User talk:DomBot/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
The word bot is not allowed in usernames unless the entity is a registered bot. Please change your name. pschemp | talk 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to register as a bot. My regular user ID is User:Chidom, if you check out my talk page there, you will see a discussion about this. I'm just having a dificult time doing it.!āDomBot talk 00:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- When your bot is regeistered, let me know, point out the link that shows it and I'll unblock. In the meantime, please make it clear that this will be a bot account. A note that this is a userpage up there means its a person, not a bot so you might want to remove that. Also, you need to make it clear both on the talk and the userpage who the owner of the bot account is and specify that this is not just a user. pschemp | talk 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Geesh, this user was trying to help and keeps getting smacked in the face for it. Many bot accounts were created before formal approval as they were clearly indicated as bots and end up on request for approvals after a bit of testing. Running major or controversial bot actions on an unapproved bot would warrant a block, but not simply creating the account. WP:Username does not say that the accounts have to be blocked just for saying "bot", thats only for when it is unclear whether or not it is actually a bot account. Given the context we have here, there is not that uncertainty. Also, by keeping his edit rate down, it is no different than any other low edit rate AWB use for minor edits.Voice-of-All 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- VOA, this account was not marked as a bot at all when I first blocked it so back off. It wasn't clear at the time if it was a bot, and it wasn't indicated ANYWHERE that it was a bot. I'm just being cautious and certainly was polite and said it would be unblocked. No one was smacked in the face for anything and I resent your interpretation. Take a look at the userpage when I blocked. It didn't even indicate who the account belonged to. pschemp | talk 05:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- An initial block from the NU log would have been justified, however he did give a response that should have been reason enough to unblock. Chidom's talk page should have clearfied things. The user was already blocked for editing to fast, then for making a separate account for that and then told to "register" it, which wasn't explained (or linked to) at the time. I'd rather we try to less needlessly harsh to newer users that are just trying to help. I suppose this is mainly just a case of a user being at the wrong place at the wrong time.Voice-of-All 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- If I may chime in, I'm not upset about all this, so no harm, no foul. This stuff happens, I think everyone involved has acted in good faith.āChidom talk 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- An initial block from the NU log would have been justified, however he did give a response that should have been reason enough to unblock. Chidom's talk page should have clearfied things. The user was already blocked for editing to fast, then for making a separate account for that and then told to "register" it, which wasn't explained (or linked to) at the time. I'd rather we try to less needlessly harsh to newer users that are just trying to help. I suppose this is mainly just a case of a user being at the wrong place at the wrong time.Voice-of-All 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)