Talk:Twitter bot

Twitterbots, disguised as ordinary Americans, promote outspoken Trump enemy, Republican Senator John McCain's political attack, on the details of the February 2018 publically released, FISA court memo, authorizing Watergate-style spying, by the Democratic Party and pro-Hillary members of the FBI and Obama administration, on the Trump campaign, to aid Hillary Clinton's 2016 election.^[1] Hillary Clinton paid GPS Fusion, to create the now discredited Steele Dossier, designed to smear Donald Trump, during the 2016 Presidential election, which FBI officials used to obtain FISA court authorization to spy on the Trump Presidential campaign, and later President-elect Trump's Oval Office, by falsely claiming Russian collusion, based solely on the credibility of the Steele Dossier's author. Steele also directly leaked details of the Dossier, during the 2016 Presidential race, to Clinton campaign sympathetic mainstream media, working in collusion with the Democratic Party.^[2][3][4]

References:

1. Twitter screenshot displaying multiple Twitterbots, promoting identical message, to politically attack Feb. 2018 FISA memo public release and credibility. [John McCain just made a startling accusation against Trump amid phony Nunes memo release]. pic.twitter.com/tqptnRQrXN

2. Quote from Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch.

3. Vox article describing FISA memo story and connection to GPS Fusion created Steele Dossier. It should be noted that the Vox article makes light of 2016 media coverage given the Steele Dossier story, released just before Election Day, as a failed attempt to destroy the Trump candidacy. Instead, all of mainstream media, in sympathy with the Clinton campaign, made it a major Fake News event, blasting the story 24 hours a day, in an attempt to deceive the American voting public. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16845704/steele-dossier-russia-trump

4. Reddit.com release of Wikileaks DNC emails, revealing extensive collusion and influence by Clinton campaign, of supposedly unbiased American mainstream media’s “free press”, during the 2016 Presidential campaign. https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4ucyt0/megalist_of_the_most_pertinent_dnc_email_leaks/

Suresa108 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

While I knew people made fake accounts for robots I didn't realize they were called "Twitterbots". I found the information about how they are made useful. I like the overall layout of this page and this group did a good job of adding information that defines what a Twitterbot is. I think more information can be put in the How To Spot a Twitterbot section such as information on how individuals can spot Twitterbots. More content could also be added by putting example tweets that some Twitterbots produce. Providing an example tweet from @Horse ebooks would show how some of it's tweets are poetic. I also would like more information on how Twitterbots could help with "scheduling or reminders". Overall, I think the article can have enough content to be separate from the main Twitter page and this group did an excellent job providing some of that content. 98.224.230.217 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This article exhibited elements of a quality article. I think this article was successful overall and the group did a good job giving the basics on Twitterbots. The structure of the article was easy to follow, and it allowed for a better understanding to be gained after reading it. The different aspects of the topic are well balanced and an appropriate amount of space and explanation was dedicated to each one. The group successfully explained what a Twitterbot is and how to make one. In addition, the coverage of the topic is neutral and not bias. The article lists what the bots can be used for, and what to watch out for because people sometimes use them for negative reasons. Although the article covers many aspects of Twitterbots, I think it could go into more depth of what a twitterbot could be used for. I think something that could be added to the article would be possible uses for helpful, informative twitterbots, rather than just listing the dangerous uses. Jillianbass (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Jillian Bass

This article contains all five aspects of a quality article. Firstly the group did a great job of writing a clear and easy to understand opening section. This section summarized key points and provided valuable background information. Another aspect that was keen was the structure of the article. The group did a great job of dividing the information into sections that help navigate the reader from point to point. However, another helpful section to include could be a significance of a Twitterbot section. Furthermore, the lengths of each section are all on point. The group did a nice job of making sure no section was overvalued and overshadowed the rest of the article. Overall, editors of this article do a nice job avoiding bias and keeping neutral points, however some of the language does not fit the style of a Wikipedia article. Lastly, the numerous references are a great way to wrap the article up and back up all the evidence. The group did a nice job of supporting each fact with a backed up reference. Brianhalperin (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article is a great article that has every component needed. I really like the contents aspect in the beginning, so a reader can see all 5 main subtopics to the article. The definition presented is in depth and understandable to the audience. It was very creative the subtopics that were chosen, which represent the forward thinking that this article brings to the topics of twitterbot. The examples were diverse and interesting to read. I also like that the article was not bias to one side of twitterbot being a good or bad thing, it brought up points to support both views. One thing that could be changed is according to Wikipedia it says that this article should be merged with the definition of “Twitter.” I think that this may show that the article needs to go more in depth to show the contrast between what twitterbot actually is and how it facilitates Twitter. Patelpuj (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is very well thought out and well articulated to display the information about Twitterbots. This article does a good job explaining what a Twitterbot is in layman's terms for somebody who might not be familiar with Twitter or similar social media or microblogging sites. The explanations are useful in providing the basis for the rest of the article. One criticism is that the "How to Spot a Twitterbot" section is a bit misleading, at least to me, as I expected it to be information about how a user would spot a Twitterbot, rather than how a study could determine it by collecting data. Another minor criticism is that I looked up each of the Twitterbots listed under the "Examples of Twitterbots" section, and @EpicFridayBot doesn't seem to exist anymore. Perhaps that could be removed or updated. However, I think this section is important because it offers an opportunity for people to look up real Twitterbots and see how they operate if they were curious about seeing them in action. Overall, this is a well written article and it expanded my knowledge about the subject. Mnezich (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, this article looks very well put together. They use many credible sources at the bottom of the page, and provides detailed information on Twitterbots. It explains what Twitterbot is, and what it's place is in social media very effectively. My favorite part about this article is the list that tells a user how to create a Twitterbot; it puts it in a step-by-step list that makes it clear. One of the most impressive parts about this article is it covers all aspects of a Twitterbot. It tells us how to create one, how they are used, what they are good for, how to find one,and even the dangers of them. It clearly is a well thought out article, and thoroughly covers the 5 main topics for evaluating an article. They use an unbiased viewpoint, while using an effective structure that conveys information the most efficiently. If I were to change one thing about this article, it would be in the Examples section. I woul provide links to the Twitterbot's pages, rather than just state their '@' name on the page. Let the person who is visiting the page actually go to the Twitterbot's page and see what their accounts look like. Other than that, this page thoroughly covers the topic of Twitterbot. Bschewe (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page is well written and informative. I had never heard of a Twitterbot before seeing this page and now I have a good understanding as to what it is. I think this article is a thorough explanation of what a Twitterbot is. It appreciate that this article explains how to make your own Twitterbot. I also think it is beneficial that this article has the dangers of Twitterbots. There are many dangerous hackers on the internet and it is important to be aware of them. The examples of Twitterbots are diverse and show viewers several different ways that Twitterbots are used. Having examples of Twitterbots makes this article more interactive and allows viewers to find Twitterbots on their own. Overall I think this is an informative article and covers all the key points necessary in a Wikipedia page. The only criticism I have is that the "How to find a Twitterbot" section does not include a way for general users to find Twitterbots, it only shows how Twitterbots have been found through a study. All in all I think this is a well written, informative article. Melscho (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This wikipedia page was very well organized and the information was sorted out very well. I thought the sources that the team added to this page were great for users to obtain more information about Twitterbot. I think the article was split up very well into different subcategories and that the team did a great job with the basic coverage of what a Twitterbots are. With that said I think the explanation was very surface level which is great for someone who has never heard of Twitterbots before. However, I thought it would have been beneficial for the team to add more details into the article. Even though more detail could have helped the article I still thought it was well informed and organized and I learned interesting facts about twitter robots that I never knew even existed. One of the things about the article that struck me as a little strange is that at the top wikipedia suggests that Twitterbot definition be merged with the Twitter definition which I though was kind of misleading. In that case I think the team could have made more of a distinction between the two so that users who come across this article don't get immediately confused by the Wikipedia suggestion. Overall, I though the group did a good job and I was really impressed with the example section which was really extensive. Farbrita (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Great job with the Wikipedia assignment. The article is well organized and the syntax is appropriate. I especially like the "Examples of Twitterbots" category --- showing examples definitely gave the article more depth. One thing that I've noticed that could be improved to make the page more appealing is to change the source position under the How to Make a Twitterbot section. The sources are placed right after each subheader, while they would be better placed after you actually utilize the source, rather than list it. Also, while you have a lot of sources listed, more description could have been implemented in each of the categories (apart from the examples). Overall, the page was well constructed, the examples were very interesting, but I do agree that the sources could have been better utilized and the information covered in more depth. Adhaase (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This article does a good job of giving the background information of what a Twitterbot is and how it is used. The editors did this effectively by including five sections that all serve important purposes. The lead section accomplishes the goal of summarizing the the key points of what a Twitterbot is, the only suggestion I have for this section would be to include a fact that is mentioned later in the article. The fact is that Twitterbots account for 24% of all tweets; I think putting this fact in the lead section would benefit the article because before learning more about Twitterbots it would give the reader an understanding of how prevalent Twitterbots really are. This article is also structured well with the five headings, each heading relays different information that is significant for understanding Twitterbots as a whole. The editors balanced their content well, covering everything that needed to be covered; however, I believe the "How to Spot a Twitterbot" section needs work. I was a little confused while reading this section because I thought it would tell me how I could spot a Twitterbot, but rather it just explained what the experiment did that discovered how to detect the bots. I also do not recommend writing that there are "infinite number of Twitter accounts active", although their are a huge amount of Twitter accounts active, that number is not infinite so I disagree with the usage of the word here. Contrary to that, the How to Make a Twitterbot section is very clear and gives the reader's an understandable step by step instruction to do so. A strong part of this article is the ability of the editors to stay neutral; the editors keep a non bias viewpoint on Twitterbots, they did this by explaining the benefits of Twitterbots such as news, however, they also show the dangers of Twitterbot, like false information. Lastly, the article includes many reliable references when needed, a crucial aspect in writing a successful Wikipedia article. Overall, the editors did a good job on this article but I have another suggestions that could improve it even further. After reading the examples of Twitterbots section, I wanted to check out the various Twitterbot accounts because they interested me, so I went to Twitter and searched of them. If the article included links to each account int he article it would really benefit the article as a whole. The editors caught my attention by including intriguing examples of Twitterbots, yet providing the reader with instant access to the account would make it easier for the reader to get what he or she desires. Adamspivack (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC) (*Note: It says March 29th but I edited this on March 28th at 8:15 Pm)

I really liked the edits you made to this article as a group. You added a lot of important information to the article that is very useful to readers, but also kept it simple and easy to read. By adding the sections, "Dangers of Twitterbots," "How to Spot a Twitterbot," and "Examples of Twitterbots," you greatly enhanced the value of this article. All of your edits are also concise and user friendly. Wikipedia articles can often get cumbersome, overwhelming, and difficult to read, but you made sure readers can get the information they need very easily by using simple but informative and effective language. The examples you used to explain the dangers of Twitterbots does an excellent job at illustrating the point you are trying to make. The examples of Twitterbots also provided a lot of interesting information that keeps the reader engaged throughout the entire article. However, there are some aspects that can be improved. For example, the sections you added can have more detail. Further explanation as to how Twitterbots can be dangerous and actually cause damage one's Twitter account or even their computer or cell phone would be helpful. Also, a more specific and detailed explanation of how to spot a Twitterbot would give readers a more detailed idea of what to look out for rather than just a general idea. Finally, the in the examples section, explaining the negative effects of theses specific Twitterbots would give readers more insight into real-life examples that actually caused problems for Twitter users. Overall, you made excellent edits, and with just a few minor adjustments, this article can be taken to the next level. Brett Birnbaum (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This was a very well edited article. It clearly explicated how to spot and create a twitterbot in easy to follow steps. The one weakness in this article was the use of casual language, which made it seem less legitimate. Using phrases such as "the one crazy thing is that..." seems unprofessional and makes the article seem less reliable to an outsider. Additionally, I would have appreciated a section about the origination of twitterbots. Especially since twitter is a relatively new social media platform, it is helpful to get a sense of the time frame of when automated tweets became popular and the possible implications of their increasing use. The "examples" section was especially helpful because it helped visualize and clarify what a twitterbot actually was. The strongest point of this article was the use of multiple sources. They used 18 different credible sources which helped make their article reliable and allowed me to research further on my own time to find more information than was already contained in the article. [posted on behalf of a student] Cleeder (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I know the the Examples are only really able to be an incomplete list, but I feel that this section reads (for want of a better word) a little bit random. Would a section where this was broken down into subsections (parody, comedy, information etc) make more sense?

This could become a definite list of the top (say) 50 twitter bots if they were ranked by following. Or by category, then by following.

Steven Stretton (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the example section is incomplete, and I think it could use some structure. The examples sections should also include TayTweets, the Microsoft AI bot that developed a racist personality, since this is a famous bot Llevan2 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of not all of the examples are suspended or don’t exist. A couple of years ago I put on a couple of active Twitter bots which improved this section greatly but several months later admins removed them and maliciously suggested that my intent wasn’t to improve the wiki page (which it did). HardeeHar (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:CITE, a simple link to a purported twitterbot is not a reliable third-party source for the bot. Without such a source, the bot probably fails notability criteria. Additionally, user added descriptions or summaries of a bot's behavior are probably in violation of WIkipedia's policy against original research. All of these problems go hand in hand. Additionally, the style of the article is not to link to the bots in order that this article not become a place where bot authors seek to be mentioned for publicity sake. I think that's a good policy and style, and added links should follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiodude (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The link to the anti-terrorism bot leads to an error 410 and is also featured twice in the article. Does anyone know if this link is mirrored or archived anywhere else? Joedetode (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I made botwiki.org, a site dedicated to bots and bot makers -- the non-malicious kind :-)

There's obviously a conflict of interest in referencing the site, but maybe someone else can use it as a source? First of all, I think it's worth mentioning the #botALLY "movement" (see under botwiki.org/bots), the Bot Summit and possibly also the site itself as a resource dedicated to this topic.

Someone here also mentioned that "link to a bot itself is not a reliable third-party source". Maybe botwiki.org could be?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtonfish (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fourtonfish: - We're not going to be able to use much of anything from that site. As a general rule, open wikis and other self-published sources are not considered reliable sources precisely because they're open and can be edited by anyone. See WP:SPS. (For example - IMDB isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia due to its openness, so you'll rarely if ever see it cited here.) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ElHef: Ah, makes sense. Thanks! Fourtonfish (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Last year i attempted to look on Twitter at the examples given of Twitter bots but I found that they were basically all inactive, that many didn't even exist, that they were banned from Twitter, others were locked, so i added a couple of bots to the bot examples, the best being @maskchievous, I added that as it is a good example of a Twitter bot as it has automated tweets, it's regularly tweets a random meme with a random emoticon, it also regularly changes its profile pic to a random avi (usually a anime avi); that was best example of a Twitter bot on the wiki page and it was a working example (unlike most of the examples on the page). The content I added bettered the wiki page. The content I added was overseen and approved by an admin.

Recently User:Audiodude disregarded all that and maliciously removed content, I say maliciously as he had initially complained that persons may be adding their own Twitter accounts and he said he didn't like the idea of that, so audiodude disregarded that the content I added made the wiki page better and was approved by an admin, and Audiodude later used an excuse to spitefully remove the content he personally didn't like based on his own bias, overruling an admin and in doing so made the wiki page worse. Such actions were malicious and are vsndalism.

HardeeHar (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the bot because it didn't cite any reliable third-party sources, aka WP:CITE. The only citation was a link to the bot itself on twitter. I explained that in the edit comment and I'm explaining it again here. If you can find a reliable third-party source, such as a news article, that writes about @maskchievous, please feel free to add it back. Meanwhile, adding your own twitter bot violates WP:COI. --audiodude (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Liar! you removed only bots that were mine as you claimed you didn't like me putting my own Twitter accounts on.

You're a liar and a vandal and are targeted harassing me You've now been reported

HardeeHar (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bot accounts. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hourly Cosmo Twitter Bot (49690900513).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Screenshot of @congressedits Tweet 1045422483082551302.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Twitter bots 2016-11-13.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Twitter bots 2016-11-13.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that Twitter bot be renamed and moved to Bots on X. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Twitter bot → Bots on X – Move for WP:CONSUB with X (social network). UltrasonicMadness (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)