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

Revision as of 20:20, 7 January 2007

Revision as of 21:09, 7 January 2007

Line 235:

:::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. <s>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.</s> &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: The right is called sysop. A bot cannot be an administrator. It can be a sysop. RFA is where you go to get the sysop bit. A bot op that wants the sysop bit for his or her bot should petition there. Until there is a seperate venue for bots, that is the way it should and will be. 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> 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::1. <s>If the right is called "sysop," why did you previously claim otherwise? Were you mistaken, or were you referring to something different that I'm failing to grasp?</s>

:::::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 <s>your position with the BAG as a means of declaring</s> the BAG's declaration that something ''will'' be a certain whyway is '''not''' the same as proving that it ''should'' be a certain way. <s>Your</s> The BAG's opinion is worth no more than mine or anyone else's, and I find it ironic that you're <s>using your</s> citing the BAG's non-consensus-derived status as means of overriding the need for community consensus regarding the proper means of establishing yet another community consensus. &mdash;[[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)

:::::::1. I somehow confused you with Betacommand. My apologies. The crux of my argument, however, is unaffected; a BAG proclamation does ''not'' establish that something is the correct course of action.

:::::::2. I don't see the relevance of your [[WP:NOT]] citation. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 21:09, 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)