Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Hazard-Bot
From Wikidata
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Unsuccessful. There is currently no consensus to have a bot perform deletions in the specified manner. If Hazard-SJ is still interested, a more specific proposal should be presented including specific rules and exceptions for deletion, as well as simulated logs of what the bot would have deleted. Legoktm (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hazard-Bot[edit]
Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 11 April 2013 23:51 (UTC) (boldly extended another week — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler))
- Hazard-Bot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
I'm requesting administrator rights for my bot account per this discussion. For other fully automated tasks it will undertake in the future (apart from what is stated in the linked discussion above), I will either make a RfBOT or gain consensus from another place such as the project chat. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 23:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Votes[edit]
- Yes, no objections. Regards, Vogone talk 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Trusted user :) But with conditions, as stated in the above-linked discussion) --Ricordisamoa 00:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per my vote on the PC discussion. — ΛΧΣ21 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per the PC discussion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Iste (D) 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I have confidence in Hazard-SJ and his bot, but in my personal opinion should bots have no admin rights. IW (wikidata addict) 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why you are only against Hazard-Bot as an adminbot, but not against HaroldBot. Could you explain, please? Regards, Vogone talk 21:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just did not realize that there is a second adminbot request. Regards, IW (wikidata addict) 16:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why you are only against Hazard-Bot as an adminbot, but not against HaroldBot. Could you explain, please? Regards, Vogone talk 21:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rzuwig► 20:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as my questions here and in the preceeding discussing haven't been answered, I am still concerned that it could be possible for a third party to mislead this bot to perform administrative vandalism. --YMS (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Sorry for the delay) I addressed this issue in the comments below. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User is trusted, a history of constructive bots. I see no real danger to the community. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I do not like the thought of automatic deletions, especially since there's too much of a likelihood of false positives here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, as it stands, the false positive rate is fairly low, but given that it deletes based on what I commented below, I'm expecting even less chance of false-positive-deletions, as in case it fails the "go-ahead" tests, it will just have deletion requested via the normal process. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 21:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See above ... and below :P — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant weak oppose I can't support until Hazard answers my questions. I'm not quite sure why he hasn't yet. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm sorry about the long delay. I've resopnded to all the queries (I think) now. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I am not sure about this bot now.--DangSunM (talk)
- In that case, I hope my comments can help you to make up your mind :D — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support, as long as the bot account given admin rights is separate from the current one, and that it only deletes where: a) there has only been one author to the page, or b) none of the non-autopatroller/admin edits have been link removals (that were not re-instated) or c) the last edit was made by an administrator. Hazard-SJ: I think it might be beneficial if you give a list of pages the bot would have deleted so we can get a better sense of how many deletions it will be making, and if we can set anymore exemption rules for false positives. Legoktm (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created User:Hazard-Bot/deletion. I had to make some changes to the code we were discussing on IRC, because I noticed it made the bot skip many extra pages. Also, since trunk doesn't have an option to filter the references, I've manually implemented something. I'm hoping the bot can finally log things there. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I feel many many many many tests should be run before we consider. Naturally I will happily try and help with such tests :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deleting pages is something that only a person should do. It just takes too much judgement for a bot. --Guerillero | Talk 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Guerillero says it right, I think. Courcelles (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per my vote on the PC discussion. --Snaevar (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Guerillero. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too many concerns over false positives, but will happily support once issues are resolve. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
- Question What about pages that are deleted and then restored within minutes or hours? Or, better yet, the fringe case of a page with 2 links that is deleted on one 'pedia (and Hazard-Bot or a user who notices thus removes the link), restored a while later, and then, a few weeks later, deleted on the other 'pedia? It would appear to be an empty item, but there'd actually be a link in the history that would still work. (Don't get me wrong, otherwise I love the idea, but this is my only hold-up.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can set the bot to check the logs only up to a certain time, for example, up to 2 hours before the bot's run time, to avoid this. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this be split off into a separate bot account? Legoktm (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it could. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My last question in the linked discussion is still open: "What if I remove all (legitimate) sitelinks from an item, and add an alibi sitelink to a user page (or an article to be deleted, or ...) afterwards? Will the bot remove this, and delete the item?" So, basically: Will it be possible for an ordinary user to trick the bot to use its admin rights to perform actions that the ordinary user himself wouldn't be allowed to, and a human admin hopefully would not perform? --YMS (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... I think the bot should only be deleting pages where it has gone through the history and checked that every sitelink that's ever been on the item doesn't exist. Even ones that have been merged to different items could potentially be complicated enough situations that a human admin should be reviewing them. Will this be the case, Hazard? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay in my responses. As for the issues just above this comment, for now, I could start by limiting it to deleting only if there was one sole author of the page before. I was also considering letting it automatically "whitelisting" admins, in the sense that if the last edit to the page was made my an admin, it would delete if it (the bot) blanked the page. Therefore, it (and most likely Legobot will help) will still have to list some pages at RfD, just with a smaller number of pages (considering a large amount of pages here are bot-created). Another check I could make, if both of the checks before fail, would be to check if any of the last 10 edits (or more) were link removals (or I could check all the edits in case the user tries to get by this). Maybe I should exclude pages that have over a certain number of edits overall? I could have more checks introduced in the future to reduce this (with consensus), but for now, this should lift the fear of "non-admin deletions". — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another check could be if all the edits were made by flagged bots. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, it might be necessary to extend the time for this RfA beyond the normal time, and maybe advertise it for more community input? — Hazard-SJ ✈ 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds wise. Anyone have any objections to extending the end date to the 11th? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you expect objections? An RFA should be open at least 7 days before it can be closed as successful. So theoretically we could leave this open until next year.
:-P
Regards, Vogone talk 12:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] - I've extended the end date to the 11th, as it looks like there's a lot more to talk about here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I
{{Support}}
, but it would be wise to advertise this RFP somewhere, and to define a definitive end date. --Ricordisamoa 20:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Why define an end date? End date is when consensus is reached. Regards, Vogone talk 21:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't continue this RfP for months, should we? --Ricordisamoa 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If consensus seems unreachable an admin would surely close this. Regards, Vogone talk 23:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't continue this RfP for months, should we? --Ricordisamoa 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why define an end date? End date is when consensus is reached. Regards, Vogone talk 21:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I
- Why do you expect objections? An RFA should be open at least 7 days before it can be closed as successful. So theoretically we could leave this open until next year.
- This sounds wise. Anyone have any objections to extending the end date to the 11th? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be necessary to close this request, since the reporting I set up seems not to be giving any results as yet, and I'm somewhat busy in real life. If this is closed, I'll make another discussion in PC before showing up here again. — Hazard-SJ ✈ 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I think I could support this bot in a very limited set of circumstances. In my mind, that would be an item that was created by a bot, never edited by a human, and had never had more than 3 linked articles... probably with something like a 6-hour delay in case one of the pages get restored (which would obviously have to be checked prior to deletion). Anything more complicated I see as still requiring human evaluation. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]