Misplaced Pages

:Adminship poll/G - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Adminship poll

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr.Z-man (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 20 April 2008 (BAG membership on RfA?: no). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:06, 20 April 2008 by Mr.Z-man (talk | contribs) (BAG membership on RfA?: no)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

BAG membership on RfA?

Currently, there is a trial on application of BAG membership being put forth in the same manner as Requests for Adminship. Do you think this step is in the correct direction?

Yes

  1. -- Naerii 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No

  1. I hate it. The bot approval group is something that doesn't really concern many users, and something not many people know anything about. I can't understand the benefit of adding it to the (already very long) RfA page. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. No, BAG needs abolishing. Majorly (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. No. BAG should be selected based on technical knowledge. The community at large is not qualified to make such decisions. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. RFA is a bureaucratic mess beaten only by ArbCom. How BAG membership jumped from a tiny discussion to RFA, I still don't know. Mr.Z-man 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

Misplaced Pages:Adminship poll/G Add topic