On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:44:37 -0500, Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:43:35 +1100, Rebecca misfitgirl@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>
- 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@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