[WikiEN-l] Rambot the User_talk: Spambot

Wed Dec 15 15:53:44 UTC 2004

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:44:37 -0500, Fennec Foxen <fennec at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:43:35 +1100, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ram-Man's proposal wasn't unreasonable, and due to the number of
> > people it needed to reach (i.e. far more than the usual 100 people that
> > vote on most polls), it wasn't necessarily a bad idea to choose talk
> > pages over a post on the Village Pump or equivalent.
> 
> Indeed, but we must consider what messages should be designated
> "reasonable", and the community must be involved in making this
> decision, not just the bot.
> 
> > I say let this one pass, but subject any further mass messaging to a
> > similar rigorous examination.
> How about further mass-messaging be approved *beforehand* rather than
> ex post facto? This is the crux of the matter: not that "mass
> messaging is evil" or "mass messaging via bots is evil" or "bots are
> evil" or "mass messaging about licensing is evil" or anything like
> that. It's just that *any operation of a bot needs to be approved
> beforehand*. A reminder from Wikipedia:Bots --
> 
> Before running a bot, you must get approval on Wikipedia talk:Bots.
> State there precisely what the bot will do. Get a rough consensus on
> the talk page that it is a good idea. Wait a week to see if there are
> any objections ... <snip>
>    1. Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are
> unapproved, ***doing something the operator didn't say they would
> do***, messing up articles or editing too rapidly.
> 
> At no point in time did Ram-Man say on Wikipedia_talk:Bots that he
> would be using the bot to send solicit thousands of users via their
> talk pages. Wikipedia:Bots just says that Rambot "scans and modifys
> all existing county and city articles to implement miscellaneous
> changes and updates. As time permits, the bot also functions as a
> generic SpellBot with human interaction." A note on the talk page from
> Nov 8 also indicates that Rambot will resume its *normal* operation,
> citing "requests for changes that are months and months overdue". He
> linked to Rambot's user page at that time, where there was no mention
> of a mass messaging project:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Rambot&oldid=7257037
> 
> This is clearly not something Ram-Man said the bot would do.
> 
> In this case, perhaps the consensus to run the bot would have been
> achieved, allowing the bot to operate, but in general I do not think
> that the "implicit consent" measure employed by Ram-Man ("I already
> have explicit and implicit permission from hundreds of users to
> perform this action") based upon nonnegative replies to his
> solicitation should be considered a valid measure of community
> consensus in these matters. Indeed, Ram-Man states "After all, I have
> a track record of not asking for permission" and complains of the lack
> of attention to the WIkipedia_talk:Bots page, using these as excuses
> not to file for permission.
>  I think that this is already deemed unacceptable by standing bot policy.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

While it is a bit rich to claim retro-active consensus for the bot, I
for one wouldn't be pushed about making a big deal out of this
specific abuse of a bot (I mean, it admittedly doesn't look like the
guidelines have been followed).

Perhaps others too agree.

Once again, I re-iterate that I consider that this doesn't need to set
any kind of precedent. If there is a "next time", simply visit it
again as we are doing now, and hey, if it's a different issue where
everyone is baying for blood, take serious action. There's no specific
reason not to treat things on a case by case basis. And it's not
"unfair", because if the "next time" is worse, then it deserves to be
treated differently.

There's no call to make a big fuss over this bot messaging out of fear
of future (more serious/widespread?) abuses.

Well. That's all my two eurocent anyways. I may be out of touch with
reality (again!)

Zoney

-- 
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...