Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zscout370/Botoptout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result of the debate was closed as withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Zscout370/Botoptout
- Someone else can enter the {{oldmfd}}, if appropriate. I can't figure out on which page it would go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do that, maybe as a talk page note rather than a formal template. I'll note here also that the page discussed here got moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Opt-out as I suggested below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a policy violation here, also. I'd accept it marked as rejected, but I don't know if Zscout370 realizes, unlike Betacommand, that you don't WP:OWN your user page and subpages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - this user subpage has a generalised wording more suited to a bot opt-out policy page than a user subpage. Accordingly I have tagged it with {{proposed}} and a move notice. The change in policy advocated by this template is the following: "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 the bots themselves or the issues they raise." - hence the "proposed" tag. Even if accepted, this generalised wording (seemingly intended to apply to all bots now and in the future) needs to be at a page such as Wikipedia:Bots/Opt-out. Hence the rename proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, as per my comments at the BC deletion discussion. Bellwether BC 17:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)- Question - What policy does it violate? Just as in the BC opt-out MFD, you can't just say it violates policy, you need to actually point out which policy it violates. Lara❤Love 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If it's a demonstration of concept, it's legitimate to keep. If it's a proposal, we should keep it. And if it's an actual implementation, then it's okay as well. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as owner of the page. The reason why I have it in my userspace is that this is supposed to demonstrate what such a list looks like. It was proposed at the BetacommandBot subpage of the ANI. Users have been demanding to find some sort of opt-out list for his messages, but BCB does not maintain one on Wikipedia. I made this, at the suggestion of a few users, so users can start putting their names on the list when it actually is agreed upon. Until then, it just ferments in the userspace. It would have been moved eventually and I already told the users there that they can make tweaks to the wording of the message or begin to add their name. There are edits by other people already and it wasn't related to this MFD. Just give me a chance to see if this is actually accepted or not; people are still focused on trashing the bot and not giving this a second look. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - no policy violated. Lara❤Love 18:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Valid use of userspace, I see no policy violation here. VegaDark (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw, in part. If moved to a proposed guideline for bot opt-out requests, and clearly marked as proposed, it's acceptable. I've removed the unconscionable part. If User:Bellwether_BC would withdraw the "delete" vote, we can go on to discuss the proposed guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will be out of my house for a few hours, so feel free to move this whenever you want. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- What I am trying to get at with the page is if we can reduce the signal to noise ratio over bot issues, it will be easier to sort them out. Even if my wording originally stuck (yes it was mine, not Betacommand's some have thought), it would not have been a blockable offense at all. As I said above, the wording I had isn't going to stick at all and it is not set in stone. I don't mind about the wording changes now. Now if we actually get this list off the ground (it's not just for betacommand's bot, the list is open to every bot operator on here). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:21, 15 March 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.
