Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-10/User:GedawyBot for bot status

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:GedawyBot for bot status

[edit]
  • Vote ends: 23:59 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 09:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose Incorrect editing: diff --Yair rand 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OpposeRuakhTALK 13:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi sir, I forgot to type the prameter -wikitionary before running my bot; so i think this caused the problem. I'm so sorry for that. Can i do some test edits?--محمد الجداوي 10:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Check up my new edits: ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10])--محمد الجداوي 12:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Dan Polansky 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC). The owner of the bot seems somewhat hasty, as when he has forgotten to use the right parameter, and when he has misspelled the parameter as "-wikitionary" above. Furthermore, Wiktionary has enough interwiki bots including Luckas-bot (talkcontribs) and Rukhabot (talkcontribs) (recently inactive), I figure, so going for the safe side and opposing this bot seems rather harmless. --Dan Polansky 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]

Decision

[edit]

Closing prematurely as failed/withdrawn, as the bot owner is still tweaking the code and testing. Please feel free to start a new vote when that's done.​—msh210 (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree. The bot owner is running the same code as most interwiki-bots; (s)he simply forgot a command-line argument they use at Wiktionary. This may be a reason to oppose (if you feel it suggests that the bot owner may not be familiar enough with Wiktionarian conventions), but I don't think it's a reason to close prematurely. —RuakhTALK 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who voted voted on one bot; the owner is now running a different bot. Closing the vote is in the best interests of those who want to see it pass: it's more likely to pass if restarted than if continued with two opposition votes that may not apply to it any longer.​—msh210 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., that makes sense. Never mind. :-)   —RuakhTALK 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]