Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/bt-2007-12/User:MalafayaBot for bot status, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

User:MalafayaBot for bot status

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:MalafayaBot for the following purposes:
    Interwiki exchange: Special:Contributions/MalafayaBot (only one recent edit cause I immediately got blocked indefinitely)
    Uses Pywikipediabot Framework always up to date, using -wiktionary option. It starts on Ido Wiktionary and it could also update the English Wiktionary on a cycle.
  • Vote ends: 11 December 2007 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose EncycloPetey 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) There is no explanation of what this bot is intended to do. --EncycloPetey 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's explained above that it's for interwiki exchange. Malafaya 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Then definitely oppose. Bot importing/exporting of page content is not advisable. --EncycloPetey 17:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC) The interwiki conversations were long and tedious. Returning to the (most) inefficient method of supplying them seems like several steps backwards. No conversation preceded this user's request - indeed, if WT:GP archives had been checked, he/she would have found many reasons not to make this request. --Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, inefficient but it works. Unless there is another solution, inefficient is better than nothing, don't you think? As RobotGMWikt and similars still run here, I assume there has been no other solution so far. Malafaya 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    We have a bot User:Interwicket that updates all of the iwikis. So we in fact have "another solution". Robert Ullmann 11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    I just remembered something else: imagine you are totally against this method of interwiki checking. Not granting permission to bots using this algorithm doesn't prevent them from running at all, which means the inefficient bot will still try to retrieve pages from the English Wiktionary. The only thing it won't be able to do is actually the best part: updating the interwikis here. So you will still have the load of bots retrieving pages and get nothing of the "juice" (interwiki update), which is actually what should be the matter of discussion. (My bot is not intended to run through a whole Wiktionary but rather on an article by article basis, on demand, starting on Ido Wiktionary). Malafaya 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    The idea, as Connel stated, is to move forward, not keep doing the same inefficient things. As of about a day or so ago, all of our Ido iwikis are up-to-date; why should we have to pay attention to another 'bot? You didn't look for a bot policy, or ask first, which is why you are getting resistance. And you do need to explain what mode you are operating in: new pages on the io.wikt? Random pages you happen to think of? (;-) Robert Ullmann 11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the Wiktionary:Bot page and saw nothing that was against my bot's operating mode, so I just asked here (i.e. permission request). As for pages to update, no, they wouldn't be random. The bot would run on newly created pages on Ido (when still no other Wiktionary has interwiki links to it). About inefficiency, that's what I'm trying to clear here. The inefficieny will still exist because interwiki bots still run even without permission to update the English Wiktionary. The difference is whether they are allowed to update en.wikt (and actually update it) or not, and not whether they run on Wikis or not. Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to let this request go if you guys think it's better. All for the community's sake. :) Malafaya 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Robert Ullmann 11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia