Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-03/User:Walled gardener for bot status

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

User:Walled gardener for bot status[edit]

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:Walled gardener for the following purpose:
    Batch uploads, using Pywikipedia, of groups of files prepared locally. Uploads will chiefly be to project or user space (though it is conceivable that there might be some article-space applications). See this test batch, and various previous batches processed under my own account.
    Visviva 15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote ends: 23:59 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support Visviva 15:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Conrad.Irwin 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —RuakhTALK 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support EncycloPetey 18:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support for use in non-ns0; more specifics of ns0 use would be necessary (for my vote).—msh210℠ 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking specifically of the Hangul syllable entries (the ones with no actual meaning), if we could ever reach consensus on what they should look like. That seems, alas, rather unlikely. In any case, I would happily consent to a second vote for any such cases, if they do actually arise. -- Visviva 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Razorflame 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) -No reason not to.[reply]
  9. Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

Oppose Razorflame 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The username in question does not clearly state that it is a bot. Please fix this before I can support this request for bot status. Cheers![reply]
Hmm... wasn't aware this was a requirement on Wiktionary. Is there a policy I've missed? -- Visviva 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's bot policy in general. Nearly everyone that runs a bot uses an account that clearly states that it is a bot account. Cheers, Razorflame 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we have User:Interwicket it's obviously not strict policy. I don't see any reason why the name of the bot matters - and, if we do have something in WT:BOT (another of those imported policies that needs rewriting) it should be removed. Any changes a bot makes are marked with b so it's trivial to distinguish them. Conrad.Irwin 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AF, too.—msh210℠ 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose - I have no problem with the function (though a human could do it just as well, marking the articles as minor to avoid RC clutter) as the name does not state it is a bot, and does not imply either its function or its owner. SemperBlotto 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it would be self-evident that it was a bot for uploading walled gardens of a sort, like User:Visviva/Tracking and its children. But maybe not; we didn't even have the walled garden entry until just now, and its meaning is less clear-cut than I had thought. :-o -- Visviva 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

Passed, 8-1. --Neskaya kanetsv 21:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-03/User:Walled_gardener_for_bot_status&oldid=75279492"