Steward requests/Bot status

Before posting here, please check the following points:

1. If there is a bureaucrat on the local wiki (visit Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat on the wiki to check): Please ask them to fulfill your request using Special:UserRights on the relevant wiki.
2. Before requesting access here, make sure to obtain consensus on the local wiki if there is a community (see the index of request pages). If there is no local community, request on this page with a note to that effect. You can ask local bot flag directly here for some wikis in some cases (see automatic approval).
3. Remember to read the local project's bot policy. This should be linked from the local bot request page; a few are listed below. DO NOT post your request here without having fulfilled the local policies first, and having waited for at least a week to gauge community opinion. In the case that the project does not have a local bot policy, the global bot policy applies.

1. Place the following code at the bottom of the "Bot status requests" section below:

   === Bot name@xxproject ===
   {{sr-request
   | status = <!--don't change this line-->
   | domain = 
   | user name = 
   | discussion = 
   }}
   (your remarks) ~~~~
   

   You can use following form when applying global bot status:

   === Global bot status for <yourbotname> ===
   {{sr-request
   | status = <!--don't change this line-->
   | domain = global<!--don't change this line-->
   | user name = 
   | discussion = 
   }}
   {{indent|''Not ending before {{subst:#time:j F Y H:i|+2 week}} UTC''}}
   (your remarks) ~~~~
   

2. Fill in the values:
   • 'domain': the wiki's URL domain (like "ex.wikipedia" or "meta.wikimedia").
   • 'user name': the bot's user name (like "ExampleBot"). Leave it blank if you're requesting access for multiple bots.
   • 'discussion': a link to the local vote or discussion about the bot (for example, "[[ex:Wikipedia:Bots#ExampleBot]]"). Notes: If there is no local vote or discussion, please say so below the template and explain why not. If there's no community, implement the standard bot policy instead.
3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

Global bots are enabled on most wikis using the standard bot policy (see list of global bot wikis and global bot access requirements). Request will be left open for at least 2 weeks to allow comments, and will be advertised via MassMessage.

Please add requests at the bottom of this section using the template above.

Please see the removal policy for global bots for the requirements that must be met for global bot removal requests.

No response; the wiki requires authorisation. Leaderboard (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: Any opinions? (pinging as a local bureaucrat) EPIC (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EPIC, Thank you for the ping! To be honest, I am a bit annoyed by the request of Leaderboard in multiple ways.

• For some reason Leaderboard thinks I am clairvoyant and able to know without any pings or other communication that he has request something. I am an active user and if I get a ping I try to respond as quickly as possible. On the Dutch Wikivoyage I was not pinged at all. So there was no effort taken to actively communicate. So the "No response" above means that Leaderboard took insufficient effort.
• When a bot owner asks for a botflag, this user is expected to make clear what the bot is going to do. This is completely missing, here and on voy. Looking at the user page I read something cryptical. How am I (or is anyone) then even able to make a proper decision? Apparently it is too hard to add one meaningful sentence what the bot is going to do. This is not a proper way to make a request.
• With requesting a botflag anywhere, the user operating the bot asks the community for trusting the bot, and trusting the owner that it will operate the bot in a proper way. Also, it is expected that the botowner is able to communicate properly if there are any issues. What I have written before does not provide a proper base of trust.

But what I am frustrated about the most is that this situation consumes so much of my time, while a normal request can be handled in 15 seconds! Lucky for Leaderboard, I believe in 2nd chances, but I like to see a reaction to the issues I now mention. (Maybe a crazy idea, when you reply, ping me.) Romaine (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine I need to address your concerns:

• I've done pings for many wikis before, and they often don't do anything (take a look at the past archives). As a result, I thought that this was the best option (and I'm wary about pinging unnecessarily as well). As a general rule, if you expect bot operators to ping bureaucrats whenever asking for a right, please mention it in the rules somewhere. This has been the case for a few wikis (example), and I've always pinged them in that case.
• The meta page is pretty clear on summarising what the bot is supposed to do (and is a translatable page, to aid non-English speakers). I'm a little confused on what else I should have added - can you clarify?

To be clear: this is the first time I have ran into issues like this, so I'm trying to see what to possibly change in the future. Leaderboard (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was pretty clear on summarising what the issues are, but based on your reply I apparently am not. And to be clear, I have been dealing with bot flag requests on several wikis (and run bots) for 15 years and I have never ran into a situation like this.

• You are turning it around, you wrote here above "No response", but that was caused by how you acted. You just assumed there would be no response. With the way you are acting you just try to bypass the local community.
• You are not the person to judge if you are clear, that is my role. And I indicated that it is not really clear and I expect to be taken seriously. Your role as bot owner and requester is to make unambiguously clear and transparent what the bot is going to do and how it works, avoiding vague language, and as with a bot flag request you are asking the community to trust you, you need to show trustworthy behaviour. It is normal procedure to say in the request what the bot is going to do. You did not, twice. Then reading your bot's user page basically only says "it does m:Global reminder bot". So no, on your user page you do NOT say what your bot does, you just are being cryptical, use vague language and point to another page. Then on m:Global reminder bot, the cryptical remains already with the first sentence: "This is a bot (by Leaderbot) that reminds users when their rights are to expire". Great there is a bot doing such a task. But which bot account is that: as this page is about the "Global reminder bot" and then normally I would expect a bot to be called "Global reminder bot" (like with MassMessage the User:MediaWiki message delivery, etc etc) or something like that. The first sentence now reads like there is a bot called "Global reminder bot" and it is fed with information (or whatever collaboration) by the bot called "Leaderbot". Otherwise the 1st sentence is trying to indicate that "Global reminder bot" is a type of bot, currently performed by Leaderbot, but then the 1st sentence is not written clear enough. Also the first bullet is unclear: "The bot will remind users once". How does this reminding take place? By wikimail, talk page message on that wiki, talk page message on the user's Meta talk page, ping, something else?

In all the 15 years, the requesters of bot flags have always been clear about these things, that is the basic, so it is very new to me that this time it is different and I can say I don't like it. What you need to change in future? 1. Add in the request itself what the bot is going to do (if that is too hard, do not run a bot). 2. Do not use vague language and be clear and transparent (community trust starts with clear communication). 3. Don't try to bypass a local community. 4. If you link to documentation, make sure that documentation is clear and not ambiguous. 5. Make clear that you understand the issues raised an d act accordingly. Romaine (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine,

• I am absolutely not trying to bypass the community, otherwise I would not even ask in the first place or do this on Meta (in fact, some users actually suggested this). I'm doing what I thought was standard practice - request on community first and then ask stewards if no response there (and yes there was no response until you were pinged - and nowhere on the nl.wikivoyage bot application rules suggested that I had to do that as part of an application). Plus in like 100+ wikis I've requested, you're the first person with a complaint like that.
• If you think I wasn't clear, why are you not asking me there? Every other wiki with questions asked me on their respective bot request page; isn't that the purpose of that page?
• However, let me see on how I can reduce the perceived "vagueness" on the main page (Global reminder bot) - the intention was indeed that this would be clear to anyone (which is why I simply link to that in bot requests) and indeed that has been the case with every other user I've interacted with regarding this bot so to hear this was a surprise. Still, this is sensible and useful feedback I can take into account.
• The bot will send a reminder on their talk page (which for many users, depending on their settings, is equivalent to a ping and email). I can add that to the main page as well.

Hope this answers your questions, and apologies in advance - hope you can see how I could not have predicted such a response from anyone, because if others didn't like it, I would have made changes long ago. This conversation is interesting on other aspects - like how a certain approach may be OK on like 99+% of wikis but unexpectedly cause issues on one. Leaderboard (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard:

• If you already assume no response, it does feel that way. We have nowhere set that a request needs to be handled within a certain amount of time. If a requester wants a quicker response, there are various ways to arrange that. nl.wikivoyage is a relative small wiki, and on all the large and small wikis where I am active, other users ping each other if a (quicker) response is needed. Over the years I have been dealing with users from many wikis and countries, and how people react seems to me often culture bound. The Dutch culture is one known for being very direct and straightforward about what people think. This can be experienced a bit rough by people not used to this, but then people can learn very quick if there are any issues. (The alternative I have seen (elsewhere) in Wikimedia is that people do not speak out much, and then later on the complaints can come, and that happens a lot. I have a list of Wikimedia fiascos caused by this.)
• The first moment I noticed that there was a request was because EPIC took the effort to ping me. He asks here on Meta for comment and I provided that. I noticed his ping very quickly, but then I started to read into what you wanted, and as I had a busy schedule I had to put it away for half a day as the requests and documentation is unclear and vaguely written and I had no time to dive into it. So you expect me to just reply and ask "this is vague, please rewrite it" ? I guess not. I guess that you want a specific question, as that is very common. And as here the question is asked, I reply here. If this discussion has been completed, I will add a permalink to the page on the Dutch Wikivoyage.
• I really do not care about what other users think or do. My parents often asked with statements about others: if other people jump into a canal, you jump also?
• In my previous message I wrote that the first sentence is not unambiguously clear, but you do not reply to that. As you do not provide the information I asked for, I can only have guesses and assumptions, and I don't like that as too often that can lead to false assumptions. The first sentence of Global reminder bot now mentions two names of bots: "Global reminder bot" and "Leaderbot". As there is no bot account with the name "Global reminder bot" (as it is common with this kind of services to have a bot named with that service), then the 1st sentence better should be: "The Global reminder bot is a service (by Leaderbot) that reminds users when their rights are to expire."
• Thanks for clarifying on the page regarding what it does do.

Predictions have the nature of not becoming reality. Also thinking that something is clear (for others than yourself) is an assumption/prediction, and not necessarily true. With a request, you ask input from the community. I find the service a good initiative and therefore I took the time to seriously look into it and provide feedback. If only less than 1% is providing certain feedback, I would value that feedback even more. Romaine (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine Thanks again for the feedback. And yes, "If only less than 1% is providing certain feedback, I would value that feedback even more" isn't wrong either.

• The idea of "other users ping" is something I am reluctant to do, but I'll start pinging users for other Dutch-language wikis (and even others). My experience is that users can sometime be irritated if I ping them too often.
• "I really do not care about what other users think or do." - sure. But as a bot operator, I often use prior feedback as a way of determining whether I am doing something right (and the same applies to this one). The same applies to "nowhere set that a request needs to be handled within a certain amount of time" - I was following prior experience from other bot operators. It does help to explicitly write this down so that future operators know what to expect.
• "but you do not reply to that" - actually I was still thinking of how to improve that sentence. I need to be very careful, because if I change the sentence significantly, I need to invalidate translations for that line, and that would affect non-English speakers. On the other hand, it was easy to add sentences as that does not invalidate sentences already translated. I've now made this change as well.

Leaderboard (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response; the wiki requires authorisation. No bureaucrat either. Leaderboard (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ויקיג'אנקי: Pinging the sole local administrator; any opinions or objections from your side? With that said, if approved I think this could run without a bot flag. EPIC (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiJunkie: Excuses, pinging the user's main account instead. EPIC (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response; the wiki requires authorisation. For this and the below requests, please let me know if you want me to ping anyone, for instance. Leaderboard (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tahir mq: any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrat) EPIC (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response, and as per the policy I had already pinged all three bureaucrats of the wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response, and the notice on the top page tell that I need to request authorisation from a steward. Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Niceley and EileenSanda: Any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrats) EPIC (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response; the bureaucrat listed on that page is not the only bureaucrat of that wiki (which appears to be User:Comp1089). Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Comp1089: Any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrat) EPIC (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response and no bureaucrat. Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasir: Any opinions? (pinging local administrator, since local policy requires explicit approval) EPIC (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EPIC: Donating the flag is not a problem --Kasir ^talk 20:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, however, the rules ask for approval from two tr.wikivoyage admins, which isn't the case here. Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anerka and Kadı: Any opinions? (pinging the two local administrators, since local policy namely states that two local admins should approve) EPIC (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response, and the notice on the top page tell that I need to request authorisation from a steward. Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres: Any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrat) EPIC (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for removal of the bot status from your own bots can be done here. If a specific user is abusing their bot status, you may request removal of the status on their account here as well. Please be sure to provide a short explanation on the current situation, along with links to the bot's contribution and an announcement in your community of the abuse. Previous requests are archived.

• User groups — Information on user groups
• Archives
  • 2005: 2005
  • 2006: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2007: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2008: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2009: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2010: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2011: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2012: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2013: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2014: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2015: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2016: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2017: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2018: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2019: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2020: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2021: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2022: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2023: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2024: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12