Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/VoABot II
Voice of All hasn't bothered to respond to this RfC, here or in his bot code, which continues to revert newbs for no reason except that they are new.[1] I am not feeling optimistic about the outcome of this discussion. Hesperian 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- There has not been much promotion of this RfC; perhaps comments at ANI etc. are in order? Also, I reverted the edit mentioned above, as it was legit. [2] dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, there's not many people here, but those that are here are committed to constructively addressing the issue. It would be nice to have a few more voices, but not at the cost of bringing the (wiki)drama queens. Unfortunately, commenting at AN/I would do both. Hesperian 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, but without getting more commentary in, I doubt anything much will eventuate, simply due to a lack of community weight being put behind any proposals. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, there's not many people here, but those that are here are committed to constructively addressing the issue. It would be nice to have a few more voices, but not at the cost of bringing the (wiki)drama queens. Unfortunately, commenting at AN/I would do both. Hesperian 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Does need more input
[edit]I only found this though Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/AGK 2. Needs to be advertised more to get more input. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, yes it does. Hesp and me are getting lonely. :( giggy (:O) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ya know, I go to the trouble of inventing a new form of dispute resolution, and now the only thing it gets used for is newbies tagging stuff historical and me reverting them. MBisanz talk 17:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Resolved?
[edit]Has this been resolved? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)