Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin

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 Delete --Versageek 17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin

Delete this userbox is directly targeting a bot, User:BetacommandBot operated by another user, User:Betacommand. This is not right and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE. It is not right to attack another user or his/her bots by making such attacking userbox. If the person has any complain against the bot, he/she can make the complaints in appropriate places. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• KeepThis is not an attacking Userbox. It, like all the other user boxes you want deleted, is not to be taken seriously, and should be spared under WP:GUS. I strongly disagree that this is a violation of WP:CIVL and WP:BATTLE, please stop with these pointless requests to delete user boxes. Milonica (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. In template space this would be speedily deletable under WP:CSD#T1 and looking at Wikipedia:Userbox#Content examples, this is not an acceptable userbox ("thinks", "ruining"). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - overly personal. Would be acceptable if rephrased in a way that doesn't mention any specific editors. Addhoc (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:BOX, the specific mention of a user (along with knowledge of the general dislike for BCB despite it doing the job that it needs to do) makes this very close to a personal attack, and thus is not appropriate for both a user page or a user box. --MASEM 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CIVIL. Attacks like this are not acceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-collaborative proletariat noise.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Those darned workers are at it again, eh? If only they'd learn to keep quiet and do as they're told... --SSBohio 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • For once, I agree with you.--WaltCip (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This shitting on Betacommandbot needs to stop. It's both a waste of time and utterly embarrassing. There have been, just within the past couple months, multitudes upon multitudes of grievance threads on WP:AN or WP:AN/I which have generally been closed as baseless or moot because Betacommand fixed his bot's code. Don't provide lit torches and molotovs; stow them, dammit. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's an expression of opinion about a bot's effect on the project, not a personal attack, insofar as a bot can be called a person. Thoughts about this project are perfect fodder for userspace. If I put the text of this userbox on my userpage, would my userpage become deletable? What if I added text that says BetacommandBot is improving Wikipedia instead? In either case, I hope no deletion would result. Leave the garden to its gardener and go edit an article. We need content more than we need Userbox Wars Round 3? 4? 5? --SSBohio 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I have no problem with people having differing opinions of the bot. I even think it's possible to write your opinion of the bot in userspace without it necessarily being an attack. The proble with this userbox is that, in boiling such an opinion down to fit in the tiny rectanular format, it's lost the ability to be anything other than an attack. Moreover, because of the standard UBX format, there's no room for subtlety or nuace in any case, so it's doubtful it could be improved, even if the user wanted to. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So, boil it down for me: What would happen on my userpage if (instead of this userbox) I added the userbox text? I have the uncomfortable feeling that we're treating this expression differently because it is a userbox, rather than because of its content. Comment upon Wikipedia policy & process is one of the primary reasons to have userspace at all. --SSBohio 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely you could be more comprehensive, more constructive than simply add a tidbit of text to your userpage that says "BetaCommandBot is ruining Wikipedia."--WaltCip (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Even though it targets a bot (and therefore isn't a direct WP:NPA), bots are accounts owned by people. If there was a box saying "User:Jimbo Wales is ruining wikipedia" it would've been speedy'd, therefore, I contend any boxes attacking an account owned by a person, should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the userbox, but use the Gutmann method on that bot and its source code. Ron Duvall (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus and policy among Wikipedia editors has determined that the bot is essential for enforcement of the GFDL and of fair use for images. Erasing its hard drive would be counter-productive if not destructive. Pretty much your rationale boils down to, though not necessarily a breach of norm in MFD, WP:ILIKEIT.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• MfD is all about personal preferences and whims. And that's the way, uh huh, uh huh, ILIKEIT, uh huh, uh huh!

• Ah. If that is the case, I would suggest that the majority of people here wish this userbox to be deleted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Milonica that this is a joke, maybe that should be made more obvious though; and even if others are right that it is a serious and frivolous attack on the bot, I agree with User:Ssbohio that we would be unlikely to delete (or ever see a nomination for) the converse statement.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Just an opinion about a bot, not a user. Enigma (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's like saying "I hate the United States" and then countering with "but I only hate the country, not the President."--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not really, no. If someone feels a bot is ruining Wikipedia, it's a personal attack on that bot. Until the bot files a complaint about it, I wouldn't be concerned. Enigma (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The bot is a programmable computer. The programs are constructed and compiled by the programmer, who happens to be BetaCommand. Therefore, an attack on the bot is an attack on the work of the programmer - QED.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think BetaCommand would care either. He receives plenty of criticism of the bot on his talk page and elsewhere and it doesn't bother him. Enigma (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• All because Betacommand does not appear to be upset by all the criticism and attacks is not actually a reason to attack him. Acalamari 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rubbish, so if I say I don't like a particular painting that means I'm attacking the artist??? Makes no sense, I really dislike "Eyes wide shut" but I still think Kubrick is a genius. --Bleveret (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• No. In fact, the analogy of an artist and his painting to a programmer and his program is a very poor one indeed. Salvador Dali and Charles Babbage both stood out in their field, but only for different reasons. Art is to be appreciated, while a program is used to manage menial tasks.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Firstly its an opinion, implied by "This user thinks..." secondly its against a piece of code not a sentient being. What about all the userboxes stating a dislike for various bands etc... If I setup a user box to state I don't like Microsoft code I bet there would not be all this hassle. I'm not best pleased that this removal template was slapped on the userbox page instead of a discussion page. Plus all this aggro just reinforces my view that many sysadmins at wikipedia have had a sense of humour failure. Its like a repressive regime where none of the populous are allowed to speak out against those who run it... --Bleveret (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete disruptive userbox: if the BetacommandBot was an actual user, this would violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Acalamari 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Really, this argument goes nowhere. If Betacommandbot was an actual user, it would've been blocked long ago for carpet-bombing talk pages. Enigma (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps if people would tag images they uploaded properly, then the bot wouldn't leave messages on their talk pages would it? The bot is only following policy. Acalamari 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but in a very obnoxious manner. That's being discussed in several other places. The point is, it's a false argument to say that you shouldn't be able to attack BCB because you can't attack a user the same way. If BCB was indeed a regular user, it would've been blocked for abuses a long time ago. BCB is NOT a regular user. Enigma ^msg! 21:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, if the BetacommandBot was a regular user, I don't think that it would have been blocked a long time ago at all. After all, the bot's operator, Betacommand, has not been blocked forever or banned for running the bot has he? Acalamari 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• That doesn't prove anything. The point is that bots are allowed to get away with things that regular users can't. If Betacommand tried to do himself some of the things the bot does, he'd be blocked. Enigma ^msg! 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• What comprehensive evidence do you have to justify that line of reasoning?--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are mountains of evidence, much of it here Enigma ^msg! 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• That looks to me more like a war against both BetaCommand and his bot. And you say that this userbox that we are currently debating on will help anything by its presence, let alone incite collaboration?--WaltCip (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You've hit on precisely the reason I created it.. Not to incite collobation but to stop BCB discouraging it. More people editing and contributing is what we all want. When I helped expand a page for the FIRST TIME ON WIKIPEDIA, checking I'm doing the right thing and selecting the type of image when I uploaded it, I was dismaying to have some 'robot' tell me it was going to delete my valid image. An overly agressive template, with an agressive "I don't care talk page" and with no clear guidelines as to what I did wrong. Made me think (and here's the rub.. a LOT of people think) F*** this, why should I even bother???? I'm purely stating the BCB in my opinion is turning away potential contributors and THEREFORE RUINING WIKIPEDIA --Bleveret (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Delete my valid image"? Why didn't you tell him this? Or did you just make a userbox to whine to the world rather than take initiative and confront the problem?--WaltCip (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I see on User talk:BetacommandBot is a large "stop hand" telling me to consult a help desk and make sure my concern doesn't run afoul of the 17 criteria for commenting on the bot's activities. I've been here a while & I'm taken aback to see that; Imagine what a new user would feel. Beyond that, an opinion of this bot as a bot (not as a person) is simply fair comment, not a personal attack. Now, if I said that the bot used second-hand electrons, that might be.  :-) --SSBohio 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"OMG a huge stop sign, I'm offended I'm shocked I'm outraged I cannot respond to it in a rational manner, I'll make a userbox instead." Sure, that makes sense. And "ruining Wikipedia" isn't exactly a fair comment without any constructive criticism or justification. That's in vio of WP:SOAPBOX.--WaltCip (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that stop signs offend, shock, and outrage you. I'm also sorry that instead of addressing my argument, you beg the question by assuming that a uesrbox is per se an irrational response, rather than discussing the point. "ruining Wikipedia" is not, by any stretch of the term, a personal attack, even if we abandon reality and start believing our bots are people.

As for the soapbox assertion, what part of soapbox do you see this userbox violating, since expressions of opinion about this project are explicitly permitted? --SSBohio 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete on principle as a divisive, partisan userbox likely to further inflame an already tense situation. I dislike all userboxes that put forward some sort of contentious opinion with the apparent intention to create factionalism and provoke angry responses, and this strikes me as one of those; actually, it's worse since it could (indirectly) be taken as a personal attack on Betacommand himself. Even if it's not meant in a nasty way, and expresses the user's genuinely-held opinion, this seems to me unhelpful at best, and certainly unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - can be seen as an attack on Betacommand himself, as the operator of the bot which is ruining wikipedia according to the userbox. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really; people criticize other bots, but it's typically not viewed as an attack on the operator. However, in this case, the user named the bot after himself which creates a linkage between the two that's more readily obvious than with most bots. Ron Duvall (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as I hate all bots, they ruin wikipedia, Ill say KEEP! --123Pie (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: We're here to write an encyclopedia. We're not here to create userboxes that increase drama and have no use to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: expresses a strong opinion, but in a perfectly civil way. It isn't a personal attack to criticise someone's actions, whether they are doing them directly or through the agency of a bot. Moyabrit (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, too personal and disruptive, and a WP:POINT creation. Closing admin should note that several of the keep arguments are are irrelevant (they're about the bot itself or bots in general, not this userbox) and have no merit (for example, 123Pie's). There are so many more constructive outlets for addressing concerns with BetacommandBot that this userbox is totally fruitless. --Coredesat 10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Closing admin should also note that several of Coredesat's arguments are irrelevant or have no merit, as well. For example, they allege that this userbox is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point even though its creation doesn't fit any of the definitions contained within that behavioral guideline; They allege that this userbox is "too personal", even though it makes reference to no person whatsoever. Third, their comments make assertions about this userbox without supporting them. Finally, their comments don't appear to assume good faith on the part of keep !voters. --SSBohio 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, In addition, closing admin should note that the above comment is, in effect, Wikilawyering - "They allege that this userbox is "too personal", even though it makes reference to no person whatsoever." Despite the fact that the subject in the question of the userbox is a bot, the bot is under the command of Betacommand, who in turn receives all comments, complaints, jibes, and information regarding the operation of the bot. Hence, association. The mere fact that this userbox is causing an argument on this MFD demonstrates divisiveness and non-collaborative energy. Therefore, the userbox must be deleted. There is no consensus to keep.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • 1. A user is a person, a bot isn't; A personal attack (if I've got my grammar right) requires a person. It doesn't take the Wikilawyering of Ben Matlock to discern the difference between people and non-people.
        2. The userbox hasn't caused this discussion, the nominator of this MfD has, so (by your logic) do you propose deleting the nominator instead?
        3. Finally, in point of fact, it's just a little box that goes on a userpage. Why it should be the nexus of any drama whatsoever is beyond me. I'm ambivalent about BcBot, but I can't see the need to censor how others express their opinion as to this project. --SSBohio 03:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - There is no consensus to delete either, and I would hope that a consensus is required before removing things from people's pages. Otherwise, all I would need to do to remove things on your page is to get a few people to agree with me. As it says on your Talk page "the difference between "no consensus" and "keep" is pretty much semantics." Enigma ^msg! 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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.