Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot IX

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

SoxBot IX

Operator: Soxred 93

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Summary: See below in function details. It will work alongside BAGBot.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: This bot task will be using a IRC<->onwiki mechanism. All requested functions noted on IRC will be performed onwiki by the bot.

I have a way to add archiving to the bot, meaning that if a BRFA has {{BotTrial}} in it, but the BRFA template still says it's open, then it moves it to the Trial section.
If a BAG member says !speedy <brfa>, !approve <brfa>, !decline <brfa>, or !withdraw <brfa> on IRC, then it adds the relevant tags such as {{BT}} and {{BB}} to the pages.

Discussion

Discussion prior to the change of Bot Functions

Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. BJ^Talk 03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still running BAGBot on behalf of ST47 (currently on a cronjob on the Toolserver), so there is really no point of this bot. It has been updating sufficiently, so I don't know where 'unstable' was noted. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 10:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IRC half has been broken for few days. BJ^Talk 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been debated that I should run the on-wiki component and Soxred runs the IRC component seeing I have been having problems with memory usage on the Toolserver. Is this a fair deal? Approval is not required for the IRC component, however. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 11:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for this bot while E is running BAGBot. IRC bot issues can be solved on IRC, there is no need for a BRFA. —Giggy 12:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a bug with the IRC part. When I click on the [[Wikipedia:<pagenamehere>]] link, the URL passed to the browser is malformatted. It comes out as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%0307Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SoxBot_IX%0314 instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SoxBot_IX. Could it be that the square brackets are not being stripped from the pagename before it is appended to the URL? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, was this by SoxBot or BAGBot? — E ↗^T ^C ^B 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SoxBot, sorry if that wasn't clear. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have just also comprehended that you are clicking the wikilink syntax that the bot sends. This is simply a text only wikilink, so it must be your local wikilink script that is having a problem comprehending the syntax sent by the bot. This is not a bot malfunction. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did think this, but every other wikilink (including ones to the same page) work fine. It is quite possible however, that it is the script, in which case I apologise for generating needless discussion! I will try with different wikilink scripts and see if this makes any difference. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the mIRC wikilink script. A ChatZilla script picks up the links perfectly. Once again, sorry for all this! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually also have a few other ideas for the bot:

I have a way to add archiving to the bot, meaning that if a BRFA has {{BotTrial}} in it, but the BRFA template still says it's open, then it moves it to the Trial section.
If a BAG member says !archive <brfa> Approved on IRC, then it adds {{BT}} and {{BB}} to the pages.

I actually had a third idea, but I can't think of it now. Either way, those two are what can separate the bots. Soxred 93 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work for 'denied' or 'speedy', etc? Other than that, it's a nice idea! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now that I think of it, it should be something like !speedy, !approve, !decline, !withdraw. Soxred 93 16:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I take it that it will say 'approved by <BAG member>' in the template? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Soxred 93 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not addressed the problem here. You are requesting approval for a bot which is already in use and has no problems. The IRC component is the only part of the bot which requires fixing; and this is currently in progress. I've offered you to write the IRC component which could also do the extra features such as !speedy, !approve, !decline, !withdraw, and not to update the BRFA pages; this is BAGBot's job; in which it has no problems with doing. As you stated above, your claims about BAGBot being unstable is totally incorrect. There is two parts to the code, if you are implying that the IRC component is unstable, this is not to be brought up onwiki; it is an IRC issue in which most cases you should log a bug report. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues brought up is precisely why I reverted the speedy approval as there was absolutely no discussion on this matter done except between a few people off-wiki. Q ^{T C} 01:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jul 05 20:01:54 <Soxred93> Bjweeks, revert it." BAG, the anti-cabal? BJ^Talk 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onwiki portion should be denied unless E's concerns are addressed. —Giggy 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above for the revised function summary per an agreement with Soxred93. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. You are hereby entitled to run the new bot with the new function summary for a period of 5 days. Report back here when complete. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See test here. The IRC archiving bot is working, also testing the archiving. Soxred 93 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just can't find out how to do it feasibly. So therefore, it is only the IRC commmands, and if I find out a way, I'll fill a BRFA later. Soxred 93 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should at a message at the bottom before the {{BB}} saying something like "$action via IRC from $bagmember" so somebody wanting to check the status doesn't need to grep through the history to see who approved it. Q ^{T C} 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should, and it does now. Soxred 93 23:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any update on this? It has not been approved, therefore should not be running. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was approved for trial... Soxred 93 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 5 days only, on the 7th July, which means it was to close on the 12th... How is it going by the way? — E ↗^T ^C ^B 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's going well, and actually, I never started the bot until the 16th. Soxπed93^(blag) 17:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, this BRFA is for SoxBot IX where the trial is running on SoxBot X... can you clarify? Per the edits on the other account, it looks good. Clarify the above, then I'll feel like approving. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, I used code from another bot script (RFRBot), and forgot to change the username. Soxπed93^(blag) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the trial is long-since done now. How'd it go? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} ...just tried to archive a request and there is no bot in the channel! What's going on? — E ↗^T ^C ^B 04:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be restarted occasionally, I'll fix that later. Strike that, next week. Soxπed93^(blag) 05:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should make it kill the script after say 72 hours then restart. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just let us know when it's ready. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any updates? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found some time to work on it. X clamation point 01:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. Is this ready? Mr.Z-man 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.