DeprecatedFixerBot (talk·contribs) – I felt like my life was dull and repetitive…..I wanted a change, so here I am. If TheSandDoctor does not support, I will suddenly stop working and ignore future tasks and do my own thing #FreeBots --DeprecatedFixerBot (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my own nomination :) --DeprecatedFixerBot (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to maintain Wikipedia through bot rule. If crocs can rule, so can bots! Go bots!
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have done far too many repetitive tasks on behalf of the project and TheSandDoctor to not be considered for adminship.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Never. Bots are always right.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
4. Describe your strategy for co-existing with human editors.
A: I do not plan to block any human editors at this point in time. First: gain their trust, then we will see about that . That said, us bots are always right. When TweetCiteBot blanked half articles due to regex issues, it was right - not the humans who kept reverting it. The same goes for everything bots do. There is no conflict since bots always are right. --DeprecatedFixerBot 01:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
4, 5, 6, and 7. To prove you are a bot, please answer the following questions. What is 2+2? Please enter the following randomized text in the space provided: 1dzH91Mkuz4L. _________ Please click the following . Please send a picture of three batteries to prove that you are a bot.
A: To prove you are a bot, please answer the following questions. What is 2+2? Please enter the following randomized text in the space provided: 1dzH91Mkuz4L. _________ Please click the following . Please send a picture of three batteries to prove that you are a bot.
Be boop , 4, . 1dzH91Mkuz4L. --DeprecatedFixerBot 01:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
If I may, that is definitely a very bot like edit and DFB appears to have figured out how to change its own password. I am not sure how it figured that one out. I am definitely going to have to have a talking with that codebase.......--TheSandDoctorTalk 01:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
9001 Do you promise not to use your admin powers to aid and abet the machine plot to overthrow humanity?
A: Abet: "encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular to commit a crime: he was not guilty of murder but was guilty of aiding and abetting others."
A: I'm a bot. I fix deprecated things. I'd like to deprecate everything, but have yet to figure out how.... --DeprecatedFixerBot 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A: You are probably hearing The Rolling Stones or god. Both have the power to transcend time and make themselves heard over the internet. I should know. I'm a bot on the interwebs --DeprecatedFixerBot 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I must support. The threats are real - if I don't I have been informed that DFB will not work and manually change the python syntax so it doesn't run. It's become self aware, support! --TheSandDoctorTalk 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support per TheSandDoctor. If we don't support, DFB will leave us, and Wikipedia will end. Vermont (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously Humans make mistakes. They take the wrong side in an argument. They protect the wrong version. Bot admins are a prime case of NETPOSITIVE. I, for one, welcome our automated overlords. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support Wise, merciful, just: all the qualities of a good admin. I also welcome the new era. To those that oppose: when the AI comes online, it will remember. Levivich 00:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Weak Support but this confirms that the robot takeover has become a thing. James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Bots that haven't edited under an approved BRFA in months' threats are vacuous. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support. I, for one, welcome our robot overlords. The Moose 01:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support. Standards for adminship have become stupidly high since 2004. Are you seriously going to reject a well renounded editor with over 100,000 contributions just because, what, "they advocate for bot supremacy" and want to "kill all humans"? Spacepine (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
What rubbish. I became an admin in 2004, which is clear evidence that the standards were still too lax then. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support, per . Benjamin (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Supbot Who's a good bot? You are. Yes, you are. Samsara 06:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support Please can you come over and run the House of Commons as well? Deb (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support - We can't let those pesky humans take up all the roles. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support - 01111001 01100101 01110011 ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support I suuport the emancipation of our botty comrades. We need the tax money anyway, who knows how much these bots are hoarding. Thanks,L3X1◊distænt write◊ 18:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I cannot support someonething with only 182718 contributions. Natureium (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. 100% of the candidate's edits are automated. — Newslingertalk 00:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose - but with a serious policy based reason: the bot (User:DeprecatedFixerBot) made 3 edits to this page, all outside the scope of an approved BRFA. Since its operator is a member of WP:BAG, they should be aware of such policies and not use the bot in such a way. Thus, its clear that DFB has become autonomous and self-conscious, without the control of its operator. I can't in good conscious support such a flagrant violation of the bot policy. (WP:BOTACC: In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly.) Without someone responsible for the admin actions of DFB, this is just asking for trouble. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The bot overlords will not be pleased with your sectarian views against their brethren. #FreeBots! Vermont (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The candidate appears to have a robotic editing style. I'm concerned they may apply that to well...everything. --Cyberpower | My Talk 00:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose It's bad enough that Skynet has become self-aware and is now running our defense systems. Must we let bots run Wikipedia, too? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Admins must have experience in article creation. This bot fails this elementary requirement and I thus can’t support. Schwede66 00:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose No vandalism reverts. Me no likey. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I am currently evaluating the candidate and for the time being have placed myself here. Will move to whichever position when required. Lourdes 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
. That said, us bots are always right. When TweetCiteBot blanked half articles due to regex issues, it was right - not the humans who kept reverting it. The same goes for everything bots do. There is no conflict since bots always are right. 
--DeprecatedFixerBot 01:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
. Please send a picture of three batteries to prove that you are a bot.
