Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dexbot

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.

 Done, sufficient consensus (11/0/2 | 100%). Vogone (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Dexbot

Vote

RfP scheduled to end after 18 May 2014 21:50 (UTC)

• Dexbot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

Hello, as this task and for deleting empty items that have been already merged (or their only sitelink has been deleted) and if they have no backlinks, I need an admin access for my bot I'm already admin but per WD:bot policy we need to make my bot admin instead of just using mine. Thank you :) --Amir (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Votes

1.  Support Why not? Better than requiring humans to manage the backlogs (which can be huge). --Jakob (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
2.  Support --Pasleim (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
3.  Support With literally hundreds of items that meet that criteria, a bot could definitely do it. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
4.  Support Lymantria (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Per answer below. If only items where the only language link is deleted or moved (merged) are deleted, I only see clear benefit to this.
5.  Support Rzuwig^► 11:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
6.  Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
7.  Support Per Ajraddatz and Lymantria. Ralgis (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
8.  Neutral --DangSunM (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

   Reason, DangSunM? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

   I can't find any serious technical reason to oppose, but I don't like to support being bot as a admin. --DangSunM (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

   I see. It's just that the main reason in having a neutral vote is having an argument on why you don't want to support, since neutral votes aren't counted in the end. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

9.  Support Code is public, and looks good enough; and operator is sensible and responsive. No doubt there will be a some corner cases to avoid when they are reported. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
10.  Support --GZWDer (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
11.  Neutral Same reason as DangSunM. — by Revi_Complaint? at 07:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

    If you don't want bots to be assigned an admin flag, you should rather replace {{neutral}} with {{oppose}} as you seem to have an opinion on this. Neutral comments aren't considered at all according to our policies, so they are rather pointless. Regards, Vogone (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

12.  Support Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 10:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
13.  Support Southparkfan (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Once more I would like to hear an answer to the question why unused/empty items are deleted on Wikidata at all. The sense and the benefits of doing this messy maintenance work still aren't clear to me, even over a year after Wikidata's creation. Vogone (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The clear answer is that empty items cause false search results (mostly because descriptions or properties are not blanked totally). However, my concern is that some empty and unlinked items still are notable. Is that taken care of? Lymantria (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The bot just deletes items that the only link (they have to have a sitelink) has been merged or got deleted in wikipedia, so I don't think these items would meet the notability criteria Amir (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Your bot should also check if an item has statements. Sometimes these will indicate notability under criterion 2. --Jakob (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I check them as well, the code is published User:Ladsgroup/del.py Amir (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• If you want any specifics of the bot request, please see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Dexbot 6. The Anonymouse [talk] 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.