Wikinews talk:Bots

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Commons ticker[edit]

I have been in touch with Duesentrieb here with a view to re-instating the commons ticker. He says (as i understand - read the link for orig) either we can wait a while for the new version or run the beta version. What do we think? I think it would be usefull but what do others think??--MarkTalk 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Beta it.  Thunderhead  ►  22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I miss the commons ticker...DragonFire1024 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We should use the old version that is running on de.'pedia until the new one is available. FellowWikiNewsie 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The version on de.'pedia is the so called unstable (although to me it looks fine to me) version. Are you saying use this??--MarkTalk 19:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should use the bot from de.'pedia. FellowWikiNewsie 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I say we should beta it.  Thunderhead  ►  20:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the old version? Bawolff 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh look it appears to be back. Bawolff 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some assistance required RE: Weather[edit]

I need a little help here with the Weather - I need a small Windows app that can automatically upload the generated maps to commons and purge any thumbs of them to get them updated.

I've tried to install C# but the process just hangs, I'm prepared to install activeperl if that's required, and I should be able to keep the thing running 24/7.

What the app needs to do is allow definition of a directory where the files are written by Weather Checker. Somewhere to specify a Username and Password is also required. I can start that to run at the top of the hour and about 5 minutes past the hour the newly generated files can be uploaded.

Any takers? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Change[edit]

I propose a new bot policy, or a change to the exisiting one:

  • Administrators may, at thier discretion, approve bots for trial periods up to 10 days, depending on the purpose of the bot.
  • Bot status may only be granted if there is a net support of at least 5 (For example, six support votes and one oppose equals a five net support rate).
  • Bots that do not run for 90 consecutive days will have thier flag revoked for security reasons. They may request the flag through the normal process at any other time.

Thunderhead - (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why that's necessary. We haven't been amazingly slow at granting requests, and the bot may always be run supervised under the main user account during a trial period. Plus I don't see a need to deviate from normal approval voting. -- IlyaHaykinson 08:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy?[edit]

As this is a proposed policy, there should be discussion on whether this should be made into policy. Anonymous101talk 21:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is policy or not policy. This is simply the page for the approval of bots. It perhaps should have a more organized system though, The Mind's Eye (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki bots[edit]

I propose closing all interwiki bot requests as unsuccessful and opening the floor to someone to write a comprehensive interwiki bot for Wikinews. There are simply too many instances where these bots could get into a fight and some have been seen to remove valid interwiki links. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bots editing templates and similar[edit]

I noted a problem yesterday with odd unsighted pages in my watchlist, these were things like the stock market index values. The template for them is maintained by a bot, and some issue meant that despite the bot having editor status one update was not auto-sighted. All subsequent edits were thus also not flagged and where the template was in use on the main page would have been out of date figures for non-logged in users.

I would propose that as a requirement for all bots which carry out periodic updates to pages in namespaces where FlaggedRevs is applied that the bot explicitly sight each edit. This means that if some glitch causes one version not to be sighted then the next will. I suspect once this has been implemented on one bot it can be shared and applied by all.

To enable monitoring of this I propose that any bot that maintains pages such as those in the Template namespace has an explicit list on its user page along with the big red off switch. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

note. This issue was caused do to a bug in mediawiki, where bot edits were not auto-sighted. I put supercoolz's bot (the stock market bot) into the editor group to resolve the issue. Melenchoie's bot i already in that group. the other bot that might be affected is adarmo's bot. The downside of foring bots to sight. is if they don't replace the entire page. we could have vandalism that gets sighted. Bawolff 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue was resolved by an mw update today. Bots edits are now sighted by autopromote. Merlissimo (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This was reported at BugZilla:19207 – just for completeness ;-) --Melancholie (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)