Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Werdnabot (irc)

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

User:Werdnabot (irc)[edit]

Operator: Werdna

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Fully Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Update user subpages with information regarding their online status

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

Edit rate requested: Unsure

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No.

Function Details: At the request of IRC users, and with an on-wiki verification edit, will update specified user subpages with the status of said IRC user automatically, as this status changes. For this purpose, a bot "Werdnabot" will join the channel and remain permanently online. The bot has not yet been written, but will be in due time. This bot will require the approval of IRC group contacts.

Discussion[edit]

The concept looks great i was wishing i had an auto status changer but will need to see the bot first. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds low risk to me, as it will only be accessing user sub-pages. Could you provide us with an example user subpage that will show us what the output of the bot might be? Also, be sure to let us know the outcome of your approval request with the IRC group contacts. It would be best if we could examine the bot's source (when written), but this is not strictly required. -- RM 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, both. — Werdna talk criticism 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the bot isn't posting logs, I don't see a need for approval from IRC group contacts. Angela (an IRC group contact) 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample: User:Werdnabot/Status/Sample — Werdna talk criticism 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks good only one request leave the Channel out. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 10:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the bot will only monitor #wikipedia, and will only be reporting online status with the agreement of that user. Therefore is there any reason why the channel should be ommitted? (as long as it's only a Wikipedia channel of course). --kingboyk 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about the status change tools that are all ready set up and if the bot could interact with those perhaps and i would like to see if the bot could monitor its own channel. I tend to stay away from #wikipedia due to some users recording those channels and posting them on other sites. this is just a sugesation but it could run in #werdnabot, or invited to several rooms? note that that is a sugestion an in no way reflects on weather it will be approved or not. :) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "weather" doing Betacommand :) - No seriously, multi channels are fine, and I see no issues with putting this bot into a limited trial in a sandbox channel (you know the ones...) and go from there -- Tawker 18:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is possible for a user to leave and enter an IRC channel multiple times, perhaps there should be some sort of cap as to how often the bot can update a user's page. If the user exceeds their limit, their user page can be updated a final time with "Status Unknown". This is a useful task, but we don't want to cause undue burden by adding too many edits per day. -- RM 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a crack at implementing that. At the moment, the approval includes the user typing "register {page to update to}" in private message to the bot, and that page existing with a {{User:Werdnabot/Status/Linkhere|IRCNick}} on the page. Is this adequate? I will take RM's suggestion into account when I finish coding it — Currently trying to find a decent MediaWiki lib for Perl. More on this story as it develops... — Werdna talk criticism 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an IRC point of view, many of these users and or channels are flagged +i or +p, and are done so on purpose, advertising their presence in a channel that would not be otherwise availible without joining the channel seems like an issue. Hoever if the bot can simply reply to the results of an ISON queury and/or a NickServ query (something that is accessible to anyone in the server, but not in the channel) I'd have no objections. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on this issue seems to have ceased for the most part. Everything sounds good, and I'll support this bot as soon as the bot code is written and ready for trial. -- RM 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a small trial as well, but do want a response to my last question, as it raises privacy concerns. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about whether I'll use /whois or another method to determine if somebody's online or not. I'm open to suggestions here — although I'd rather not have to send a zillion whois queries per minute. — Werdna talk criticism 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The privacy problem I have is that some users specifically set flags (or have the server set them for them) that the room they are in are only viewable by others in the room with them (if your bot joins the room it will have this insider knowledge). However, if your goal is to simply show if users are on freenode or not then you should be able to accomplish this with the irc command ISON:

Example code:

/ison JimboWales teglin Triona wave wm Gau fskot frostburn rory09 notacow Interbot Werdnabot xaosflux x\a\osflux

and it will return a space delimited list of users that are online such as:

:calvino.freenode.net 303 x\a\osflux :teglin Triona wave wm Gau frostburn NotACow x\a\osflux

Do you think this type of query would meet your needs? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freenode will have a max line lenght and a max ison limit, not sure what they are, you would probally need to ask an IRCop, but this will allow for a mass querey without creating a flood condition on the irc server like a stream of whois's would. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this will be opt-in. I see no reason why the user's preferences would make a difference- as long as they're in a room that Werdna's watching, this shouldn't be a problem. There's no need for a WHOIS if Werdnabot were to watch quits and rejoins. Ral315 (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ral has essentially stated my position. — Werdna talk criticism 03:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks good perhaps #werdnabot ? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if its all opt-in, then scrap any privacy concerns I had above, still think that ISON will be more reliable then part/join monitoring, especially if the bot is going to be watching multiple channles, as it would also have to be watching comlete client naems or otherwise be looking for nick changes between join and part. Altenatlety the /NAMES #channel of the current channel may be a good option, any thing watching for transistions sounds tricky at best though (not a on-wiki bot concern) but I've got a fair dael of IRC background, and trying to be helpful here! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for note, I approve of this bot, however, since I am not an IRC expert, I'll defer to someone (like Xaosflux) to approve this one officially for trial once it is determined that the process issues are worked out. Update: Approved for trial -- RM 13:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial Run has commenced today. Currently, to sign up a page to have their IRC status updated to it, Werdnabot2 must receive a request from the nick that says register [target page]. The target page must have a comment of  on the page for it to be accepted. It currently works on joins/parts/quits/kicks on #wikipedia, but this will be extended to any other freenode channel in due course. I'd like to welcome you to check out the way I've set it up on my own userpage. — Werdna talk criticism 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. This should be done now. I've looked over the updates, and this is a very trusted bot operator. I see no problems here. -- RM 01:50, 13 October 2006 (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.