555:
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
91:
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
909:
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
837:
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
986:
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
161:
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.
317:
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.
539:
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
747:
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.
1031:
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.
467:
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
265:
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.
580:
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.
183:
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.
937:
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.
471:? 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.
628:
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.
92:
under discussion to give BAG members the ability to directly set/remove the "bot" flag (thus making them bureaucrats basically; but only for bots). —
352:
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. —
511:
572:
361:
101:
414:
RFA is a bureaucratic mess beaten only by ArbCom. How BAG membership jumped from a tiny discussion to RFA, I still don't know.
838:
simply an admission into an exclusive group of people, sort of like ArbCom except they only decide whether bots are approved.
1010:
254:
35:
membership being put forth in the same manner as
Requests for Adminship. Do you think this step is in the correct direction?
556:
and bother some bots generate makes me think that community disscussions would be long and heated, but with little purpose.
951:
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.
588:
297:
77:
398:
No. BAG should be selected based on technical knowledge. The community at large is not qualified to make such decisions.
172:
17:
301:
790:
Trust is needed for BAG operators, but consensus is needed before the process for achieving that is implemented.
454:
This should be decided only by users with the appropriate technical knowledge, not by the community as a whole. —
582:
506:
71:
900:
568:
529:
168:
560:
956:
692:
724:
215:
118:
749:
357:
353:
97:
93:
820:
607:
501:
323:
235:
1007:
979:
915:
791:
766:
564:
524:
460:
422:
377:
244:
191:
141:
952:
942:
808:
781:
669:
632:
404:
342:
294:
1036:
870:
709:
681:
483:
277:
211:
165:
114:
970:
966:
158:
130:
32:
841:
647:
369:
We're using an easily gamed system with a history of agenda driven voting to avoid abuse?
642:
No way. BAG works well and we definitely don't need more RFA bureaucratic infighting. --
440:
319:
987:
oriented more toward those in the know about bots and less at the community at large.
133:
gave extra work for admins and one more RF* to close is more work for the bureacrats.
1001:
988:
974:
911:
776:
I agree with the many reasons above, placing BAG on the RFA page is not a good idea.
740:
455:
416:
371:
185:
135:
938:
927:
880:
803:
777:
662:
629:
606:
comment, techno-literati or no. That is the weakness of the system now, is it not?
400:
334:
291:
1040:
1032:
1019:
993:
981:
960:
946:
932:
919:
904:
896:
890:
874:
865:
858:
845:
832:
814:
796:
785:
771:
760:
742:
704:
685:
677:
672:
651:
637:
619:
597:
550:
534:
518:
491:
472:
462:
449:
434:
409:
389:
364:
347:
327:
285:
266:
260:
221:
203:
178:
153:
124:
104:
86:
64:
56:
46:
851:
643:
547:
110:
Sorta. Takes the load off of the 'crats, like
Rollback did for the admins.
602:
Surely Dan's point is not about being obliged to comment, but that anyone
498:
No. Whose idea was it even to stick it on the RFA page to grab attention?
879:
Nope. Should be peer judged technical merit (or some such) not !votes. --
863:
We need community involvement. THis is not the best way to solicit it. —
735:
728:
546:
at RfA (as a similar though different process) might be appropriate. -
765:
No. BAG needed reforming, but this is the wrong way to do it. -
208:
Ok, thinking in the wrong way then...Thanks for telling me this.
969:) I'm not opposed to election or group reform, but a section of
656:
No, the BAG is a useless cabal of people, why make it messy
801:
Awful. This project doesn't need more RfA-like processes.
54:
20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Aww, I'm all on my own :( --
69:
Not anymore, Naerii :) I quite like this. BAG is good.
234:Nothing wrong with a little scrutiny in this area.
31:Currently, there is a trial on application of
8:
973:isn't helpful for most of the community. —
290:Yes, it decreases the cabalism of BAG.
523:I think the old way worked just fine.
7:
690:No need for more internet politics.
24:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Adminship poll
1:
1057:
1041:22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
994:08:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
982:01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
961:14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
947:19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
933:21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
920:10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
905:08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
891:04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
875:02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
859:01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
846:23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
833:17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
815:17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
797:17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
786:17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
772:16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
761:16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
743:09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
705:02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
686:02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
673:01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
652:22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
638:21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
620:19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
598:11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
551:20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
535:20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
519:20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
463:20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
450:20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
435:20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
410:20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
390:01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
365:20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
348:20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
332:No, BAG needs abolishing.
328:20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
261:06:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
222:00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
204:20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
179:16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
154:01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
125:01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
105:20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
87:01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
65:22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1020:09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
734:No, this is not needed.
492:08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
286:08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
998:I agree with James086
27:BAG membership on RfA?
895:Too many processes.
583:dihydrogen monoxide
300:2008-06-03T15:41Z (
72:dihydrogen monoxide
1015:
945:
829:
825:
758:
616:
612:
596:
577:
563:comment added by
256:
251:
85:
1048:
1018:
1013:
1004:
991:
977:
941:
931:
888:
885:
856:
850:Absolutely not.
844:
830:
827:
823:
819:WTF BAG IAR DEL
811:
806:
794:
769:
756:
750:
738:
701:
698:
695:
671:
667:
635:
617:
614:
610:
586:
576:
557:
532:
527:
514:
509:
504:
489:
486:
479:
476:
458:
447:
433:
430:
427:
419:
388:
385:
382:
374:
337:
283:
280:
273:
270:
255:
249:
245:
239:
220:
202:
199:
196:
188:
177:
152:
149:
146:
138:
123:
75:
63:
61:
53:
51:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1028:
1016:
1002:
999:
989:
975:
939:Camaron | Chris
925:
886:
881:
852:
839:
821:
809:
804:
792:
767:
757:
752:
736:
699:
696:
693:
663:
661:
633:
608:
592:
558:
530:
525:
512:
507:
502:
487:
484:
477:
474:
456:
441:
428:
423:
417:
415:
383:
378:
372:
370:
335:
314:
281:
278:
271:
268:
259:
250:
247:
237:
209:
197:
192:
186:
184:
163:
147:
142:
136:
134:
112:
81:
57:
55:
47:
45:
41:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1054:
1052:
1044:
1043:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1011:
996:
984:
963:
949:
935:
922:
907:
893:
877:
861:
848:
835:
817:
799:
788:
774:
763:
751:
745:
732:
707:
688:
675:
654:
640:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
590:
553:
537:
521:
496:
495:
494:
452:
437:
412:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
330:
313:
310:
308:
306:
305:
288:
263:
246:
242:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
127:
89:
79:
67:
40:
37:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1053:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1008:
1006:
1005:
997:
995:
992:
985:
983:
980:
978:
972:
968:
964:
962:
958:
954:
950:
948:
944:
940:
936:
934:
930:
929:
923:
921:
917:
913:
908:
906:
902:
898:
894:
892:
889:
884:
878:
876:
873:
872:
868:
867:
862:
860:
857:
855:
849:
847:
843:
836:
834:
831:
818:
816:
813:
812:
807:
800:
798:
795:
789:
787:
783:
779:
775:
773:
770:
764:
762:
759:
755:
746:
744:
741:
739:
733:
730:
726:
722:
720:
716:
712:
708:
706:
703:
702:
689:
687:
683:
679:
676:
674:
670:
668:
666:
659:
655:
653:
649:
645:
641:
639:
636:
631:
627:
621:
618:
605:
601:
600:
599:
594:
585:
584:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:DanBealeCocks
562:
554:
552:
549:
545:
544:
538:
536:
533:
528:
522:
520:
517:
516:
515:
510:
505:
497:
493:
490:
481:
480:
470:
466:
465:
464:
461:
459:
453:
451:
448:
446:
445:
438:
436:
432:
431:
426:
420:
413:
411:
408:
406:
402:
397:
391:
387:
386:
381:
375:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
345:
344:
339:
338:
331:
329:
325:
321:
316:
315:
311:
309:
303:
299:
296:
293:
289:
287:
284:
275:
274:
264:
262:
257:
252:
241:
240:
233:
223:
219:
217:
213:
207:
206:
205:
201:
200:
195:
189:
182:
181:
180:
176:
174:
170:
167:
160:
157:
156:
155:
151:
150:
145:
139:
132:
128:
126:
122:
120:
116:
111:
108:
107:
106:
103:
99:
95:
90:
88:
83:
74:
73:
68:
66:
62:
60:
52:
50:
43:
42:
38:
36:
34:
26:
19:
1000:
953:Lazulilasher
926:
882:
869:
864:
853:
802:
753:
718:
714:
710:
691:
664:
657:
603:
581:
559:— Preceding
542:
541:
503:bibliomaniac
500:
499:
473:
468:
443:
442:
424:
421:
399:
379:
376:
341:
333:
307:
267:
236:
210:
193:
190:
164:
143:
140:
113:
109:
70:
58:
48:
30:
212:Malinaccier
166:Malinaccier
115:Malinaccier
1003:·Add§hore·
967:bag member
910:powers. —
842:Parent5446
354:Locke Cole
94:Locke Cole
965:(current
727:) 03:45,
660:useless.
444:Wizardman
320:J Milburn
990:James086
976:xaosflux
912:Becksguy
824:HEFFIELD
768:Philippe
754:(1 == 2)
729:April 21
611:HEFFIELD
573:contribs
561:unsigned
439:No way.
238:Wisdom89
928:Greeves
805:krimpet
778:Useight
665:Prodego
630:the wub
526:Captain
401:seresin
336:Majorly
1033:Ral315
971:WP:RFA
943:(talk)
897:Stifle
887:figura
866:Werdna
793:Rudget
731:, 2008
678:Daniel
457:Travis
169:Public
159:WP:RFR
131:WP:RFR
59:Naerii
49:Naerii
1026:Other
854:Nakon
694:Voice
644:Haemo
531:panda
485:ɹəəds
478:speer
279:ɹəəds
272:speer
129:Huh?
16:<
1037:talk
957:talk
924:No.
916:talk
901:talk
871:talk
828:TEEL
782:talk
697:-of-
682:talk
648:talk
634:"?!"
615:TEEL
569:talk
548:jc37
543:link
469:them
343:talk
324:talk
216:talk
173:talk
119:talk
1014:ont
737:SQL
725:ask
700:All
658:and
604:can
429:man
418:Mr.
384:man
373:Mr.
302:UTC
298:der
295:gin
198:man
187:Mr.
148:man
137:Mr.
44:--
39:Yes
33:BAG
1039:)
959:)
918:)
903:)
840:—
784:)
721:el
719:tt
717:ro
715:ft
713:or
684:)
650:)
575:)
571:•
488:ɹ
482:/
425:Z-
405:¡?
403:(
380:Z-
360:•
356:•
346:)
326:)
312:No
282:ɹ
276:/
253:/
194:Z-
144:Z-
100:•
96:•
1035:(
1012:C
1009:/
955:(
914:(
899:(
883:B
826:S
822:S
810:✽
780:(
723:(
711:D
680:(
646:(
613:S
609:S
595:)
593:O
591:2
589:H
587:(
567:(
513:5
508:1
475:r
407:)
362:c
358:t
340:(
322:(
304:)
292:Z
269:r
258:)
248:T
243:(
218:)
214:(
175:)
171:(
121:)
117:(
102:c
98:t
84:)
82:O
80:2
78:H
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.