Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2010-11/User:JackBot2

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

User:JackBot for bot status[edit]

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:JackBot, a second time, for some different purposes:
    Like I wrote, to fix the double redirections with redirect.py (this wasn't supposed to flood the RC, however today it did).
    Eventually autoformat the RC, or the many different requests of WT:GP after a clear consensus (like I used to do on the French wikis, you can notice that I've published around twenty 100 lines Python scripts overthere in the two last months). JackPotte 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59 11 November 2010 (UTC) 23:59 18 November 2010 (UTC), extending as what not announced on the Beer Parlour, and has thus almost no input
  • Vote started: 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support JackPotte 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I'm the proposer. JackPotte 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I've been critical of JackPotte before, which I don't regret, but I feel he's come on massively as an editor. Also JackBot is the French equivalent of AutoFormat, such as this. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Conditional Symbol support vote.svg — I support the bot flag if it will be used for fixing double redirects only. I do not support use as an autoformatter, as no details have been given.​—msh210 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Seems harmlessly useful. bd2412 T 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    Technically I'm too late to vote, but I Symbol support vote.svg support the fixing of double redirects by this bot. --Yair rand (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose does not seem mature enough yet. -- Prince Kassad 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    I must also be able to increase the number of the French conjugations which you've deplored yesterday on the IRC. JackPotte 14:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose EncycloPetey 18:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I don't understand the stated purpose of the bot. I understand about fixing double redirects, but what does "autoformat the RC" mean? "RC" is "Recent Changes", so what exactly is the bot supposed to be doing with the recent changes? Without clarification of the bot's purpose, I have to oppose its implementation. A bot request should make it perfectly clear what the function of the bot is to be, so that we'll know whether it's functioning correctly. There should also be test edits to demonstrate the intended function, but I see no test edits demonstrating "autoformat the RC", only the correction of double redirects. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per EncycloPetey. I see three stated purposes of the bot: (a) fix the double redirections with redirect.py; (b) autoformat pages using Robert Ullman's User:AutoFormat as a model; (c) many different requests of WT:GP after a clear consensus. For the purpose (b), there are no test edits. The purpose (c) is wholly unspecific; it says that the bot can be used for any purpose whatsoever for which a bot could be used. --Dan Polansky 08:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    At the present moment I would classify the Autoformat function into the complex ones to vote into the Grease Pit after some different tests. Idem for the French conjugation. JackPotte 14:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

  • Fails. 5–4 for botting for tasks including autoformatting, a failure due to no consensus. Botting for fixing redirects is 6–3, which was recently considered a failure due to no consensus also.
    The first could be interpreted as 5-3 since msh did not explicitly say he would oppose, but this is still no consensus. I'm also not happy with evaluating 6-3 as failure although I'm sure it would be much more productive for the operator to bring this around again after taking the above comments into consideration. DAVilla 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I was sure that I had brought it... It's up to you. JackPotte 11:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)