Open main menu

Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-08/User:MalafayaBot for bot status

User:MalafayaBot for bot statusEdit

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:MalafayaBot for the following purposes:
    Adding interwikis to categories: Yes VolkovBot is supposed to do this, but it seems to be relatively inactive. I'm not the bots creator, that's User:Malafaya but I offered to start the vote for him, as he's a 'native' of the Portuguese Wiktionary, not this one.
    Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for starting the vote, Mglovesfun. Yes, adding category interwikis is the goal. Currently, there are lots of valid undiscovered interwiki links lying around in categories in other Wiktionaries. Because of its size, the English Wiktionary is a good place to sort of centralize interwikis. My bot has been finding (auto and manually) literally tens or hundreds of interwikis in categories still unknown to most Wiktionaries (en.wikt included). Because it can't update a major Wiktionary (and the English one is a good one due to its versatile categorization), that information lingers restricted to a few minor Wiktionaries without ever reaching the "mainstream" Wiktionaries. Therefore, I apply for bot status here to allow those interwiki links to be spread among wikis. I am simultaneously applying for bot flag in the French Wiktionary. Thanks, Malafaya 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


  1. Support, has proven quick and efficient on fr: where it's already done about 20 test edits (all correct). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  2.   Support Ivan Štambuk 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  3.   Support. I'm not sure how necessary the bot-flag is for such low volumes of edits as are expected, but if the idea is that conferring the bot-flag shows that we confer our blessing, then sure. —RuakhTALK 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    Not absolutely necessary indeed. Permission to run the bot would suffice. Bot flag could be granted if it ever becomes a nuisance. Malafaya 09:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    We (implicitly, sort of) use the flag as an indication of the permission; it shows in the user list for bots, in any case the flag is easy ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  4.   Support. Test edits recent done — although, not knowing the relevant languages, I can't vouch for their accuracy — seem good.​—msh210 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    It uses Wikipedia-style interwikilinking — adding interwikis based on existing ones, under the assumption that the interwiki relation is symmetric and transitive — so any inaccuracies would ultimately be due to human editors, anyway. —RuakhTALK 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, in that case, certainly support.​—msh210 22:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  5.   Support Very good idea. The other namespaces (other than NS:0) need pedia-style linking, with the "hints" talked about above on big wikts. Since Interwicket covers NS:0 completely, but none of the others, this will be good. I would not limit the bot to categories alone, there are other namespaces that can use some links, but that can get complicated, as they are often cross-namespace in some sense. And note we don't put iwikis on templates. VolkovBot does some as noted, but is focused on the ru.wikt, so we could use this. (checked test contributions, just fine AFAICT) Robert Ullmann 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)




  • Passes, 5–0–0. We need a bureaucrat. —RuakhTALK 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support, guys. Malafaya 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added it to the "Autopatrollers" group, so you can turn it on without overwhelming patrolling admins. Hopefully it won't be long until it's in the actual Bot group, where it belongs. —RuakhTALK 16:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)