Wikinews:Bots

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

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
Bots
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
Privilege expiry policy
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[edit]

Active bots[edit]

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

Inactive bots[edit]

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

Discussion about current bots[edit]

General question regarding the 'inactive bots' list above
  • Block, remove bot flag or, ...? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd think, in general when a bot goes inactive for, say, a year, remove the flag. Eventually block; just to name a figure, maybe that's two years? --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Would suppose the idea that if inactive for a year, remove the flag. --LauraHale (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about new bots[edit]

RileyBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Operator: -Riley Huntley (SWMT)
  • Bot name: RileyBot
  • Programming language: Python, pywikipedia
  • Already used on: amgwiki, commonswiki, enwiki, enwikiquote, enwikivoyage, eswikivoyage, frwiivoyage, hewikisource, sawiki, simplewiki, sourceswiki, thwiki, ttwiktionary
  • Task: Cleaning Wikinews:Sandbox regularly -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 23:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Votes[edit]

Oppose If it is designed to cleanup the sandbox, I would strongly disagree with this bot. (no hard feelings). This project is different from Wikipedia, and thus, the sandbox is not used in the same manner. For example: Barcelona will defeat Arsenal in Last 16 of 2015-16 UEFA Champions League, yes it will happen. And if so I wish to start preparing the article today, I can just create it directly. I don't need to make a subpage of User:John Doe/Drafts. I will place {{prepared}} template for the same. Further, sandbox is often used in place of a non-existing template. And if so, there are chances of improvement, or in shortage of time, not emptied. At this moment, the Sandbox has some tools designed by Pi zero (t · c · b) of some real importance. Then, there is a new look of infobox whose color scheme has to be changed. Then there is {{WDL}} in progress for sports article. Material design chip is there. And a pre-existing template: {{Tennis scorecard}} who was designed in that very page is to be tweaked. Clearing it will make any of the editor undo the bot, and get back to the template to fix it. The history of the page would break the continuity. One template that I tested last year, which was not so useful was directly placed from the sandbox. I don't see any point of having the sandbox emptied, and for the reason I don't support this motion.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I see your reasoning, would it help if the bot left the page untouched if the Template:Prepare was on the page? In any case, the refreshing of the page could be delayed to once a week or more. -Riley Huntley (SWMT) 07:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For me it won't help, I would say. If one wants, to have sandbox for some time, the editor can blank it and and after done, one can revert himself/herself. There are so less editors here, and I don't find it useful having bot to clear the page. Like the templates I have prepared there: some of them are for the event that will take place six months later. 27 times the bot would have cleared the page and it will be hard to come to the old one again. And having a bot for just one page, with users keeping the stuff for longer time, don't you think it would be unnecessary?
    Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 13:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Iirc NewsieBot when operational (under discussion elsewhere on this page) also cleared the sandbox if not edited for 24 hours. The sandbox is a temporary space, after all. --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero:No doubt that is it temporary page, but editing it within 24 hours to avoid emptying is not always possible. The dialog tools there are also not edited in 24 hours, and so the templates I was working on. If one needs, he can clear the page and later restore it manually.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 12:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning towards Support. The sandbox is a shared space. Lone users cannot simply hog it indefinitely. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The sandbox is for testing, and should be regularly cleaned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SadTea (talkcontribs)
  • Comment I was thinking about supporting (and conceivably even closing), and did a routine check on the bot's activity. Not too very surprisingly, given the long time this request has been open, it appears the bot has been inactive on all projects for some time; and it looks as if the operator has had some health problems, from which they may be recently recovered. Can the operator comment on the status of this request? --Pi zero (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support If you're going to prepare an article, make a user sandbox page, and then delete it. Why not? And for templates, create a template sandbox. PokestarFan (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment silly reason. This issue will be created with the Template sandbox again, clearing that page regularly. I don't see why we need a bot to clear the sandbox if we can manually do it without any trouble. Just click edit source, select the entire text, hit delete, and save it. There is not much activity on the sandbox, so if there is a very good reason to use the bot rather than doing it manually, please point it out.
    acagastya 18:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
"silly" seems a bit harsh. In any case, I think the bot died of old age waiting for us to decide, so we'll probably want to close this soon as some variant of "not done". --Pi zero (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Archive[edit]