Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Draft consensus statement on date delinking
Latest comment: 15 years ago by MZMcBride in topic Far too formal
Far too formal
editWith things like "Comments by BAG members," this seems far, far too formal. This seems to be blowing BAG's power and influence way out of proportion. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but read the proposed ArbCom statement. They seem to take us pretty seriously. The nature of BAG can shift over time, and it looks to me like it's becoming more formalized as time goes on, in accordance with Raul's 7th law. – Quadell (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my concern. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the separation of "comments by BAG members" was an attempt to prevent the page from being hijacked by Date Warriors, who can be extremely verbose. – Quadell (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It has the tones of an Arbitration Workshop page. But you hit the nail on the head; BAG is being formalized and given more power and influence. That's my real concern. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- How so? The Bot Policy already gives responsibility for approving bots to BAG, all I see in the ArbCom proposed decision is that they're imposing additional restrictions on which date-delinking bots may be approved. As for the "formal" tone, it sounds to me like it's just copying the tone of everything else to do with ArbCom. Anomie⚔ 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom is elected during a giant election with a large part of the community participating. This gives them a mandate to have power. BAG on the other hand, isn't. This leaves BAG mandate-less. It's fine to have a bot approvals group (I guess), but it should stay informal. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- How so? The Bot Policy already gives responsibility for approving bots to BAG, all I see in the ArbCom proposed decision is that they're imposing additional restrictions on which date-delinking bots may be approved. As for the "formal" tone, it sounds to me like it's just copying the tone of everything else to do with ArbCom. Anomie⚔ 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It has the tones of an Arbitration Workshop page. But you hit the nail on the head; BAG is being formalized and given more power and influence. That's my real concern. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I still maintain that some of these statements are unnecessary or reduce the role that the community is meant to play in the decisions about what bots are meant to do in some cases. Not going to directly oppose anything, as that would be purposeless, but I wish to note my disquiet at some of these, and question their usefulness in advance of the arbcom ruling. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- In what way is anything here reducing the role that the community is meant to play? I don't see it, so I want to know what I am missing. Anomie⚔ 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)