Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group 2

Bots/Approvals group

 * 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 Speedy closed, we don't MfD guidelines or policies, and while this technically isn't such a page, the logic is clearly the same. Feel free to use a more appropriate venue for reform discussion. Non admin closing. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect some people to view this as controversial, but it’s something I’ve been considering doing for a while. Whilst I respect that bots on Wikipedia should be thoroughly vetted before being allowed to run, I honestly do not think that’s what the current process does. The technical aspects are reviewed, but I see all to often the community aspects of whether particular bot edits are wanted is not taken into account. They’ve tried different ideas of how to run things and how people can join BAG, but they don’t seem to be successful. I honestly feel that we no longer need a bot approval group – there can be a similar discussion as we have now, but perhaps with greater community involvement and an admin can simply close the discussion after a set period. Technically minded people will obviously review the bots and if there’s a problem, it would become apparent quickly, but by opening it up, it would allow more comments to be made on bots. I’m not nominating the process for deletion – we really do need to determine whether we want a bot before it runs, but we no-longer need a small subset of the community deciding if a bot should be allowed or not.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Wouldn't it be simpler (and more appropriate) to change policy from somewhere other than MFD? Or, am I missing something? SQL Query me!  02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think an RfC or other discussion would be a better venue for this discussion.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RfC isn't needed here, the talk page wouldn't get enough discussion, blah blah blah. Since people take the time to look at MfD this will go somewhere. Mønobi  03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - a community discussion about how it would like bot approvals handled may well be beneficial at this point, but per Ryan's comment. "I’m not nominating the process for deletion" - this seems an odd place to have that discussion. WjBscribe 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting deleting the process - just the group that approves them - admins would be better closing these discussions.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You say you're not nominating the process for deletion; it seems that way to me. We do not make policy changes at MfD. I suggest we close this. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The process can stay them same - just without the "selected" people closing the discussions.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Admins are the "selected people" closing AfDs, RfDs, MfDs, 'crats are the "selected people" closing RfAs, RfBs, etc. Likewise, BAG is the "selected people" to close brfas. 2) Not all admins have a clue about brfas. I wouldn't expect 80% to understand about the technical side of bots and programming, edit request, editing tokens, and such. 3) BAG is the last group of people we need to worry about :| . Mønobi  03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep—if and when there is a new process, then it might make sense to delete the page. —johndburger 02:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - No offense intended, but, I don't buy the "not trying to change/delete the process" bit. This isn't what MfD is supposed to be for IMO, and johndburger makes an excellent point. Put something together, and we'll discuss it the normal way, please. SQL Query me!  02:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What honestly is there to discuss? If people don't want BAG to continue, then it can be opened up to admins to close these discussions. No change to process, just a change to who closes them.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the things we might discuss are: (1) what to do if admins disagree on the outcome of a request, (2) how long requests should stay open - i.e. how to decide whether a request is controversial, (3) how to handle the review of bot approvals should consensus change later... WjBscribe 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We dont need more process wonk by having admins do yet another task. What's next, Bot Approval for Review? The community is perfectly able to decide on whether or not to run a bot. Mønobi  03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reform Have the BAG still, but just have them look over the tech side and approve that. Then have the community as a whole look over the task side. Also, to get rid of this "wait 10 months before you get approved to run said bot" have a 3 day max (unless it is something controversial) about trialling the bot. Mønobi  03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I support closing this immediately. Inappropriate given other proceedings on wiki, if not disruptive. Gimmetrow 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how is this disruptive? Do you honestly think it was my intention to disrupt Wikipedia with this nomination?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was intentional, but it could have that effect. There are multiple policy proposals and an Arb case ongoing. Gimmetrow 03:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most administrators don't have a clue about bots. Also, people don't want to give sysop to people who do bots, but rather those who write a lot of articles.  -- Cobi(t 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - the group does not do what they purport to do with regards to evaluating whether a task is appropriate. —Random832 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And comment - the page suggested for deletion is not WP:BRFA, which is a process, or WP:BOT, which is a policy - it's WP:BAG, which is neither. Do not close early. —Random832 03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Bot policy includes this group. So deleting this group would amend the policy, which is not done at MfD. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but we should not be the "judge if a bot task is there" - more or less technical grounds only. That being said, short of holding an RfA style !vote for bots - I don't see how anything can be more effective than current process -- Tawker (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Split BAG approves task technical functioning, Admins at RFA like process approve consensus existence. Stricter enforcement of BOT policy re: unapproved tasks.  MBisanz  talk 05:53, 19 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.