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)
Questions for the candidate
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.
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."
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)
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)
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)
. 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.
