Steward requests/Bot status/2024-12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

No response. Leaderboard (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Grondin: Any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrat, since local policy requires explicit approval) EPIC (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No response, and although there were three users who participated in a bot request right below this one but didn't comment on this request, I assume they did not object either, so marking as approved. EPIC (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No response. Note that the script is unreadable on my browser. Leaderboard (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Haoreima: Any opinions? (pinging local administrator, since local policy requires explicit approval) EPIC (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Responded just now there too. I have no objection. Haoreima (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Haoreima: Thank you - should I take it as an approval then? Just so I know whether to close this as resolved. EPIC (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No response, and a week has passed with endorsement from a local administrator, so marking as approved. EPIC (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Successful bot flag request. Iming (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

cc@Leaderboard. Iming (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The bot has already been approved. See Steward_requests/Bot_status/2024-11#Leaderbot@zhwikivoyage. EPIC (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@EPIC It appears to me (see my ping at zh.wikipedia) that they want you to assign the bot flag explicitly. Leaderboard (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Done EPIC (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Successful bot flag request. Iming (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@S8321414: Since the local bot policy requires explicit approval, do you have any opinions from your side? EPIC (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No objection here, and approved locally from @Hehua.--S8321414 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Iming: The account does not exist at zhwikivoyage. Could you log in with it at zhwikivoyage, so that it can autocreate the account there? EPIC (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@EPIC I have created the local account through CreateLocalAccount. Hehua (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, it exists now. Thanks, Hehua. I'm sorry, I forgot to create an account when I was so busy, I'm very sorry for the trouble. Iming (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Done EPIC (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No response. A bureaucrat was pinged, and so were the members of the wiki's bot approval group. Leaderboard (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darafsh: Any opinions from your side? (pinging member of the local bot approval team) EPIC (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. @Ladsgroup will handle it. Darafsh (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Darafsh @EPIC @Leaderboard My apologies, I missed the ping somehow. Responded there. I think this can be closed here. Amir (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Closing as locally handled per above. EPIC (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No response. Leaderboard (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jfblanc: Any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrat since local policy seems to require explicit approval) EPIC (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

It is not clear to me what this bot is doing, but as far as I can tell, I do not detect anything harmful, so go for it.

Is it enough to approve here? If there is another place, please let me know.

Best regards. Jfblanc (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jfblanc: Yes, that should be fine. With that said, I'll mark it as approved - though you could perhaps also mention the approval on the local request page as well for transparency.

I think the bot's purpose is stated at Global reminder bot/Technical details, though Leaderboard could likely better explain it if it is still not too clear to you. EPIC (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This - if something isn't clear to you, please do ask. Leaderboard (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No response. Leaderboard (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Janezdrilc: Any opinions? (pinging local administrator since local policy requires explicit approval) EPIC (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been a week without response, so I'll go ahead and mark as approved. I'll note that the only administrator on the wiki did reject this bot on slwikisource, but since the main issue there was that the community made no use of temporary rights, I will assume that it is not as much of an issue for slwikiquote since contrary to slwikisource, there are no local bureaucrats, so rights will be granted temporarily by stewards as a standard practice (at least for rights such as sysop). As usual, however, this approval is only valid for as long as the local community does not object to the bot, and the community may overturn it. EPIC (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No response; a bureaucrat was also pinged. Leaderboard (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Penn Station: Any opinions? (pinging local bureaucrat) EPIC (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Roughly a week has passed, and although there is no response, the local bot policy mentions that "Bots without approval need to comply with a minimum editing interval of 1 minute and a maximum limit of approximately 200 edits per task". As such, you should be able to run your bot without approval under the mentioned conditions as long as the local community does not object, considering that the bot will likely not be editing frequently. With that said, I'll emphasize that this is not an approval. EPIC (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No further response despite a ping after I responded to a user's initial query. Leaderboard (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eta Carinae: Any opinions from your side? Pinging a different local administrator. EPIC (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Approved locally, marking as such. EPIC (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No response; as per the policy, all admins were emailed. Leaderboard (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Biplab Anand: Pinging local bureaucrat, any opinions from your side? They were emailed so it might not make much difference, but I'd like to leave it to the locals if possible. EPIC (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Marking as approved, since it seems that the local bureaucrat has not responded. They may overturn the approval, in the usual manner. EPIC (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No response. Leaderboard (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy: Any opinions? (pinging local administrator since local policy seems to require explicit approval) EPIC (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Marking as approved, since it seems that the local administrator has not responded. They may overturn the approval, in the usual manner. EPIC (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@Romaine Just want to check with you again on this. I think I've made the requested changes from my end; though do let me know if I've missed something or there's something else I need to do. Leaderboard (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Leaderboard, Sorry for the delay, my schedule is a bit full this period. What I have learned from the Dutch community and the Dutch culture is that people can literally complain about anything, really, anything!

I am happy with the changes, the changes make it a lot more clear. Thank you! I think for the Dutch Wikivoyage you have a green light. Romaine (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I said this on kowiki, but I want it to be logged on Meta, too: I believe bypassing local process and going to meta for bot flag when locals did not give you the attention you want is, in short, subverting the local community process, and demonstration of unwillingness to understand and/or cooperate with local policy, guidelines, and/or community. Stewards should not handle stuff that can be locally handled, unless there is a compelling emergency reason to override them. (ie. wheel war or compromised account) This is not, in any way, urgent or important features that should be fast-tracked, and I believe no response is equal to "we are not interested in that feature". If Stewards granted bot flags on big wikis (ie. enwiki, dewiki, Commons, etc) because locals did not respond fast enough, they'd have a hard time survivng the confirmation next year. Then why should it be different for mid-sized wikis? — regards, Revi 09:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Revi C. I respectfully disagree. In particular, I also disagree with "I believe no response is equal to "we are not interested in that feature"" - personally I interpret it as "we don't mind it" or "the community is too small" (and you've seen this on Meta, where bot applications get one or two comments in many cases); if people don't actually want a feature, as in the case of de.wiki or it.wiki or failed global bot applications (other than mine), they will say it. Korean Wikipedia may have a different process, which I respect, but this does not hold in general. Plus, the stewards make a good effort to try to reach out to local functionaries wherever possible.

It's also ridiculous to expect bot operators to have to wait a long time for a bot application, in my opinion - they shouldn't take any longer than applying for an advanced right (without a good reason). Where in ko.wiki's local policy does it say that bot rights take months, to begin with? If such a thing isn't stated anywhere, you cannot claim that I am "demonstration of unwillingness to understand and/or cooperate with local policy, guidelines, and/or community" - on the contrary, if that was the case, why am I even taking the painstaking effort to read the policies of hundreds of wikis and apply (and there were suggestions from a few to circumvent this process)? (also: this is getting offtopic, but I don't know a better place to put this) Leaderboard (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Marking as locally approved per above. EPIC (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No bureaucrats; two active administrators expressed no objections to flagging. JJP _{Mas ter} (she/they) 03:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. EPIC (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No response; the only bureaucrat was also pinged. Leaderboard (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I've emailed the local bureaucrat. Let's wait for a week. EPIC (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Bot flag assigned locally. EPIC (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please remove the bot flag on Turkish Wikisource. Thank you. Justinianus Bot (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. EPIC (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Please remove the bot flag on Turkish Wikipedia. Thank you. Justinianus Bot (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Since trwiki has local bureaucrats who can remove the flag, please ask them to process this. EPIC (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Bot_status/2024-12&oldid=28049292"

Categories:

• Talk archives
• Steward requests archive/Bot status

Hidden category:

• Noindexed pages