Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot: difference between revisions

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Go to previous editGo to next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 27: Line 27:
#: Furthermore, if CodeCat had neither the bot nor AWB, how would they be able to effect those massive changes? And what massive changes do you have in mind?
#: Furthermore, if CodeCat had neither the bot nor AWB, how would they be able to effect those massive changes? And what massive changes do you have in mind?
#: Finally, what measure do you propose, if any? Shall a desysop vote be created? --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
#: Finally, what measure do you propose, if any? Shall a desysop vote be created? --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
# {{oppose}}. CodeCat's career is similar to that of Hitler before 1939. They make sweeping changes without consensus-building, have driven away Wiktionary's [[User:Ruakh|main Jew]], but they also deliver results. I choose to continue appeasing Führer CodeCat as long as they improve Wiktionary on balance and do not invade Poland (you can dismember Polansky's Czechoslovakia, no one cares). --[[User:Vahagn Petrosyan|Vahag]] ([[User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan|talk]]) 10:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


==== Abstain ====
==== Abstain ====

Revision as of 10:28, 23 August 2014

Debotting MewBot

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per Wiktionary talk:Votes/2014-08/Debotting MewBot#Rationale. It is going to be pity, since the bot does multiple good things, but the cost in terms of bad undiscussed edits and of blatant repeated violation of WT:BOT is too high. As a next step, the opposers should initiate a change of WT:BOT policy, since they obviously do not support it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose --WikiTiki89 19:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikitiki89 Any rationale? Is systematic violation of WT:BOT okay? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not ok. But overall, MewBot does many more good things than bad, and the bad ones are usually only marginally bad. --WikiTiki89 20:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose DTLHS (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose This is about CodeCat, not about her bot. Grounding her bot wouldn't stop her from the massive changes to Wiktionary infrastructure that have raised the most opposition, but it would stop her from a number of helpful small and low-visibility tasks that she uses her bot for from time to time. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chuck Entz Shall we abolish WT:BOT policy, since we do not intend to enforce it even for a bot with repeated violations and repeated opposition by multiple editors? The less severe measure than debotting would be a temporary block of the bot, but only one admin did it[1]; when he did, he received ugly vituperation[2].
    Furthermore, if CodeCat had neither the bot nor AWB, how would they be able to effect those massive changes? And what massive changes do you have in mind?
    Finally, what measure do you propose, if any? Shall a desysop vote be created? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. CodeCat's career is similar to that of Hitler before 1939. They make sweeping changes without consensus-building, have driven away Wiktionary's main Jew, but they also deliver results. I choose to continue appeasing Führer CodeCat as long as they improve Wiktionary on balance and do not invade Poland (you can dismember Polansky's Czechoslovakia, no one cares). --Vahag (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Decision

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Debotting_MewBot&oldid=28843898"