Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-01/User:Rukhabot for bot status

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

User:Rukhabot for bot status[edit]

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for Rukhabot (talk • contribs) for the purpose of adding interwiki links, as in these edits: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Unlike other interwiki bots, Rukhabot uses custom code that only takes into account what mainspace page-names exist on other Wiktionaries; that is, it doesn't depend on existing interwiki links between other Wiktionaries. —RuakhTALK 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote ends: 23:59 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support Downunder 13:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC). Ruakh is a trustworthy editor, and any arguments about having "too many interwiki bots" seem pointless to me.[reply]
    Re: "arguments about having 'too many interwiki bots' seem pointless to me": Indeed. I'm really regretting having opposed MalafayaBot (talk • contribs) for mainspace interwikis, now that I've discovered that we have almost 300,000 pages needing interwiki updates. That whole approach is not very efficient, but I see that Luckas-bot (talk • contribs) has been adding interwikis, so apparently that approach is capable of something, and we're far enough behind that something is better than nothing! (And all of the inefficiency is client-side.) —RuakhTALK 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "arguments about having 'too many interwiki bots'": such arguments are irrelevant anyway, as this is the only bot AFAICT that will add links to pages that no other page links to and that don't link to another. This one is necessary, even if we do scrap others.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Stephen (Talk) 14:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neskaya … gawonisgv? 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I'm supporting anyway, but isn't there a requirement (or BCP) that the code be public?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any requirement at Wiktionary:Bots that the code be public, per se, though it strongly implies that "interested bystanders" must be given "an opportunity to review the code if necessary". The code is currently a raging mess, and it will certainly undergo lots of refactoring over time (in fact, it's already started to); but if anyone reading this is an interested bystander, they can e-mail me and I'll send them a current snapshot, at least. —RuakhTALK 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that usual for bot votes: to vote while the bot is still undergoing "lots of refactoring"? I mean, the standard is to do test edits before approval: how do earlier test edits count toward a later revision of the bot, if, well, it's not the same bot? Again, I'm not rescinding my support vote, as I trust the bot owner, but this seems very strange.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the current version works, and future versions will be tested in the same way. It's like how most people use "Firefox" or "Internet Explorer", and when there's a new update they just naturally update: you trust that the new version is still the same product — the same program, with the same functionality — and that any changes are simply improvements. To me this seems completely compatible with what it says at Wiktionary:Bots; for example, that page says, "I will un-do (perhaps with the same or another bot) any and all damage inadvertently caused by my bot" (emphasis mine), which only makes sense if we presuppose that the "same" bot can change over time. Certainly Robert Ullmann (talk • contribs) updated his bots' code over time, and people have asked Prince Kassad (talk • contribs) to make various changes in KassadBot (talk • contribs). I don't have the philosophical background to resolve the Ship of Theseus problem once and for all, but this seems to be the way these things are done, no? —RuakhTALK 18:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. See? I'm not racist. --Vahag 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    :-)   —RuakhTALK 16:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Equinox ◑ 16:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC) with the caveat that I don't know about the issues (if any) with multiple bots doing similar tasks, and am trusting the comments above. Equinox ◑ 16:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Bequw → τ 22:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Anatoli 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Dan Polansky 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Publishing the code on-wiki once the robot is finetuned would be nice. Then, other editors can run a bot with the same code later on. --Dan Polansky 08:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support (oh, consider w:WP:SNOWBALL). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Lmaltier 18:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-01/User:Rukhabot_for_bot_status&oldid=11485183"