|On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at August.|
Requests for deletions
~240 open requests for deletions. ( )
|Attention administrators: This message is appearing because there are more than 100 open requests at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Please consider helping with the backlog.|
- 1 spam?
- 2 Thousands of incorrect tags
- 3 Desysop paperwork
- 4 KLBot2 creating incorrect birth dates
- 5 Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Nipponese_Dog_Calvero (Q12646551)
- 6 Q16658628
- 7 Move page
- 8 Main page link for yue (Cantonese)
- 9 Oversight Access Request
- 10 Merging properties
- 11 Redirect
- 12 Delete Q16908665
- 13 Delete redundant property
- 14 User:GerardM
Is it just me, or are most of this user's Special:Contributions/WhiteHole spam? Only one item has a link to a WMF project, and the others seem to be of low to zero notability. Just because somebody is involved in a notable project doesn't mean that they can promote their Internet persona and video blog on WMF servers, which is what this looks like to me at least. Haplology (talk) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haplology (talk • contribs) at 00:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
Take a look at this. Many, hundreds/thousands of these, have incorrectly been tagged as 'human' - just try a few of the long titles. User:GerardM made all these edits on July 13th around 19:00-20:00. I've been reverting loads of these for the last few days, but I just checked his contributions and noticed there were many more. I've informed him about this (along with many other users who urge him to stop), but he does not respond to my messages (1 and 2, in Dutch). Not sure where to inform others about this, but I'd like to see all these tags being reverted (even the good ones; we'll stumble unto them with The Game). Best, Grashoofd (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I reverted maybe 100 incorrect edits now, but wasn't able to add proper statements to many of them (so if someone wants to check my recent contributions - just go ahead). Reverting all of GerardM's edits isn't really an option, though I also am one of those that hope that he reduces the pace of his edits in favor of quality. --YMS (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reverting is not an option. It does not help at all. What does work and I said as much to Grashoofd in a mail recently is to collaborate. When I know where things are wrong, it is easy enough to rectify and add other statements. I just did this for two classes where I was told it went wrong. I have set proper priorities for all of them. A few hundred records it took me all of five minutes and maybe a bit.
- The problem we face is not that things go wrong. The problem imho is the abysmally bad state of our communications. We are happy to blame, feel frustrated. There is no channel where Grashoofd or anyone talks to me about issues so that we can fix things together. According to the "powers that be" the community is to blame. One other great example of our lack of communication is that 13.000 items had to be deleted because they were LSJbot duplicates. This while its operator publicly complains about the lack of cooperation from the side of Wikidata.
- Another thing, I do make mistakes. Typically I will remedy them when I notice them. When I do not get my finger behind the problem I need cooperation. The problems under discussion are over 300.000 edits ago. Let us assume that 3000 of these edits are wrong, then I am doing better than can be expected of a bot or a person. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I begin to feel being kidded. Your talk page really is full of comments where people point you to mistakes you made, in specific edits or whole series. And to all these comments you answer that the problem is that we don't communicate, and then you go on doing the same kind of work with at least the same speed. People have to tell you again that you keep the same error rate and even do the very same errors again, and you again complain that nobody communicates. I fail to understand that. --YMS (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- So I made a mistake, it was rolled back, then what? For me they happened quite some time ago. Also I do not have the same error rate all the time. They happen when a specific run is bad. I added thousands of fencers and SA members yesterday. They are good. I added abbeys and counties today, I am sure someone will look at them but they are good.
- There is a difference between the speed of edits happening and what I am working on. When there are some 4000 fencers or SA-men, it does not mean that I am not doing other things at the same time.. Like identifying people who died in 2014. The point I make is that working together and communicating is not the same as leaving a message on a talk page. My time and your time is better served with working together. Rolling back is a waste of time as it does not solve anything. GerardM (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM, YMS: Sadly only a few days after this discussion the next batch of controversial edits has been made (See: Wikidata:Project_chat#Vandalism.3F and User_talk:GerardM#.126.96.36.199.21_What_.188.8.131.52. This time to a property that explicitly requires a source to be set (religion (P140) although to be fair not in the Dutch description). The question is, do we want to model the world with shady facts, or with statements according to sources. If you (Gerard) stay out of controversial territory I don't think anybody will mind mass editing. But mass editing a property without even reviewing the talk page: You recently set religion = atheist even though there are two comments about this dating January 2014 that advocate "= novalue" (Property_talk:P140#Atheists). It would be nice to hear from you about this. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There were two admins desysopped yesterday for inactivity, Leyo and جواد. I don't have time to do this, but could someone please handle the paperwork, including notifying them? Thanks. --Rschen7754 04:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
KLBot2 creating incorrect birth dates
As shown by this edit (diff) KLBot2 is entering birth dates without accounting for the difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendar. This kind of error was brought to the user's attention more recently at User talk:Kizar#Gregorian calendar but the complaint was ignored. I request the bot be blocked until such time as the user proposes and tests a solution to this problem. (I will notify the user of this discussion immediately after making this edit.) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- That edition is more than a year ago. Long time ago my bot imported English Wikipedia dates and it was not possible to distinguish between dates in the Gregorian and Julian calendar, which is why only a few dates were imported and then the task was abandoned. --Kizar (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- As long as the date-import task is abandoned, I'm satisfied. It does seem to me that importing data of any kind from Wikipedia without importing the corresponding reference seems risky (unless the data is about Wikipedia itself, such as which Greek article corresponds to an English article). Jc3s5h (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Please undelete Mueang Kao (Q16658628), was wrongly merged by the game. Damage to merge target was undone directly, but the deletion was done nevertheless. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done Thank you for your precision on Thai districts items. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. I set the English label now (something which could have done by anybody, including you, no administrator rights needed), but that's about all I see that can be done here. As far as I see, neither the English Wikipedia nor any other project apart from the Spanish Wikipedia does have an article for that song, so there's no need and no way to add sitelinks or to merge this item with another one or move it anywhere. --YMS (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Ah, I think I might have found what you meant: The page title for an item (what the browser displays as the tab title) is taken from the best label that the system can find. In this case, it was the Spanish label (as there was no other), which used to be "Believe (canción de Britt Nicole)". Setting the English label changed this for most users (except if they have Babels on their user page telling that they prefer Spanish to English). Apart from that, the parentheses in the Spanish label were incorrect anyway, so (only) removing them would have had the same effect on the page title. See Help:Label for more information on how to set labels. --YMS (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Vogone (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oversight Access Request
Hi, per the oversight policy, I have to make a neutral notification notifying the community of the open request. Please feel free to share your opinions on myself as an oversighter at the request here. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the community. But this is the "Administrators' noticeboard". Vogone (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested here to merge filmography (P1283) with discography (P358) and name the merged property "list of works". I think it is a good idea, but I'm afraid about all the existing labels and aliases in multiple languages. What is the best way of doing it?--Micru (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Besides the chaos in labelling, also external (and internal) references would be mixed up after re-purposing a property. This may not be too much of a problem in this specific case, but could be in other cases. So in general I'd say it's better to create a new property and delete all the ones that should be merged together into this new one than to change an existing property. --YMS (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete redundant property
Hello folks. At GerardM's talk page, there are tons of sections complaining about numerous errors in his semi-automated edits. Discussions on the talk page appear to not have gone anywhere, and there are concerns that he refuses to discuss there, instead preferring to discuss on IRC (which, of course, cannot make binding decisions or show a consensus that is recognizable onwiki).
I am significantly concerned about the situation, as introducing errors that people have to keep checking for significantly degrades the quality of our data. Short blocks of 6 hours  have not resolved the situation. Unfortunately, I believe that stronger sanctions are needed, and thus I am starting this discussion. --Rschen7754 02:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm that GerardM's attitude towards people who point out his mistakes is not ideal. He often argues that he can't be bothered to precisely identify the source of the mistakes and that the onus is on those who find them to provide better info (which is often impossible since we have no way of knowing what Autolist2 query he used to add this or that claim). I'm also puzzled by the fact that GerardM's current mass edits appear to be based on the same problematic ideas as those used for his bot whose permission was removed a few months ago largely because of the error rate. For a safer, patient but ultimately better way of doing the same sort of work, the template should be Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/HaxpettBot. Pichpich (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hoi, at this time I have some 2 million edits in total. It is expected that some of the edits are problematic. There has been research on such things and, it is in the order of multiple percents. So yes, the amount of issues is significant. When you consider the queries that I do, to some extend the addition of statements that produce a query are part of me documenting what I work on. There are literally hundreds of those. It is an effort to indicate what I work on and it documents the results at the same time.
- When I say that we fail in our communication, it is not only that I want people to communicate with me on IRC to work on issues, it is quick, easy and obvious. It does not need documentation that I care about communication and imho the proof is in the pudding ie fixes to issues. When people think that the indicator should tell me that there is a message for me, for them I have a "surprise" there is a bug that I filed because it is broken for me. In the end it is all about the quantity and quality of communication that directly affects the outcome.
- When the argument is used that there are many issues, it is obvious that there are. What is not obvious is not I have worked with Amir to work on bot functionality that can remove targeted edits from the past. It is not obvious that I have worked with him on finding a way to improve on the confidence we may have in the data. Given percentages, it should be obvious that I have contributed significantly to the number of statements on items. I also blog frequently on my observations about Wikidata, I presented at Wikimania about it. I hope the video will be available soon.
- I am happy to discuss Wikidata, I am happy to work with people on any issue. But the appearance of the issues introduced by me is not a reliable indicator that the number of genuine errors is significant statistically. So in my opinion, I understand the concern but it is not as bad as it may seem. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I had a long, personal, and rather detailed discussion in person with Gerard at Wikimania. One conclusion we did come to was that error rate must increase with edit rate. He also reaffirmed to me his commitment to communication with others.
However, I have to say I'm rather disappointed. IRC is not quick, easy, and obvious for the entire community - in fact, nearly all complaints I've seen about his edits were from users who did not use IRC. Also, whether the error rate is statistically significant or not is not relevant. I was rather adamant that Gerard fix his errors, and he implied to me that he would. But the above comments imply otherwise and that is an issue. The reason why the community perceives it as a problem is because others doing mass editing, whether with WIDAR or some other script, do so without causing problems.
Also at Wikimania, I talked with Magnus and a few others about WIDAR at our meetup. There, I reiterated my desire to not require technical measures to cope with this. However, if these issues continue (in the eyes of the community), I would not be unwilling to consider measures disabling the use of WIDAR mass editing (on a per-user basis) or otherwise rate-limiting non-bot and non-flood accounts. Magnus told me that non-flagged accounts indeed are already rate-limited; I was hoping that limit would be enough, but if necessary, we may need more than that. @GerardM: I strongly urge you to accept that even seemingly (statistically) random errors are still your responsibility to fix and avoid making. At Wikimania it was stressed that blocks to stop bad mass edits should not be taken badly, but only if they result in no more repetition of the same errors. If your job continually makes errors and you can't fix it, you shouldn't run the job, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)