The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 reform. As with the Esperanza MFDs, the community has called for a "reconstruction", or "reformation", or whatever you want to call it. A discussion regarding the bot policy and BAG has already been initiated here, addressing the concerns raised in this MFD. Discussion there would help bring this matter to a close. If the Esperanza MFDs are any indication on what's to come, then reform must occur, lest another MFD spring up. Sean William 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that the closing statement did not say what I meant it to say, so I will rephrase it here as to more clearly put forth my interpretation. The result of the debate was keep, although some reform might be needed. If reform doesn't occur, I'm not going to hound anybody or promise the doom of the process via MFD. Que Será Será. If it works, who are we to complain? Sean William 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group[edit]

The group this page describes operates without community consensus and without regard to community consensus, operates a "fiefdom" and defends it vigorously. The Bot Approval Group is basically a closed clique that exercises far more power than is reasonable in the Wikipedia environment and should be replaced by a far less formal, less bureaucratic group; as such I recommend deletion of this page, and by extension the group it defines. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just request that if people think the group should cease operations, that the page be tagged as {{historical}} rather than deleted? It seems a tad ungrateful to the volunteers on BAG to erase them from Wikipedia history altogether. Thank you. --kingboyk 18:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and re-incarnate in community based form: I've engaged in discussion on their talk page trying to understand why there needs to be a group that is exclusionary. From what I've been able to gather, this group

1. Prevents people from having a vote on bot approvals (they seem to disagree...saying anyone can comment and has a voice...but if that's the case why is there a group to vote if anyone can vote on approvals?)
2. Indicate that approvals must have someone to close them, and the BAG members are authorized to do so. Why can't the community do so? We trust the community with forming consensus on our most precious resource, the mainspace, but not with bots? This is confusing.
3. Indicate that technical knowledge is important for bot approval. I fail to understand this. A person with absolutely no background in bot writing or indeed even code writing can make a legitimate, well reasoned point that a given Xbot might be bad because of Y. It doesn't take technical knowledge to have a legitimate opinion.
4. Have paradoxically indicated that membership is low, and creating this bureaucracy somehow solves this problem. I've asked about this a few times now, without answer. Looking at their talk page, there's 29 people contributing in the last three months. The group has 9 people. Why the extra bureaucracy to prevent 22 other people from having a say in bot approvals in the name of encouraging people to contribute and have a say? It's non-sensical.
5. Barring further review, it seems that the only people that can get on the BAG are those that receive unanimous (or nearly so) of the current members of BAG. This creates a neat little exclusionary fiefdom. This is rather alarming to me.

• In short, this group seems to have (perhaps over time) created a rather massive bureaucracy for itself that seems to be self-enforcing. I ran into this in heavy debates regarding clerking functions at WP:RFCU, WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. I find it interesting that a number of the arguments used in support of BAG are essentially the same arguments used in support of clerking functions at the previous mentioned places. We deprecated those clerking roles. I do not see what harm can be caused by deprecating the exclusionary BAG group in favor of a community group. --Durin 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to, or do you mind if I, number the sub points so they may be addressed individually? I believe you're right in some of the points you make but factually incorrect in others, you see :) --kingboyk 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done :) --Durin 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! With regards to point 1, anybody can take part in bot approvals, and folks other than BAG often do. Point 2, you are correct in how you describe the process; I can only presume that the bureacrats don't want to do the job themselves (they do the flagging after all). Why can't anybody close these discussions? I don't know! I've never examined any source code or had to make any technical decisions as a BAG member, and I'm not a Mediawiki dev anyway. Point 3, agree. Point 4, don't know. Point 5, it can look that way but it has nothing to do with hoarding power. Look at the people involved, these are all consensus-abiding, well-respected but low-key Wikipedians, doing a thankless task. Anybody is free to !vote on BAG membership but it seems most people don't care. Of course they do care when a bot goes apeshit though ;) :) --kingboyk 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re 1) Then why is an exclusionary group needed if anyone can participate? Re 5) If anyone is free to vote on BAG membership, and anyone is free to vote on bots, the only remaining reason seems that you need someone to make a decision. Well, the community can make that decision. I just can't get my head around how this group is an asset to the process. It seems quite the opposite; a hindrance to it. --Durin 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be the making the false assumption that I am defending the status quo :) I'm merely explaining to you how it works. I haven't decided yet if I support reform or of what sort. I don't think deletion is the way to go, though. --kingboyk 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, the BAG lives off community consensus, and will only approve a bot on the basis of such consensus. If consensus exsts to support a bot approval, and there is no technical reason to reject the request (and there are many such reasons possible, hence why a technically able BAG group are needed, to pick up on the neccessary points), it will be approved - as simple as. This nomination is, frankly, a solution in search of a problem. Martinp23 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See my note above; technical qualifications should not be a requirement to having a say on bot approval. But, the exclusionary group has decreed that this must be so. Thus, the technical view is emphasized over all other views. This is not good. --Durin 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you in your general point. You could be approving bots tommorow and I see no reason why you shouldn't. You've made a fair call there.

Let's make one thing absolutely clear however. I, and members who came after me such as martinp23 or ST47, have decreed nothing. Wikipedia policy grows organically, and, as such, BAG and the approval process became policy long before we joined. All we have done is join this group to help out (I, in fact, was poacher turned gamekeeper, as I joined not long after getting my own bot approved, because they were real short members at the time). If the community decides change is needed that's wonderful, but let's not get too carried away with "power" and "decrees" because it's really not like that.--kingboyk 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

• With respect, please review the comments made by others on all the relevant pages since CydeBot was blocked (probably the trigger for this nom, which is rather making a mountain out of a molehill). In any case, I absolutely hate it when only BAG members comment on a nomination, and every time a see a non-BAG user commenting, I mentally praise them. It is iterated everywhere that BRFA needs community input, but there is insufficient interest. Even if, as you suggest, a "more inofmral process" were to be instituted, a group of users would end up frequenting the pages, and effectively become a de-facto approvals group. Not good. Martinp23 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please explain to me how including the community is a "not good" thing? You've totally confused me. We trust our community with the encyclopedia itself. But, we can't trust them with bot approvals? Um,...uh...wow. --Durin 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have misread my comment (it probably wasn't clear) - it is most certainly not good to delete the BAG pages, allow a new system to appear (as you suggest), and allow that to acquire a guerilla "de facto" approvals group. I hope I've clarified the comment. Further - I really can't see any other system being effective at all - people just aren't interested in bot approvals, as a quick look at the number of community comments at BRFA should tell you. Martinp23 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that creating an exclusionary group that you have to be voted into creates a mini-cabal that is self enforcing and anti-Wikipedia. We're a community based effort, not a set of hundreds of fiefdoms. I don't have any problem with a group that oversees bots. I do have a problem when that group thinks it a good and right thing to create barriers to admission to that group. We're all equals here. Yet, the BAG makes certain others more equal. It encourages badge wearing, which can be seen on the userpages three of the nine current members of the BAG (you, User:Ram-Man and User:Xaosflux, upper right in all three cases. --Durin 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather like ArbCom, adminship, and bureacratship then. At least all of these cliques are open and well advertised, and anybody can apply, unlike some others. --kingboyk 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)Badge wearing? Virtually every organisation on Wikipedia has some userbox or icon to indicate membership, so why don't we delete them? I'm sorry - I fail to see your reasoning on this point... Martinp23 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is rediculous. My "badge" means nothing to me, other than as an otherwise useful description. If it was that big of a deal I'd remove it. I assure you that it's hardly prestigous, afterall coming under fire often is so fun (right). I also have an "admin" badge too, but I'm a firm believer that adminship is not a big deal. You can't make the assumption of my purposes because I have an icon on my user page! Good grief... -- RM 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This originally came about when Cyde was running a bot quite fast with developer permission, and didn't go through BAG at all. Excess process is bad and must always be culled. But there are good reasons for an eye on bots. I strongly suggest a seriously simplified rewrite of bot procedure with the present BAG and suitable devs (Greg Maxwell for sure) and probably Kelly as well - David Gerard 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC
  • Please allow me to refine the above comment. The incident with CydeBot is not what brought "this" about; it is merely what brought the nonconsensus nature of this group to the full attention of the broader Wikipedia community. Focus not on the trigger, and deal with the problem, lest you be rightfully accused of trying to shoot the messenger. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, yes, that was only the incident that made this clear. As Cyde said [1]: "I literally spent more time writing, figuring out, and filing the BRFA for the listification of categories task than I spent writing the actual bot itself." That's all the condemnation an excess piece of process needs - David Gerard 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would easily take less than 5 minutes to add a request for a new bot task. I can demonstrate if you'd like. It would take much longer to get approval, which is a totally different issue altogether. That is because community discussion is required. You can't argue that BAG is bad because we want more community discussion and then say that Cyde was ok because he avoided it entirely. You can't have it both ways, unless you are suggesting that we should eliminate approvals altogether. If that were the case, then that flies in the face of years of community consensus. -- RM 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment personally, I feel that community discussion on reforming bot policy would be great, and I understand that there is some discussion underway elsewhere anyway. However, an MfD is probably not the best answer to any problems - surely it's "not wiki" to delete, rather than to fix. Martinp23 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The group isn't policy. We're not talking about replacing policy. This is about deprecating the group. In my opinion, because it's become a self-enforcing bureaucracy. --Durin 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - I would be satisfied with a rename to the Bot Advisory Group, to better reflect that this group is advisory rather than regulatory in nature. The overreaching power-grab (whether or not in good faith) executed by this group is the main source of contention right now; a rename that acknowledges that this group is advisory would go a long way to rectify that problem. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support that, definitely. --kingboyk 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
• There are two issues in bot approval: (1) whether we want a certain task performed by a bot, (2) whether the bot is safe and will perform its task without serious errors. #1 should pretty clearly be decided by the community as a whole if it is not to be left up to individuals. #2 requires special expertise; a group of self-identified experts available for consultation may be helpful. Usually, the more important question is #1. Thus the bot-approval process ought to be community based. The bot approval group would be better reformed, per Kelly, as a group of trusted users prepared to examine code for errors rather than a decision-making body. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice to the idea of reforming it, possibly radically reforming it. I don't think MFD is appropriate here. --kingboyk 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For something as specialsed as bots, i wwant a group overseeing it. However, I would like to see some reform. Deleting something is not the way to change it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. BAG membership is intended to be a technical safeguard and to have the authority to determine consensus. The actual approvals themselves are open to everyone. But instead of pointing fingers, do you have an suggestions how to improve the real problem, lack of participation? No amount of process reform is going to get more people to be involved in a process that they don't care about. -- RM 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If we want to change the BAG approach to bot approvals, I'm not sure that this is the best forum to do so. There are so many possibilities besides hostile broad deletion. Replacing it with someone else is always a possibility. Personally, I think it works great (I'm obviously biased, but who isn't?). -- RM 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MfD is not the proper forum to resolve process disputes (just as it is not the place to resolve policy disputes). Eluchil404 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:Bots/Advisory group. This should become a non-binding technical assistance/commentary group. Since only bcrats can grant flags anyway, lets give the final approval to them (I know that some bots are approved and not flags, yes). That would remove a layer of bureaucracy for those bots that get flagged as well (as opposed to group -> crat). Oh, and elections should be open consensus discussion on WP:VP or WP:CN or such.Voice-of-All 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps we ought to ask the crats what they think? I know it's their "job" and we can "mandate" them to do it, but otoh I don't ever recall seeing crats complaining about BAG lessening their work load nor indeed that they do a bad job at it. --kingboyk 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As i've argued elsewhere, BAG members do a fine job of determining community consensus on bot issues and defer to the rest of the community when it is appropriate. The real issues are community participation (which you can't force people to do) and speed of approvals. With regards to the latter, if you make the bureaucrats determine consensus, you're only going to slow down the process and make it even more painful than it is now. You'll also make the process more elitist, because a smaller, less open group determines the result. -- RM 20:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I think BAG does a great job (and I mean the members who are left). I think they do a necessary job; I believe Wikipedia is sufficiently large and bots easy enough to acquire (they don't have to be written any more) that regulation is needed (ArbCom seems to agrees with me). I further believe that if the community really don't want bots to be regulated they're entitled to choose that option. What I think would be foolish is to imagine that we can let this be self-regulating like AFD, because the community really aren't that interested in taking part. I'm also wary about the role of IRC in this. Decisions should take place on wiki wherever possible. Furthermore, I don't see any disatisfaction from the crats at being able to delegate these decisions to BAG. All that said, I didn't and don't want to be associated with anything which looks like a smash and grab or empire building, one reason why I'd support Kelly's proposal for a change to an "advisory" group. --kingboyk 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the bureaucrats be willing to look at source code? Do all of them have the technical expertise to do so? If they don't, then essentially the 'crats would go back and look at what the BAG said, to see whether it is ok to close or not. Or hey, even better... grant makebot rights to all BAG members, and the bureaucrats are out of the equation. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is codified in the bot policy, and MfD is not the appropriate venue to change policy. -Amarkov moo! 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What speedy keep criterion would you be referring to? --Iamunknown 09:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and perhaps modify the membership requirements so that anyone can join without approval. I don't think BAG is making any sort of "power grab". I do support changing the name to "Advisory group" instead, however. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  People have been denied membership to BAG because they don't contribute to the community portion of approvals. Virtually everyone else has been approved unanimously. After instructions to "contribute to approvals and come back later for membership", many chose not even to do that. It seems that helping out is too tough of a requirement. -- RM 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Christopher Parham has the right analysis; function #2 is why WP has a BAG, and that oversight of technical aspects is not something that I'd feeling comfortable living to the wide community. My guess is that the community didn't feel right exercising that function either, as I suspect that is why BAG came into existence. Deleting the whole thing is neither prudent nor useful. Reform is to be discussed at the BAG talk, at an RfC, or a Centralized Discussion, and is outside the realm of MfD. Xoloz 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The BAG offers Wikipedia an important service, it has my support and I hope it will continue its hard work. CharonX/talk 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this should be discussed on appropriate policy pages, not on MFD. It is stated on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Prerequisites that "nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." *** Crotalus *** 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note the word "probably". I don't think in this case an MFD is disruptive, even if it's the wrong venue (which it is); the above discussion seems constructive and useful to me, which is more than can be said for some of the name calling that went before it. --kingboyk 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator points out that the mainspace is our most precious commodity. A bot can make hundreds of edits an hour which could detrimentally affect the project. Something like this requires a tight rigorous approval process. Nardman1 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the charge that this group operates without regard to community concensus is preposterous if you've ever watched it in action. Mike Dillon 02:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with the premise of the nomination. Bots relate to the inner workings of Wikipedia, so they don't need broad community consensus. They need to be approved by a group of experts who understand how they will work. I wouldn't want to touch the BAG with a ten-foot pole. I have no idea how these little creatures work, and I'd only cause trouble if I tried to get involved. YechielMan 04:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite The group is required, I don't think the general community is qualified to judge if a bot is likely to malfunction. It should, however, be seriously reformed. I'm not quite sure what to, though. The people most qualified to determine if someone is qualified to be in BAG are the existing members of BAG, but a group that controls its own membership is really a cabal. --Tango 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't control it's own membership. That's totally and utterly incorrect. There's a discussion/!vote which anybody can take part in (and non-members do take part). If the support is unanimous or near-unanimous they're appointed. If there's any doubt, a bureacrat can be called in to make the decision. I'm not against change but to say this is a self-appointing cabal is to believe some (probably deliberately spread) misinformation. --kingboyk 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misinterpreted me. I was talking about how it would work after it was reformed. --Tango 17:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah I see. I think I would answer, then, that I see the community as able to decide who is on the group, if it wants a group. A self-appointing cabal really wouldn't be in line with what we stand for here. Sorry about the misunderstanding though! --kingboyk 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The community struggles with selecting admins, and that isn't a role that requires technical qualifications. I fear we would end up with people on BAG that don't know what they're doing if the community had the sole say in who got in. We could have it so applicants need the approval of the community *and* the BAG to become a member, but that doesn't solve the cabal problem completely. --Tango 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reform as problems are pointed out. There is "anybody can do this stuff" and "anybody can come to the table (discuss/vote/participate)". The second statement is not disputed and obviously prized. This discussion reinforcing that truth for BAG, what else needs fixing? However, having seen the first statement a couple times now it seems to be motivated by a push to do away with all bureaucracies, self-identified focus groups, or anything that "gets in the way of 'us'". Well, bots make me worried, especially when it is not clear when/whether they are being misused, as we have seen recently (previous to the Cyde incident). I quite like the idea of a group that is knowledgable about the issue. What has distressed me most reading about the recent Cydebot incident was the apparent lack of communication by/with those who say they know more. Where did this go wrong? How is it that the BAG people weren't given the orientation/overview/basic guidance they needed? I would really like both 'sides' to remedy this. Shenme 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Don't normally vote on these things, but I've seen enough bots doing pointless formatting changes that there should be lots of caution in using them. Oppose a rename as well; bots should be approved not merely "advised," considering that bots running amok get banned. Stick lots of hurdles in front of them; only bots that can leap them all should be allowed to run. 72.75.153.117 02:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reform Although in theory we shouldn't bring things like this to MfD, I think Kelly Martin has done the right thing. It's a bit strange, but some big changes have been more efficiently hammered out on MfD than on that page's talk page. But hey, that's a reform for another day. We do need a balance between "less formal, less bureaucratic" and still having somewhat strict bot requirements, and this is getting enough notice from the community to do just that. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This MfD appears to have been brought without any real discussion with BAG or about BAG by the community. Do we need BAG- in my opinion yes, we need to recognise users who have sufficient expertise in Bot operation to be able to recommend flagging (or not) to the bureaucrats. Perhaps the group should be more open, perhaps Bot policy should be relaxed. These things can all be done once they have been properly discussed. But in my opinion BAG fulfills a useful role and its members do a good job. I agree that "Bot Advisory Group" may be a sensible rename. WjBscribe 05:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Having gathered some ideas found here, I have proposed a bot policy rewrite. Comments are welcome. Миша13 09:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. RATIONALE:. What's being proposed it's not that anyone can run any bot at any time. IT's being proposed that a committee won't hold the ultimate power to decide what bots and what not. Any experienced wikipedian should be able to chime in (like in AFD, RFA). The current setup leaves all the bots decissions into a dozen hands, which, may be experienced, but certainly are not the only ones, but since you must be elected by the BAG to belong to the BAG, it's become an elite clique holding real power leaving out most of the experienced community out of the decission process.

This should be handled in 2 ways. First a noticeboard/consult where all the wikipedians can comment. Then Bureaucrats (who ARE the ones who can grant bot status) will close the discussions (after all past year it was requested by bureaucrats that they should handle bot status and it was granted, so now they should handle it). Bureaucrats are elected by community unlike BAG, which is self elected (and thus really cliqueish).

My point in short. Experienced wikipedians should have a say on what bots run and what bots not. Yes. But any experienced wikipedian, not a closed self perpetuating committee. (Think of what would be of RFA if only a dozen non-bureaucrats users hold the power to decide who will be sysop and who not, and moreover, only they decide who else can join in having that power). -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 13:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the debate did you? :) BAG members aren't "elected by BAG members", the process is open to the community. The bureacrats do the actual flagging too. --kingboyk 13:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. MfD doesn't seem appropriate here. As I recall when similar discussions happened a year ago, the community supported that bots needed some form of approval. I don't find the current approval process "bureaucratic" or exclusionary, nor do I find the recent Cydebot situation to be a failure in the BAG system. What it shows is that bot operators need to communicate with the community as a whole on-wiki, and perhaps that there should be an on-wiki "quick approval" process, as RM suggested back in March. So far, I have not seen anyone claim any sort of adverse discrimination by the BAG "clique", so it seems a bit odd comparing this to some imagined RFA decided by a cabal of 12 angry men. Gimmetrow 13:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disband, then re-band as a volunteer corps prepared to examine code before it goes live. Operate on the assumption that if a volunteer of the Bot Advisory Group says on ANI that a bot is runnign - or is about to run - that they believe is likely to cause trouble that someone will block it pending further resolution. (This would be almost a model, preventative block). How to handle cases where someone like a certain arbitration subject just does things wrongly because no-one checked? Well, they'll get blocked still. Certainly, the arrogation of power to a clique isn't the way to do it. As an aside, deplore the apalling communication from another clique, off-wiki, to those who were actually working on an issue on-wiki, and deprecate the notion that they appear to have been expected to divine this fiat by some sixth sense they appear not to possess. Splash - tk 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the bot policy is dependant on an approved status for bots, without this group that process no longer stands up. The way to address this is to either (a) work to rebuild the current approval group/process in line with community expectations (b) change the policy to require no such approval (making this discussion moot) (c) change the policy to require a different approval basis (also potentially making this discussion moot) --pgk 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unnecessary bureaucracy and process should not be tolerated, true, but BAG has a useful purpose (if people feel reform is necessary, then it should be reformed, but not just disbanded). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Technical approval on bot is a very good idea. Actually, it seems that BAG is working properly. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 20:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I like the idea of the rename, however, if only for accuracy, since it requres at least a bureaucrat to flag a bot. Approving a bot to be approved? Advising that a bot be approved? I prefer the latter as more accurate, and clearer. - jc37 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss possible reform/improvemetn on a proierp talk page, which this isn't. it seesm to em that there are three questions about any particualr bot. 1) Does the community want the particualr task proformed by an authormated process; 2) Is there a technical reason why such authomation would cause a problem; 3) Is there a technical reason why the particualr scropt is unsafe or untrustworthy. Question 1 is an issue for community consensus. Questions 2 & 3 reqyuire specific technical expertises. It seems to em that there should be open discussions of question 1 in each case, with the BAG or some simialr group having the ability to veto if there is a negative answer to 2 or 3. But all that should be discussed elsewhere. Bots should not, IMO normally run without approval. DES ^(talk) 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reduce Power - The BAG is essentially a good thing, as people who know what they are doing should definitely get a voice in what bots get approved and not approved. However, it's not an excuse for community consensus. I therefore would like to see the BAG be reduced to an advisory group that will be able to take part in discussion but not have power over it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What power are you referring to? BAG does seek community consensus in all of its actions. Just a read above will assure you that in this sampling of the community, the majority want a specialized group performing the approvals. Aside from this sample, actual practice shows that most of the community does not desire additional input beyond BAG for bots. If BAG has no power to enforce its recommendations, what's the point? Reducing it to an advisory group would either destroy the process or be a name change with no actual change of process. I don't want to spend hours of volunteer effort if it's purely advisory and can be overriden on a whim. This whole idea behind an advisory group sounds interesting in theory, but it doesn't make sense between what the community wants and how the community acts towards bot approvals. I have to wonder how many people talking about the change of name have even bothered to see how BAG actually operates. Let me list the main BAG tasks:

1. Community-based approvals open to everyone (~90% of the work)
2. Determining consensus after discussions have closed (~5% of the work)
3. Having the technical understanding or experience and policy understanding to override or temporarily block community approval in certain situations. (~5% of the work)

The community has spoken loudly in support of #3 and the only other proposed solutions to #2 are to either have a bureaucrat do it, which restricts community input even more and adds to the bureaucrats' work burden, or to eliminate it entirely (which is anarchy). If you believe that #1 is not open to the community, you have not done your research and are wildly misinformed. -- RM 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.