| Revision as of 18:46, 26 April 2007 editDurin (talk | contribs)25,247 edits →[]: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:48, 26 April 2007 edit undoMDP23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,211 edits →[]: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :*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. | :*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 ], ] and ]. 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. --] 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | *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 ], ] and ]. 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. --] 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * 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. <strong>]<font color="red">]</font></strong> 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:48, 26 April 2007
Misplaced Pages:Bots/Approvals group
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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
- 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?)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)