBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• CommonsDelinker (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• Diego Grez Bot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• GrondinBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• Millbot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• Mjbmrbot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• VolkovBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• ZacharyBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)

Inactive bots

These are bots that have not made any page edits nor logged actions within 30 days:

• AdambroBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• MelancholieBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• MerlLinkBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• MikemoralBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• SineBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• SportsBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• XeBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)

Discussion about new bots

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing. Master and bot are blocked for cross-wiki disruption, and it was looking unlikely this would pass to say the least even before that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

GlobalEditBot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Dirt Diver
• Bot name: GlobalEditBot
• Programming language: Perl and Python
• Task: Global edits on request.
• Note: I just noticed that the bot is blocked here, I'm not really sure for the reason since it didn't edit yet. But I seem to need to ask permission so here it goes:
  • This bot creates global userpages, global talkpages, global js and css on user request (This is done from meta.) The bot will always be run under supervision. And there will never be more than 10 edits a day. The bot doesn't edit the main namespace.
  • Could you please give permission to run this bot here also, when no permission is granted it will en.wikinews will be excluded from the list all wikimedia wikis where the bot is active.
  • There is no need for a local bot flag because it wouldn't really flood. But the block should be lifted so it can run again. Dirt Diver (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Forgive me if I misunderstand, but would the bot not require admin privileges to edit JS and CSS? If so, are you also requesting those? DENDODGE George Watson 12:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• No I'm not requesting those permissions yet. First months I will let it run for user pages en talkpages only (And creating complete SUL accounts. After that periode of time I would like to request global editinterface permission for the bot, that way I can edit .js en .css without the need of admin tools. But I wanted to be complete fair about what the bot is going to do so I added it already, otherwhise I have to come back and let it be discussed a second time. Dirt Diver (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• I feel this to be worth keeping an eye on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• m:Requests for comment/Abigor is related also. the wub "?!" 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• At this stage, I would Oppose the authorisation of this bot to operate on Wikinews. The reason for this is that the code for the bot is, according to the details on the page at Meta (m:User:GlobalEditBot) still in Alpha. Alpha code is code which has not been properly tested for compatibility, or is still in preparation and untested. When the code reaches Beta, where you are actively testing it and running it live on a Wiki, I would support a brief period on here to see how it's working. BarkingFish (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  I cant run it live untill I have 700 botbits. Its tested and its completly working it did 2 runs today without any problems. It will become 1.0.1 when toolserver access is granted and I can run it from the database instead of a list with all wikis. Dirt Diver (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I have to agree with BarkingFish. Until this bot is at least in beta, and people have had the chance to review the code, I don't believe it would be prudent to unblock the bot. I would be especially cautious given the fact that it seems evident that this bot will, at least eventually, require admin permissions. Tadpole256 (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is an existing tool which does this task, run by a trusted steward (so it can do the .js and .css pages). The proposal here is from a user who has been abusing multiple accounts, causing trouble on various wikis, and has just been blocked from meta for vandalism (see my link in comments section above). Wikinews has a history of granting chances to those unwelcome elsewhere, but the chances of this user receiving the meta rights required to make this bot actually useful seem vanishingly small. the wub "?!" 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose after watching the situation develop for a little while. At present, it seems you cannot and will not be trusted to run the bot. As the wub said, we're happy to give you a chance to prove yourself and I try and ignore people's past on other wikis; but, here it's rather related to your use of the bot account. Sorry. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Glavkos bot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Glavkos
• Bot name: Glavkos bot
• Programming language:Python
• Task: Interwikis.

Comments

• "Interwikis" is an inadequate description of the purpose of this bot. A more detailed breakdown of what work this bot will carry out would be required before it would be prudent for anyone on Wikinews to comment, or vote, one way or the other. For example, are you familiar with Wikinews' arciving policy? Would this hamper the bot's operations? Does this bot operate on any other wiki where flagged revisions is in-use? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Opposing this since bot owner never came back to talk to us. In the absence of any input from anywhere, will recommend permanent block per local policy and when they want to edit, they can come and prove it works somewhere, is documented and so on. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Please provide more information about the bots tasks. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

KamikazeBot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Karol007
• Bot name: KamikazeBot
• Programming language: Python, interwiki.py
• Already used on: full list (global bot with about +80 bot flags)
• Task: interwiki

Best regards, Karol007 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• "Interwikis" is an inadequate description of the purpose of this bot. A more detailed breakdown of what work this bot will carry out would be required before it would be prudent for anyone on Wikinews to comment, or vote, one way or the other. For example, are you familiar with Wikinews' arciving policy? Would this hamper the bot's operations? Does this bot operate on any other wiki where flagged revisions is in-use? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KamikazeBot works only on articles and categories (namespaces: 0 and 14) and add only interwiki links. Bot can working all week on server WMPL, but standard script interwiki.py for Wikinews is run ones in week. Karol007 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Opposing this as, despite getting an answer on the challenge to an overly terse description, I didn't need told what an Interwiki link is; will, as-per other bots with no documentation, no good rationale, and no understanding of our project from the owner, block permanently to force a formal request when it needs access, is proven to work elsewhere and has documentation. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Please provide more information about the bots tasks. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AKBot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Artem Korzhimanov (talk)
• Bot name: AKBot
• Programming language: Python, interwiki.py
• Already used on: full list
• Task: manage interwiki links: adding new interwiki lins, remove dead links, the bot is running in manual regime and is supposed to work only in main and category namespaces. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I am very, very leery of bots writing to the main namespace here. A bot right on enWN, which has flagged revisions in use, could link completely unrelated news stories between several languages.

Categories, templates, and project namespace stuff I can fully understand use of a bot. However, the vast majority of work such a bot would need to do is one-off stuff.

What I'll assume was a test run looked okay. But, before making my mind up I would want to know more about plans for main namespace use. It seems to me that deciding if two independently written articles, in different languages, should be interlinked is a human-only decision which will take orders of magnitude more time than doing the 5 to 10 seconds editing to manually insert the interwiki link. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. That is why in main space this bot will be run only in manual regime under my control of its edits. The thing is that it is more convenient to add all interwiki links at once in all languages by running an interwiki script rather than do it by hands like I did before. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Support The bot sounds useful, but I would not condone giving it Reviewer privileges per Brian McNeil's concerns. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 04:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Autoreviewer is bundled with bot; it's just hit a mainspace article that was published. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive

• Archive