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.