Misplaced Pages

talk:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Bots

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haphar (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 19 February 2008 (→Change of section header: civility is still required). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:04, 19 February 2008 by Haphar (talk | contribs) (→Change of section header: civility is still required)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wider audience

You need to advertise this more widely. I'll mention it where I can. A new section on Misplaced Pages talk:Bots and WP:AN would be a good start. Also, WP:VP and WP:RFC (stick a note on one of those RfC pages). Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Beta's userpage, WP:NFC, and WP:BON are other places. And maybe at the top of Misplaced Pages:ICHD. MBisanz 15:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've quickly done the ones I thought relevant after creation, see my contribs MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of previous debates

I can list previous debates here from WT:NFC. I can also find some from WP:AN and WP:ANI. This may turn out to be a request for comments style thing, but I hope that something useful can be worked out, as opposed to the unsurprising reaction from Hammersoft. Hammersoft, I would suggest you work with others to move forward on this issue instead of insisting loudly to yourself that nothing is wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • When certain parties stop attempting a lynch mob, then perhaps I might be more willing to work with them. As it stands, this page is a thinly veiled lynch mob. I don't see any particular reason to support such an inherently and obviously biased approach to making suggestions for improving BetacommandBot. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all to do with BetacommandBot. More discussions exist in those archives and on AN and ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Impending MfD

If the nature of this page does not turn away from the blatant bias, harrassment and lynch mob nature that it stands as, I will be placing it for deletion via MfD. This is not a threat mind, it's a call to action to fix this attrocity. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated use of the phrase "lynch mob", given that phrase's violent and racist history, is quite offensive, especially given the reasoned and measured tone adopted by the page's authors. Please stop. Nandesuka (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no intent at making a racist statement. There is an intent to show that this page is a completely unreasonable attempt to foster change. The label "lynch mob" is appropriate. See Lynching, where it says "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person which results in the death of the person". That's exactly what this page is. A mob that wants to kill off BetacommandBot. If you're prefer I remove the term "lynchmob" and instead say "mob bent on the destruction of BetacommabdBot" I will. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Show me the diff where anyone on the project page has called for BetacomandBot to be "killed off" or "destroyed." The only completely unreasonable behavior I see is your intemperate choice of wording. I understand that there may be people who have proposed such things in the past. I'd like to ask you to address the things that people on this page actually have said, instead of arguing against things that no one here has said -- and I'd like you to stop using intemperate, inaccurate, and inappropriate terms like "lynch mob" (or, for that matter, "mob") to describe a group of people who are trying to improve Misplaced Pages. Nandesuka (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The only person here who has talked about "killing off" BetacommandBot is you, Hammersoft. But don't let me stop you from dancing with your strawman. Simply maintain a civil tongue while you do it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Any more accusations you'd like to level at me? If you think I'm being disruptive, then go and have me blocked. I am sick to death of you accusing me of all manner of things and then refusing to pony up to the table and do something about it. Either put up or shut up with the *(#)@$@#($ accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Does Hammesoft's wording need improvement? Yes. Still this page does smell like a user conduct RfC. And I'm not sure its best put in the Bots subspace, as compared to an AN subspace or the NFCC subspace. Its generating many valid points and discussion, I'm just wondering if there is a better or less personal way to handle it. MBisanz 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging

What are the thoughts on merging this page to Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria compliance? I think they both can cover the issue at hand, and with a less pointy purpose and title. MBisanz 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a straight merger, please. Maybe a subpage there? Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That would work, say Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria compliance/Subsection 10c Compliance?, I just really really don't like the title of this page. Or that its nutshell is "The issue is with the bot and its NFC10c operation only, not policy" or that it has a "Statement of issues with BCB" section. If I were BC I'd have flamed this talk page and taken it to WP:ANI as an attack page. The whole reason we have the complex process at Misplaced Pages:RFC#Request_comment_on_users (evidence, certifying users, etc) is that calling for action based on a users behavior is a rather serious thing as its far to easy to type in words that would hurt another user and their reputation. Also, I'll note that in this case I don't believe the starting party contacted BC or that there is a direct allegation that he's violated a policy. I know you've been above this, creating a neutrally worded and purposed page, but it just really annoys me when policies are skirted in the name of expedience, as we've seen in enough Arbcoms. BTW, I've asked at WP:BN if the crats would recognize a consensus at one of these discussion pages as actionable in their role of overseeing bots. MBisanz 11:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I wanted to incorporate (with evidence) some of the points raised here in the "background" section of the page I started, but seeing the reaction this page has provoked, I'm no longer sure that this is a good idea. I still firmly believe that a humane bot operation can help with Misplaced Pages and images, and that Betacommand and his supporters need to step aside and let a new process emerge for dealing with image compliance. Carcharoth (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Change of section header

I've removed the words "to the blatant lies and bullshit" from a section header. While Betacommand does have the right to respond, the basic social conventions regarding civility still apply. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That didn't take long. I've reverted once, but I won't do so again. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit my comments. it is completely out of line. β 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost as out of line as using the phrase "blatant lies and bullshit" in a section header. But not quite as out of line. Nandesuka (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
These are not comments, they are a section header. I'd suggest that if you're unwilling to have others remind you that politeness is a requirement for participating here, than think carefully before "speaking." Even if you were responding to blatent lies and bullshit, to state it in the manner you've chosen to do so is crass and counterproductive. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The page is counter-productive, and also happens to be full of blatant lies and bullshit. So how about you read and respond and leave the addition of others alone, k? Thanks. Lara❤Love 02:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice, please feel free to accept some in return: While I'm reading this page, you can read the pages on civility and ownership. The page on removing personal attacks is a good one as well. We all are responsible for maintaining a level of discourse that will assist in moving smoothly to a productive outcome. Without comment on how productive or not this page may be, BC's (and now your) combative stances serves only to decrease the possibility that a productive outcome will result. For example, if I make a statement that is clearly incorrect, you can respond in several ways. One would be to say that I'm lying. This not only fails to assume good faith (oh! While we're trading advice, there is another page I suggest you read.) it also will make me mad, even if I am lying. In lieu of that, you can calmly and sweetly correct me, providing diffs where appropiate. Which leaves me very little room to either get angry or to continue to make incorrect statements. See-what-I-did-there?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is receiving what it is giving. Plain and simple. Altering other's additions does nothing to help the already heated situation. And thanks for the alphabet soup, but I've already read them. I'm blunt and outspoken, not uncivil. Lara❤Love 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Terms like "blatant lies and bullshit" are uncivil, this is making accusations that all those opposed to a certain POV are lying- it is not blunt it is uncivil. The main point is not that policy does not have to be enforced but the pain that the "policy enforcer" is causing, the bot recongnises only one template which is a guideline and not the be all and end all in image rationale. That is a severe restriction and cannot see how a bot can get over that. It has limitations and should be used more sparingly and not allow the speedy delete tag. I think it is a sad day when people are more worried about removing content from the encyclopedia than helping those who are adding it. Build a check up front so that nothing get's loaded that does not have the right bureaucracy around it rather than this retrospective bot that is wasting immense time of a large number of people. Rather than atttack those opposing the bot if the same energy could be put in to finding a solution it would be more helpful Haphar (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Haphar, yet again you have no clue how the bot operates you ASSuME things, where have I ever said anything about a template? I call things how they are, users are making bullshit up and saying things that are completely un-true. just like what you did with the template, when Ive specifically said that you dont need templates. you just need valid non-free rationales. so please stop making things up about the bot that are un-true, and please stick to the facts. β 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Images get tagged even with rationale because it is not as per what your bot looks for. You do not decide what is valid and what is not valid- there is an interpretation made,and that seems faulty. Anyone who has an issue with the bot makes things up and is a liar it seems. If you could spend the same amount of effort/energy in cleaning up the bot it would help everyone a lot more than these outbursts. And avoid the stunts with the Capital letters please. Haphar (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) You need to go read what the Foundation has required. The rationale must have a machine-readable rationale that links to all uses. BetacommandBot's job in this process is to identify images that lack the required link or otherwise fail the machine-readable requirement. To determine the validity after that falls upon the reviewing editors/admins to correct or delete.

And while we're on it, everyone would benefit from doing their research. Betacommand wouldn't be so defensive if he didn't take so much shit from people who don't know what they're talking about. But people aren't doing their research. They come here, spewing their misinformation (referred to by some as "bullshit and lies"), calling for the block of a bot that has tagged hundreds of thousands of images over the past year that, according to the Foundation, failed to meet policy. Then others come, without doing any research, read the misinformation and jump on the bandwagon—the BCBot hate-train, if you will. I would LOVE to see how some of you would respond to the constant badgering, harassment, and calls for the blocking of a bot that is upholding standards set by the Foundation and that these lynch mobs simply don't understand. And people can complain until flying pigs descend from the Heavens that "people would understand more about the bot if Betacommand would just explain it", because it's pointless considering he does... if you ask him in a respectable manner.

I've never had a problem with Betacommand, which is why I defend him. His bot has tagged images on articles that I've worked on, maybe even some of my uploads, and when I didn't understand, I went and politely asked him. He answered, I understood, I fixed it. Whenever I have questions about his bot, usually from reading the forementioned misinformation, I go ask him, and he explains it to me. If people went about their approach differently, there would be less of an issue. Educate yourself a little—as it's not like he hasn't already explained, clarified, addressed, answered or corrected pretty much every issue at some point or another—bring up your concerns in the appropriate forum, without bitching or complaining or making false claims or unrealistic demands, and have a little respect and appreciation for what he does. Clearly state your issue and then give him a chance to respond. If someone else poses a question to him, back off with your pitchforks and torches and give the man a chance to respond, because all the drama just sets off a defensive reaction, which is a natural human response and, again, I'd like to see how everyone else here would handle it now after two long years of it. Lara❤Love 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are clear concerns at the way the bot works. Some of these are genuine requests for change to improve the whole process. The rest as you point out are down to repeated misunderstandings and mis-information about what role the bot is playing in the whole process. Your view is that everyone is a dumb newbie for not understanding the issues, other peoples views are that betacommand could save a hell of a lot of the repeat questions and misunderstandings by posting information that is only just coming to light here and now in a centralised place, or a FAQ (not a 17 point disclaimer box). There are requests, concerns, suggestions, misconceptions and genuine bug reports. These are all different issues with one root cause, lack of information. Blaimng all of it on a 'hate campaign' and outright dismissing them is just not on. Expecting people to continually have to search 50 page archives to is just not on. Frankly dealing with every person's issue on a talk page is ridiculous for the amount of issues he raises. In your own first paragraph you demonstrate you don't know the difference between the machine readable requirement (which refers only to the copyright license) and the bot-assesed link compononent requirement to satisfy the 10c statement. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
MickMacNee, again you fail to understand WP:NFCC the BOT DOES NOT LOOK FOR A LINK as I have repeatedly stated that. one key part of any valid ratioanle is stating for what page the rationale is for. that can be stated as foo or foo it doesnt matter which.
let me quote WP:NFCC The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item
No where does it say that you have to have a link, only that you need to state for what page the rationale applies. the reason that it recommends a link is that people often have improper or wrong pages in the rationales. DaB pages or a page with a similar title but not the same page. β 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Take that as a simple slip of the tongue, I did actually mean link as in reference, not link as in wikilink. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
{ec} Yes MickMacNee, I erred in my words, just as you did with your exaggerated "17 points". It's 10. But this is a good example of misinformation. People won't go look at his page and will take it from your words that he's got a 17 point disclaimer on his talk page. Past that, what I meant by my first sentence is that there must be machine-readable rationales specific to each article the image is linked to. Lara❤Love 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not mention his user page, I was referring to the bot talk page, . This again is a possible issue, the subtle distinction between Betacommand and BetaCommandBot, again something that could be considered by taking a step back and thinking rather than continuing the war/attack mode. And again, it appears BCB is not tagging images found with an incomlete number of references to each article, rather just those with none, another factor to be considered in the 'BCB is enforcing policy' line of argument against sources of possible good faith concerns. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So let us look at[REDACTED] policy some tagging others words as "bullshit and lies" is impolite and not quite civil, and an apology is due, (and some should have the courtesy to acknowledge who the some are since some used the words ) if some are fighting for enforcement of a policy, some should not be breaking policy in the first place. And if Betacommand is sick of the opposition the bot gets then there are options available for no more opposition, listen to the others and get the bot toned down as well as making it better. Betacommand is running the bot, Betacommand needs to find the solution to it. Well the bot has an issue with what it defines as "valid" rationale, it makes mistakes in it's rules book of validity and needs to be appropriately improved.
Now instead of attacks on those raising concerns why don't some go and try to resolve the issues ? Haphar (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not make an apology for calling things as I see them. THERE IS NO PROOF TO ANY OF THE CLAIMS THAT WHERE MADE. I ask you to show me a mistake by the bot. or an improper tagging, out of the 100k images you should be able to find at least three, if there is a problem with the bot. no-one can back the bullshit claims of a bad bot. β 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So let's go by policy, since one is implementing Misplaced Pages policies surely one agrees to abide by them ? So now calling others statements as bullshit and lies is acceptable under Misplaced Pages's policies on civility ? Can some point me to the appropriate section by which this is allowed ? One does need to be civil about things Haphar (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c Add topic