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.