Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Guide: Difference between revisions

→‎Guide to BRFAs: expand a bit
(→‎Guide to BRFAs: expand a bit)
 
==Guide to BRFAs==
This is a guide intended for '''typical casesBRFAs'''. However, BAG members are expected to use sound judgement and take the full situation and background of every BRFA into account, and precedent should never be used as a hammer. Each BRFA requires BAG members to determine both the '''[[WP:BOTREQUIRE|technical soundness]]''' of the proposed bot, and ensure that the requested task has '''[[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]'''. The more contentious a task, the higher the burden of demonstrating consensus. Non-controversial and technically straightforward tasks may be approved after short trials, while more contentious and technically complex tasks may require a formal and well-advertised RFC accompanied by long trial periods. Typical places to hold such discussions are at the [[WP:VP|Village Pump]], or a relevant [[WP:PROJ|WikiProject]], but other locations may be suitable depending on the bot task. When in doubt, ask for more community input.
 
AsIf suchconsensus has been demonstrated (or can [[WP:SILENCE|reasonably be presumed]]), BAG members have the discretion to allow the proposed bot to undergo trial to judge its technical soundness. Trials can also be used to help determine consensus if relevant communities have been notified, but failed to engage in dialogue after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Bot trials exist both for the community to have a chance to review a proposed bot's behaviour, suggest improvements, voice opposition, point out issues, discuss the scope of its task, and to [[WP:SILENCE|break silence]]. Once technical soundness and consensus are satisfied, bot tasks arecan be approved. If a new bot requires a [[WP:BOTFLAG|bot flag]], ping a [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] to request it.
 
Typically, a BAG member will oversee a BRFA from trial to closure, and invite (or mandate) involvement from the community. Other BAG members will often participate and comment during the BRFA to give their opinions on various matters, but defer to the trial-granter for closure. This is not an official rule, but more of a recognition that whoever approves a bot for trial is usually more familiar with the background of the task, and has implicitly agreed to reviewing the bot's edit and following up on any issues raised during the trial. If a BAG member is unable to finish the review, or is unsure on how to proceed, they should leave a note at [[WT:BAG]] so others can help.
 
If consensus has been demonstrated (or can [[WP:SILENCE|reasonably be presumed]]), BAG members have the discretion to allow the proposed bot to undergo trial to judge its technical soundness. Trials can also be used to help determine consensus if relevant communities have been notified, but failed to engage in dialogue after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed.
 
As such, trials exist both for the community to have a chance to review a proposed bot's behaviour, suggest improvements, point out issues, discuss the scope of its task, and to [[WP:SILENCE|break silence]]. Once technical soundness and consensus are satisfied, bot tasks are approved. If a new bot requires a [[WP:BOTFLAG|bot flag]], ping a [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] to request it.
 
===Trials===