Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c


 * 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 redirect (fully-protected) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c
Page seems to attract unproductive arguments and is not resolving the issue. I'm suggesting either deletion or redirection to an RfC. ~Kylu ( u | t )  05:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Its an end run around User Conduct RfC policies, is pretty much designed to force a user to do something by talking about and voting on all the things people dislike about their actions, and probably would've been speedied as an attack page if it was done to a user rather than a user's bot.  MBisanz  talk 05:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this page has a purpose of "Establish consensus for these suggestions", Beta's already said he won't take it under consideration.  So really its like shouting into the wind.  MBisanz  talk 07:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True. That's actually part of the problem - the greater issue of how best to implement an EDP is something that should be beyond Betacommand's personal whims. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts then are that given this pages informal nature, any consensus reached on it won't be respected. I'd say the issue might require a policy rfc, or a debate on VP-Pol to change the EDP. In any event, it's upto the crats to flag and deflag bots, so I think we might want to ask them what sort of consensus they'd respect in this issue.  MBisanz  talk 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I hate the user conduct RFC format, its certainly better than this. Mr.  Z- man  05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, this would have been speedied if it were about a user instead of his bot. But bots are not the same as users, no matter how emotionally invested the bot operator may be. A user RfC is certainly not the right place; why does it make sense to discuss how a piece of code functions as if it's human? -Amarkov moo! 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike users, bots don't have any inherent right to edit Wikipedia. Their conduct should be discussed in whatever forum the community feels is appropriate. I don't think a User Conduct RFC would have any particular utility in this case (or any other). Attempting to shut down discussion of these issues is not acceptable. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amarkov. It's not clear where the right place to be talking about this is, but I seriously doubt a change of venue is going to magically improve the tone.  Best to hash it out without interruption. Nandesuka (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep more discussion can't be a bad thing. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Oddly enough, this page is precisely the product of countless unproductive arguments that failed to resolve the issue. Except that now these arguments aren't clogging up WP:AN/I. I don't know if anything will come of a focused and centralized approach, but we might as well not cut it off at the knees. Suppose for a second that this forum was closed and redirected to RfC, does anyone really think that the resulting clusterfuck of pro- & anti- BCBot voting coupled with vaguely-related rants about free content or the evils of fair use would be more productive? At least portions of this page allow for a systematic review of the bot's actions (btw, thanks Carcharoth). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you object to naming it something less pointy like NFCC 10c compliance efforts?  MBisanz  talk 07:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Name it the happytime picture hour for all I care, as long as it accomplishes something. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as written, it's an attack page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discuss, don't delete. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though the owner of the bot in question has childishly decided not to participate, there is still merit in further discussion over what is clearly an issue within the community at large.  DEVS EX MACINA  pray 11:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind not dragging the nastiness here? Mr.  Z- man  18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - title of the page is fine. Those objecting to what is written there should discuss the specifics of what they don't like about it. I see valid objections there and ones that are misunderstandings. I think both sides fail to understand the real history here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to thanks Anetode for the thanks expressed above and those who have responded at the talk page to what I've started at Non-free content criteria compliance. I'd like to record here how dis-spiriting it was for me (if not entirely unexpected) to have that page that I started virtually ignored, and to have all the activity centre on Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c or this MfD. I see the two pages as serving different functions, with one focused more on BetacommandBot (the page being discussed here), and the other focused on more general image policy compliance issues how how they have and are being enforced. In some ways, I'd like the page I started to include a history of how image compliance has been handled in the past (to bring people up to speed on how things were done), to include statistics on images (the numbers involved create a lot of misunderstandings), and to include (along other things) lessons on how to do things better next time (lots of lessons to be learnt). It will surprise no-one to learn that I don't subscribe to either of the two extreme viewpoints that Betacommand and his bot are either (a) doing a really bad job or (b) doing a great job. I do agree that it is doing a necessary job that annoys a lot of people, but have always said that things could have been greatly improved and the willingness to carry out those improvements could have been a lot better, given that the bot was affecting a lot of people and a lot of pages. What I don't want is for the myth to grow in the telling, and for people to still be divided, years later, on whether it was "good" or "bad". The reality, as always, is somewhere in between. And I don't think things end here. There is a lot of image compliance work that is still needed, and bots and humans will need to work together. So please, can people come on over and help out with shaping how things will be handled the next time a bot needs to do something like this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, attempts at discussion are good, bots are not users. User:Krator (t c) 11:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per above.  .: Alex  :.  12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag historical - BetaCommand won't change the bot, the only outcomes possible of this discussion which specificly relate to the bot are: a) shut the bot down (which would require a consensus) or b) keep the bot running as it is (which doesn't require further discussion). Looking at the current state of the page and the numerous and lengthy past discussions, a consensus to shut the bot down (or to require BetaCommand to make changes - which would effectively lead to the bot being shut down) is not going to appear. A general discussion of the principles involved or some kind of official staement/process by the foundation or the arbitration commitee might yield some positive results, this discussion relating to specific actions by one bot isn't going to achieve anything other than to inflame an already tense situation. Guest9999 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: This page has proven to be highly incendiary and is a thinly veiled attack upon Betacommand. Further, the page also advocates actions that are well outside the bounds of policy; "Make the amount of time before deletion proportional to the amount of time that the image has remained on wikipedia." is against policy. "If an image has been on Wikipedia for more than a year and nobody has challenged its copyright status, that alone is evidence of fair use." is against policy. "Remove the 7 day deletion threat" is against policy. There's no point to this page that actually produces any positive result to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Hammersoft pretty well sums it up. It's an attack page against Betacommand and his bot. While there may be merit to some points, it's overwhelmingly unconstructive. It takes the completely wrong approach. If these editors wish to continue with these proposals, which are mostly moot at this point anyway, the page should be deleted and recreated without bias.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to both Hammersoft and LaraLove (and the others who are calling for deletion): there is nothing wrong with discussion and structured proposals. If this page is deleted, I will take it to DRV to get the content preserved under a different title or in an archive somewhere. There is legitimate criticism on that page. If you dislike some of the criticism, say so there. Don't try and do an end run around discussion by calling for deletion just because you dislike the criticism. Half of ANI and many other pages would be deleted on this basis. Just wiping out what people have said (including those voting delete) is not acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "If this page is deleted, I will take it to DRV" Oh great. A second AfD. Don't abuse process. You don't need to re-roll the die via a faux second AfD at DRV just to attempt getting an answer you'd prefer over the one that might come out of this one. This AfD hasn't even closed yet. You don't know if it's closure is debatable or done on improper grounds. Threatening to take this to DRV if it doesn't close the way you want it to is out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Addendum: Quoting WP:DRV, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". And you're an administrator ? You should know better. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a second MfD. It would be pointing out that it is not legitimate to delete good-faith discussion even if there are bad-faith edits included in the mix. This is a long-standing principle that has led to MfD deletions being overturned at DRV in the past. It is also clear that as an RfC, this page would be certified, so deletion can not be gamed that way. It is those people nominating and voting for deletion who are (in good faith admittedly) misusing process, and I'm making sure the closing admin is aware of that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Threatening to take this to DRV even before this has concluded is flat out wrong. There's no excuse. Why don't you just close this MfD and take it directly to DRV? We don't need to run this process over and over and over again like the *&(@)#$@(# ridiculous Corey Worthington crap. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out that MfD and DRV are the wrong place for the discussion taking place here. There is nothing wrong with me doing that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting (further below) your error. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your sense of humour. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So your admission wasn't an admission after all? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are both rubbing each other up the wrong way. Let's both agree we are both right, and drop it. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft by your reasoning even discussing a change of policy, or recommending it is heresy and needs deletion . It is a discussion- one can disagree with it, there is no "lawsuit" that would result from a discussion here. Haphar (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POINTy and borderline harassment, the fact that intention to DRV has been announced already shows that this is more a case of 'getting' BetaCommand than anything else. ThuranX (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This MfD is pointy, if anything. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And you threatening to take it to DRV if it doesn't close the way you like it is equally so. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have an echo from above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you'd consider retracting your threatened blatant violation of process with WP:DRV. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a reason to take an MfD closure to DRV, then it should be taken there. I will say that I regret saying that (in the heat of the moment), as that left me open to this unhelpful "approach" by you, but let's wait and see what happens, shall we? And yes, this is an attempt to calm things down. I hope you will feel able to respond in kind. Let's both climb down from the Reichstag here (see my edit summary). Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please, those who think this is an attack page, read it more closely. Note the comments by experienced editors that disagree with you and are talking about legacy images. I know many of the editors outraged by this page are experienced as well, but there are people on that page who have been involved with image issues for months and years, and they disagree with you. Why shout them down and insist that this is an "attack page"? There is a discussion section. Go there and pick apart the points raised by MickMacNee and others. If you agree with some of the points, say so. If you disagree with other points, say that. Don't just jump up and down and yell "attack page". If the page had been started by Wikidemo (to pick one of the very experienced image editors), would there be this outcry? This whole MfD is an attack on MickMacNee for having the temerity to create the page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the page is inherently biased and there's far better ways of handling this, such as Non-free content criteria compliance. There's no net value to the project from this page, and it's caused a hell of a lot more heat than light. Just because some people might be right does not make the page acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is currently generating more heat than light, but that doesn't justify deletion (closing it down and archiving, yes, but deletion, no). Look at how it starts:"'The purpose of this page is to: Bring together relevant previous debates; Centralise discussion about how BCB tags for NFCC10c compliance, nothing else; State the issues people have with BCB and how it tags for NFCC10c compliance; State suggestions for improvement; Establish consensus for these suggestions'" What is wrong with that? Please point out the bits that are so bad that deletion is called for? Oh, and thanks for mentioning Non-free content criteria compliance. :-) Would you consider helping out there with ideas and proposals for what should be covered? Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we start even further up on the page? "BetaCommandBot tagging for NFCC10c is causing repeated issues in AN/ANI/other" That immediately sets the bias stage. I could equally say "A number of users are causing repeated issues with BCbot at AN/ANI/other" That would be just as "accurate". How can anyone take that page seriously when it starts off like that? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Go fight the dogpile on that attack page? Yeah right. "Legacy images"? Those need the most fixing, not the most excuses. Images taht are in use from that far back have probably been debated and included for good reason, their inclusions should be the most carefully preserved. new images often go through review via the article's regular editors, or other avenues of consensus. So called 'legacy images' are past that point, and have consensus that they help the project and their articles. They should have been changed when policy changed. Instead, they're being treated like any other image. good on BCB. He doesn't discriminate. ThuranX (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Foundation's resolution has been around for nigh on a year. What are we supposed to do, just let images sit around that are non-compliant??? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We should have implemented a plan to identify the ones that needed fixing and fix them. It is difficult to get the motivation and participation in such a plan when you have a bot hovering over your shoulder. I would start a project to identify deleted images that could be undeleted and fixed, but how far do you think I would get with that? Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got a plan then. Let's just undelete everything that's been deleted that had a BCbot tag on it. That'd make everyone happy, no? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, with that tour-de-force, I think we've reached a natural end to this conversation. Thanks for the helpful comments. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "We" Should have, yes. "We" did not. it's being rectified now, and yet you object to that too. I wish I knew what would make you happy in this situation, but I really believe that only the community ban of both BC and BCB would truly satisfy you. well, that and removing the entire concept of the Fair Use policy. ThuranX (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary said: "nothing but a community ban will satisfy carcharoth and MickMacNee" - why on earth are you lumping me (I've been active on NFC issues for months) in with MickMacNee (who as far as I can tell only started discussing these issues recently)? I don't want a community ban of Betacommand at all. Please read the recent archives of WT:NFC to see my views on the non-free content policy - at least I'm aware that it is no longer called "fair use" here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thuran, you do realise that images that "have probably been debated and included for good reason" are getting lost and deleted in the pile of other images? Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sure do. Now get out there and fix those, instead of wasting time pushing for that community ban we can all see coming right after the DRV on this. It's a shame we're losing those good images too, but better they go than a lawsuit. I still don't get why you think it's better to say FUCK YOU to copyright law and Wikipedia's core policies, and to attack a great user, in favor of getting your favorite pokemon picture up faster. It's ridiculous. And once this firestorm of taggings and deletions is over, we can rebuild the project stronger, faster, better than before. With fully licensed images that won't cause us difficulties. Seriously, go now and fix a few. It's not that difficult. ThuranX (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed "some" images. I've stated before that we should have deleted and rebuilt from scratch. I've contributed free images at Commons and worked there. I've never intentionally edited a pokemon article in my life. I am very aware of copyright law. I have been working at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and have a list of images at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. So where do you get this idea from that you can lump me in with the "complainers who do nothing"? I spent hours yesterday writing Non-free content criteria compliance, along with the graphs and stats there. Do you even stop and think for a moment before trotting out your comments? Right. Your turn now. What image work do you do? Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This violates WP:NCR. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This MfD or the page? Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but close & archive Close the nominated discussion as improper forum and, if desired, open a proper RfC. The nominated discussion is nothing more than heresy.-- 12 N oo n 2¢ 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - not liking the topic of a debate is not a reason for deletion. Neıl ☎  16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rare Earth Magnet Strong Delete (should be my new catchphrase) - Per LaraLove. In fact, I was going to MfD this, but I was a little concerned about doing that. Now that it's here, and LL said exactly what I think, extremely strong delete.  Soxred93 | talk bot 16:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of delete outright, let's bring it to an RfC.  Soxred93 | talk bot 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per my talk page, I meant a user conduct RFC. Even though I don't believe it has blatantly violated policy, others do, and that's where this should go.  Soxred93 | talk bot 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge it into the AN subpage - don't need two pages discussing the exact same thing. Will (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand looks more like an attack page from where I'm standing, and Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c looks more like the calm, reasoned, discussion page. Does anyone want to MfD Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand? (yes, I'm being sarcastic) Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as hopelessly useless, biased and pointy. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. per CSD G10. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be an abuse of WP:CSD. Do you really honestly think that a speedy delete is the right option here. Do you really think so little of the editors commenting there in good faith that you label it an attack page? Please point out the attacks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't think it's viable per G10. I'm just trying to match the level of absolute and udder ridiculousness involved in this matter. I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for over three years and never have I seen an issue which is more ridiculous. This page was started by an editor, who to quote another Wikipedian, "has done everything imaginable to get a rise out of Betacommand." This page is part of those efforts and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) Essentially, it is an attack page. It's further poking to get a rise out of Betacommand. It was created after several posts to other forums, it's not all good faith proposals, it makes false claims and utterly ridiculous statements to attempt to make the argument it presents much stronger than it actually is. It doesn't serve a constructive purpose in it's current form, thus should be deleted and recreated without bias.  Lara  ❤  Love  20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could go through the page and make a calm list of the points and the rebuttals and the points that need further discussion, then the page could be shut down and archived and a new discussion started on the basis of the summary. That would be the logical way to address the "attack page" concerns. But an MfD just increases the drama, rather than decreasing it. Why do you think so many people are saying keep? (Remember to assume good faith - if you think they are biased, the same applies to you). Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments: a well-intentioned attempt to resolve a prickly issue. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The bot is NOT enforcing the policy, and ways of writing a bot which would enforce the policy should be encouraged.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could one of the people advocating a user conduct RfC please explain how the functioning of a bot is a user conduct issue? -Amarkov moo! 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I agree with Hammersoft and LaraLove, they make good arguments on why we should delete the page. I am tired of this constant harassment of Betacommand and his bot, who are both helping this encyclopedia greatly with what they're doing. Acalamari 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete. I strongly agree with Acalamari, Lara, Hammersoft, MBisanz, and others. SQL Query me!  00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is simply another location for the ongoing discussion over Betacommand and his bot, which is (as most people here surely recognise) a serious, controversial issue that a lot of people care a great deal about. While I recognise and regret that the discussion on this page hasn't been entirely civil or good-faith, I'm alarmed that some people's preferred reaction is to silence it by deleting the page altogether. That would be pretty out-of-process, and wouldn't do anything to resolve the underlying issues. If this was indeed a personal attack page, then it should be deleted; but it's not, it's the site of an ongoing argument, and heated though it clearly can be, that discussion should be allowed to continue. Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, though it shouldn't really matter, I just want to note that I've taken no part in this discussion myself; this Betacommand business doesn't bother me at all. But it clearly does bother a lot of people, and they want a place to talk about it; what's wrong with letting them do it here? Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And at the risk of violating WP:AAGF: I'm seeing a massive lack of good faith on the part of the nominators of this page. Just because the POV of a Wikipedia proposal does not agree with yours, does not make it an attack page or disruption to be speedily deleted. Terraxos (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep.It is a recurring discussion that keeps hitting the ANI, this would help keep the entire track on one location without having to go into history and reinvent the wheel each time. And It is a immense lack of courtesy and good faith to not even allow a discussion that is in no ways an attack. Haphar (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to a neutrally worded RfC based around finding solutions, instead of apportioning blame. Addhoc (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The tone and misinformation in the proposal is the problem. It would be best if it were deleted and recreated in a more appropriate manner. That's what many of us voting delete are saying. The issue with bias is in the proposal and the tone in which it is written. It's also misleading to those who haven't done their research. They read it as fact and roll with it, and that is creating a huge problem.  Lara  ❤  Love  16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the page being proposed for deletion as a step along the road to getting a clear statement of the problems both sides have. The answer is not to delete and recreate, but to edit and improve. When an article has something wrong with it, you only rarely suggest "delete and start again". This page is nowhere near the stage of needing to be deleted and started again. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I'm with LaraLove and other's with this one the page should be deleted, it is looking bad for the owner and not to mention if user's are unhappy with the bot tagging images for deletion or other means then the user's uploading them should put more detail description about copyright status and other details of copyright content. Terra Who are you? 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I count 6 "strong" deletes. I'm trying to find a way to politely say, without annoying anyone, that an emphasis on how strongly someone feels about something isn't really what XfD debates are about. They are about the quality of the reasoning behind the !votes, not whether the !vote is strong, weak or even 'Rare Earth Magnet Strong'... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww man, I'm having so much fun with those magnet ones! :) either way, I just want this deleted, no matter how strong.  Soxred93 | talk bot 01:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amarkov and Crotalus.  Enigma  msg! 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Because I've lost count of how many other pages we have for this. Oh, yeah, or you could just write a proper FUR ( Like this ). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, we would delete Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. But guess what? We don't. We archive it. Something similar will eventually happen to the page we are discussing here. MfD is not a license to get rid of discussion you don't like. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or tag historical rejected, the way this page looks, it isn't going to help anyone or anything as it appears to simply be an outlet for disgruntled editors to launch attacks on Betacommand for the way he runs his bot, in a less-than-constructive manner. Start a RFC instead and get rid of this page, since Betacommand has already rejected the idea anyway. If not, tag it as rejected and move on. --Core desat 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably, even if the consensus is delete, it is acceptable to make a list of the useful and constructive points and counter-arguments made on that page? And if so, why delete the page and not mark as (say) "rejected" and copy the useful stuff somewhere else? I'm still not seeing the reason for deleting people's opinions (presented in a civil manner), even if those opinions are wrong. Betacommand doesn't delete revisions of his talk page that say things like this, does he? I suspect that some people (not all) voting delete don't understand the difference between delete, tagging historical, tagging rejected, blanking a page, archiving a page, editing a page towards a consensus, and keeping a page (which doesn't exclude any of the preceding option, except delete). This is shown by the imprecise language people use when saying that someone "deleted something from an article", or "deleted a notice from their talk page". Most people, when they come of XfD discussions, think either keep or delete, and that is a depressingly black-and-white way to view things. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I said "delete or tag historical" because if this isn't deleted, it should be tagged rejected. I originally meant to say "delete or tag rejected". --Core desat 11:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It's nothing but a sneaky attempt to abandon foundation policy by framing the debate not around the policy itself, but instead around a frequently gruff and sometimes short-fused editor. Giant appeal to emotion. 'Repeal this or Betacommand wins!'. Its shameful for all involved. -- M  ask?  23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then the page would be about Betacommand. It is in fact about one specific issue with his bot. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That 'one issue' is the only thing BCB does from the view of most of the people trying to run him through the mud on this, and BCB is synonymous with BC in most uses. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the problem. People assume that any criticism of BetacommandBot is really a criticism of Betacommand. How can we ever have a proper discussion about the bot if one side insists that the other side only wants to get rid of the operator? -Amarkov moo! 08:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because in most cases, and specifically the page in queston, it *IS* about BC. It's a thinly veiled attack page. Numerous established editors have voiced this opinion, but instead of trying to work out where our concern comes from, you take the ostrich approach, stick your head in the sand and tell us we're just flat out wrong. - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  10:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please state what parts of that page make it an attack page. Seriously, calling that an attack page dilutes genuine concerns about real attack pages. If you want a genuine example of an attack page, see the one I deleted here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Beta explains it quite well below. And just because there are worse attack pages out there does nothing to make this not an attack page. I would really go back and look at the psuedologic that lead to that the next time you comment in this debate, just to keep everyone thinking on the same page - M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no rational person who reads the page could call it an attack page. There are attacks on the page, but there are also reasonable questions as to how Betacommandbot, or a properly written bot, could enforce NFCC 10c.  It's clear, in spite of beta's misinterpretation below, that the bot is not properly enforcing 10c.  It hasn't been handling redirects properly, (although that has since been fixed), and if the image is used on one page, the FU justification points to a disambig page, and that disambig points to the page on which it is used, it should accept that as a probably correct justification.  So should a reasonable interpreation of 10c.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not sure where your getting your information, but redirects have been addressed and fixed several months ago. there was a recent issue with Unicode that was brought up, which might have affected %0.01 of the images tagged. (that is being very very generious with error rate) Ive only seen it happen with two images. Once that issue had been brought to my attention I fixed it within 24 hours. the one page use of a NFC image still needs 10c taken care of. And as for DaB pages 10c requires the exact name of the article in question (redirects are also valid) DaB pages are not the exact title. βcommand 20:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The name of each article" could easily be read to include disambiguation pages. It's ambiguous, but the bot has always been enforcing a formalization of the requirements, which may not be specifically required.  The bot has also been requiring (at least according to AN/I/β) that the NF contect be published elsewhere on the web, which is a severe tightening of NFCC 4 without reason.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not sure where your information is coming from but BCBot does not touch NFCC 4. all BCBot does is NFCC10c. As for DaB pages, they have not been considered allowable under policy. βcommand 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is a better place, the page in question has been written with countless lies. yes they are lies, because it has been pointed out that the comments in question are blatantly false. the users repeat them even after the issue is pointed out. the basis of the the page is mis-information and propigation of that same material. if the page in question was not based on those lies and attacks there would be no MfD. βcommand 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There needs to be a venue for discussion for this stuff that is not constantly in the public eye - i.e. AN/I. Orderinchaos 11:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Re. the comments about 'information/mis-information', for me personally, starting this page that everyone wants deleted was the first time I've seen any actual information on how BCBot (in it's very limited sense) actually "enforces NFCC10c", after reading numerous previous AN/ANI threads and flame wars on its talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Concerns over individual statements are one thing, but the primary purpose of this page is to address a problem with a bot on Wikipedia. As this bot makes thousands of edits, I would say it's a community concern as to its operation, and so if there are any problems, they merit discussion. This bot is run by a particular editor, but I couldn't see any especially offensive commentary on that editor on the page. (I could be missing something) Some people may have said he was rude or such, but I don't see anything that would merit deletion of the comment, let alone the page.  Instead, I'm seeing what to me, is a clear and transparent attempt to silence disagreement with the threat of deletion.   I suggest that anybody who has a problem with the content of this page consider other solutions.  If somebody's tone is offensive, suggest they try to be more civil.  If somebody says something false, correct them.  If they don't listen, accept that you can't always change people's minds.  However, deletion of a whole page, when there's at most a few comments with problems (and I'm being charitable here and assuming there are some), is a bad thing.   Deletion is a dangerous tool, and should be reserved for cases where there is no redeeming value whatsoever to the page.  This is not the case here.  You can say the people with a problem are wrong all you want.  Wrong in this case means in error, not that they're bad people whose words must be scourged from the page.  FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FrozenPurpleCube, the issue is not personal attacks. The issue is the page was created with numerious false statements that were knowingly made. Since the base of the page is mis-inforamtion, most of the conversation is based of that and is just plain false. βcommand 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no issue with personal attacks, then there's as I see it, there's no issue that warrants deletion of the page. If this was an article page, then knowingly having false statements is a problem.  It's not.  It's a discussion page, and the appropriate way to deal with false statements in such cases is to correct them by informing those making them of their error.  It would probably be best to be charitable and assume those making the false statements are misinformed, and attempt to educate them.  This is hard, I know, but you can't expect to convince people they're wrong if you start off on a hostile foot yourself.  Or continue with hostile responses, such as trying to get it deleted.  Another thing that it's important to recognize is that while you may feel something is untrue, and obviously so, from the perspective of another person, they may be interpreting things differently.  This should not be looked upon as a problem with them, but as a problem with perception.  Correcting a false perception is difficult, I know, but it can be done.  Just takes a little patience.  And slapping them with the equivalent of "I've told you you're wrong before many times" is unlikely to do that.   Still, you're welcome to dispute or refute the statements of others.  This does not include deletion of them.  That's censorship and coercion.  FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FrozenPurpleCube, AGF does not apply. they knowing pulled shit out of their ass, making claims that the bot was broken/ malfunctioning/violating policy without bothering to check their facts or listen to others comments. knowingly making false statements to make another user look bad is a reason to delete. with as much false information that is on the page, and the way that it was created shows that the page was not made in good faith. βcommand 20:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute any falsehoods if you like, but deleting them is again, too much to ask. I would suggest you be careful in how you choose your words though.  I doubt telling folks that they pulled shit out of their ass will convince them they're wrong.  Instead, it's more likely to appear that you're unwilling to work with them.   I know it's hard, I tell people they're mistaken several times and the number of people willing to admit their mistakes is distressingly small.  Frustrating for me too, but what can we do?  I'm lacking in trout.  FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Non-free content criteria compliance. Garion96 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong objection. On what basis is this statement: "The issue is the page was created with numerious false statements that were knowingly made" from betacommand being made? MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the related comment "they knowing pulled shit out of their ass". This is an unnacceptable defense, without base. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a clear (and unacceptable) personal attack. Orderinchaos 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to say it's a personal attack, rather than a bit of colorful speech. Regrettable perhaps, overzealous, but not quite a personal attack.  I would advise more moderate language, but wouldn't put in the realm of a personal attack.   FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of what makes a page an attack page
People continue to say that Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c is an "attack page". Please can those who think this is an attack page provide direct quotes from the page and say how an attack differs from strong or incorrect criticism. I'm asking this way because asking this question at various points above has not received a clear answer. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Bots which make thousands of edits should be held to a high standard of accountability and this page seems to be a good faith aspect of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 23 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.