Jump to content

Wikinews:Bots/Archive 4

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
2006-2007
2008-2009
2010-2011
2012-2020
2021-present
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Bots. 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 page.



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.



General question regarding the 'inactive bots' list above
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.


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.



Dexbot (talk · contribs)

Comments

  • Question What is the motivation for removing the local interwiki links? There are clear advantages to leaving them in place; I'm wondering whether any disadvantages would outweigh those advantages. --Pi zero (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does this bot have the global bot flag (or whatever it's called), so that if we unblock the bot we do not have the option of letting it run without the bot flag? --Pi zero (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1- I think this page gives you a full answer. The advantages are: 1- maintenance is easy, when you move a page there is no need to go all the interwikis and fix them (by hand or bot) 2-It clears up the history for example see history of this article almost all of them are maintaining templates and the real edits are not distinguishable. 3- It clears up the page content small wikis are now smaller by factor of three and their pages are easy edit since there is no huge list of languages there. The main disadvantage is that sometime there is no 1-to-1 connection between languages and that's why still the old way is possible and you can use it in these rare cases. 2- Read m:Global bots and Wikinews:Global bots (your policy) and it endorses that bots that have global bot status (including Dexbot) can be ran to maintain interlangauge links without the need to request for approval in here. Ladsgroup (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Zero reason for mass-removal. Local global bot policy allows maintenance bots, it makes no mention of bots removing local links. You yourself point out there will be cases where local interlang links will be required. Where they are not required, there are alternative options open to users, such as commenting them out. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the removal of this restrictive program. Remove the chains! Thank you.

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.



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.



AKBot (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Votes

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

Support To me its a restriction. Take off the chains!

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.


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.



This proposal became increasingly woolly as potential uses branched out; then, work on the bot faltered. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NewsieBot (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: Brian McNeil
  • Bot name: NewsieBot
  • Programming language: PHP and "voodoo" ;-)
  • Task: Assist Accredited Reporters in any ways possible.
Notes
This bot is still pending receipt of AutoConfirmed, at which point some more rigorous testing can get underway.
The first, basic, function of the bot will be to upload files from an accredited reporter shared Dropbox folder to this wiki. This has been tested on the Journalists' Workspace over on wikinewsie.org, and found to do exactly what's wanted/needed there.
Initially, I'm looking to recruit a couple of accredited reporters to test this, before we move on to voting. You would need to have access to the Wikinews Dropbox share, you place files of an uploadable type within an appropriate sub-folder, and once they're synched to the wikinewsie.org Dropbox, they would automatically be uploaded here.
A key issue, related to the Paralympics at least, is restrictions on photography which will only allow CC-BY-NC licensing. Can't go on Commons, but can go here. Similarly, scans of reporters' notes could be uploaded here. For what the bot will do, we need to demonstrate function here, then we'll have a good case to get it accepted on Commons itself for stuff that falls under one of their licenses. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm recruiting testers, and they need to be Accredited Reporters.
If requested by the community, I am happy to bring each individual function of this bot back here for a vote and as-wide testing as can be achived within the Accredited Reporter community. Should that involve removing the bot flag whilst new functionality is tested, I'm perfectly happy with such. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done an initial test, which can be seen from the bot's contributions. This was a single file run, just to prove the concept - the file was successfully uploaded to both jws.wikinewsie.org and to here. It didn't come out of the Dropbox, but that's next on the to-do list for checking this out. I want to see people move away from Dropbox, and onto ownCloud which is opensource. It has clients for Android, iPhone and iPad (as well as, obviously, PCs).
The upload from Iceland (yes, we've our own, geothermally-powered, rival to the toolserver now) was incredibly fast. I need a list of file extensions which are not supported here, and will need converted prior to upload. Not a problem to script that, but you need to specify the whole lot for audio/video.
Excuse the testing, which may be a 'tad' messy to start with Once all scripts are in-place, people will be invited to accept a share of the relevant Dropbox and try it out for themselves. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bot is now running on auto, but requires those with access to the shared Dropbox placing files for upload. Is handling all filetypes enWN permits, plus convering some audio formats then uploading the converted files. Will be testing/developing the video converting segment today. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional functionality
  • NewsieBot now has another small duty: Raking the Wikinews:Sandbox clear. It checks half-hourly: if the Sandbox is not 'pristine' and it is over six hours since it was last edited, Newsiebot will reset the contents to '{{sandbox}}'. We may want to add a comment about this to that template, advising anyone who is looking for stuff they've done to check the history.
Code for this function is available here. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an idea to not log anything unless something is actually done. It rather clutters up Special:RecentChanges. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Please do not vote until after July 25, 2012! This bot will not be able to carry out its basic functions until July 22nd, and it needs some "kicking of the tyres".
At that time, it should be running for testing, feedback, and discussion on other useful functions. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few tests is helpful, but not just to there. One or two to here would be good too. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.


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.



User failed to engage with community, leading to a hopelessly stalled application. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GhalyBot (talk · contribs)

Comments

  • Comment Interwiki in what namespace(s)? What testing history does the bot have? And, is the bot operating on any wikis using Flagged Revisions? Assuming so, what handling of Flagged Revisions does the bot do? --Brian McNeil / talk 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the link to Bot edits on all projects . it mainly does interwiki links. The only wikipedia that has a different type of edits on is arz wikipedia where tasks different to interwiki is done .I am a sysop on arzwiki. If there is a problem with my request , I am happy to withdraw it.Hoping that this answere your question. If not , please let me know. --Ghaly (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What interwiki links are necessary? Can specific examples be provided of it operating on other Wikinews projects and where manual interwiki linking has been done on Wikinews? --LauraHale (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There isn't anything wrong with the request, other than a lack of details. Wikinews has a few 'quirks' that might either interfere with a bot's actions (intent of policy), or have a bot's actions provoke unintended consequences.
That's why the project has opted-out of global bots; it's simply a matter of bot operators either checking the policies here, or giving as-much detail as possible about the details of a bot's set usage and allowing the Wikinews community to reassure themselves it isn't likely to screw up. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.



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.



WCCbot (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: W.CC (talk)
  • Bot name: WCCBot
  • Programming language: Python / Pywikipediabot
  • Already used on: 4 wikis
  • Task: interwiki

I'm not a native English speaker. Thanks.--W.CC (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Fixed. --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.


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.



This application stalled owing to a failure to engage with the process here. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SteveRBot (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: SteveR (talk)
  • Bot name: SteveRBot
  • Programming language: Python / Pywikipediabot
  • Already used on: 15 wikis
  • Task: Bot adds interwiki from uk.wikinews.

I am an administrator on Ukrainian Wikinews. There is a little problem with interwiki links in templates and categories there. Bot was active on wikivoyage projects and still has flags there, so I don't think that there will be any problems with my bot in en.wikinews. Best regards, --SteveR (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • OK, let's see if I read the request correctly:
    You're looking to do interwiki work in the Template and Category namespaces?
    The aim of (what I assume is a mostly-temporary) request for bot privs is to correctly set up interwiki links to/from ukWN?
That's something perfectly reasonable to request, and I'd in-principle support. A few examples of missing links helps build confidence, bearing in mind we're keen to know where there are project pages with no enWN parallel (i.e. has someone come up with something we'd like to copy?). --Brian McNeil / talk 14:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.


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.



Approved. --Pi zero (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revibot I (talk · contribs)

It exactly uses same code as MiszaBot, so there should be no problem. — revi☏ 14:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Simulated run results many threads waiting to be archived.... — revi☏ 14:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody opposes, I would like to run some test edits. (Note: When bot runs on User talk page, mediawiki will not send talk page email to users, but new talk notification via echo (Red 1 in echo field and yellow "You have new discussion blah blah") will be sent. Only way to prevent this is assigning botflag...) — revi☏ 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a test run isn't feasible. I'm not a 'crat, so I can't do that myself, but supposing someone who is is also fine with it, it can likely be done. Though I can assign the "pseudo-bot" flag, if necessary. MiszaBot has not done anything since April and archiving pages manually is a bit tedious. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a test would be better unflagged, since it'd be easier to see. --Pi zero (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, running it now. — revi☏ 15:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Running now: Set to edit every 60 seconds. — revi☏ 15:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency stopped: Abusefilter error blanking prevented bot from removing archived section from main talk page. — revi☏ 15:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(That's Special:AbuseFilter/10, for those of you following along at home.) Microchip08 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are. - Amgine | t 16:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's some error in user's config, wikimedia labs, and my computer, so I will try to test tomorrow, after block (requested by me) expires. — revi☏ 16:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot about this. Running new test. — revi☏ 06:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's complete - just few errors for users who set their archive target page to Example user's archive... Otherwise it's a replication of MiszaBot. I have set the bot to run 15:00 UTC. (Please note that bot will create new talk notification until the bot has bot flag.) — revi☏ 07:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to talkpage notification, bot will also flood RC while it archives. Current setting is edit every 60 secs (=1 min). — revi☏ 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.



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.



Closed, and bot blocked due to owner not responding to reasonable Wikinews-specific concerns.

Autobot (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: BokicaK (talk)
  • Bot name: Autobot
  • 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. --BokicaK (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Interwiki to/from where? What knowledge can you demonstrate of Wikinews' archiving policy? Can you provide a sample list of pages this bot needs to change here? If not, per long-standing policy, I'm inclined to vote no. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why archiving is important? Purpose of bot is adding interwiki links in category namespace.--BokicaK (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the bot, above, says "main and category namespaces". --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working in category namespace is primary task. Interwiki links in articles are rare. --BokicaK (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even were this bot restricted to Category, Flagged Revisions is in-effect on that namespace. What experience have you coding for/with FlaggedRevs? (Aside, in asking this it's the fact that the bot's edits could bell be sighted, and would generally be hidden from RC. It could 'stealthily do a lot of damage before that was noticed. This is why we have not opted in to the Global bots shennanigans.) --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.



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.



Request closed due to lack of well-formed, competent, request, failure to explain the scope of functions the bot would perform. As-evidenced by community responses to this request, Wikinews does not trust faith-based software agents. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardsBot (talk · contribs)

Notes

God bless America. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This user, and this bot, generally act without regard to a local community's policies or traditions regarding automated editing. While I have every faith in the user's good intentions, I also have equal faith the user has neither read nor even considered the policies on this page or related to running bots here. To exemplify this, the bot's user page does not comply with this page's requirements (and I'm unsure the bot is currently structured to do so.) - Amgine | t 23:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What does "God bless America" mean? --LauraHale (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This bot was blocked on September 28, 2010. It had, prior to that, made only one edit. The 'vote' from MzMcBride is not relevant, as it is the Wikinews community would decide whether the bot serves any useful purpose. The supposed use is given as a handwave to a page on meta.
I concur with Amgine on the above, Wikinews has opted-out of the global bots policy because of issues like "it would be impossible to act with regard to every local community's policies or traditions". That says local policies and traditions do not matter, for that reason I have voted in opposition to this bot being given rights, or even to it being unblocked at-all. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Support, as operator. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete opposition due to completely fatuous 'justification' for bot rights. That's before even looking at the structure of the bot. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Brian. I'm fine with the bot not being part of the "bot" user group (and I agree that it doesn't really need to be). I'd be perfectly if you could simply unblock the bot. Whether it has a flag is of no importance to me. The bot tries to use a bot flag no matter where it's editing just as a courtesy to watchlists and RecentChanges. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The operator's vote above is worrisome, since I'm pretty sure the operator should already be aware their vote doesn't actually count on these Wikinews discussions, as a non-contributor. The "God bless America" line suggests flippancy. I see no justification for the bot flag on this. --Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I'm not following. The operator's vote was "Support, as operator." Which part is worrisome? :-) And my vote should count here, I'm not sure why it wouldn't. "God bless America" is a fine way to end a message, in my opinion, and as I said above to Brian, I'm not really interested in a bot flag as much as I'm interested in the bot being able to edit here.
    • Many Wikimedians prefer to have messages delivered to their home wiki. If a few overzealous admins here on the English Wikinews want to take that privilege away from contributors, contributors can simply have their messages delivered elsewhere. It seems like a pretty dick move, though. On the other hand, this is the English Wikinews and it has the reputation it has for a reason. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I'd like to wait for a better justification for this request. CalF (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason I'm making a request here is that the bot was indefinitely blocked a few years ago and consequently can't deliver global messages. It doesn't really seem fair to English Wikinews users to not allow them to receive global messages here. And I believe that disallowing this wiki to be treated as a home wiki will ultimately harm the wiki. But if a few admins want to make that decision, there's little I can do to stop them. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The bot provides a useful function, has a proven track record and operates solely in the user talk namespace. It is kind of annoying that there was little information on the bot's function in the request, but this is not enough to stop a useful bot from functioning here.--Cspurrier (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whilst you do have a point Craig, the manner in-which the request has been made is an insult to the community here and to the fact that meta permits opt-out of global bots policy.
Wikinews opted out because it could only expect the short-end of the stick in any bot approval discussions on meta; that presupposing people would engage in such discussions - they don't.
Opting out was intended to put the onus on bot-operators to convince the community they know something about the project, and to make an effort to present a case for their bot's usefulness. "God bless America" in no way serves that purpose, I'd go as-far as to say it indicates the bot operator's awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural differences runs far deeper than Wikinews versus Wikipedia. Would xe post that in a request on faWN? On arWN? or even on their Wikipedia counterparts?
I'll reconsider my vote if, and when, the request process is restarted by someone else, or when the requester re-submits it without painting their prejudices against Wikinews, and outright contempt for the project, all over it. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have outright contempt for Wikinews. I don't think I have any contempt for Wikinews.

    Statistically, the English Wikinews is an outlier and I'm a little annoyed that I need to ask people to unblock a productive bot. This bot operates on over 600 wikis. The English Wikinews joins only the Karachay-Balkar Wikipedia in indefinitely blocking this block. As I said above, I think it's actions such as these, which do nothing but promote a more insular and closed environment at the English Wikinews and which further cut off the English Wikinews from the global Wikimedia community, that will ultimately harm and possibly kill this project. It's your bed to make, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you've no contempt for Wikinews, withdraw this request. Then, come back and put in one that doesn't treat the matter so flippantly. I am "a little annoyed" we have to ask for courtesy in requesting a bot be allowed access. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This bot does not operate solely in user talk namespace. On Wikibooks (where, btw, it does not have the bot flag), it sometimes posts to the reading room. It's not up to us to guess what the bot does. --Pi zero (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete opposition Flippant comment in the bot request is annoying and shows a lack of thoughtful treatment of the local community. (Also, shows a lack of understanding of how things work. "God bless the USA" would have been more appropriate flippant comment as it would show community awareness that there is a preference against using the term American.) Further comments suggesting that local community consensus harms wiki reads like so much whining. Further more, no idea what the bot would do here. Would prefer to see meta people doing more local community consulting to demonstrate a need for such a bot before any deployment. --LauraHale (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.



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.



AKBot (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Votes

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

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.



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.



BaseBot (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: Base (talk)
  • Bot name: BaseBot
  • Programming language:

Python: Pywikipediabot interwiki.py, Java: Wiki.java (in case of requests for not interwiki tasks)

  • Already used on: ukwikip, ukwikiq, ruwikip, meta
  • Task: Intewikis (mostly at 14th namespace), other actions per request (for example any autochanges).

See contributions. For noninterwiki actions see uk and ru WPs. --Base (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment Project policy requires a shut-off button on the bot's user page. This policy is stated at the top of this page. --Pi zero (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Placed {{Botblock}}. Is it ok now? --Base (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a page somewhere describing exactly what the bot is capable of? --Pi zero (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm presuming the operator would get our permission before setting the bot to anything other than non-mainspace interwikis. --Pi zero (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is a sentence in the bot's userpage that says it is able to do everything available via API if I say to do it (use Special:APIsandbox to see what API allows :) . Some functions it already has written, some require adding some lines to code ) :) I'm not going to do other things other then non-mainspace interwikis currently. May be it will place sometimes interwikis in main namespace but not in autonomous regime and only for one page per running. Perhaps I will also sometimes create some lists in bots userspace. Sure I'm not going to do smth without permission. My main purpose here is to have up-to-date interwikis and not more if you don't need smth more :) . --Base (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.



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.



EdwardsBot (talk · contribs)

Comments

Due to nature of confirmed uses of this bot, the relevant flag is not being sought and edits made should be visible in recent changes.
Paperwork sucks, almost as much as writing documentation I guess. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: In what way does this change anything? The bot's operator is still not in compliance with this wiki's bot policy, and has stated xe will never be. The bot's code is not in compliance with this wiki's bot policy, and the operator has stated xe will not update the code to be in compliance. (It has no ability for users to 'opt-out' by including {{bots}} or {{nobots}}.) If en.WN is going to vote in favour of violating its own policies, why have the policies in the first place? perhaps it's time to prune aggressively. - Amgine | t 18:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. The only times it will edit user space is if the user leaves a request for it to do so (for instance, for This Month In GLAM etc.). Nobody on en.wikinews is signed up for TMIG to be delivered to their Wikinews talk page. The user can opt-out from receiving talk page notifications on their Wikinews talk page by not signing up for newsletters to be delivered to their Wikinews talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, this bot does not edit only user space. Also, any user can be signed up for special aggregate mass-postings by others, not just by themselves. So, your argument is incorrect in pretty much all the particulars. - Amgine | t 19:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requirement at the top of this page that a bot is not eligible for the bot flag unless it has a stop button, and we all agree this bot is therefore not eligible for the bot flag. Is there a similar statement somewhere that says a bot can't be unblocked unless it supports those templates? If so, I must be overlooking it. See Category:Exclusion compliant bots. --Pi zero (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else is signing up Wikinews users for spam by proxy, that's not the bot's fault, that's their fault. And I'd expect they'd get a jolly good talking to and probably a block. And if the community on, say, Meta or Outreach don't do it, then we block the bot. (I'm an admin on outreach, and if someone were signing up users for newsletters without their consent, I'll happily block them.) I haven't seen anybody be unwillingly signed up for EdwardsBot spam. We just seem to be grasping for reasons to say no to a non-controversial request, even if those reasons are not really plausible or likely. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I said "the only times it will edit user space is if the user leaves a request for it to do so". It did not say that it wouldn't also edit the project namespace (the primary use is to distribute messages from Meta to the Water Cooler). Therefore "this bot does not edit only user space" is not something I actually relied on in my comment. I was explaining that when it edits the user talk space, it does so only when told to do so by the user being on a subscribed list of users for a newsletter. It also edits the Wikinews namespace. And the editing it makes to the user talk namespace is contingent on user consent. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm apparently not allowed to vote here, so I'll just comment instead. The bot's source code is here: m:Global message delivery/Configuration. I can't really lose any more respect for this project. As someone recently commented to me, he had stopped contributing to Wikinews because "rewriting content from the BBC gets old" and "it's not fun to write articles by yourself." Someone else commented to me that "nobody wants to read old news." And these are all valid arguments for why Wikinews has failed, but really, let's be honest, it's the user "community." Brian: looking directly at you. And let's not pretend as though this is a single disgruntled English Wikipedian saying so alone. There have been complaints for years about you and your behavior here.

    It used to be that the English Wiktionary was the most (or perhaps simply the most well-known) hostile and insular Wikimedia wiki. But the English Wikinews has worked hard to take that title. Good job, y'all. Half of me wanted to add a specific exception so that the bot wouldn't post here (if target_wiki = 'en.wikinews.org': continue!), but I'll restrain myself. GOD BLESS AMERICA! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This of course was my last reservation about unblocking the bot: it's operated by a devout practitioner of bullshit. -Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it counts as bullshit if it happens to be true. But, sure, I was never expecting to convert a rising star of the cult to my view of thinking. You'll break free one, just not today. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. My attempts at peacemaking always end up being such follies. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion, an attempt by the community to give MZMcBride (talk · contribs) another opportunity to get his bot — the WMF relies upon — granted access, should not waste any more community time. With the bot owner deliberately trolling the vote, I have to conclude the WMF should not be trusting xe, or any bot xe operates.
If a bot is the more-sensible solution to a WMF problem delivering official communications to communities, then it should be a bot owned and operated by the WMF. Certainly not by someone who tries to orchestrate cross-wiki trolling. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, putting comments in italics is how you go about getting software (or social, for that matter) changes implemented. You've nailed it!

As for "orchestrating cross-wiki trolling," I wasn't aware of that user page until your comment. (There's also apparently some underlying JavaScript and CSS that changes the site logo on that user page. Perhaps I'm also to blame for that?) I'm of course amused that my catchphrase has caught on. Perhaps MediaWiki:Tagline can be updated next. :-)

And, speaking generally, both this comment (and others that I've read from you on this site) seem to indicate a profound inability to draw accurate conclusions from the facts presented. You saw an update to a user page, but that somehow morphed into me "orchestrating" the edit. Is there any evidence of this? Of course not, as I wasn't aware of the user page until after reading your comment. I realize that this page is not content-space, but I'd think the hallmarks of journalism (such as not making assumptions and instead relying on what the evidence shows) would be important to you, Clouseau. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Support With Brian as nominator and WMF functionary verifying this, will support. --LauraHale (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With the discussion at the water cooler (including documentation conspicuously absent from the earlier request), I'm satisfied the bot is acceptably safe if unflagged (and, of course, we've long since established it couldn't comply with policy to qualify for bot flag anyway, since it's not capable of supporting a stop button). --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For reasons I explained on the Water Cooler. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing vote. May Allah and Odin bless the bot maintainer's spleen in its future endeavors in regards to MZB's bodily functions, but despite re-assurances from Philipe, the bot owner's continued contempt for the community, threats to disable the bot because he finds us hostile despite MZB's open contempt for this community, and the evidence provided by Amgine that this bot largely delivers spam about The Other Place, I feel an oppose vote is now the only option. If a bot was created and maintained by someone other than MZB who wishes for the diety worshipped by the Phelps family to bless Costa Rica, and the bot was focused on delivering messages not specifically targeting English Language Users of The Other Place, I will support. --LauraHale (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I conjecture that, despite the specific content of many of his remarks, MZMcBride is not stupid. He must surely be aware that if he hadn't made any remark at all on this request, it would pass. This suggests two possible motivations for his making a remark here at all:
  • He just enjoys trolling.
  • He wants the bot to remain blocked.
The two are not mutually exclusive, of course. --Pi zero (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found it telling that there was not only an entire discussion about, but also a re-nomination of, the bot and I didn't get even a heads-up on my talk page. I only happened to notice the re-nomination as I'd previously chosen to monitor the feed of this particular page ("Wikinews:Bots") and suddenly I began receiving pings about "EdwardsBot" from the section header.

I stopped caring if the bot is going to be unblocked here after re-remembering just how batshit crazy this project and its active participants are. At this point, what are you going to do? Re-block the bot? Block it for 1,000,000 millennia and 365 days? Not approve it again? Whatever; it's quite clearly your loss. The news site that's unable to receive news. How fitting is that? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I'm no longer comfortable unblocking the bot. Disruption by the bot would seem to be obnoxious rather than seriously damaging, but could be quite extensive. If the probability of such disruption were very low, it would be an acceptable risk; but, given the operator's recent remarks, the probability of disruption no longer appears acceptably low. --Pi zero (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have to disagree with this assessment. Although the user has jokingly commented about doing bot harm (mostly about other projects, not en.WN), I have never observed it (by the standards of the project on which xe has bot edited.) I believe the risk of any disruption is extremely low, though higher than that of any other approved bot due to the lack of an opt-out mechanism. (Even central notice has an opt-out method.) - Amgine | t 19:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be more specific. I remarked on the likelihood that his commenting in this discussion at all was motivated either by liking to troll us, or by desire to prevent the bot from being unblocked. I wasn't even addressing him, but he replied in a manner providing evidence of both motivations: evidently he enjoys trolling us and wants the bot to stay blocked. So if the bot were unblocked, that's twin motives for annoying stuff to ensue. Given on top of that his demonstrated pervasive lack of intellectual honesty, I'm disinclined to test the hypothesis. --Pi zero (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    <nod> Ah, hadn't thought of it in that particular light. No further disagreement. - Amgine | t 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The silliness from your argument ("the probability of disruption no longer appears acceptably low") comes from the fact that I voluntarily wrote a global message delivery system several years ago that I've maintained alone. It operates on hundreds of wikis each week, delivering announcements, newsletters, and more. If I were going to write a bot to cause disruption, I would, and it wouldn't require a bot flag and wouldn't be stoppable.

    But more to the point, nobody would ever vandalize this project. The point of vandalism is to cause disruption. If Special:Statistics is to be believed, the article you all have had on the Main Page for over a day ("UK government formally launches same-sex marriage legislation in Parliament") has received a total of 12 hits in the past hour. So assuming the worst (that I caused enough disruption for the project to be unreachable for a few days), we're talking about maybe dozens of people being affected. It simply isn't worth my time to code.

    Regarding "pervasive lack of intellectual honesty," I guess I can only let others decide for themselves who's being an idiot here. From my (largely outsider) perspective, it seems fairly obvious this place is run by a small cadre of well-meaning, but unstable folks. This bot, I can assure you, is the least of this project's problems. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dog forbid that your interactions here, and in the previous discussion on this bot, might fail to convince anyone who has played the part of "an idiot".
Other issues facing the Wikinews community have no bearing on this bot. But, thanks for trolling anyway. Tell me, where do you and your Wikipedia buddies meet to draw lots on who is going to try and disrupt Wikinews next? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.



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.



Synchbot via Pathoschild (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: Pathoschild
  • Bot name: Synchbot
  • Programming language: Python
  • Task: Update user pages across all content wikis at the explicit request of the user (including CSS and JavaScript subpages). Synchbot is triggered manually based on requests from users. Each request is for one edit on one page (per wiki) in that user's namespace. The bot never edits outside their namespace, and doesn't edit if the user is not registered on this wiki.
Notes
  • The edit rate on each wiki is very low — usually less than five per day (on a busy day).
  • The bot runs though the Pathoschild account; it uses steward permissions to edit users' CSS and JavaScript subpages, and rarely to delete those subpages (e.g., to migrate from MonoBook to Vector).
  • Synchbot ran on the English Wikinews until September 2010, when it was briefly blocked under the bot policy. It was suggested that I apply for permission to run the bot here. I'd like permission to run the Synchbot service, but I don't necessarily need a bot flag.
  • The bot is fairly well-tested; it's been running across all wikis since 2008, handling about 347 requests by 170 unique users (≈185,000 edits).

—Pathoschild 03:32, 06 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Impressive testing history, so to speak ;)
Would be happy to see a limited test run here - as long as it's got the usual BIG RED SWITCH. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you'd like me to start. :) —Pathoschild 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've enabled the bot per your message. —Pathoschild 23:25, 02 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.



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.



  • The operator didn't respond to the ping, some time back, though they appear to have been active on wikimedia since then. For now, I'm closing this as likely inactive; I'm fine with reopening it if there are signs of life. --Pi zero (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBot (talk · contribs)

Comments

Votes

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support The sandbox is for testing, and should be regularly cleaned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SadTea (talk • contribs)
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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.


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.



BetaBot (talk · contribs)

  • Operator: Beta16
  • Bot name: BetaBot
  • Programming language: Based on pywikibot
  • Already used on: it.wikinews, fr.wikinews, pt.wikinews, pl.wikinews,
  • Task: The task of my bot is to remove old language links in source of the page, because the language links are now managed centrally in Wikidata. I tried to make some edits for test and example, but the bot was blocked after only 1 edit because unauthorized. --Beta16 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment Any bot to function here needs community approval and so, without discussion, it was likely to be blocked.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 10:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Oppose Even though Wikidata maintains it, one must agree that just like an atom, a large part of that project is empty. Much data is not even there. Plus, en.wn still keeps those links as it should.
    Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 10:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've had a community discussion on Wikidata and interwikis. We do not remove interwikis from local pages when the same information is available on Wikidata; that's an inherently ill-advised data model. My summary of the matter: there are, from what I can see, plenty of great people over at Wikidata, but the way the software design is set up is seriously damaging to all local projects that rely on Wikidata for their interwikis. To expand a bit: it could have been designed so that it would enhance the power, effectiveness, and sense of community well-being and community value of local volunteers; but instead it was misdesigned in a way that damages all of those things, undermining local control, corroding local community spirit and sending a message to both local communities and individuals that their contributions are not valued, and maximizing the likelihood and scope of centralized damage while minimizing local ability to detect and correct such damage. I hope in time we can undo the damage done by the misdesign of the cross-project interwiki feature, but it's taking a while. --Pi zero (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose --Queen Laura (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, very strongly. Consensus is to leave local links in place. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.



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.



Trigonidiida (talk · contribs)

Comments

Votes

  • Support Though I still wonder about long-term policy on who uses this, for now it seems a reasonably positive experiment. --Pi zero (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description seems interesting. One suggestion (if not already implemented; notify people based on categories they like to work on, if the drafts have categories mentioned.). I am okay with this bot running (but hopefully silently). Would love to see that implemented, in this bot or the other one, Gryllida.
    •–• 05:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.



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.



The bot is no longer needed.
•–• 06:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SciurusBot (talk · contribs)

Comments

Votes

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Bots/Archive_4&oldid=4634064"