Misplaced Pages

:Adminship poll/G - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 20 April 2008 (→BAG membership on RfA?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:30, 20 April 2008 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (→BAG membership on RfA?)(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)
  5. If a candidate isn’t a programmer, and doesn’t know anything about running a bot, how does that make them automatically qualified for BAG if their RfA passes? This should be decided only by users with the technical knowledge to understand the proposed bot. —Travis 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. No way. Wizardman 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Other