Talk:Miraheze Meetings

Someone to bookmark this page for translation? --YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 01:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is Agent Isai continuing to add material shilling one specific logging bot? Meetings can be logged using any logging bot. There is no need to demand a specific bot, both for availability and consistency in policy. The bot referenced is also an unofficial bot run by a group which Miraheze is gradually severing ties with. Therefore it needs to be removed. Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect and quite frankly, it is very petty and extremely immature that your hatred of MirahezeBots for an incident which occured a while ago prompts you to attempt and exterminate every mention of it and wipe it off the face of the earth. We use the bot not only on #miraheze-meetings but across the entire #miraheze namespace. If you have issues against MirahezeBots and it's staff, please kindly resolve it with them rather than dragging the Miraheze community into it in your fit of rage against them. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Agent Isai on this one . This response of yours is somehow leaning towards a personal attack against him, and I do not like that tone of aggression that you are spewing out. We've only scratched the surface on how much aggressive you've become from today. In fact, I've noticed the aggression dating all the way back to January, and even on Meta Wikimedia, where you're pretty much blocked there for the exact similar personal attack you're making here. Please remember to be civil. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I never suggested wiping it off the face of Earth, I simply said one specific bot should not be built into policy. That's all. Naleksuh (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: A non-op has used MirahezeBot to op themself. I retract the previous statement, this bot needs to be expeditiously removed. Naleksuh (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MacFan4000 has ChanServ flags which allow him to op himself. Him choosing to do it via MirahezeBot versus  was simply a choice and was not an abuse of power at all.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Which verbiage is preferred?
There is a minor editing dispute to Miraheze Meetings, with one user preferring this version and another user preferring this version.

To resolve the dispute, please make your arguments for why each version is preferred, or propose a revised version in Option C.

As this is a global policy change, an ideally uninvolved Steward should assess the consensus.

Thanks.

Dmehus (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Option A: Agent Isai's version

 * 1)  There's nothing wrong with the current verbiage so why change it? It accurately reflects our current use of MirahezeBot to log meetings and so I don't see a need for it to change.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Pretty obvious answer here. For the record, Naleksuh needs to not be so aggressive over something as silly as removing MirahezeBots from public view. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Option C: Something else
For this option, please simply state your revised version in a bullet point, and continue by making your argument for why.


 * 1) This is two completely seperate issues. People are forced to !vote on periods on bullet points, bots, and other wording changes all at once. Instead, let's ask ourselves questions about what should be on the page, instead of binary only two options. Naleksuh (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A sitenotice to this loaded RFC has been added. Please allow actual discussion first. Naleksuh (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I understand the concern you have for the MirahezeBots to still remain, your response you gave earlier pretty much gave me a bad impression, and left me on a sour note, especially with this personal attack that was made directly at Agent Isai, and that won't give you that much resolve anyway. If you are left in doubt, then maybe perhaps you may ask the question. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That diff does not depict a personal attack. A personal attack is when you comment on a person or their characteristics rather than actions. That diff is me commenting on actions.
 * Yes, that's a great idea. Why don't we discuss individual sections instead of "only two options"? I'll add that now. Naleksuh (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Administrative/Procedural Comment: This is not an RfC. This is a discussion to sort out what is an editing dispute. At issue is two proposed wordings. Option C was presented as a perfectly valid third option, which allows users to either discuss a blend of Options A and B, or more substantively the content of the page. I'm not sure how you how can say it is a binary outcome, when the two obvious disputed outcomes have been neutrally presented, and a third option which allows for more fulsome discussion is also presented. Dmehus (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 has removed all discussion on the specific merits of the text in this diff Special:Diff/238978, restoring the loaded poll. It's also worth noting that none of the people who chose a specific option are discussing all of the changes, either just one or none at all. Naleksuh (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)