| Revision as of 20:11, 20 April 2008 editSeresin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,029 edits →No: V← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:22, 20 April 2008 edit undoWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators400,781 edits →Are bureaucrat chats working?Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ====Other==== | ====Other==== | ||
| #They're good on paper, and they do work sometimes. There are other times that they don't and it ends up seeming lik ea waste of time. ] 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:22, 20 April 2008
Requests for Adminship (RfA)
Are bureaucrat chats working?
Last year, several controversies were escalated and the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process put under intense scrutiny as some editors were promoted under disagreements (even amongst crats) on what constitutes a consensus. Has the introduction and the use of bureaucrat chat effective in determining consensus, and henceforth the long term solution to making RfA work and less controversial?
Yes
No
- I'd say its about 50% effective, which is about as good as a bureaucrat flipping a coin. Mr.Z-man 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pointless. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- They're a good idea, but in practice most chats contain disagreements among the bureaucrats, and their discussion needs consensus interpretation, which defeats the purpose. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Other
- They're good on paper, and they do work sometimes. There are other times that they don't and it ends up seeming lik ea waste of time. Wizardman 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)