Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Speedy Keep MfD is a WP:POINT β^{_{command 2}} 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, please assume good faith and give a proper reason for your !vote. !Thanks Al Tally (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. MFD is not the place to change policy. --Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is as good as anywhere. And the said policy was never agreed upon (see the link in the nomination, and this. Al Tally (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]