Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 12 May 2008

• WT:B

This is not the place to request a bot, request approval to run a bot, or to complain about an individual bot To request that a bot be created, see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. To request approval to run a bot, see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval. Bot operators should be contacted at their user discussion page. If a bot appears to be malfunctioning and the operator does not respond, contact an administrator.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19
Control proposals
Archive policy
Archive interwiki (also some approvals for interwiki bots)

Moving forward

It is very noticeable how quickly this page lapses from frantic and heated debate back into quiet obscurity. It seems clear that the sweeping changes to the RfBAG process suggested by Coren have not thus far gained consensus as a complete package. But it would be a great shame to lose all the valuable talking points that the experiment has raised to the habitual apathy that surrounds WP:BOT. So while there's clearly currently no consensus to implement the RfA-style RfBAG in its entirety, I don't think it's fair to say that the proposal is completley dead, and I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on indivdual issues like the ones below. Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the current RfBAG process even broken?

I for one think that it is: The four RfBAG nominations we have closed have more contributions than all the nominations that have occured at WT:BAG, past and present, successful and not. I was genuinely shocked to see that Coren had been first appointed to BAG based on a discussion with only two comments in it. Levels of insularity like that (contributions from existing BAG members made up an average of almost 70% of comments at the WT:BAG nominations for Werdna, Soxred93, Cobi and Coren) are (IMO) the root cause of the community's legitimate accusations of cabalism and isolation. There are some more interesting statistics at User:Happy-melon/RfBAG statistics if you're interested in that kind of thing. But I'm interested to hear what other bot operators think (it's unlikely we'll see anyone else at this page, but if you do happen to wander in I'd be particularly interested in non-bot-operator opinions). Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noted on MZMcBride's RfBAG nomination that I feel the old method is simply not widely enough advertised. A single line on AN is easily missed. There is a certain amount of outright hostility from current members of the BAG to the listing on RFA, but I think that if you compare the nomination types, that the difference in consensus-building is clear. Perhaps a hybrid method, with a notification of the listing on the RFA page, and a listing on WT:BAG would be a compromise? AKAF (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "current" you mean the long standing method of placing nominations at WT:BAG and closing them after a relatively short time, then yes, it's broken. BAG needs as much outside community input as possible to remain objective and to avoid issues of cabalism. While I'm no fan of RFA, in the absence of a better method, I think that's our best hope for getting the community involved. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What went wrong with the RfA-style RfBAG?

I have to say I wasn't very impressed with the process-protest votes on Coren's RfA-style RfBAG, but it didn't affect the result, so no harm done. I do think the RfA-based process has some legitimate concerns, which of course mirror the criticims of RfA itself. But in terms of increasing community involvement in the BAG and BRFA processes, I would personally consider it a success: an average of only 29% contributions from bot operators, and less than 10% from BAG (the four corresponding WT:BAG nominations, by contrast, didn't have a single non-bot-operator contribution between them). We've all heard the arguments and opinions for and against the RfA-based process, so no need to rehash them here; but what conclusions can be drawn from this experiment that are relevant to the question of how to appoint BAG members? Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for BAG membership/Ilmari Karonen is a perfect example of how screwed up RfA style elections are. the user in question has support but no experiance with the bot approval process. right now its about 66% approval, which is in the bcrat discression range. if Ilmari gets elected it will be a discrace. β 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the continuing complaints (whether its true or not) about the BAG is that the members tend to be coding gurus, but distinctly subpar when it comes to communication, understanding community norms and consensus building. I think that there are quite a lot of people who would like to see some new members of the BAG who are stronger in the communication stakes, even if it means being weaker on the coding side. Understandably, this view has not met with great support within the current BAG. In the particular case you mention, it is a user who is a mediawiki developer, en-administrator and sometime bot operator. It is far from clear to me that the user is fundamentally unqualified, although I also initially opposed. I would not directly support Ilmari's application, but I think that the wider community has other minimum standards, particularly regarding communication, than does the traditional BAG member. AKAF (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think programming skills are required, but being previously active in BRFAs are. you obviously have zero clue about bots or how they should be run. being active in BRFA is required to be a member of BAG. The community should have standards of experiance with bot related matters, if they dont that is a problem. β 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to re-read your comment and think about whether it reaches the community minimum standard for communication skills.AKAF (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Some think BAG should only review the technical side of bots. I think BAG should not merely make a technical review, but should also determine if a task has consensus and complies with other non-bot policies. BAG doesn't deny spellchecker bots simply due to technical weaknesses of some script. As far as I'm concerned, someone with a wide knowledge of policy is welcome on BAG without any coding skills. However, there are precedents at bot approvals that BAG members ought to know about, and the way to learn those is to participate for a while before trying to join BAG. Anyone is welcome to comment on a BRFA. Someone who does that for a few months is likely to get support from the existing BAG should they desire to join it. Gimmetrow 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This presupposes that the support of the existing BAG is a desirable precondition in the case where there has been considerable community dissatisfaction with the current operating procedure. I think that the optimum would be more community input on bot approvals, but in the absence of that, community representatives on the BAG. AKAF (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing RfBAGs

It has been suggested that, wherever RfBAGs are held and whoever is involved, that the discussion should be closed by a bureaucrat as a point of principle. This strikes me as good common sense: evaluating consensus and being impartial arbitrators is what 'crats are for, and it's the simplest and easiest way to increase the transparency of the process and mitigate claims of cabalism. Having the final decision whether to admit a member to a group, rest with the existing members of that group, is what happens in English gentlemen's clubs, not in a modern community like Misplaced Pages. Asking the 'crats to close half a dozen discussions a year (most of which are unanimous anyway and need little more than a passing glance) is no extra work for them in the greater scheme of things, and has a significant psychological benefit. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

that is how it should have been on anything but 100% approval. Bcrats asked BAG not to bother them when it was that clear cut. β 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get one to last time, and, the 2 or 3 I asked, declined to do so. SQL 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's (IMO) very irresponsible of them. It's not like they have so much on their plate that they can't close one discussion. Happy‑melon 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Do we have a diff for that? A lot of what goes on in and around BAG is based on precedent and on assumptions that in fact turn out to be baseless. As I said on WT:BAG, I don't have a problem with that, per se, but it's that transparency issue again: let's be perfectly clear, in our own minds and in public, which parts of BAG and BRFA operations are actually rooted in policy/process/consensus, and which we just do because they seem to work and no one complains.

I think another issue is the distinction between "unanimous" and "clear-cut": would a bureaucrat close as successful an RfBAG which was unanimous but had only two comments? Should such a nomination be closed as successful? In my opinion, based on the spirit of things like meta:The Wrong Version and WP:DEADLINE as well as WP:SILENCE, is that the agreement of two users does not constitute consensus in things like user rights polls; and so Coren's RfBAG should not have been closed as successful with only two contributors. Happy‑melon 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, there were a few recently with 2-3 editors commenting, that passed. In my mind, that's probably a little weak of a response for a successful nom... Maybe we should have a minimum amount of editors commenting (as a condition for close), and leave the discussion open longer? SQL 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Should BAG be able to flag bots?

It's been suggested before: should BAG members be made into a usergroup which can use Special:Userrights to grant and revoke the bot flag? Personally, I would support such a move: it is already the case that BAG have complete authority over who gets the flag and when; having to have a 'crat rubber stamp it is a thoroughly ineffective check-and-balance when most of our bureaucrats don't know beans about bots - how are they supposed to know when a BAG member is making a mistake? I think that a compelling argument is that it will give BAG another tool with which to control wayward bots: currently having the bot flag withdrawn is an unnecessarily laborious process which is rarely used: bots are simply blocked instead, which is at best a blunt instrument. Of the over 100 bot-related rights changes this year, only one was a deflagging without the consent of the operator. What does everyone else think? A useful tool in the armoury of the people who are supposed to protect us against wayward bots? A natural extension of BAG's role? Or more trouble than it's worth? Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion, is that BAG should be more of an 'advisory' role than it presently is. We should still close and evaluate the BRFA's as we do now, but, I do not believe that the Crats should blindly flag on our word. I firmly believe that the crats should be the last check/balance on the process. Just my $0.02 however. SQL 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot approvals existed before bureaucrats had the ability to flag bots. Bot approvals is not something delegated by 'crats, and 'crats did not really oversee BAG, except that for a long time a 'crat was on BAG. Gimmetrow 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

I think this has certainly been an interesting experiment. If there's one thing that has been shown very clearly, it's the level of inertia and apathy that surrounds bot policies and processes on wikipedia. I don't think I've yet met anyone who is entirely happy with the way BRFA and BAG work on en.wiki (if you are, do speak up!), and I hope we can avoid getting into the same rut that has caught so many of our processes: where everyone agrees that it doesn't really work, but goes along with it anyway. There's no reason (other than apathy) why we can't change one little thing at a time and make gradual improvements; conversely, there's no reason not to try big changes as long as we're sensible with them. I'm very interested to hear other users' thoughts on the whole issue. Happy‑melon 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

This page has been protected for 5 days, community policy pages are not the place for reversion cycles, this discussion of the WP:BAG section should continue either here or at one of the other active venues (with a link to it from here). — xaosflux 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is already at the wrong version. — xaosflux 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. The only right version is the one immediately after my rewrite back in January :) Gurch (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is presently no method for joining the Bot Approvals Group which has consensus"

Ugh. It is not "My way or the highway". Please stop trying to confuse the issues, by now claiming that the previous version does not have consensus. I would suggest that it be reverted back, to the way it was before the "new (experiment) (trial version) (policy) proposal". Please address the old version seperately. SQL 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the debate, however. If the new method (which I dislike) hasn't got consensus (which I think is the case), then the old method is automatically in place. The fact that we have kindly asked some users not to submit their applications at the moment has nothing to do with the consensus. It was a polite request, not a policy statement. Snowolf 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not my way or the highway, but the old method is broken and there's a reasonable amount of support for something besides that (though we can't seem to agree on what). Maintaining the status quo, which IMO is simply enhancing this self selecting cabal, is totally unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's settle this

Apparently since the propensity toward edit warring is irresistible for some, for the final time: let's settle this. Apparently people are disagreeing over whether or not consensus is or was not established, as well as whether it is still present or not. Thus, in order to help this along, I've made an outline of the key points and what people believe is or is not reflective of consensus. And, in this particular instance, a vote to determine just what, exactly, they think consensus is, I feel that it's entirely appropriate due to the points being relatively straightforward— it's a simple "yeah, there was consensus" or "no, there wasn't consensus." The details can be sorted out later.

I've added several points. Sign on any that you support, and feel free to add your own re-wordings in a new section at the end, but please do not modify the existing headers of others. This is not a policy vote— this is merely trying to establish points of reference to so that actual policy decisions as well as the current policy can be reflected accurately; for, if we can't agree on just what consensus is, then how, exactly, are we supposed to edit the policy page to state it? :P --slakr 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's telling that you'll go through the trouble to set up a "vote" but when it comes time to discuss the issue you folks all disappear. I'll never really understand that... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment This section suffers from the problem that the BAG continues to define consensus differently to the rest of the wiki. If three members of the BAG discuss something on a subpage of the bot approvals page, which is archived after 12 hours, the rest of the wiki would perhaps not agree that consensus has been achieved. One thing which I see as a continuing problem is the general poor organisation of the BAG pages, with similar discussions occurring on several talk pages. Is there perhaps a way to help centralise such discussions? AKAF (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, which sections or pages exactly, are archived after 12 hours? SQL 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that the appropriate page for discussing WP:BOT is WT:BOT. Gimmetrow 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None, I was using hyperbole. Point is, most current BAG policy discussions suffer badly from low turnout. It reflects poorly on the BAG when policy is decided, without a single comment from outside the BAG. How can this be improved? I'm not sure, but I'm thinking maybe redirecting WT:Bot_policy, WT:Creating_a_bot, WT:BAG, WT:BRFA, WT:Bots/Status to a single point (like WP:BON) would help, since an interested party would have to monitor all of those, plus AN and ANI to keep an eye on BAG policy discussions. (or perhaps to here, as Gimmetrow suggests) AKAF (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what approach is taken, because I know that in the end, it's not guaranteed to be harmful to the project to have either method or even no method at all. What I do know is that edit warring on any page— especially policy pages— is detrimental to the project. So, call it what you may, but this was by far the most neutral way I could think of to try to pull the vast sea of discussion seen above (now reaching 160 kb) into something from which people can move forth. As I said before, this serves as neither a policy vote nor final say on anything— it's merely a lens for facilitating productive edits and discussion. And, while I've been involved in the dicussion prior to this, I'm now more concerned that we stop edit warring over anything else.

As a side note, I have a real life job and other real life commitments, and while I and other editors might "disappear" from discussion, especially during the same time as we stop doing a lot of other work, it by no means should ever be taken to mean that an editor is apathetic in the affairs of the community and the encyclopedia as a whole. I truly wish we got paid to do this 24/7. Truly, I do. Sadly, however, we don't. Moreover, regular contributors to the encyclopedia aren't single-purpose accounts, so if they do a drive-by on a talk page to state their opinions (instead of hovering over it), I'm of the opinion that it should not be construed to mean that they're not personally-invested enough in the encyclopedia and/or the topic that their opinions should be rendered any less valid. --slakr 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed points of consensus/non-consensus

1. The prior method of selecting the Bot Approvals Group (e.g., ) in the past...

Had consensus

1. I'll bite. SQL 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. In the past, it had consensus, the kind of consensus that comes about when most people don't care. Now that we've seen how the BAG can grow out of control, though, there's a reason to care. This is why things have changed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3. I Agree with Rspeer. No one really cared apart from bag members and the more active bot ops --Chris 12:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did not have consensus

1. Unless a handful of people on an obscure page reflects community consensus... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Based on this MfD, closed as "Keep (reform)", I'm not aware of a particular consensus as opposed to inertia. Franamax (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Too few persons, plus keep(reform) MfD. I've been trying to find a word for this, but maybe it would be best to describe the old system as being tolerated as long as no waves were made. By the time of the first betacommand RfAr, at the latest, this was no longer true. AKAF (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
4. The only consensus it could be described to have is that of obscurity and apathy. — Coren  15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. This is not consensus Monobi (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The prior method of selecting the Bot Approvals Group (e.g., ) currently...

Continues to have consensus

1. Obvious. SQL 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have lost consensus

1. Obvious. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Depends, of course, on your definition of consensus and who is allowed to participate in determination thereof. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3. To say it hasn't lost consensus, you'd have to disregard basically everyone outside the BAG who has commented here. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Most definitely. Happy‑melon 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Except among the current BAG members. AKAF (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
6. I see more participation in the current requests, and I dont hear any outrage. reformation complete. --John Vandenberg 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
7. There is to much disagreement for there to be consensus --Chris 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Pretty much by definition. — Coren  15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3. The changes, themselves, to the policy page regarding the Bot Approvals Group selection process (e.g., )...

Currently have consensus

Currently do not have consensus

1. My interpertation. I am an involved party and reserve the right to be wrong. SQL 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. The only people seemingly actively fighting this are regulars of these pages. Which just demonstrates the disconnect between the community and the BAG IMHO. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Apparently do not have consensus, though I'm mystified why a piece of text beginning with "a currently proposed method" would be so contentious, especially when the proposed method is in fact current and has gained wide participation. Of course, the best way to put out a fire is to stomp on it hard. Franamax (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
4. It would be unreasonable to expect a consensus already when changing a contentious policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. As SQL. AKAF (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
6. No more changes until an agreement is reached --Chris 12:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

4. The newly-proposed process for Bot Approvals Group selection (e.g., )...

Currently has consensus

1. Given the large amount of participation, for something "not having consensus", a lot of people sure seem to get involved (as opposed to the older method, which usually manages a handful of folks, mostly existing members of BAG (furthering the self selection/cabal aspect of it all). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Actual community participation would indicate consensus. The turnout of editors opposed to the process, participating in the process, somewhat puts the boots to claims of no consensus. If you participate, it's a little difficult to claim that no-one wants to participate. Franamax (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Lots of people participate in these nominations. Only SQL, apparently, participates in the old kind. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I note, that not one of you so far has demonstrated that it has consensus, merely that a new process, that's transcluded to a very high traffic page, was participated in *gasp*, really? Nice touch however, mentioning me specifically. Can't say accurate (heck, you yourself participated in one prior to directly after this?), but, amusing nonetheless. SQL 09:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   The intention appears to be that a consensus is demonstrated here by the number of people who profess support for it. Happy‑melon 09:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Leaving aside any personal drahmaz, inspection of the seven current prefix-pages at RfBAG shows 191-28-13. The highwater mark is Cobi at 43-0-0, which could show Cobi's extreme sock-proficiency, or could show fairly conclusive evidence of relatively wide participation in the proposed process. Is there a demonstrated existing BAG member vote with 43 participants? This comes down to the definition of "demonstrated consensus", now I'm getting flashbacks to rollback. Franamax (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Per Locke Cole: there was a suspiciously large amount of involvement for a process without consensus. I thought it was particularly ironic to see that those who opposed the process still got involved, just to make their opinions on the process known! Happy‑melon 09:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Perhaps "support" would be better. Certainly from persons outside the usual bot policy suspects, the RFA method has consensus. Has the BAG had a vote? If I could see that 10 or more BAG members could agree on one or the other, that would at least be a start. AKAF (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Personally, I am glad to see BAG nominations being put on the main requests page, as BAG members act as buffer between the community and would-be operators whose bots could cause more harm than good (and hopefully they continue to be a guide to these operators so that the bots are improved).
   The community has demonstrated with higher participation in the current BAG requests that it is interested in who is selected for this role, and approves of the format; the community has a right to expect that this buffer is keenly aware of the community expectations of bot operators. John Vandenberg 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Insofar as we define "consensus" as "the community at large (as opposed to editors here) appears to find it acceptable", then yes it has consensus. — Coren  15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently does not have consensus

1. As per #3 SQL 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. There have been objections since it was first proposed, which have never been resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Because the objections are ridiculous in nature. We're getting much better community involvement in BAG member selection and some people seem to think this is something that needs "fixing". Lunacy! More community involvement should never, ever be discouraged or avoided. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Hell no it does not have consensus, it was forced without discussion and is broken. β 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   How is it broken? (links will be fine; I couldnt quickly see any problems when I scanned this talk page for the first time about 10 mins ago) John Vandenberg 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Second the motion. Diffs please on the issue of being broken? Franamax (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   you want to know how RfX is broken? ask Riana, Anticrist, or see Misplaced Pages:Requests for BAG membership/Ilmari Karonen a user who has zero prior bot related activity, save for a un-authorized bot that he ran for under 50 edits. Ilmari should have been a speedy closed because he shouldnt have even thought about running. Ive seen several users who have no prior experiance with bots and have an anti-bot attitude attempt to force their POV and dictate policy. BAG never has been and never should be a vote. all voting does is draw out the users who have no clue what they are talking about, who have hopes of being able to control things that they have no clue about. β 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Want to know why the BAG is seen as insular, cabalistic and out of touch with community standards? Look no further than this comment. Betacommand, if you could please refrain from the phrase "no clue what they are talking about" and AGF for a day, I'm sure we'll all be happy. The fact that the RFBM above didn't go in a fashion which you liked, is not proof that its broken. It is far from clear to me that an experienced user who is a mediawiki developer, en-administrator and sometime bot operator is fundamentally unqualified to be on the BAG. Further, if you say that the new method is no more broken than RFA/RFB (for which a community consensus exists) then where's your logic that it's broken? AKAF (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Its a hell of a lot more broken, than RfA. someone should not be administoring something that have not been involved with. I will not refrain from saying the truth. 98% of people who vote at RfX have no clue about bots or bot policy. Ilmari's RfX is the same as giving a user with 0 edits +sysop. this RfBAG is a pure vote, if you think otherwise your lying to yourself. BAG and bots should NEVER be about votes. Bots are not a popularity contest, which this voting will turn it into. When first proposed Anti-vandal bots did not have what you would call "community consensus" in fact people did not like them, BAG made a tough call that was based on discussion, and guess what? when the AVB's go down people now complain. when voting is introduced people tend to become gutless and dont want to make the tough calls. What should be implimented is a transcluded discussion, (NOTE NOT A VOTE) on WT:BRFA, WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:VPT. discussions are more productive than voting. β 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   The transcluded discussion is actually a pretty good idea. It would give the discussion the visibility which it's been lacking up to now. Is it workable? AKAF (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Its workable, and it actually will be productive and non-vote based. I am a very logical and reasonable person, Ive seen very very few votes that actually do anything productive. I dont have time at the moment to work out the logistics, but a WP:BAG/USERNAME page that is then transcluded as a discussion would should be workable. β 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   One need not be involved with something to understand it by being a lurker or reading up on prior discussions. His lack of involvement isn't a problem in mine (or seemingly the communities) opinion. It's regrettable you think your opinion on this matter transcends community consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

4. As I have stated before there is to much disagreement for there to be consensus for any of the process --Chris 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Just because people used it does not mean it has consensus for us to continue using it. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not consensus. Monobi (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus schmonsensus

1. Gurch (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

T00 many opshunz 2 ch00z from

1. Миша13 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent nominations

Why discuss an obvious issue with the BAG member selection method when you can just continue to prove that it's woefully broken. Do you have no idea how bad it looks for members of BAG to be "nominating" people who share their views on BAG member selection (I'm specifically talking about krimpet's nomination: the person who called for a moratorium because of some unforeseen "chaos"). Is there any chance BAG will actually give a little here and stop the cabal activities, or are we heading back towards MFD since reform seems to be impossible? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If we could, I'd prefer to keep the personal attacks, and bad faith to a minimum, please. SQL 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've personally displayed exceptional patience (and good faith) considering BAG members continue to support a selection method that excludes the community (in the face of an option which has included more community input than all previous BAG member nominations combined). Maybe instead of acting like things are business as usual you could respect the fact that there is an ongoing unresolved dispute over the manner of BAG member selection. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary conflicts with your statement, so, I'm supposed to put my head in the sand then? SQL 07:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary reflects how you're behaving right now, nominating people who agree with your preferred method (or disagree with the new RFA-style method) is just really bad during a dispute like this. Unless it's your intent to generate backlash and further accusations of cabalism, if so, good job. You're convincing me. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's OK, for those that agree with the RFA method, to run there, but not OK, for other people to run at other perfectly acceptable locations. (I'm glad to see as well, that good faith has been assumed, that I'd only do so for political betterment, and not that I felt that those users would be a net benefit to the project in that position. Thanks!) SQL 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Good faith is not some unlimited commodity that you can constantly use and call upon as needed. You've repeatedly made it clear that you're hostile towards any method other than what's in use now: further inflaming things is not helpful. As to your other comments, well, it's pretty obvious you're wrong since 1) a reasonable portion of those who submitted themselves to the RfBAG process didn't seem to voice an opinion one way or the other, and 2) at least one of the RfBAG participants (prior to the unnecessary "moratorium" because of all that incredible "chaos") was strictly opposed to RfBAG IIRC. So yeah.. let's try this again. Please suspend your cabal activities and help find something that involves the community (or maybe just relent and accept that RfBAG does involve more of the community, ergo it's a good thing). Please? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(indeterminate undent) I don't agree with LC's combative attitude, although it may be a result of frustration, but let's cool down here and keep the TLA's to a minimum please? I have to say I'm a little disquieted at seeing these nominations appearing on bot group pages, in particular nominating the admin who put the moratorium on the well-attended RFBAG applications. I would not be in opposition at all to either of Krimpet or MBisanz, but the perceptions here are not good. The effort to bring community input to BAG member approvals is soundly without consensus, but now there is another method to bring community input, the one favoured by the existing BAG? That doesn't look good. I have specifically not made any input on the membership requests on pages starting with "Bot" as my understanding is that BAG is self-selecting.

We also have the problem that for either of Krimpet or MBisanz to be accepted, they must have previously demonstrated some months of participation in BRFA. Is this the case? If not, they are not eligible under the current process. A portion of the exact quote (far above) would be "being previously active in BRFAs are. you obviously have zero clue about bots or how they should be run". Franamax (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's frustration. I'm going to step away for a couple of hours and come back, maybe things will have improved or someone slightly less frustrated with this could see about getting us somewhere (besides the seemingly neverending "no you're wrong" → (silence) → <revert> cycle). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, as I mentioned, I was hoping to get... well, less-techinical, less entrenched editors involved in the process (There's probably a complaint about just that less than 3 sections away from here?). Both have commented on BRFA's, and, both do run bots. Also, I was hoping, that maybe, just maybe, if *I* nominated people, others would see that they could, too (although, my overriding motivation was that honestly I believed those two editors would make great additions to the team for the reasons I specified). It feels to me, like we are acting as though I have just appointed these folks, which, I absolutely have not, and cannot. If you have an opinion on these candidates (well, Krimpet at least, I have the feeling MBisanz won't accept....), there's a discussion header for each at WT:BAG. I'm sorry, that some choose to see it as cabalism, and, other such evil things, but, that was simply not the intent. Also, I would like to apologize, as I have obviously bought the bait brought upon in this section. I would like to ask that it be renamed to something less accusatory, if at all possible (with the consent of the other current contributors). SQL 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed it, feel free to change it if you have a better title in mind. And I apologize for the poor title I chose. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate it, and, no harm done. SQL 09:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One, it's always better, in preference to the AGF thing, to simply explain what your good faith edit was, in the face of a possible misunderstanding from the other party. That's mostly been explained and resolved now. There's still "evil" and "cabal" as touchstone words hanging out there, whatever, forget it, but remember that evil often proceeds from the best of intentions (ref's on request).

Two, I'm still unclear on why this nomination process couldn't be carried out under the aegis of the RfA page, which has attention from a wide portion of the community, albeit a still self-selecting portion. The only particular reason I can see is the moratorium declared by Krimpet, a current nominee for BAG. I can't really wrap my head around that one. Perhaps there is some distrust in the ability of the 'crats to judge consensus properly? Is there something in particular about bots that renders these stringently selected members of the community incompetent?

Three, from my own personal view, I'm not inclined to participate in !votes on bot pages where I have a concern that the official BAG members will summarily dismiss my views for lack of something-or-other, possibly with profanity included.

Last, I've already approached the perfect candidate, who has declined my incredibly well written nomination but foolishly responded in a GFDL fashion so that I can repeat it here. It's not too late for a draft campaign. Franamax (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the bit of assumptions about my nom of Krimpet, if you don't mind, and cutting directly to the issue at hand, for me, personally, my personal preference is the "old old double-trial system" or whatever we'd call it, where folks could add and remove themselves. WP:RFA is about as far from that as one can get, no? I'd note, that there are still noms open at WP:RFA last I looked, that were 2+ days old (I think, I chose to close a couple at WT:BAG a while back that were not terribly older than that, after poking several people), so it appears as tho those aren't going to get closed anymore than they were when it was asked of the crats to close them here (which, I would greatly prefer to us having to close them ourselves.). Anyhow, hope some of this helps. SQL 09:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure any assumptions have been made about Krimpet, though there are certainly concerns around perceptions. Out of respect for Krimpet though, I'll certainly put that aside.

I have only eight months here, so maybe a one/two-year backview of some archives. From early on though, it became apparent that there is a problem in the bot area (an interest of mine). I'm not familiar with "double-trial", can't comment there, certainly any system which combines opt-in membership with single-member approval is sub-optimal. Didn't that just happen? I advocate a dual-approval / single-veto system, tech and community members, forward and revocation. Two opinions are needed to proceed, one is a halt to operation. Membership in that system should be a trial-by-fire a la RfBAG, bot edits are almost by definition trusted edits, approving and restricting bots is important to the whole community. The whole community should have a chance to comment on it (or individually choose to ignore the process).

I also have noticed that the RfBAG's have been dragging on and I'm not sure why they have. I choose to blame this editor who could have helped, but for some strange reason is not able to. Another draft campaign, I guess. But that's another unclear process, let's get this one straightened out :) Franamax (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BAG Candidacy

I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group. Please express comments and views here. MBisanz 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice templates

Regardless of which way we go, the bot policy should include a section indicating that individuals standing for BAG membership may include a notice on their userpage indicating such. I have created {{BAG-notice}} and {{RBAG-nom}} to that end. MBisanz 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the BAG nomination system

WT:BOT has been stuck discussing the BAG nomination system. There were quite a few other changes to WP:BOT. I'm listing the changes I noticed in this version of the live draft. Some rather significant new processes or policies are:

• In Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#Approval: In cases where the function of the bot is not one that already holds general widespread acceptance, or at the discretion of BAG members when greater community feedback is desired, the request may first move to an extended trial of approximately one month. During the extended trial the bot must have a link in edit summaries to the BRFA and a prominent notice on its user and user talk pages. Following this extended trial, consensus for the bot will be reconsidered, any issues should be resolved, and the bot can then be approved.
• Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#Appeals_and_reexamination_of_approvals (entirely new section)
• Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#Bots_operated_by_multiple_users (entirely new section)
• Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#Bot_requirements now says that a bot must provide a way to opt-out of user talk messages.

I'm not even sure what the "extended trial" is supposed to mean or how it might apply. Is the multi-user idea acceptable to everyone? I think the user talk opt-out could go under configuration tips, but does it need to be a requirement?

Other possibly notable changes: a line saying "Bot operators may wish to create a separate bot account for each task" was removed. A statement was added about Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#User_scripts, and there is a new Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#The_.27bot.27_flag section.

Do we agree with all of these? Do we no longer want to even mention that it can be OK to have different bot accounts for different tasks? The bot-flag section is mostly descriptive except that it implies BAG will no longer approve any bots to run without the bot-bit. Regarding "User scripts" in particular, if a javascript locks up a user's account for a long time making the user unresponsive to the queries on the operation of this javascript, should bot policy apply? Should WP:BOT say clearly yes or no, or should this be left ambiguous?

Also, I've been thinking about a model where BAG functions rather like a mentor. If an approved bot has technical issues later, then a BAG member (or more in exceptional cases) could take responsibility to watch over it until issues are resolved. Gimmetrow 04:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate BAG

The Bot Approvals Group has been by far one of the most argued over formal groups on Misplaced Pages. It's existences seems to come out of the will of 4 users who thought more process was needed in Misplaced Pages (link 1, link 2) In short, this process was never "ratified"/approved by the community.

While the idea of having some way to check the validity of a code is worthwhile, the community, not a group of users who approve new members themselves, should make the final decision in approving a bot. A formal group like BAG does NOT need to exist to check the validity of a code and the worth of a bot.

The process for joining BAG is shady and switches whenever their control is threatened. Previously discussion took place on the talk page of BAG. However, once a previously MfD was created about BAG and the community complained over the "cabal" of the process, BAG sought to fix this by allowing anyone to join. This was short lived, and BAG went back to the old way of adding users. Soon enough the community cried out again over the cabal nature, and BAG added itself to the RfA main page. Again, when one of the current BAG members would of failed joining BAG, (see link for ST47) the group switched back to the old way, which takes place on a unwatched talk page, of approving members.

This unwarranted and unapproved process needs to be stopped. No more reforms, no more process wonk. The community should decide the fate and usefulness of a bot, not a selective group of users. If, indeed, later down the road the community would like to have a group oversee the validity of a code, then a whole new community approved process can start.

Eliminate BAG, but continue to add bots to be approved on the WP:RFBA page. The community can then go there and, with consensus of the community as a whole, decide the usefulness of a bot. Those who are in BAG can simply comment on the validity of the code/script. If you want to complain this doesn't get enough traffic, then add it to the RfA main page. Monobi (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As they seem unwilling to accept any new method of nomination (thus putting an end to the cabal concerns), I would agree with eliminating the BAG entirely and instead moving to an RFA style system for bot approvals (not to be held on the RFA page, but still to be decided by a bureaucrat (who would also of course set the bot flag upon community approval)). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed a cross transcluded discussion that will work. I just havent had time to work the details out. β 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Translusion won't work though; a discussion posted at WP:AN garnered zero responses, and AFAIK that's the only other place you could transclude them besides WP:RFA. (I suppose you could try WP:VPT, but I doubt it'll come close to the kind of feedback we were seeing with RfBAG, and that's the mark you need to overcome to convince me that what you're proposing is better). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can get the community involved, more power to you. So far, community consensus on the bot approvals process has been an overwhelming "I don't care". --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The arguments presented here don't seem to be very strong ones. The BAG membership process is shady? It's discussed at WP:BAG and WP:BOT, exactly where you'd expect to find it. Also, as others have said elsewhere, decisions are made by those who show up. In 2006, users discussed and then implemented the bot approvals group. If only a few people participated, oh well. Further issues can (and have) been brought up on the talk page and the policy is always changing (this is a wiki after all). There's no formal ratification or approval process (though Jimbo has suggested using ArbCom in the past (/me shudders)). Also, I think Carnildo's point is dead-on – nobody cares. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Adminship_poll/G is running 34-5 against having RfBAG on RfA. Although perhaps not the best announced (On signpost and 'crat noticeboard, I think, but didn't quite make the site notice), it's so highly lopsided that it suggests, just maybe, the community simply doesn't want to select BAG that way. Gimmetrow 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If nobody cares, then I fully intend to run my bots without the approval of some poorly constructed group of users. Monobi (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you will be blocked and further action will be taken against you. you have a history of poorly designed and coded bots that have had numerious complaints spreading the four main accounts that you have used. β 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Monobi, running your bots unapproved doesn't have the community consensus you've been pleading for in posts such as the one above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Monobi, WP did not originally have a bot policy. It developed because having completely unregulated bots created some problems. Of course nobody complains when a bot does good things and doesn't screw up, but it was the other cases that led the community to say that *someone* must approve bots. Anyone can comment on a bot request, but if nobody is responsible for the approval and has to answer for screwups, it's a form of tragedy of the commons. Thus BAG. BAG is pretty low in importance on WP, but it does serve a purpose. Gimmetrow 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that most ways of determining community approval on Misplaced Pages don't involve closure by a person from a specific authorized group. Usually, if you want community approval for something, you either:

• a) just do it, and see if anyone reverts you or tells you to stop, or
• b) propose it somewhere, let people discuss it for a while and then, if looks like consensus has emerged in favor of it, do it.

Most such discussions will either continue until a consensus is reached naturally (or isn't, and the discussion just dies out), or they have a time limit but no particular designated group of closers. The exceptions, like AfD and RfA, tend to involve a simple yes/no poll to approve a single action (deletion, sysoping) that can only be carried out by a member of a particular group (admins, bureaucrats) and are thus naturally closed by the person actually performing (or declining to perform) said action when it is carried out (or not). BRfA is something of an anomaly here: even though it has a formal group of closers, it usually takes the form of a threaded discussion rather than a simple poll, it has no set time limit, and the people authorized to close it are not the ones with the actual authority to implement the decisions. In many ways, it would be much more natural if it was carried out more like, say, RfC. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

BRFA is an RfC. Anyone can comment. It probably wouldn't make a difference if we said "BAG closers = admins + select approved non-admins", because probably only technically interested admins would get involved. Gimmetrow 00:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That poll is nearly worthless. Besides, it's outweighed by the nearly fifty (or more?) contributors to a single RfBAG nomination. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because I supported a RfBAG doesn't mean I support the process --Chris 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck, just because I started a RfBAG for myself doesn't mean I necessarily support the process. (FWIW, I'm rather ambivalent on the subject, and not particularly convinced by the turnout of my own RfBAG: 24 !votes including several SPAs, as there would've been had it been closed on time, do not a very convincing consensus make.) I'm not sure what would be better, though; the best suggestion I've seen so far might be the one made by Betacommand above, involving multi-transcluded discussions (but please keep it out of ANI, thank you!), but I'm not really convinced even that would work all that much better. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented as well when it appeared the system was going to be pushed through despite the opposiiton, even though I am strongly against the system. As the only criteria for success was "people use it" it was set up so that after implementation it couldn't possibly fail unless people completely ignored it (obviously not going to happen on one of the highest watched pages) or the bureaucrats forced it to stop. The attitude of "other peoples' opinions are worthless because people used the process" was what caused me to abandon this discussion before. Mr.Z-man 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I bet if put RfBAG nominations in the site notice, we would get lots of contributors. Should we put them in the site notice? Gimmetrow 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure that sounds great, or ....

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

— xaosflux 11:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're really, really not helping the conversation at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

actually that was a very effective message. β 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You would think so. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I wish people would not move comments around. My reply above about the "site notice" was to LCs comment about "fifty contributors", which comes across as: "we got more comments this way, therefore it's better". I was not actually suggesting putting it in the site notice; I was illustrating the problem with the argument by placing it in a different context. Gimmetrow 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Eliminate reviewing bots

Even if the community feels that having a special group of bot approvers is not the best method, I'm not getting the feeling that the community thinks that bots should just roam free either. If it is decided to abandon BAG, the approvals process will need to be replaced by something...perhaps xfd style where any admin can close out the discussion? — xaosflux 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just a noticeboard format, where people can comment as they please? The crats can decide if they think there are outstanding objections. I don't think the "support/oppose" format matches well with bot requests; it's usually more like: "Here's an issue" / "OK, fixed" / "Here's a question" / "Yes, that's fixed"/ etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We tried something like that before the invention of BAG. The silence was deafening. --Carnildo (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, pre March 2006. This was before local bureaucrats even made bots... I think times have changed somewhat. Al Tally (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen how highly active WP:BON is, even after I added it to the noticeboard header? MBisanz 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Al Tally (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is in theory a noticeboard where people can comment as they please about bots. MBisanz 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"This is not the place for requests for bot approvals". We are talking about the place where bots are approved. Al Tally (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So you'd like this discussion sitting on a noticeboard page for a month? Along with the 30 or so other open Bot reqs? Do we now hate people without gigabit ethernet connections? MBisanz 20:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a noticeboard. I want a "request for bot status" page, similar to XfD. I never mentioned a noticeboard. Oh and people comment on RFAs all the time, which are a lot bigger than that. Al Tally (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, set up an XfA system for bots. It works for the other processes where it is implemented, and it will work for bots as well. Every other project I have encountered uses an XfA system for bots, why does Misplaced Pages have to be different? Monobi (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

BRFA is an XfDiscussion system. Gimmetrow 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But the bots are approved by a little Cabal. The community should be doing that, not a self appointed club. Al Tally (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The community left the job of approving bots with BAG, and the community expresses its opinion on BAG members whenever anyone wants to join BAG. Gimmetrow 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then MFD WP:BAG, if its deleted, then the community shows it doesn't want BAG, if its kept, then its shown the community wants BAG. MBisanz 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that. The result was "speedy keep", and we have to discuss it here. Apparently BAG is exempt from being deleted. Al Tally (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If left to 'crats to close, is the suggestion that crats approve all bots, or just the 'bot flag', if just the flagging, having any bot do anything (without a flag) is still likely to be excessive. — xaosflux 03:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are really two issues here — flagging of bot accounts and community review of bot tasks in general — and it might be best if they were actually kept separate, so that we'd have "Requests for bot status", which would be an RfA-style poll closed by those authorized to grant the bot flag (currently 'crats, though I'd personally support giving this ability to a broader group), and a separate "Bot review", in the style of RfC or even Editor review, for discussing proposed and ongoing bot tasks to see if they enjoy community support. Of course, the processes would still be connected to some extent, since nobody's likely to support flagging a bot account unless there's consensus for it to perform at least one task, but it might still simplify things (or not; the idea is to actually make the new processes simpler and less formal, not just take the existing bureaucracy and double it). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution is simple, really. Tag WP:BAG with {{historical}}, then add the BRFA page to show up on the RFA page. The intended task will be listed on the page, at which point, if consensus exists for the function, the operator will run the bot. After everything has been figured out and the majority of those who have expressed their opinions are please, a 'crat will the then flag the bot if need be, or approve it if it is to run without a flag. The guiding principle for the 'crats will be WP:BOT, instead of the arbitrary rulings of BAG. Monobi (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is such a complex procedure really needed for yet another interwiki or newsletter-delivery bot? --Carnildo (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no less complex than BAG approving it; except this way, the community will be instead. Al Tally (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is not a stable consistant group that over sees bots, we will run into some major problems. there are bots that come up, often and are denied as often, (IE WelcomeBot). you might have consensus for the bot from a group of editors, but the bot should still be denied. given the nature of bots you need a stable group to manage them. bot approvals SHOULD NEVER be a vote. bot approvals function as a discussion and safety check. removing the bot oversight is asking for trouble. β 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be denied? Because you don't like it? That is precisely what is wrong with all this. The bots that get approved are ones that you like, and not necessarily the community. Other wikis manage without an arbitary little group, and so can we. I have never even mentioned having a vote, instead I said a discussion. In other words, it would be just like it is now, but without BAG. I understand you and Carnildo would hate the idea of your little club being disbanded, and the community rightly deciding on these issues, but BAG is simply not needed anymore. And if we don't get consensus here, we'll have to MfD it, and you'll have to provide some sort of an argument to keep it, instead of shouting "Speedy keep!" Al Tally (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My little club? Perhaps you should look at how active (or rather, inactive) I've been at approving bots, and then cease with the personal attacks. --Carnildo (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. It strikes me as odd you'd show up here to defend this group if you say you aren't even active here. You've still not said how having a little group approve instead of the community is better. Al Tally (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that BAG "rulings" can be described as arbitrary by any measure. We're faster than a one-week RfA. We've rarely approved any bot that didn't have community consensus. We've rarely denied any bot that wouldn't have community consensus — very few bots are declined at all. — Werdna talk 07:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate bot approval entirely

Given issues with BAG lately (notably their inability to comply with the will of the community) I support eliminating the BAG entirely. But further, I think we should stop approving bot tasks for the simple reason that we don't require editors to get approval for their edits before they make them, so we shouldn't be requiring bot operators to get approval for tasks prior to initiating them. All edits can be undone/reverted, so any potential damage is temporary at worst. I think that really just leaves the matter of how one applies for and receives a bot flag. I believe this is something we can do a number of ways, but the two most obvious ones to me are:

1. Implement an RFA-style system for obtaining the bot flag (as with RfBAG, this would give us the widest exposure to the community, providing more input than obscure talk page discussions)
2. Implement a system where the candidate contacts a bureaucrat directly (or via the noticeboard for 'crats), is given a trial run/grace period of a week (during which edits will be performed sans bot flag, and observed for potential issues), and assuming no problems are found, is given the bot flag directly

The first option provides more input from the community, and could actually include portions of the second option (for example; during the RfBotFlag, a trial run may be performed to demonstrate that the bot is working correctly). The latter option is less formal and would still allow community input (nothing stops concerned editors from watchlisting 'crat talk pages and the noticeboard).

As for bots who perform disputed operations, we should handle this like we handle any editor making disputed edits: discuss directly with the operator, get comments from the community via RFC, go to AN/I and, if the matter isn't solvable with the bot operator, then the matter can be taken back to the 'crats to discuss removing the bot flag (and thus that editors privilege to perform unattended automated edits). Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

you need a reality check. stop attempting to push your POV. its getting disruptive. I would suggest that you avoid bot related topics because you seem to fail to understand what bots are, why we have a bot policy and why we have an approval system. RfX is broken like a square wheel. Im done attempting to talk with people who are attempting to re-write bot policy when they know absolutely jack shit about bots. if you ever figure out what the term "bot" means please come back, but until then stop spewing ideas that my dog even knows wont work. β 00:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, please read this carefully before you reply again. The only thing that is "shit" around here is BAG and the members viciously defending it. Al Tally (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah right, read this and grow a brain. your comments here show your lack of higher brain functions, you might want to see a doctor about that. Like I said you dont know what your talking about so shut up. β 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)