Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Historybot

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

Historybot

Greetings, this proposal has two hoops to go through. I have been sternly warned that it's unlikely to go through, albeit one never knows until he or she tries. Here is the proposal:

Rationale:
==========
a) the #wikipedia channel goes through topic changes very often
b) once 'vandalised' the topic is hard to bring back, unless unique scripts are used
c) once changed, it is hard for one to see how the topic was changed (ie, what was removed)
d) the topic represents tidbits of interesting info from time to time, links, slowness etc
e) the topic in #wikipedia carries no discusson
f) current mode of protection is a +t, which prohibits all topic changes

Proposal:
=========
A bot that will allow ...
 a) mirror the topic changes on #wikipedia and add them to a page, this allows for
	i  ) history of the topic to be seen at a glance
	ii ) diff's to be applied

 b) allow for the topic to be changed from the wiki
	i  ) changes will happen only 20 minutes (can be changed) as to:
		1) not to pollute the page
		2) prevent vandalism, unlikely a page will stay vandalised long
       ii ) can be restricted to where only admins use it (protected)
       iii) can allow for only certain parts of the topic to be changed
	     ie: the first part "Wiki is slow | Logging = ban ...." will stay intact
	         while the rest can be changed

I plan on writing it in python, in the unlikely event that it goes through here and on Wikipedia:IRC. Thus please refrain from discussing the IRC logging 'issue' here. —Mineralè 2006-08-05 00:34Z

Some questions:

1. If the page is protected, how will the bot edit it?

   Resp: It can be but does not have to, admins may decide depending on traffic. I believe that a softprotect (4 day registration) would work. Mineralè

2. This would allow a "role" account to effectively edit the wiki, any thaught on that?

   Resp: I'm sorry I'm not sure what the question is asking. This would be done in two ways: first, there would be one page that displays only the current topic and another page where people can put a new topic. Every now and then, (ie every 20 minutes) the bot would look at the current status, and put it as the topic (unless the page is younger than 1 minute, to prevent vandalism). Anyone is welcome to edit it, but admins may protect the page if they wish so Mineralè

   Anyone changing the topic in the channel will cause the bot to write their new topic to the wiki, so if i change the topic to "Historybot sucks", will it be commiting that to the wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

3. #wikipedia is HEAVILY populated, why not use IRC controls to control IRC?

   Resp: Good idea, but I would not wish to write yet another irc bot, I would like to see a IRC/WIKI integration. Mineralè

Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• weak oppose I prefer to have IRC and Wiki as separated as possible. -- Drini 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can see the utility in this, but don't think wikipedia is the appropriate place for it to be storing its history. Sound more like a toolserver type project. --pgk^(talk) 10:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds dangerously close to public logging of the channel, which is not permitted. As an IRC Group Contact (and not in my role as an Approval's Group member) I'm afraid this has potential for abuse and should not be permitted. Essjay (Talk) 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this can't be a stand-alone IRC bot. Allow chanops to configure, i.e., what can and cannot be modified, who can modify what, etc., and the bot can store extended topic history and allow easy reverts. The on-wiki element seems completely unnecessary. However, even if the Wiki element is excluded, the likelihood that the #wikipedia channel owners will allow a bot of this nature (or any bot, for that matter) is quite slim. If there is a problem with "vandalizing" the topic, then it would seem most logical for the channel to go +t. The channel has quite a few ops, and I'm sure it would survive just fine. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is potentially a violation of the IRC channel guidelines, so I wouldn't recommend the implementation of this bot. Technically feasible, but I have a feeling it would be socially unacceptable, given #wikipedia's tendencies and prior history. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm putting this one in for a deny at this time. Will leave this section open for a few days to see if anyone else from the approvals group wants to weigh in before closing. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea but I'm going to have to say this one's not going to fly - IRC and Wiki don't mix too well, they're kind of like fire and water. The only bot that works on both wiki and IRC AFIAK is the TB series, and even there it's IRC involvement basically amounts to a control interface and a quicker way of screaming AIV type reports -- Tawker 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• BOT REQUEST DENIED — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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.