Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Adminship poll/G

< Wikipedia:Adminship poll

BAG membership on RfA? edit

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 edit

  1. -- Naerii 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Aww, I'm all on my own :( -- Naerii 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not anymore, Naerii :) I quite like this. BAG is good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It's much better than the original situation where BAG members were promoted by other BAG members (effectively creating a clubhouse mentality IMO). This allows the community an opportunity to object to nominees/candidates and actually have their voice count for something. Also worth considering: it's under discussion to give BAG members the ability to directly set/remove the "bot" flag (thus making them bureaucrats basically; but only for bots). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorta. Takes the load off of the 'crats, like Rollback did for the admins. Malinaccier (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? WP:RFR gave extra work for admins and one more RF* to close is more work for the bureacrats. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFR made it so that admin had to spend less time cleaning up vandalism because other users could do it efficiently themselves. And "BAG" makes one more thing to close, but dozens of bots that they don't need to approve/deny. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BAG has existed for a while now. All this does is create a new way to promote people to BAG, the bureaucrats have not approved bots for a while. They flag them after BAG approves. Mr.Z-man 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thinking in the wrong way then...Thanks for telling me this. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nothing wrong with a little scrutiny in this area. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There needs to be community input on this, or else only BAG members will appoint other BAG members, and we have already seen the power trip that this created. RFA is a good place for it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, it decreases the cabalism of BAG. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:41Z (UTC)


No edit

  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)[reply]
  2. No, BAG needs abolishing. Majorly (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No argument from me on that point. But so long as it exists, we should do everything we can to avoid potential abuse of BAG member selection. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're using an easily gamed system with a history of agenda driven voting to avoid abuse? Mr.Z-man 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. No way. Wizardman 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should be decided only by users with the appropriate technical knowledge, not by the community as a whole. —Travistalk 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your complaint seems to be problematically recursive. BAG is already the people deemed to have the technical knowledge to approve bots. You want a technically-knowledgeable group to appoint them? The BAGAG? And who determines if they're technically knowledgeable enough? Besides, recent events have shown that bot issues are not just technical but social. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. Whose idea was it even to stick it on the RFA page to grab attention? bibliomaniac15 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think the old way worked just fine. Captain panda 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I see what they're trying to do, but I think it's like the XfD process. People will become involved if they wish to. A page of its own, open to all comers (those with interest) should be fine. That said, perhaps a link at RfA (as a similar though different process) might be appropriate. - jc37 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have no iea how the WP software works or interacts with bots. Thus I have little idea whether a bot would be harmful. It's daft letting me get involved in selecting which bots run or not, unless the "closing admin" is prepared to ignore any !votes that are technically illiterate. Seeing the fuss and bother some bots generate makes me think that community disscussions would be long and heated, but with little purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs)
    I really should point out that if you find it daft to comment on something you know nothing about (I would feel the same in your shoes), then you're certainly not obliged to comment. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely Dan's point is not about being obliged to comment, but that anyone can comment, techno-literati or no. That is the weakness of the system now, is it not? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Look at some of the "Skynet" opposes on bot RfAs to see why this is a bad idea. Not to mention this will just spread the bad vibes of RfA to another process. the wub "?!" 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No way. BAG works well and we definitely don't need more RFA bureaucratic infighting. --Haemo (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No, the BAG is a useless cabal of people, why make it messy and useless. Prodego talk 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No need for more internet politics. Voice-of-All 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Dorftrottel (ask) 03:45, April 21, 2008
  17. No, this is not needed. SQLQuery me! 09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No no no. BAG must be selected based on technical merit. A basic level of trust is needed, but an understanding of how bots work is essential. Besides, if it is not broken, then there is no need to fix it. (1 == 2)Until 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No. BAG needed reforming, but this is the wrong way to do it. - Philippe 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I agree with the many reasons above, placing BAG on the RFA page is not a good idea. Useight (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Trust is needed for BAG operators, but consensus is needed before the process for achieving that is implemented. Rudget 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Awful. This project doesn't need more RfA-like processes. krimpet✽ 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. WTF BAG IAR DEL SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I really do not think it belongs on the page. Adminship and 'cratship decide whether a users can have some pretty serious powers: deleting pages, blocking users; desysopping users and renaming users. Being in the BAG is not as big a power, you do not really gain an actual technical power. It is simply an admission into an exclusive group of people, sort of like ArbCom except they only decide whether bots are approved. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Absolutely not. Nakon 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. We need community involvement. THis is not the best way to solicit it. — Werdna talk 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Nope. Should be peer judged technical merit (or some such) not !votes. --Bfigura (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Too many processes. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Adding another election to an already broken RfA process is the wrong way to move. Since this is primarily technical, the existing system is fine, assuming that the criteria for membership is technical. The members should be very familiar with bots. Also, BAG members have no admin like powers. — Becksguy (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. No. Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. BAG membership is very different compared to adminship and bureaucratship, and I think a technical based peer review or even the old system works better for this. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No. I have no clue how bots work, so I shouldn't have a say in who gets to join BAG. Also, adds another level of process. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. (current bag member) I'm not opposed to election or group reform, but a section of WP:RFA isn't helpful for most of the community. — xaosflux Talk 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I think RFBAG should be on a separate page, I have no idea what makes a good programmer and how to analyse someone's coding skills so it is of no use to me to have that on the same page as RFA. I do think that anyone should be able to decide who can go on the BAG though, just that it should be oriented more toward those in the know about bots and less at the community at large. James086Talk | Email 08:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I agree with James086 ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other edit

  1. If not here, then where would be best? Clearly where they are isn't getting sufficient community input, and many members of the community feel that they're being shortchanged as a result. Ral315 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminship_poll/G&oldid=1140246165"