Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:04, 7 January 2007

Revision as of 18:15, 7 January 2007

Line 230:

:How about you, Xaosflux? Did ''you'' read my replies? I don't understand why my argument that we should refer to the discussion as something other than an "RfA" has continually been construed as an argument that there should be no discussion. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:*It is simple: Wikipedia is built on community consensus. RFA is the proper forum for consensus regarding sysop functions. if you want a bot to pass, you must satisify conditions laid out by the BAG. if you do not, then it will not be approved. A condition of this bot's acceptance is passing RFA. Full stop. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<font color="#696">Peter M Dodge</font>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|<font color="#696">Talk to Me</font>]] &bull; [[WP:WNP|<font color="#696">Neutrality Project</font>]] )</span> 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:*I:It didis readsimple: yourWikipedia replies,is Ibuilt simplyon docommunity not feelconsensus. that thereRFA is athe communityproper supportforum tofor allowconsensus theregarding botsysop approvalsfunctions. group toif approveyou thewant sysopa flagbot to accounts;pass, you must satisify conditions laid out shouldby the communityBAG. support thatif you do not, Ithen wouldit will not havebe aapproved. problem exercisingA itcondition of this bot's acceptance is passing RFA. — Full stop. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:XaosfluxWizardry Dragon|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype696"><big>xaosfluxPeter M Dodge</bigfont>]] ( [[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|</font color="#696">Talk to Me</bfont>]] <sup>&bull; [[User_talkWP:XaosfluxWNP|<font color="#00FF00696">TalkNeutrality Project</font>]] )</supspan> 1817:0450, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:::1. '''You''' believe that "RFA is the proper forum for consensus regarding sysop functions." I, conversely, see no evidence to support the contention that it's the proper forum in which to establish such consensus for anything other than a human. It's called "requests for adminship," and bots cannot be admins.

:::2. "Because we said so" is ''not'' a legitimate argument for why something is right. Jimbo himself doesn't apply such logic. Furthermore, your "full stop" remark was rather rude.

:::3. I'm still waiting for you to elucidate your claim that "we dont have a +sysop in metawiki all that there currently is is +admin some can call it sysop but it is not." Again, if I'm missing something, please bring it to my attention. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::I did read your replies, I simply do not feel that there is a community support to allow the bot approvals group to approve the sysop flag to accounts; should the community support that, I would not have a problem exercising it. — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] ^{[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]} 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Are you certain that you read my replies? I never said that we should "allow the bot approvals group to approve the sysop flag to accounts." Over and over again, I've plainly stated that I don't object to the idea of conducting a formal discussion to determine community consensus. I object to the idea of labeling said discussion an "RfA" (because bots can't be admins). I'm merely arguing that the discussion should be called something different and held on a different page (while still prominently linked from RfA and various other forums). That's all. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)