Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)

Post-closure comments

Noting the following post-closure comments: [1], [2]. I will also add a comment to the page noting this and directing people here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for it to stay open, as the last MfD' was speedy closed, and the one before that was closed as Reform Bag, so I felt it was at least appropriate to let this one run the full length of time. Could I suggest a WP:DRV since obviously several of us contest the speedy close not just on the result of Keep, but on the procedure of the close itself? MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give SynergeticMaggot some time to respond. At least until he has seen the messages on his talk page. He may agree to reopen it. It was also a non-admin close, which I personally don't have problems with, but some people might. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/cX3 OK lets try putting it here) I'm a little pissed at this early closure. I'm just glad I refreshed the screen so I could see it had turned purple before I put my comment in, 'cause I really hate having my contribs reverted. Closing after 9 inputs is not appropriate, when there are potentially many hundreds of people who could comment. As always, where do we go from here?? Franamax (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] AKAF (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of the comments, and I would like to initiate a conversation here instead of all of our talk pages. :) I'd like to ask what you all hope for in continuing, even if everyone thus far wishes it to be kept? I would gladly reopen after further understanding. — _Maggot^Syn 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that discussions should be allowed to run for a certain length of time to allow those who don't edit every day to have some input. Also, closing early will lead to people saying it was closed early to prevent discussion (not true, but leaving it open avoids that). Finally, I thought it might clear the air a bit, but that depends really. Discussion could get out of control, but some discussion and conclusion is needed to this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. But do you think that an MfD is the best way to get your point across? On my talk page, I noted that a centralized discussion, with a link to a talk page is made, rather than a discussion about deleting, there should be a larger RfC-type discussion about reform. I see another MfD as possibly a no consensus, or at best keep. — _Maggot^Syn 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained to you previously about how MfD is not always technically a deletion discussion. Sometimes it doubles as a centralised discussion. Anyway, I made this section as a start. Though now I think about it, the previous discussions were at WT:BOT, weren't they? Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure. :) I'm an outside party here, which is why I felt comfortable closing it. — _Maggot^Syn 09:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that I personally consider all discussions which run for less than 24h not to qualify for WP:SNOW. Since wikipedia is a worldwide project, all timezones need a chance to chime in. AKAF (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment coming across here, from the nominator I think, and from some others, is that the reasonable approach of channeling "discussion about reform" is not yielding results. There is a perception, which I somewhat share, that BAG is not responsive to concerns and would rather the whole problem just go away, so that BAG can deal with the computers and all those fussy humans can just live with the results, approved on a strictly technical basis, because we've decided it's good for you. That's a deliberately ridiculous presentation, but to the extent any part of it is true, then it's equally fair that we consider disposing of the BAG structure in favour of an alternate formulation which meets the approval (as opposed to apathy) of the community. Franamax (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But the more important topic right now is: Is letting the MfD run its course the best possible channel for said feedback, or can we explore other venues? You know my answer already. And I am offering myself up to help seek such a proper venue we can all agree on. — _Maggot^Syn 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for it to be left open, as I was of the opinion that even if this was a slightly irregular forum (its been uses for Esperanza, AMA, CVU, but not usually), leaving the discussion open for the full time period would at least bring the MfD regulars into the debate and create a useful reference point. MBisanz ^talk 16:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider it an irregular forum. This would be to forum to go to when considering it for deletion. But might I remind you that not one person felt it needed to be deleted? In this case, presently, it is not the right forum. I believe leaving this discussion open would only confirm consensus. — _Maggot^Syn 12:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have, in an interest in good faith, left a message for the other participants that there is conversation going on here. — _Maggot^Syn 09:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]