Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:56, 15 March 2008

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)

• 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 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  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)

• {{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 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Looks like the "unrelated restrictions" are cone now. SQL 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Looking at the history, I thought BC removed them, sorry. SQL 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• 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 _C 15:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Even when that text was on the page, it could hardly be considered binding. Now, I see no such restrictions on the page. SQL 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
    • 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)
• 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 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 _C 15:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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 15:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • 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 _C 15:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Im not forcing anything on anyone, users voluntarily agree to the terms of the opt-out. dont like the terms dont opt out. β 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
          • 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 _C 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
            • 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)
              • 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 _C 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
                • • 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)
  • 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)
    • "(cur) (last) 04:02, 15 March 2008 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) (579 bytes) (copy from User:Zscout370/Botoptout)" Will 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • So should User:Zscout370/Botoptout be added to this MfD? Or a new one opened? Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
• Delete - 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-Misplaced Pages now and in the future, rather than just the bots operated by BetacommandBot. If this opt-out was at Misplaced Pages: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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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 _C 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • that has been soundly rejected, {{nobots}} does not have consensus for policy. β 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you mind pointing to where it was "soundly rejected"? I'm not being snarky, I really don't know. Bellwether _C 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • See Misplaced Pages 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)
    • 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 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's just an expression of preference. Not much different from Optoutprescreen.com. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

  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)

  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 Misplaced Pages if such a change in policy were made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  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 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Keep - Valid use of userspace, I see no policy violation here. VegaDark (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• 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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 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 Misplaced Pages 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)