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 making changes to this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WN:BOT WN:BOTS

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.

For archived discussions, see the Archive.

To add a new bot request, click here.

Wikinews Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view Content guide Style guide

Administrators Arbitration Committee

For Wikipedians

Accreditation policy Archive conventions Avoid weasel words User blocking policy Bots CheckUser 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 Newsworthiness Original reporting Privilege expiry policy Page protection policy Reviewing articles Three revert rule Username policy

Etiquette

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)
• Revibot I (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:

• Bawolff bot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• GrondinBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• MikemoralBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• Trigonidiida (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)

Discussion about current bots

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

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 has been open more than a week, there's some support and no opposition. We'll see how things go. --Pi zero (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Trigonidiida (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Gryllida (talk · contribs)
• Bot name: Trigonidiida (talk · contribs)
• Programming language: Perl, https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/weabit
• Already used on: en.wn
• Task: Notify people of new drafts submissions to engage people in group topical work that allows prompt feedback on newly created articles. The notifications are delivered to a personal talk page or to email. There is more details at User:Gryllida/welcome a bit.

Comments

• Thanks to Acagastya for the feature suggestion in the vote below, I've added this to the plans for version 4. --Gryllida (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
• 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)

---

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)

SciurusBot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Mikemoral (talk · contribs)
• Bot name: SciurusBot (talk · contribs)
• Programming language: Pywikibot library of ready-made scripts
• Already used on:
• Task: To replace Category:Ice Hockey with Category:Ice hockey

Comments

• The script in question has documentation here. The script is semi-automated, requiring user confirmation for each page. The bot flag is largely requested to prevent flooding Special:RecentChanges with a large number of edits. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 08:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• If it's that few (~160) can't AWB do it? Do we need a new bot for this? (I am not a tech guy) --SVTCobra 03:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• The task is now completed.
  •–• 08:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Votes

• Support from a technical perspective, support moving the category, oppose flagging the bot until consensus is established that the category should be renamed. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2019 (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.

DannyS712 bot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs)
• Bot name: DannyS712 bot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• Programming language: Javascript
• Already used on: None for this task
• Task: Update use-counts regularly (weekly, biweekly, monthly / up to discussion)

The below SQL query retrieves, for each template that has a "use count" sub template, the template/module name, the full number of transclusions, the number that would be put in the template (not the exact number, but some number below it to say "over xxx"), and the name of the use count page. I've only some of the results here, but the total query retrieves 61 rows

SQL

Current result

USE enwikinews_p; SELECT CONCAT ( CASE WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 10 THEN 'Template' WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 828 THEN 'Module' END, ':', tl.tl_title ) AS 'Page', COUNT(*) AS 'Transclusions', CASE WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000 AND MOD(COUNT(*), 100) < 60 THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 2), '00' ) WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000 THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 2), '50' ) WHEN COUNT(*) < 10000 AND MOD(COUNT(*), 100) < 60 THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, 1), ',', SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 2, 1), '00' ) WHEN COUNT(*) < 10000 THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, 1), ',', SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 2, 1), '50' ) WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000000 AND MOD(COUNT(*), 1000) < 600 THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 3), ',000' ) WHEN COUNT(*) < 1000000 THEN CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, LENGTH(COUNT(*)) - 3), ',500' ) ELSE CONCAT( SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 1, 1), '.', SUBSTR(COUNT(*), 2, 1), ' million' ) END AS 'Over', CONCAT ( CASE WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 10 THEN 'Template' WHEN tl.tl_namespace = 828 THEN 'Module' END, ':', tl.tl_title, '/doc/use-count/doc' ) AS 'Counter' FROM templatelinks tl WHERE tl.tl_title IN ( SELECT SUBSTR(pg.page_title, 1, LENGTH(pg.page_title) - 18) FROM page pg WHERE pg.page_title LIKE '%/doc/use-count/doc' AND pg.page_id IN ( SELECT cl.cl_from FROM categorylinks cl WHERE cl.cl_to = 'Possible-risk/use-count' ) ) AND tl.tl_namespace IN (10, 828) GROUP BY CONCAT(tl.tl_title, tl.tl_namespace) HAVING COUNT(*) > 100 ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC;

Page Transclusions Over Counter Template:Tl 2638432 2.6 million Template:Tl/doc/use-count/doc Template:Plink 2610092 2.6 million Template:Plink/doc/use-count/doc Template:Howdy/content 2610023 2.6 million Template:Howdy/content/doc/use-count/doc Template:Howdy 2610021 2.6 million Template:Howdy/doc/use-count/doc Template:Xambox 28934 28,500 Template:Xambox/doc/use-count/doc Template:W 23205 23,000 Template:W/doc/use-count/doc Template:COinS 21993 21,500 Template:COinS/doc/use-count/doc Template:Date 21985 21,500 Template:Date/doc/use-count/doc Template:Source 21152 21,000 Template:Source/doc/use-count/doc Template:Social_bookmarks 20524 20,000 Template:Social_bookmarks/doc/use-count/doc Template:Publish 20517 20,000 Template:Publish/doc/use-count/doc Template:Archived 19025 19,000 Template:Archived/doc/use-count/doc Template:Source/uc? 15613 15,500 Template:Source/uc?/doc/use-count/doc Template:Haveyoursay 12068 12,000 Template:Haveyoursay/doc/use-count/doc Template:Evalx 11858 11,500 Template:Evalx/doc/use-count/doc Module:Wikilisp 11857 11,500 Module:Wikilisp/doc/use-count/doc Template:InfoboxStart 11110 11,000 Template:InfoboxStart/doc/use-count/doc Template:InfosectionStart 9036 9,000 Template:InfosectionStart/doc/use-count/doc Template:Peer_reviewed 8734 8,700 Template:Peer_reviewed/doc/use-count/doc Module:Rptchars 8515 8,500 Module:Rptchars/doc/use-count/doc Template:(* 8483 8,450 Template:(*/doc/use-count/doc Template:*) 8483 8,450 Template:*)/doc/use-count/doc Template:Wikinewline 8338 8,300 Template:Wikinewline/doc/use-count/doc Template:Peer_reviewed/Passed 8321 8,300 Template:Peer_reviewed/Passed/doc/use-count/doc Template:Infobox/lookup 8301 8,300 Template:Infobox/lookup/doc/use-count/doc Template:Infobox/p2 8301 8,300 Template:Infobox/p2/doc/use-count/doc Template:Infobox_table 8301 8,300 Template:Infobox_table/doc/use-count/doc Template:Infobox 8300 8,300 Template:Infobox/doc/use-count/doc Template:Infobox/p1 8300 8,300 Template:Infobox/p1/doc/use-count/doc Template:Infobox/select 8278 8,250 Template:Infobox/select/doc/use-count/doc Template:Image_source 6738 6,700 Template:Image_source/doc/use-count/doc Template:Commentary/LQT 6312 6,300 Template:Commentary/LQT/doc/use-count/doc Template:Datecategory 5478 5,450 Template:Datecategory/doc/use-count/doc Template:Wikinews 4602 4,600 Template:Wikinews/doc/use-count/doc Template:Imbox 3950 3,900 Template:Imbox/doc/use-count/doc Template:Commentary 3603 3,600 Template:Commentary/doc/use-count/doc Template:DateDPL 2992 2,950 Template:DateDPL/doc/use-count/doc

The bot would, at a set duration, go and update each counter template with the current transclusions, to keep them (relatively) up to date. The bot will only edit pre-existing templates. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment This doesn't seem needed. I of course have long freely admitted I'm unfond of bots. So I'm left with vaguely negative feelings but, atm, not strong enough to actively oppose. --Pi zero (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs)

• Operator: Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) and Harej (talk · contribs)
• Bot name: InternetArchiveBot (Talk • contribs • bot status log • actions • block log • other log)
• Programming language: PHP
• Already used on: Operates on dozens of additional Wikimedia wikis
• Task: InternetArchiveBot identifies dead links and adds links to archived versions where available. Per request on Phabricator. Harej (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment @Harej: Please note, I would like to have all links (not just the dead links) archived. There are roughly 22k articles in the CAT:Published category. And the bot just needs to archive the links, it should NOT edit the articles. After all the links are archived in that category, IABot needs to monitor the same category for any new additions to the category. Can you please confirm IABot can do that, Harej? Thanks.
  •–• 06:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why should the bot not edit the articles? Providing working alternatives to non-functioning links is the entire point. Harej (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Harej: We use {{source}} for adding the sources as well as the external links. That template has parameters to mark if the link is broken or to provide archived link. However, there are articles which do not use that template. We do not remove/replace sources after the article is published. However, while cleaning up, if a source has broken URL, admins generally find the archived version and add it. Giving a bot access to edit and review archived pages is scary -- as it could do irreversible damage. We wish to use the bot to save the source before the link rot -- once it is saved, one could add the archived version. Moreover, if an archive already exists, there is a sapient decision to make which version of the archive to use. There are articles which are not sighted (maybe because the file/template used for that page has been modified) -- if the bot were to add archived links to that article and sights, such important changes would disappear unnoticed forever. That is why the bot should not be directly editing the article, just merely archiving all the hyperlinks.
•–• 17:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot operates on 50 Wikimedia wikis without causing "irreversible damage" to them. In the event the bot malfunctions on a given wiki, mistakes can be undone and the bot can be stopped by any logged in user through the bot interface. The bot is very sophisticated, can be configured to parse templates as well as fix plain links, and automatically picks archives closest to when the link was added. The Wayback Machine has been automatically saving outbound links on Wikimedia projects for years. The benefit of proactively, and automatically, fixing broken links vastly outweighs the risks. Linkrot is endemic to wikis at such a scale that automated solutions are required. Harej (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

With respect, acagastya is correct: there is danger of irreversible damage. There's history here, between Wikinews and the Foundation, involving a WON'T FIX closure of a Bugzilla request (from before my time, but I learned about it from bawolff). 'Nuff said on that point, I hope. --Pi zero (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the Wikimedia Foundation has to do with this; InternetArchiveBot is a service of the Internet Archive. The bot is operated in many diverse contexts and can be highly customized for a given use case, and I am more than happy to work with the community on that. If you do not want InternetArchiveBot to fix broken links, which is its primary function, then I am not sure what you are requesting at all. If you want the Wayback Machine to preserve outgoing links, it is already doing that. Harej (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What you may be interested in is not automated operation, but the option to scan a page and add archives with the element of human review. If so the Analyze a Page feature may be useful for you. (Make sure you have "English Wikinews" as your selected project.) With this you can enter a page title, have it retrieve archive links for all links (not just dead ones), and make the edits conveniently while giving you the ability to review. This may be a more workable option. Harej (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Harej: I don't think it works the way I expected. Could you please try with US Republicans query Linux Foundation about open-source security? I think it requires <ref</ref> and does not detect URLs.
•–• 05:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)