>Fair enough. We should make it more clear, then.
>
>Please keep in mind that our rules, including this one, are
social
>norms that are sometimes informal, and don't get formalized
until we
>have something that pushes us to get more formal. I mean,
there are
>so many possible things that people might do, for better or
worse,
>that we can't (and shouldn't try) make a formal rule for
everything in
>advance.
The last thing we want is a bureaucratic prodecure. I never
advocate to formalize rules or detail them.
What frustrates me is that even though rules are not formal,
they are applied, sometimes rigidly.
>"Get approval before running a bot" is a good idea.
Approval from
>who? Well, you know, some sysops. One sysop? Probably
more than
>one? From Jimbo? No, not unless ultimately there's trouble
>establishing unanimity and we just need a ruling to get on
with
>things.
My idea is again we should stop impling rules and stick to
wiki style, which is act first then discuss and fix the
problem.
I don't think it would work that those who want to use bots
wait for a day or possiblly a week. Or maybe I just haven't
seen working cases yet.
My current side is simply ban bots by ordinary wikipedians
other than sysops. I believe the wiki way act first then fix
is a basic premise and because bots can be too destructive,
we can't apply the wiki way to it.
>Is this vague?
The problem is not rules are vague but the reasons of people
apply it are.