- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn and moved to WT:BOT Monobi ( talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group
The Bot Approvals Group has been by far one of the most argued over formal groups on Wikipedia. It's existences seems to come out of the will of 4 users who thought more process was needed in Wikipedia ( link) 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) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unneeded bureaucratic process that would be better served by the community. May be better to mark as historical. Al Tally ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep MfD is a
WP:POINT
βcommand 2 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Incorrect, please assume good faith and give a proper reason for your !vote. !Thanks Al Tally ( talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. MFD is not the place to change policy. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: I tend to agree in that this does seem to be a POINT nomination.
Monobi knows thatI assume Monobi knows that MFD is no place to discuss this sort of thing. We don't change (or delete) existing policies / practices at MFD, especially those that are active. I'll comment on the issue itself though; it does seem that BAG runs efficiently and effectively, so I wouldn't want for it to be abolished. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to point out that this is the wrong forum. No matter whether or not the group is terminated, we actually want to keep the page (because it's historic documentation we can use to show that such groups are a good/bad idea). So hello, no deletion please!
At some point we might consider (briefly) blocking people who make such mfd nominations, if only just to wake them up and get them to grasp the concept that MFD is not really suitable for this kind of thing.
I'm not going to close this time. Someone else can do it. :-P -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC) mfd is designed to handle deletion debates, the format is not suited to discussing how wikipedia works or should work. Use the right tool for the right job. Feel free to post on relevant project namespace pages and talk pages!
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn and moved to WT:BOT Monobi ( talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group
The Bot Approvals Group has been by far one of the most argued over formal groups on Wikipedia. It's existences seems to come out of the will of 4 users who thought more process was needed in Wikipedia ( link) 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) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unneeded bureaucratic process that would be better served by the community. May be better to mark as historical. Al Tally ( talk) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep MfD is a
WP:POINT
βcommand 2 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Incorrect, please assume good faith and give a proper reason for your !vote. !Thanks Al Tally ( talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. MFD is not the place to change policy. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: I tend to agree in that this does seem to be a POINT nomination.
Monobi knows thatI assume Monobi knows that MFD is no place to discuss this sort of thing. We don't change (or delete) existing policies / practices at MFD, especially those that are active. I'll comment on the issue itself though; it does seem that BAG runs efficiently and effectively, so I wouldn't want for it to be abolished. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to point out that this is the wrong forum. No matter whether or not the group is terminated, we actually want to keep the page (because it's historic documentation we can use to show that such groups are a good/bad idea). So hello, no deletion please!
At some point we might consider (briefly) blocking people who make such mfd nominations, if only just to wake them up and get them to grasp the concept that MFD is not really suitable for this kind of thing.
I'm not going to close this time. Someone else can do it. :-P -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC) mfd is designed to handle deletion debates, the format is not suited to discussing how wikipedia works or should work. Use the right tool for the right job. Feel free to post on relevant project namespace pages and talk pages!
- 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.