Talk:Steward requests/Bot status

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Talk:Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Pathoschild (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 2 March 2009. It may differ significantly from the current version.
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I'm not good at English but I will ask a botbitje for RoboDick I am from Holland. 21:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that wold be an inappropriate name for a bot. See w:dick --Frogger3140 21:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Dick can refer to the penis in English, but has different meanings in other languages. Whether the name is inappropriate depends on the language and mindsets of the wiki it runs on. The word is perfectly okay in many languages, and some communities may be fine with a good-faith account if Dick refers to a nonvulgar word (like the common name), or they might not consider body parts vulgar at all (Would 'RoboNose' be vulgar?). I think it is inaccurate to automatically assume that what you consider inappropriate will be considered inappropriate everywhere, since 83 didn't say on which wiki he would request a bot flag.
Besides which, you're responding to a comment made nearly three years ago. RoboDick now has a bot flag on several wikis. —Pathoschild 00:07:46, 01 November 2008 (UTC)

jawiki bug?

The following discussion is closed: bug fixed

i have today been unable to give botbits on, getting the following error message:

Bad interwiki username: Bogus database suffix "jawiki"

yes i checked and rechecked the syntaxis over and again (it did work for the other bots, didn't it?) and also checked the software versions of meta and ja, but they were identical, so i do not understand what is wrong here with the steward interface? oscar 23:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it because jawiki located at Korean cluster, (quoted: and can't be directly accessed or manipulated from the Florida cluster)? Borgx 00:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: done

I assume no-one minds if I add the following section above "Current requests"? It is a boilerplate template similar to the one at Requests for permissions. If no-one minds, I'll add it tomorrow.

==Boilerplate template for bot requests==
The text below is a template for requesting bot permissions on a wiki. Please copy it and complete the two required points, plus other salient information.
===== [[:xx:User:bot name]] =====
I request that [[:xx:User:bot name]] gets bot flag on ''project name'':
*'''Language Code:''' XX
*'''Local Request Link:''' [[:xx:Project:XXXXX]]
*'''Local User Page:''' [[:xx::User:XXXXX]]
Thank you. ~~~~
  1. Be sure to indicate that you have gotten community approval (if there is no community, please indicate that)
  2. Be sure to include all the required information requested. Without it, your request cannot be processed.

Jon Harald Søby 10:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Get first community approval, or not?

Now many requests are done by users who request it on meta together with there request on there local wiki. The result is mostly a comment form a steward that the need to wait. This is because it seems that on many requests for botstatus is written that the need to request it on there local wiki and on meta. But I would be more practical if the first get approval on there local wiki and only after that come to request it in meta.

Thoughts about this? --Walter 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot policy and bot flag request template page

I've created a template for a bot policy and bot flag request page based on the bot policy page at no so that users requesting bot flag on wikis with no such policy can easily create it. Please review the text and once it becomes stable I'll add a link on the corresponding section of this page. --Ascánder 21:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot flagging now bureaucrat task

Just a quick note (cross posted to Talk:Stewards and Talk:Requests for permissions for full disclosure) that an extension has now been enabled making bot flagging a task for local bureaucrats (accomplished through the Special:Makebot interface). This allows for both flagging and deflagging. Knowing that bot flagging has been described as a less-than-happy-task by stewards, I assume bot requests will now be handled like Requests for permissions; that is, if there is a local bureaucrat, stewards won't set them any longer. Am I correct in this? (I'll be watching here for requests from; I've already cleaned up what I could find.) I suppose this would be the right place for discussion of this (as opposed to the other two pages I've cross-posted). Essjay (TalkConnect) 09:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, bot requests are now no different to admin requests (apart from the fact bureaucrats can also remove bot privileges). Therefore, stewards shouldn't handle them in situations where there is an active local bureaucrat. Angela 10:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Did people stop notifying local Wikis when a bot flag had been turned on? We've got a load of pending requests on tg:Википедиа:Ботҳо that appear to have not been fulfilled, but some of the bots aren't showing up in the recent changes anymore. Is this policy or just forgetfulness? :) - FrancisTyers 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably forgetfulness... Many request and more to come. I have ~85 community input requests for bot status in progress. Many on wiki's with no bureaucrats... I've also seen PipepBot requests almost everywhere I went. Cheers! Siebrand 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You can check to see if the bots are marked as bot by going to special:listusers and selecting the "Bot" dropdown. Notably, SieBot on tgwiki is already +Bot. I'll pester someone today if I see 'em. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was thinking of going for Bureaucrat status actually on, we have enough bot requests that it gets tedious both both you guys and me I think (I always end up having to copy/paste the requests onto meta). Are there guidelines or a policy for how many users/pages/bots a Wiki should have before a bureaucrat is allowed? - FrancisTyers 12:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally it varies wiki to wiki. If you think you need a bureaucrat, start a vote. If the community gives you the thumbs up, bring it to Requests for permissions, and then you'll get the permissions as long as there's good community support. Thunderhead 12:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have at most 5 active users, but only 3 are around at the moment. Would 3 votes be sufficient? - FrancisTyers 13:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot status backlog

The page is getting quite long. If your username happens to be Siebrand or Pipep, I'd be appreciated if you waited longer before adding more requests. ;)--Shanel 21:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We're back at 9 open requests. Thanks for taking care of the backlog. Cheers! Siebrand 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This goes for Multichill and Alleborgo too. Page lengtheners. :O--Shanel 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
They probably did what I did a few months ago: systematically going through the list of all Wikipedias requesting a bot flag. After a week or so, they request the flag for Wikipedias that do not have local bureaucrats here. Shit happens :) Cheers! Siebrand 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the flags Shanel! I archived most of my requests so the page now is a lot shorter. Multichill 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If I mark a request "done", should I also say that it is closed and will be archived soon?--Jusjih 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (new steward)

Should the policy about bot flag be more strict?

Many bots appear in wikipedias without a bot flag. That does not help much, because there are many interwiki bots already, and one more is not a matter of vital importance; still those bots without flag make the recent changes page a real mess. Maybe the policy about getting the flag first should be stricter? Slavik IVANOV 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a stricter policy? I really don't like the situation, when bot owners get offended like in this case. Slavik IVANOV 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
We have a standard bot policy, are you saying that needs tightening? What specific changes do you have in mind? Perhaps propose them there? ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean, bot owners should not run their flags for more than, say, 50 edits, if the bot has no flag in a certain wikipedia. Slavik IVANOV 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


It's nothing big, of course, but would somebody look at the backlog, please? Some valid requests are dated 12 October. Thanks! Yury Tarasievich 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just noticing that. Apparently, the oldest request yet to be attended is about a month old. I guess I'll have to wait at least a month for my bot bit. 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Malafaya

bots in crh Wikipedia

Currently, there are 8 bots in the newly created Crimean Tatar wikipedia, but nobody of their masters requested bot status here or elsewhere. Can I myself request bot flag for them here, or their masters are to do it before? Don Alessandro 14:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably best if they themselves requested it, after a community discussion to seek consensus, if at all possible. Asking them to work to have the standard bot policy adopted at that wiki would be extra goodness. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

plwiki's Bot flag request is down.

They stopped the bot flag request for a long time since 2007/12--Alex S.H. Lin 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I read (elsewhere) that, in order to be allowed to operate an interwiki bot possibly affecting the Polish wikipedia, you need to demonstrate "sufficient" command of the Polish language. Maybe that is, why. --Purodha Blissenbach 08:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How to proceed without a common language with local bureaucrat?

I am bringing this topic up because it may affect others, is likely to occur more often, and a general solution should possibly be sought and mentioned in the hints at the beginnig of page [[::Steward requests/Bot status]].

In the Bashkieri Wikipedia, there are two (at least) bot flag requests pending (Purbo T, Alexbot), there is only one bureaucrat (w:ba:Special:Listusers/bureaucrat), who does not read english according to his Babel-boxes (ba:Ҡатнашыусы:Рөстәм_Нурыев). (S)he should be asked to grant the pending bot flags now or at some point of time in the future. Standard bot policy applies (w:ba:Ҡоролтай and w:ba:Ҡоролтай#Bot policy). A problem is, you need someone who writes either of the languages that the local bureaucrat understands.

I am not really striken hard by it, in this instance, because Рөстәм_Нурыев reads Russian (ru-3) and my Russian (ru-1) is sufficient to get a text together, although I likely have to look every other word up from dictionaries, which, of course, do not know of the termini technici of wikiland which I have to spot elsewhere, and I have to copy/paste every single character of cyrillic script from somewhere, because I do not have a cyrillic keyboard, and don't know the cyrillic keykoard layout (although I'm pretty good at handwriting). So, I can help myself spending a huge lot of labour.

Yet I think, there should be a more standard way of notifying local bureaucrats, independant of language. Maybe providing a simple, translated sentence on the local request page of each wiki will do, or something like that. Any other ideas? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a set of translated phrases kept here on Meta for a set of common eventualities, and a canned message (pasteable) that itself comes in multiple languages that is only a link to the right one? ... I think talking to the translation guys might be a good idea. Commons has message templates in multiple languages which are used to get round language barriers. They work, although not awesomely well. ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New requests at bottom?

I recently noticed this change: "Please add new requests at the bottom of this section.". I realized many users still put their requests on top. Is this they way to go now or not? Malafaya 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see all the pages use the same ordering, but don't care which so much. A lot of pages elsewhere use top ordering rather than bottom. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Lar here, on the SRP the requests go on top, so I would prefer this here too (it seems more established) on SRCU it is absolutely chaotic, people add new ones on top and at the bottom... Thanks for bringing this up, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like for the most part new ones are going to the bottom (or some helpful wikigknome is moving them) now. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

what to do about az.wikipedia ?

See Steward_requests/Bot_status#az.wikipedia ... we have some from July. I have been not doing anything because I can't quite puzzle out, is the standard bot policy in effect there, or not? ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) We have some bot requests from

Globak bots

Does bots that have global bot rights need to seek seperate bot permissions for Wikis ( for interwiki task) that allow global bots ? Tinucherian 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A little late answer, but no, they do not (the reason for creating global bots is excactly this) Laaknor 16:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, for certain Wikipedias, they do. Wikipedias that do not have the standard bot policy will need to make a request on. Other than that, yes, you don't really need to. Cheers, Razorflame 04:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


The Limburgish Wiktionary does not except any new bot, until there is more clear about the policy. --OosWesThoesBes 13:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

li.wikt is listed as automatic approval. Can you provide a link to a local discussion suspending this, so that we can update the policy here? Laaknor 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course [1]. This discussion is in Limburgish, I hope you can do something with it. --OosWesThoesBes 13:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've updated to bot-policy with li.wikt still using the bot policy, but that automatic approval is not allowed. As far as I could read your discussion, the questions are about spellchecking? If there is something you wish help with, it would be great if you could have the discussion in english, so that others are able to answer on your questions... Laaknor 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The most important problems are global bots, automatic approval and checking bot edits. Global bots and automatic approval is not really trusted by most of our users. We've decided that spellingscheck will be forbidden, because it's a wiktionary and there are many languages on it. Spellingscheck will result in a mess. --OosWesThoesBes 18:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello OosWesThoesBes. Global bots are strictly prohibited from spellchecking or other tasks not explicitly listed by the standard bot policy, unless they first obtain local community permission. I disabled global bots on that wiki; let me know if the local community changes their mind. —Pathoschild 22:28:38, 02 March 2009 (UTC)