The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at Betacommand's request.-- Doc^g 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Update: Restored by User:AGK, per request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence, for evidence gathering purposes.

User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out

Second bolded sentence is a clear policy violation, and beta will not allow its removal. Either delete as WP:CSD#T2, as I did originally, or remove that sentence as a policy violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep how is a voluntary topic ban a violation of policy? want to opt out, then you need to be willing to follow the terms of the op-out. opting out is completely voluntary. If you dont want to agree to the terms dont opt out. Arthur I am really disappointed in your lack of understanding policy. T2 applies to template namespace. the page in question was nether a template or in the template namespace. β^_command 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  If it is claimed that that is an attempt to meet the {{ bots}} guideline, it is not in good faith. (That claims seems to have been made elsewhere by you.) No sensible person would be believe that blocking bot messages and complaining about improper bot actions are related. So, you can set whatever conditions you want for a voluntary opt-out, but any claim that this is an attempt to meet the requests made to opt out of messages is fatuous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• {{ bots}} is not required, in fact I have stated that I will never support that template. I am voluntarily creating a method to opt-out, (something that I am not required to do). If someone wants to opt-out they must be willing to follow the terms of it. dont like the terms dont sign up then. this is a completely voluntary action on my part. nobots was proposed as bot policy and was soundly rejected. Thus I am not required to offer this feature. But if I do offer it I am allowed to set my own terms. β^_command 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless Betacommand wants to remove the unrelated restrictions and act according to the will of the community. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like the "unrelated restrictions" are cone now. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Looking at the history, I thought BC removed them, sorry. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, completely inappropriate to attempt to give an "either/or" to those who do not want to receive messages from BCB. It's not his place to issue topic bans, and he refuses to see that. People should be able to opt-out of receiving messages from BCB without having their right to comment on BC and BCB's actions taken away. As such, this page is completely inappropriate. Bellwether ^B _C 15:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Even when that text was on the page, it could hardly be considered binding. Now, I see no such restrictions on the page. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - It violates no policy, which can be noted in the fact that the nom notes no policy. It's a voluntary opt-out option already in use. And the nom admitted after his rogue deletion that it wasn't a template, so it doesn't make sense to recommend it be deleted as a template when it's clearly not. Betacommand was asked to create a way for editor's to opt-out. He did this, despite the fact that he's not required to. If they don't like the terms, they don't have to use it. And this push for the use of the nobots template is unacceptable as it's already been pointed out multiple times that it's optional and Beta is not going to use it. Lara ❤ Love 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It's not optional: a consensus of editors at WP:AN/B have already said they want BetacommandBot to obey {{ bots}}. He chose to not participate in that discussion and pretends the consensus doesn't exist (as do some other editors who really ought to know better). But yes, if consensus still means anything on Wikipedia, he's required to support a method of opting out without his choice of "fine print". — Locke Cole • t • c 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • For the umpteenth time, that's not a valid consensus. Not enforceable. Period. Move on. There is no policy nor any consensus for you to fall back on. Lara ❤ Love 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep - wait, so you want to be able to opt out, but you don't want a page for opting out? Make up your mind. Will ^{( talk)} 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Complete straw man, and I think you know it. The issue is with the inappropriate restrictions BC attempts to levy against those who dare opt-out. He won't let the offending portion be removed, so the page needs deleted. Bellwether ^B _C 15:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This MFD is less about the opt out page itself and more about the ridiculous requirements Betacommand is forcing people to agree to by opting out. I have no problem accepting responsibility if an image is deleted and I miss it. But if the bot is otherwise misbehaving or acting incorrectly, I should be able to discuss the matter either as part of the community or on his talk page. He seems to think he has the right to ignore consensus and do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. — Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The way I see it, that's to stop people who are against the bot opting out and calling it "zOMG t3h evil" when it makes mistakes. Besides, Beta didn't make up the requirement. That'd be User:Zscout370. Will ^{( talk)} 15:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
      • But here's the thing: if they want to call it "zOMG t3h evil" when it makes a mistake, that's their right. BC (or Zscout) has no right to force such ludicrous restrictions on them. Bellwether ^B _C 15:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Im not forcing anything on anyone, users voluntarily agree to the terms of the opt-out. dont like the terms dont opt out. β^_command 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
          • You really don't get it, do you? It would be better to not have the opt-out list than to have this farce of "if you opt-out, you forfeit the right to take issue with the actions of this bot." That's nonsense. Bellwether ^B _C 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
            • If this succeeds in getting the page deleted, I suggest there be no more requests for an opt-out list. He's not forcing anyone to do anything. It's basically and "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone" deal. If you want to continue to bring up issues about the bot, he will continue to notify you of issues and such, as he's not required to opt you out. Lara ❤ Love 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Again, do you really not get it? This isn't about the list itself, it's about his adding the undue restriction of, "If you opt-out, you can't take issue with anything my bot does." That's ludicrous on its face. If he doesn't want to have an opt-out list, fine. That's less unacceptable to me than placing these weird restrictions as part of opting out. Bellwether ^B _C 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
                • • He wants people to stop harassing him. People want his bot to stop harassing them. This is his compromise and it's optional. If you WP:DONTLIKEIT, then don't look at it. Note also that DONTLIKEIT is the page backing this nom, not policy. Lara ❤ Love 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • He could say that people who opt-out cannot complain on his or the bot's talk page. That seems fair, and it covers what you (Lara) say he wants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • People want to be able to contribute to a community discussion on what opt-out policy and template wordings should be for bots, not have bot operators (any bot operator, not just this particular one) decide themselves and say "if you opt out, you lose these rights". If it was made clear that there was an alternative opt-out that people could sign up to, then fine. But this doesn't seem to recognise any other way to opt out. And Will, can you give the context for the Zscout370 reference? Carcharoth ( talk) 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "(cur) (last) 04:02, 15 March 2008 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) (579 bytes) (copy from User:Zscout370/Botoptout)" Will ^{( talk)} 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
      • So should User:Zscout370/Botoptout be added to this MfD? Or a new one opened? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I'd say add it to this one since this MFD is only an hour or so old. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Well, the wording is sufficiently different now that I think it would need a different debate. What I propose to do is wait until this debate closes and nominate (or not) at that point. At the moment, I think Zscout's generalised opt-out policy for all bots is worse than this one. In fact, it needs a {{ proposed}} template on it. I see nothing in policy about such general statements for all bots. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
            • Too late. Arthur Rubin nominated it for deletion. I've gone ahead with my tagging anyway, and comment at the new MfD. I'll link the two MfDs with "seealso" tags. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete (new !vote given below) - the following wording: "You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise" is completely unacceptable. The template is also too general, seeming to apply to any and all bots on en-Wikipedia now and in the future, rather than just the bots operated by BetacommandBot. If this opt-out was at Wikipedia:Bots/Opt-out, and had general community approval (not just the approval of WP:BAG), then such general wording might be appropriate. But in Betacommand's userspace and with this overly restrictive wording? No. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Update - my comment above referred to this version. Betacommand has since fixed the wording to refer only to BetacommandBot. However, the wording "You also lose the right to complain about BetacommandBot itself or the issues it raises" is still unacceptable. There is no need to conflate: (A) not wanting the notices; with (B) noticing some way to improve the bot or change the way things are done. If Betacommand simply means "if I make a mistake and still leave you a notice, please don't complain, but instead leave me a polite note and I will fix things", then he should say that instead. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That's not what it means. What it means is: If you don't want to hear from BCBot, BC doesn't want to hear from you. He's not required to opt anyone out. However, he will opt you out, but in return you forfeit the right to involve yourself in BCBot issues. To do so will result in your removal from the opt-out list. It's all very simple, and all very voluntary. And there's no mention of an alternative way to opt-out because there is no alternative. Lara ❤ Love 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Perhaps the way forward is to make respecting the nobots tag required by policy, and misuse of that tag a bannable offense. That takes care of BC's issue with misuse, and the community's issue of being annoyed that BC doesn't honor the nobots tag. Bellwether ^B _C 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • that has been soundly rejected, {{ nobots}} does not have consensus for policy. β^_command 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Would you mind pointing to where it was "soundly rejected"? I'm not being snarky, I really don't know. Bellwether ^B _C 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • No it hasn't, as far as I know. Care to point where it was "soundly rejected"? (This is the second or third time I've asked you this, maybe you'll respond to me this time). — Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • See Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#nobots. There are objections of a technical nature, but I believe the principal has consensus. — Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Off topic, I know, but, I just looked at the discussion there. I see 8 (eight) different proposals on how to do it, and, not really any sort of strong consensus for any of the eight proposals there, yet. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's just an expression of preference. Not much different from Optoutprescreen.com. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Question Specifically what policy does this page violate (especially in it's present form)? SQL ^{Query me!} 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment It's fine in its present form. It won't last after β notices that the "no complaint" clause has vanished. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  And I didn't delete the "no complaint" clause. I struck one of them out once, but I feel that policy change discussions should be made somewhere, even though I would withdraw from Wikipedia if such a change in policy were made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  Hm. No, in your nomination for deletion here, you said Second bolded paragraph is a clear policy violation. I don't see any issues with it, and, even in it's past form (btw, I assumed BC edited it) I don't see any clear policy violations. What's so wrong with the page, that it can only be solved by deletion, other than the obvious "it's a betacommandbot subpage"? SQL ^{Query me!} 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  Speaking of your nomination, that page is not a template, so, T2 does not apply. Why would you have deleted it under T2? SQL ^{Query me!} 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Valid use of userspace, I see no policy violation here. VegaDark ( talk) 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep as valid opt-out mechanism. Users not comfortable with the terms are not being forced to obey them, the opt-out system implemented here by Betacommand is completely voluntary. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Explaining the policy violation

• Quoting from this page version (the text has since been removed): "Keep in mind that when you sign this list, you fully are aware that you lose the right to [...] You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." - here the generalised (not the specific) right to complain is not something that can be signed away. We can have a semantic argument over whether we mean complain or criticise, but Wikipedia is a co-operative and collaborative editing environment. Wording such as this, however "voluntary" it is, does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment, because it restricts the possibilities for discussing the bots and what they do. It promotes an environment where bot operators WP:OWN the bots, and contravenes the third of the m:foundation issues: "the wiki process" (we write articles and change community processes by discussion, not by fiat). To sum up: even in principle, people shouldn't be allowed to sign away their rights to make valid comments and criticisms, of a bot or anything (even if that gets labelled as "complaining"). They certainly shouldn't have such rights held to ransom over an opt-out process. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, "...Either delete as WP:CSD#T2, as I did originally, or remove that sentence as a policy violation...": are we now using an MfD as a means of gaining consensus, what happened to discussing? -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "what happened to discussing?" - it seems that discussion (or complaining as some people call it) is now a right that can be traded as a condition for being allowed to join an opt-out scheme: "You also lose the right to complain about BetacommandBot itself or the issues it raises." Carcharoth ( talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I see that, but that is not a reason to delete, that is a reason to discuss that part of the text. I might actually have agreed with you on the point that that sentence is overdone, but I do not agree to using this MfD as a means of finding that consensus. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
      • If you look at the history, there was an attempt to strike out out the offending sentence. Discussion and speedy deletion has also taken place. So a bit of a mess all round, and I agree, not how I would have handled it. This MfD, though, is, I suppose, an attempt by Arthur Rubin to resolve all that and avoid further conflict. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I did look at the history, and I think we agree, this is also not how I would have handled it. I see the situation has already escalated, too bad. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep; obviously either party is free to ignore the totally non-binding commitments being made here. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Are you sure Betacommand realises they are non-binding? Carcharoth ( talk) 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think it much matters if he does, at this stage. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Bots and users - what is the difference? To demonstrate why the wording here is unacceptable, consider what the reaction would be if the following sign-up list was started:

  "This is a list of English Wikipedia users who do not wish to be notified by Betacommand about various things. Keep in mind that when you sign this list, you fully are aware that you lose the right to complain about deletions, reversions, etc. because you were "not notified" about them. You also lose the right to complain about Betacommand himself or the issues he raises (whether he uses a bot or not)."

  Now do people see how silly it is for Betacommand (or anyone) to be making statements like this? Carcharoth ( talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. So what happens when (1) a user lists themselves here to avoid BCB making edits to their user page contrary to community consensus (that his bot is not authorized to make anyway); (2) BCB does another unapproved task or other such nonsense; (3) Said user speaks out against the the unauthorized edits, complaining "about BetacommandBot itself or the issues it raises". Are their comments reverted past 3RR by edit warring administrators? Are they blocked by administrators already known to be willing to abuse their administrative tools in defense of Betacommand? Or is this just unenforceable anyway and an entirely stupid thing for people who should know better to be edit waring over? ➪ HiDrNick! 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I've now realised that WP:MfD is the wrong venue to resolve this. My strong concerns still stand, but discussion on the talk page to change the wording used is a better option, was initially tried, is being tried, and should continue to be tried. After talk page discussion, other venues of dispute resolution may help resolve this. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete, or marinade in Worcestershire sauce or whatever, and probably best to just speedy close' this MFD.
  Regardless of any decisions either way about {{ nobots}}, I have no objection at all to the principle of a bot operator offering an opt-out-of-messages-from-my-bot facility. In many ways it's a good idea, allowing editor to choose to receive msgs from other bots, but not this one.
  The problem, as many others have pointed out, is the catch-all clause. I am quite happy to receive bot messages, but if I did opt not to receive messages from a bot, why should that remove my right to complain if the bot malfunctioned or performed an unauthorised task? This is at best silly, and probably unenforceable ... but I think it's a bit of a sideshow.
  The real issue is not the opt-out notice, but the editor who created it, and deleting thing won't make any difference either way to the ongoing inability of Betacommand to find a way of working with the community. e-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as what? No consensus? Mr. Z-man 22:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • As No Solution, or No Difference, or No Point. Yes, I knows those are not part of WP:CSK, but no outcome of this this debate can resolve the problem. Whether this page is deleted or not, we will still be in the same situation; that some editors want to stop receiving BCbot's messages, but don't have an acceptable method of doing so, because a choice which includes unfair terms is no choice at all. This MfD might just as well be resolved by throwing a dice. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Since β will ignore any result, including delete, and the admins who think that the necessity for his bot gives him a free pass won't block him if he were to recreate the page over a delete, it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep or shut up and stop complaining about betacommandbot Mønobi 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Telling people to "shut up" is unlikely to do anything other than exacerbate the situation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It's like this: Betacommand receives a flood of complains over his bot "flooding talk pages" with messages about images people have uploaded. First, if you upload an image, expect to keep it up to policy later down the road. So, Betacommand creates a way to opt out of receiving a message with certain terms (which aren't that crazy) and people go insane over it. Either you get the messages or you shut up and step out of the arena. It's really not that difficult. I'd say that this whole thing (complains about Betacommand) have happened because people don't understand WP:NFCC. We need more helpers, not complainers. Mønobi 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Actually, it's more like this: rather than this being solely about people misunderstanding NFCC, its more to do with an over-reaction by Betacommand to a situation that was entirely predictable (that there would be a lot of complaints from people who don't understand NFCC) and in which the planning was bad or non-existent, and in which the community failed to support him. In amongst all this, the legitimate criticisms and suggestions were being lost in the noise, or just ignored or misunderstood. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I may not agree with the terms and conditions Beta has set forth, but frankly it is his userspace, it is entirely optional, and I don't think simply deleting the page is in the best interest of anyone. Several members of the community asked Beta to implement a (public) opt-out method. For a while, Beta refused. Beta has now implemented such a method (albeit with terms attached). This is, in my opinion, a big step forward. Perhaps it isn't perfect. Maybe we all have some great ideas on parts of it that should be changed. This should all be discussed on the talk page (with cool heads). Beta can be remarkably helpful when conversations remain civil and constructive, so I think that should be tried. Frankly, an MfD, in my opinion, is a big step backward and will only cause further division over the issue. Baby steps, people, baby steps. -  AWeenieMan ( talk) 21:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete Based on this sentence on the page: You also lose the right to complain about BetacommandBot itself or the issues it raises. Not only is that uncivil, it's ludicrous to say that just because someone opt-ed out of being notified by the bot, that the someone can't weigh in on any discussions regarding the bot. This shouldn't even be being discussed because that sentence alone makes it a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Reword and keep: The opt-out list is Betacommand's way of allowing users to opt-out of BetacommandBot's notices. He does not support the {{ bot}} template and that template is not required for bots to follow. That said, the last sentence is inappropriate - anyone should be able to have an opinion on BetacommandBot and state it ("Or else I'll leave messages on your talk page"). Reasonable requests such as the first bolded sentences are reasonable, definitely, but the latter does not help to build an encyclopedia in any way, being almost akin to censorship. Betacommand should not assume that the people that request to be added to the list do so out of frustration with BetacommandBot's messages. I hope that Betacommand simply uses this list as what the title says - a list where you can opt-out of BetacommandBot's messages - with no strings attached. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but remove bolded bit. At the moment, any botop is free to use any opt out system he/she wishes, and is BC is coded his bot to use this sort then so be it and let's all move on. Mart inp23 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Carcharoth and Christopher Parham. Signing your name on a wiki page like this doesn't form a binding contract and this is not a good venue for discussing this. Mr. Z-man 22:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep with reword. There's no reason to delete the Opt-out functionality. That last sentence is not inappropriate so much as it is simply false, and it clearly needs to be removed. Mango juice ^talk 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's the problem, MJ, he won't let it be removed. Bellwether ^B _C 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless the sentence "You also lose the right to complain about BetacommandBot itself or the issues it raises" is removed. That is an unacceptable restriction. If consensus results in the sentence being removed, then change to keep. The entire wording violates WP:CIVIL, the sentence in question even more so. 23skidoo ( talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
• Remove clause or Strong Delete - And by replying to me you any lose the right to change my opinion. Wait, that's a completely and utterly stupid and broken way of doings things, as is the current version of this page. Legitimate disagreements over BCB's functionality should be allowed whether or not you want to opt-out and this issue is contentious enough to make the page worthless as it currently exists. - Halo ( talk) 01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "And by replying to me you [...] lose the right to change my opinion" - LOL! I needed that laugh. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Why not just change the wording to "Be aware that opting out may affect how complaints you file about deletions, reversions, etc, are handled since you have opted not to receive warnings about these actions." -- Haemo ( talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note - Betacommand has just requested db-author deletion of the page and talk page in question. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.