Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MinunBot

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

MinunBot

MinunBot isd a bot operated by me, Minun used for the purpose of delivering newsletters, any important Wikipedia news or any other templates that need to be delivered to multiple users. It is NOT however intended to be used for delivering RFA notices, or notices about particular articles (unless severe), only for WikiProjects or places that effect a wide area of articles and users, and have at least 10 users —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this to be an opened ended delivery service, or dealing with specific topics? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an opened ending delivery service, there will be an approval page where users can request to have MinunBot deliver newsletters or other importanr notices, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im about to improve the user page, so check it when its done, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't see that there is any harm in having something akin to what NotificationBot did (I've actaully got spambot code sitting around for pywikipedia) but there needs to be tight control on what is done with this; users shouldn't be able to just spam anything, it needs to be a list of users who have signed up for something or a specific delivery. I'd be a lot more comfortable if you had a project lined up already that we could give trial approval for and then review the progress. Essjay (Talk) 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minun is facing a one year ban from Wikipedia any day now Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision. Regardless of the need or benefit of the bot, someone else will have to run it. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to get banned, because I stopped doing these things, the last arbitrator knows hat, so if he supports (which he might not), I can give proof, so i've got little to worry about right now.

Anyway, replying to the above comment, there is going to be a page where users must request for MinunBot to be used, and I (Minun) will either approve or disapprove of the request. If its approved, MinunBot will start delivering, but its not really spam, but anyway, thanks for your message, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe try it with Esperanza (if the admin general wants a bot to do it) as a trial, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition to this, on the grounds cited by Thatcher. Unless Minum knows something the rest of us don't, he's two "close" votes away from remedies passing 6-0 consisting of four bans summing to a year, two paroles, and a probation. Add to this a remedy which begins: "Minun shall choose one account and edit only under that account." I urge that any approval of this bot be held over until any bans are served (or the case is closed without any being applied), and Minum requests clarification from the Arbcom as to whether the "one account" remedy is intended to also preclude a bot account. Alai 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it under control, and I know what to do if I get banned. Maybe we should wait until it comes to a conclusion, but I don't really think the "one account" applies to a bot. We will just wait until the arboitration ends, but if I get banned, I know what to do, and if I don't, we can find out if the "One account" applies to a bot —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message posted on arbitators' talk page

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Not to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized [1] —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to make any main space edits until it is resolved, but I have it under control, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, but I really doubt that you are going to be able to get out of your one year ban. Even then, you are not allowed to have a second account, rendering this entire proposal moot. That being said, if there is interest in a newsletter distribution bot, I'm fairly certain I could step in and help out. alphaChimp ^laudare 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I undertand what you say, but, according to a message I sent through Wikipedia:Contact us, there was a message

“

The only way Minun can avoid being banned for up to a year is by an admission of guilt and an apology

”

I've aplologized to HighwayCello. Im unsure about whether I will get the bot or not, but lets wait till the case is close and then i'll ask if the rule applies to bot accounts, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, open ended is a non starter, and given the users recent history having a bot flag against an account operated by this user making the edits invisible in certain areas seems an unwise move (That's not to say it'll always be that way). --pgk^(talk) 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of issues raised here that need further clarification, but none of it by anyone here. First, we need to know what the resolution of the arbitration case will be; if a ban goes through, this is moot. Second, if a ban doesn't take place, but there is a restriction on using other accounts, we need an opinion from the AC on whether this counts. Finally, there are concerns about this bot (which doesn't actually have anything to do at the moment) being run by this user. My suggestion would be that Minun resubmit the request in a couple months, when the arbitration-related questions will be answered, and when the community will have a better idea of what his situation is. If there is a need for a newsletter bot in the meantime, I'll personally offer to set EssjayBot IV up to do it, as I already have the code for this. Hopefully, that will allow for the funcionality, while respecting other's concerns but giving Minun the opportunity to re-request in due time. Essjay (Talk) 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to help, you could make a temporarily EssjayBot IV (like you suggested) until it is decided, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already several bots running notification schedules; why do we need another one? Tito xd^(?!?) 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usertalk spambots are pretty much trivial to create (anyone w/ AWB can do it) and granted the open ended nature of this request and the pending ArbCom case, I am going to deny this application. We really don't need any more notify bots, tbey really are that trivial -- Tawker 05:38, 10 August 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.