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

Revision as of 19:23, 7 January 2007

Revision as of 20:12, 7 January 2007

Line 242:

:::::2. "RfA" stands for "requests for '''adminship'''." As you've acknowledged that a bot cannot be an administrator, how does it make sense to conduct the discussion in that venue?

:::::3. Again, proclaiming that something is correct is ''not'' a valid means of establishing such a contention. Citing your position with the BAG as a means of declaring that something ''will'' be a certain why is '''not''' the same as proving that it ''should'' be a certain way. Your opinion is worth no more than mine or anyone else's, and I find it ironic that you're using your non-consensus-derived status as means of overriding the need for community consensus regarding the proper means of establishing yet another community consensus. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:* I am NOT a member of BAG, thank you. I would remind you also that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. 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> 20:12, 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)