Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for all matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidata connect
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 2017/09.

Project
chat

Administrators'
noticeboard

Development
team

Bureaucrats'
noticeboard

Translators'
noticeboard

Requests
for permissions

Requests
for deletions

Property
proposal

Properties
for deletion

Requests
for comment

Partnerships
and imports

Interwiki
conflicts

Request
a query

Bot
requests

Requests for deletions

low

~26 open requests for deletions.

Taxonomical mafia[edit]

Sorry, but I am fed up with long-lasting conflict inside taxonomical project. More precisely with users Succu and Brya. They are no doubt very useful members doing strictly taxonomical nomenclature but sometimes they do strange (and in my opinion wrong) things and, what is more awful, insist on it and do mass reverts (and I feel being harassed).

1) They think that their point of view is singularly correct and revert other opinions: deleting sourced statements about "обезьяны - таксон".

2) Brya says that Parachela (Q13419378) is not homonym (Q902085) of Parachela (Q721722) (but it is a definition of homonym (Q902085)!). And then see mass reverts with comment "not a homonym". Succu then simply silently deletes useful links.

3) Can anyone mix Ciconiiformes according to Sibley (Q2972287) and Ciconiiformes (Q21716)? I belive that users with en/fr/es/... default languages can. But any try to connect them is immediately reverted. How can two so similar items be not "same" and not "different"?

4) they don't like to keep history of science. When the news were published that Huiyuan (Q28673)conservation status (Q82673) of giraffe is changed, Succu has simply replaced the value. For the first time, it's Ok. But when I changed statuses to keep history: [1], Succu began to revert me immediately (note the interval after my edits!). Saying about constraints - they should not be an obstacle for keeping useful information.

5) The same story is about no label (Q13357594). There is such situations in taxonomy when some taxons ceased to be used. I would like to model these situations, at least simply by no label (Q13357594) + may be replaced by (P1366) (such information is often available). There is category in many Wikipedias for that. But guess what? "no label (Q13357594) are not taxa so this information should not be modelled!" (I understand this POV from discussion).

6) Do you want to know which species are practically immortal (more exactly - with negligible senescence (Q2076450))? But you are not allowed to know this. Succu has decided. (I added a dozen of such statements, but they were fiercely reverted, so I give up). example Note that statements arewere well sourced.

The saddest thing that most times they are not trying to adopt new information (may be by changing a scheme, by choosing different property of class), but only persistent reverting... Am I alone in this confrontation or anyone would support me?

Should I or them have some type of topic ban to prevent such conflicts? --Infovarius (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

To a considerable extent this is due to sloppiness on the part of Infovarius, and some of it is due to contrariness. Speaking in general, there are two elements involved here: 1) nomenclature (which deals with absolutes, things which are so by definition) and 2) taxonomy (which depends on points-of-view, of which there are many, and which should be referenced if at all possible).
  1. In the matter of "monkeys", there are no doubt a lot of possible points-of-view involved, but the problems are on a more pragmatic level. The item involved deals with a common name, as in the enwiki page. Infovarius started to halfheartedly include taxon elements in the item, which did not in the item, and which did no mesh with each other. The "source" he provided supported the fact that somebody (unspecified), somewhere (unspecified), somewhen (unspecified) used the name Simiae as a synonym of the name Primates; not very useful in any case. However he used it as a reference for his position that the name Simiae was a taxon name for "monkeys" (which are only one of three parts of the Primates/Simiae). A mess from any perspective.
  2. The "description" at homonym (Q902085) is there for the purpose of disambiguation. It is not a definition. In fact, defining "homonym" in a technically correct way can be quite complicated, as it involves more than one nomenclatural universe.
  3. The matter of Ciconiiformes according to Sibley (Q2972287) and Ciconiiformes (Q21716) can be argued any which way; nothing we have is quite right. I guess "different from" is not so bad, but it is less than perfect.
  4. I don't understand the Q15083 case, although of course it is awkward if a circumscription is changed (in some cases splitting in two items may help). It seems to me that it is pretty universal for any property linking to an external database that the claim value should be in that database (at the time the claim is made). If history is to be preserved [?], this should be done elsewhere in a URL-claim, or with a new property. (10:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC))
  5. no label (Q13357594) is blunt instrument that could do a lot of damage. There are a few cases where it could be somewhat useful, but it wasn't used there. See discussion.
  6. This is the first I heard of biological immortality (Q1660153) and negligible senescence (Q2076450), this is not matter of taxonomy, but it seems that for Wikidata something like maximum life span would be considerably more accurate. - Brya (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Actually some of questions don't deal with nomenclature/taxonomy at all, they just happen to be at taxon items (6), so I propose to keep your hands off such statements. 3rd seems to be the easiest - the world (and it's description in Wikidata) is not perfect - I am happy with different from (P1889) and I will be happy if you will invent other way to link them, deal? In 4th I've meant IUCN conservation status (P141), sorry, fixed. And I insist on keeping the history of statuses - it is not hard but useful. Infovarius (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I insist on keeping the history of statuses“? Sorry, I maintain this property for a while now, Infovarius. Are you sure you understand how the IUCN evaluates? --Succu (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: I hope so, are there some subtleties? I suppose that some species can extinct or contrarily to be revived from nearly extinction by specific programs, and it is reflected by IUCN evaluation, isn't it true? --Infovarius (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
These issues with respect to taxonomy are real enough. The history of many species is quite diverse and it is not possible to model this at this time in Wikidata. What I propose is for Succu to write down the assumptions he has with respect to taxonomy, particularly botanic taxonomy. It is then possible to compare it with other views on taxonomy and seek commonalities, we can ask experts to validate the different approaches and find out how Wikipedias can be served in a more inclusive way.
The current model has served us relatively well. It is one way to include a view on taxonomy particularly for what is the "current" or an "accepted" view. This model is not universal but it is a start. With the increasing confrontations it is high time to take a step back and assess what we have, the backgrounds of this model and the issues that need a solution. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the current model can accommodate a near-infinite number of (referenced) taxonomic viewpoints, it is just that there are not many users who take the trouble of putting these in. - Brya (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we have all necessary properties to model taxonomic opinions and how they evolved over time. --Succu (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: Besides our tutorial draft I proposed to have a FAQ page. Nobody was interested. --Succu (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem with a fact is that it is supposed to be "how things are" and that is very much under dispute. I have written already some time ago what I know are the components of a valid taxonomic (botanical) description. What I am seeking is your arguments why we fail at this. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I claim no expertise in taxonomy but I am concerned when situations like (6) (and possibly some of the others) above happen with no consequences in wikidata. This is clearly an edit war, with Infovarius and Succu adding and reverting at least 4 times each on the same statement. From the change comments it appears Succu first asked for a source, but then when Infovarius provided one, changed the complaint to one of improper use of the property. I assume both parties are trying to make wikidata better, but perhaps the UI is preventing a reasonable discussion in a case like this? Should they have tried to sort it out on the talk page for Q691364? This is far from the first time I've noticed an edit war here, they seem to be harder to resolve here than on other wikimedia platforms. Perhaps the admins could be more active in helping resolve these situations? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: FAQ. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I found it yesterday. :( --Succu (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: if you want output in the format "Echinocactus Link & Otto Verh. Vereins Beford. Gartenbaues Konigl. Preuss. Staaten 3: 420. 1827", Wikidata should, basically, be able to do this. But somebody should input the information first. - Brya (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please give me one example. Echinocactus will do. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Done nearly four years ago. ;) --Succu (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: if the information is in Wikidata, it can be output; it just is a matter of organizing output (not my department). The only thing that seems to be missing here is a property for conversion to the approved abbreviation, which in this case is "Verh. Vereins Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten" - Brya (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: 1, 5 seems right; and maybe 3 - 30-40 year old listings aren't very useful or need a lot of work to integrate with other sources
2. fish should "do not confuse"d with micro-animals; @Succu, Brya: 2 links shouldn't make a problem
4. History should be kept; I did mistake of removing "old" value today. This is not critical, but we absolutely should keep "historic" and "old" values if one has time to edit such things.
6. negligible senescence (Q2076450) can be considered as quality of life, so has quality (P1552) is appropriate @Succu:. Furthermore we shouldn't remove sourced statements. Project seem more then okay at first glance: http://genomics.senescence.info/about.html.
"are not trying to adopt new information (may be by changing a scheme, by choosing different property of class), but only persistent reverting"
@Infovarius:, to some extend they correct edits, but @Succu: and @Brya: should do this more often.
E.g. it is very easy to confuse one chemical from another or to use inexact item. We should enter more correct items over removing even slighted inaccuracies.
Same about properties. d1g (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

carrot (Q81)[edit]

I wounder why it is necessary to remove trivial culinary statements from carrot (Q81).

@Succu, Brya: given speed of your reverts, you have something to say, any comments? d1g (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:D1gggg wants to put in that a carrot is a fruit; there is something very seriously wrong here. - 06:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

damage to H.S.[edit]

Apparently, meaningless edit war continues.

No idea what is meant by "ref does not match"

Both @Succu, Brya: bragging about references. Yet, each is of them is dead as grave when asked "what constitutes H.S. ration?".

Note how @Succu: started new discussion instead of addressing my question.

It feels like a waste of time to work this way. d1g (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a huge waste of time and work; User:D1gggg should stop messing about. - Brya (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Humulus lupulus (Q104212)[edit]

Silent stalking by @Succu:.

I was never contacted about questionable edits. @Succu: simply restored version they prefer for whatever reason. d1g (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

At how many place do you want to discuss cases like this? Your claims are obviously incorrect. --Succu (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
User:D1gggg keeps trying to push the boundaries, making edits which are not just misinformed, or a bit wrong, but which are way beyond comprehension. - Brya (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You can all see their "constructive" suggestions and their direction in project. @Brya, Succu:

We shouldn't allow that to happen for years. Neither we should approve such BM.

You can all see how I'm "pushing limits" here: Wikidata:Property_proposal/nutrient

Other users spend great lengths in explaining what is done or what should be done but @Brya, Succu: has this quality only when discussed on admin notice board. d1g (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:D1gggg confuses me with himself: I go to considerable lengths to explain, putting in notes on Talk pages, writing a Tutorial, etc. While he refuses, even when asked, to write a coherent sentence, or even to give a mere example. - Brya (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

edit war about natural physical object (Q16686022)[edit]

1 2 3 4

@Succu: what is your point? How your actions can be useful? d1g (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to my talk page in an unreadable way. My point is you do not understand the difference between taxonomy (Q7211) and taxonomy (Q8269924). And you seems not to understand how an ontology (Q324254) makes use of it. --Succu (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

edit war Rougheye rockfish (Q691364)[edit]

typical @Succu:: no discussion, nothing, instant revert. d1g (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It was suggest to use life expectancy (P2250). --09:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your solution is mass reverting without further discussion. --Succu (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't. It was revert.
It wasn't replaced with life expectancy (P2250).
This edit behavior is disruptive. d1g (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: my solution is to enter data.
But your very screwed mind turns everything upside down. d1g (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Your goal is to provoke, not to enter data. If you want to do this you can e.g. use Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? (Q29037912). --Succu (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Yet another dick move, not a surprise. pardon my french.
No edits about life expectancy (P2250), no edits about Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? (Q29037912).
Only more commands who should did what. d1g (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata would be helped by the entering of data. Not by waving around vague magic words. - Brya (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? (Q29037912) is beyond the paywall... Even for our institution. --Infovarius (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

life expectancy (P2250) cannot replace negligible senescence (Q2076450) because organism can die as young at 3 years and as young at 1000 years. Simple lifespan does not tell about organism degradation over time, so edits were more than appropriate before @Succu: decided to "help" but more to revert and play blame game d1g (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So your strategy is reverting first and explain later? --Succu (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Keep playing blame game? You shouldn't make your unhelpful removals in the first place.
Everything was said by @Infovarius:. I don't have approve every his statement. d1g (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If life expectancy (P2250) is felt to be too vague, a suitable qualifier can be added. - Brya (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither your nor Infovarius explanations are correct. I removed the statements more than a half year ago. Meanwhile I learned a little bit more about this curious topic and I think these claims are OK, but should be refined. --Succu (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok?? Wow! It's a huge step! Please tell us, what is still wrong and how it can be refined? --Infovarius (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

gherkin (Q1365891)[edit]

I'm working with national standards, but @Brya: decided to help with "sigh"

My understanding that tradition of cornichon comes from French cuisine. Not only "cornichon" size is well known national-wide but it is calibrated in standard.

But... Removed without comment.

Additional no label (Q37964033) and no label (Q37963931) are specified in GOST, but previous-next links were removed without any meaningful discussion. d1g (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge specific cultivars were selected only to get cornichons consistently and more easily. d1g (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It is very curious that there never seems to be a match between the statements User:D1gggg makes and the sources he provides: in his "tradition of cornichon" it says cornichons are picked at one or two inches in length, while User:D1gggg's statement is "length 6cm". This leaves aside the question if this page is suitable as a reference and the question if cornichons are typical for the topic of the item. - Brya (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If the size is calibrated in a standard, it should be possible to reference that claim. ChristianKl (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I see that User:D1gggg claims to follow GOST; it should (probably, this is the first I have heard of it) be possible to include the GOST point of view in Wikidata. After all, we also link to the USDA. The way to do that would seem to be to propose a new property. Copying GOST as if it is a globally accepted standard is what should be called Sovjet-imperialism. - Brya (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
organicauthority.com is soviet imperalism
This exact GOST applies to 4 countries
@Brya: what you say is very close to racism and discrimination.
@Brya: are you drunk this whole week?.. d1g (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: will you remove NATO propaganda with ISO next week?.. d1g (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: you weren't reading: cornichon is French imperialism, not Soviet. d1g (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If "are you drunk this whole week?.." is not an ad hominem, I don't know what is. - Brya (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: please don't do that any more. --Infovarius (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status (P141)[edit]

@Succu: can you explain, why you think it's not useful to keep historic values for IUCN conservation status (P141) and remove the old one's when there's a change? ChristianKl (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could keep historic values for IUCN conservation status (P141), but the format to do so would be as URL. Otherwise, a new property could be proposed. - Brya (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If I remember right this was discussed more than once. And I don't think this is the right place to restart such disussions. -Succu (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Can you reference the earlier discussion? The only discussion I can see is on the talk page of the property but at this point in time it was opened by Infovarius and nobody replied to it.
@Brya: I don't see why the format would be URL. Using point in time (P585) as qualifier and depricating the old values should be enough and would match how we treat similar cases on Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not just the value, but also the reason, the actual information. It seems weird to preserve only the value for historical reasons, but not the actual information (hence a URL, probably to the wayback machine). And I see no reason not to include the time range at which the old information was valid. - Brya (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I would see the justification for having a reference to the original source, but I don't see the need to change the datatype of IUCN conservation status (P141). ChristianKl (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Constantly I suspect that Brya doesn't know how the wiki (and Wikidata) works... Of course, there's no need to change P141, all is available with the aid of qualifieres and ranks. --Infovarius (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Q2964630[edit]

start time for what?

1500 BCE specified in Russian wikipedia.

We are close to ancient Greece (Q11772), so it can be true.

@Brya: competence required. d1g (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. 1) Wikipedia is not a source. 2) In ruwiki somebody attached a "fact?" template to this (two years ago) asking for a reference, and nobody has found one. 3) Even if there were a reference for it, that still leaves the question "start time for what?" The root has existed for a lot longer, and all kind of start dates are possible. It should be possible to find a time since when it was part of the Russian cuisine (referenced) and this could be added as a qualifier to "Russian cuisine", but just a start time in general is weird. - Brya (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

On behalf of all Wikimedia projects, I ask to ban @Brya: with his approach "it doesn't says so" until person is competent.

Competence is required.

https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD

Theophrastus (Q160362) 200 BCE at very least, not 1500. d1g (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I placed culinary claim at correct place. It seems weird that @Brya: needs assistance to adjusts "culinary" start dates from botanical. d1g (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Q13357594[edit]

And now User:Succu completely exterminates disliked term. --Infovarius (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A term you invented. --Succu (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia username (P4174)[edit]

While we decide on its deletion, can we limit additions of this property to users who match the username and admins? It seems to be added by IP .. Maybe we can explicitly authorize other users who confirm that they are aware of the WMF privacy policy.
--- Jura 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This should be different board?..
We shouldn't enter such information at masse or advocate its usage, but we should have an option to enter userID
This should be done similar to other social-media properties (twitter Facebook account e.t.c)
I.e. we shouldn't be overly paranoid (remove any personal property), but also we shouldn't enter personal information against will. d1g (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Admins can set corresponding filters.
--- Jura 06:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you please see back your deletion request? There's an army of users that made petition to let you to withdraw it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you read or understood the debate.
It seems it needs an administrator to sum it up. There are a few suggestions on how to use it and series of incorrect assumptions about its use that need to be addressed. A most interesting question hasn't been responded to either. I wonder if an argument that people may circumvent it is to be considered an argument for or against deletion. As I'm just a user (not the website operator nor an administrator of the site), I think I have done my part.
--- Jura 09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Whatever you say, your PFD request has only 5 Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, 1 Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, 2 Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, but 15 Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, so stop it, this property won't really hurt you, and any usages that violate WMF policies can be Oversighted rather than overkilled. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Please, stop this here. Could a non-involved administrator close that request? (I didn't vote but did express my opinion there.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

return of Renkin-Swalem with same IP[edit]

Renkin-Swalem came back as soon as the semi protection on Q231 and Q83078 expired, with the same IP :

Can you semi-protect more those two pages? Thank you, Speculoos (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for 6 months. Pamputt (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Essigsäure[edit]

Please add the "featured article" tag to Essigsäure (Acetic acid). Thank you. --ZdBdLaLaLa (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Please protect Camila Cabello (Q18810940). Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Alaa :)..! 13:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions code error[edit]

Something is preventing anything after #Delete deprecated genes 8 from appearing on the Wikidata:Requests for deletions page. Black Falcon (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: I'd chalk it up to template limits on that page being exceeded. @Andrawaag, Sebotic:, do you think you can put these requests on a separate page so that requests below that don't go unseen? Mahir256 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed now - but this is not an administrator issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The issue of template limits still persists, however. Mahir256 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry for bringing it here—I was not sure of the appropriate forum. Black Falcon (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reusing items[edit]

I've noticed that Wolverène (talkcontribslogs) repurposed items again, despite being informed about our practises early this year. Is there any easy way to clean stuff up? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • 1) Why you didn't send me message first? Sorry, I didn't notice, you did. 2) Show me the policy where it says that the reuse is forbidden. Mainly in the cases when redirects aren't use anywhere else. 3) Why do you mean by "to clean stuff up"? --Wolverène (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    1) You were informed, per what Sjoerd said. 2) Wikidata identifiers should be stable. Imagine you would replace United States of America (Q30) with... whatever. That's just the same thing. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is not the same, we are talking about unused redirects. In this case there's no real difference between reusing of unused redirects and creating new items.
    (edit conflict) @Sjoerddebruin: OK well, I made several re-uses. Tell me why did you undo my edits without creation the new item for the page? --Wolverène (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    How do you know they are unused? Wikidata is not used only by the Wikimedia projects. Used or not, we don't replace them. And it's your job to create new items after someone else cleaned the mess you did. Stryn (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) What do you think Wikidata has redirects for? Again, they are helping to maintain stability of our identifiers despite items being merged. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    "And it's your job to create new items after someone else cleaned the mess you did." (c) - maybe you'd better block me for a day, I'm not gonna being engaged in strange things. In the end, yes I admit that I did it incorrect. --Wolverène (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    I did recreate a few, but it is quite depressing work to do. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Is there real need to do this work? I don't perform reusing for almost a week, so since that time most of "resurrected" items are overgrown with edit history/-ies. Easier to make sure that reused items haven't been used out of Wikidata - I might check it by myself. If smth are in use, I'd create new item & restore redirect. Anyway you can do as you wish. --Wolverène (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FUSION[edit]

FUSION ː- Q11314175 ː- Q21710775 ː- Q27491432 ː---37.132.117.251 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ → ← Merged.Face-wink.svg Thank you! --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpfull edits @Andreasmperu:[edit]

I'm rather tired to explain how their edits aren't helpful:

First it was sport (Q349) and Talk:Q9332

Now it is other items without literate and most explicit citations.


I should note that @Andreasmperu: removes correct statements without consideration.

d1g (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andreasmperu: Can you please stop your edit behavior?
damage
Literally nobody must refer to Pandects (Q838526)
to enter 529 year
or to explain how presumption of innocence is about accused person
d1g (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu: Wikidata is not your playground or place where you can be asocial or irresponsible.
You are proven to be incompetent, but you decided to act like a dick on top of this 1 2

d1g (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and I see no role for administrators here. --Rschen7754 07:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
See below. --Rschen7754 01:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

D1gggg (talkcontribslogs)[edit]

Could someone look at this user edits? I have found way too many wrongs, and have reverted lots. But right now he is making big changes to highly used items, and completely changing ontologies. I have asked for other opinions in the Project Chat about a specific content dispute, but I am afraid is much more than just that. I could list plenty of examples, but it's almost 3am on my timezone, and I will be busy tomorrow. So just to mention the last one: this terrible merge, but you could look at his contributions to see the same pattern: way too bold, doesn't listen to reasons, and, therefore, damaging. Finally, his first edits seem too knowledgeable of Wikidata, so I suspect it could be a banned user I came across before. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 07:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I support this complaint after seeing the damage done to the sport (Q349) item yesterday and this night by User:D1gggg. This item has an established subclass relation for years, and they just walk past and change the definition of the item in edit war mode with incomprehensible revert comments. There are plenty of relations which are possibly invalidated by such changes, thus they need to be thoroughly discussed first. Since I have been involved in similar disputes with this user in the past, I ask for at least a clear administrative warning for that user. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
"and completely changing ontologies" I change claims in order to follow labels and description, nothing unusual, Wikidata needs a lot of edits in some areas.
I'm very sorry to see absence of real arguments at
Talk:Q9332#sport_.28Q349.29_as_human_behaviour
Talk:Q349
Just unreasonable "We told you so" without evaluating claims and descriptions at other items?.. d1g (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I share the worries of Andreasmperu and MisterSynergy. User:D1gggg seems very enthusiastic and makes a lot of edits, but these edits are not always as considered as should be expected from a user at Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The one who is completely changing the Ontology is Fractaler. Better look at his edits. --Infovarius (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I check their edits, thing about @Fractaler: is that they prefer to create items and use them in P31 and P279
Creation of classes would be more productive if classification creators try to apply them at large scale (1000s, not just 1-10).
Another thing is sometimes we should use properties instead: it is about to convert P31 and P279 to other or new properties.
I personally feel lack of some properties on occasions and use "facet of" in such situations.
d1g (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
D1g's response to Andreasm on Project Chat are directly insulting and inappropriate - I think an admin needs to take a careful look here. D1g may be doing some useful things, there are certainly areas where wikidata ontology needs work, but there seems to be a clear tone of arrogance and assumption of incompetence on the part of others here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: you forgot to mention that before that I had to listen tyriads by @Andreasmperu: instead of discussing changes and actual statements.
Actions of @Andreasmperu: are disruptive at very least.
I think any user should be competent during reverts not show edit patterns like this d1g (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not the first time he claims that another user is behaving „asocial“ ([2]). --Succu (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I did claim only @Succu: as asocial only because how inactive he is at talk pages almost everywhere.
This is not my opinion: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Taxonomical_mafia
@Succu: it isn't pleasant to guess what you mean nearly every time, not just me. Use German, don't be silent! d1g (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that you confirmed that you call other users behavior as „asocial“. „because how inactive he is at talk pages almost everywhere“. OMG. --Succu (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asocial: rejecting or lacking the capacity for social interaction. I see exactly this quite often. @Succu: evaluate your reversal rate/talk pages created it is up to you to change this. d1g (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this thread is about your edit behavior, not mine. --Succu (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Q1516282 about (juvenile (Q1516282)) and it's history is an excellent example how he is stressing contributors. --Succu (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: 18 pings, 5 messages, and an unbelievable number of notifications after, even when I told him to stop, I am considering it now as harassment. I stayed up extremely late last night, and mentioned I would be busy today, but 23 emails later I am here. After all this, D1gggg hasn't stopped reverting users that are only restoring the status quo, changing definitions on highly used items, even properties, and now we have murderer (Q931260) classed as a manual worker.

I don't think any number of good edits can absolve this kind of behaviour (no, it's not acceptable to demean other editors nor to ignore warnings from several administrators). The damage is already done, and it will take a long time to fix it. For these reasons, I believe this user needs to be blocked now. I know I cannot be impartial, but if nobody takes action in the hours, I will and face the consequences. The integrity of the project matters more than one individual no matter how good his intentions are. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. --Rschen7754 02:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this spam?[edit]

Can someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Thejavis86? As I've noted here on en.wiki that user is an undisclosed paid editor and it looks as if they have created pages here about companies where there is no associated article. Would this work as SEO? (Please ping if you reply). SmartSE (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I deleted two of the items they created as non-notable; others they worked on are notable, and the edits seem legit.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks for that. Smartse (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Q34508[edit]

This page has been vandalised (changing the Chinese names to incorrect ones) since last year by IPs from Chunghwa Telecom (likely this guy).--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Alaa :)..! 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Protection of Q18536072[edit]

Hello, This item has been under vandalism for long, people putting profanity and insults to be only shown in the mobile version so administrators and patrollers in Fa Wikipedia won't notice it, as a user requested action about this in Persian Wikipedia, please review and do further actions. Regards Mohammad (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ladsgroup--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits to Q33000788[edit]

Hallo,

I cannot restore Q33000788 to the version from before I edited it today. ([3]). Can one of you do that? - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 11:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Due to a bug only possible with “rollback”, but not with “undo” at the moment. See Wikidata:Project chat#Can’t undo a redirect creation — anyone able to help? for details, including a phab ticket. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on RMS[edit]

See Special:Contributions/181.143.67.131. ~nmaia d 15:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching the item Richard Stallman (Q7439) now. If there is another case of vandalism by this (seemingly static) IP, it will be blocked for a while. The item does not attract much vandalism otherwise, thus I prefer not to protect it. Thanks for raising attention here, MisterSynergy (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Alma mater[edit]

On the property educated at (P69), even if it is wrongly translated as "alma mater", we have engaged in an edit war on it. Latin phrases does not wear diacritics in any language because, well, latin did not have diacritics. The user Andreasmperu insists on writing it as "alma máter", even if in the discussion has been clearly stated that it is written "alma mater", as latin does not have diacritics. We need someone to mediate on this, but it is pretty clear stated by the Spanish academy ASALE/RAE that it is written "alma mater", and that latin phrases never have diacritics due to the fact that latin does not have diacritics http://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/la-alma-mater-no-el-alma-mater-1563/ .

The link to the Ortography, last paragraph is about latin phrases http://www.rae.es/consultas/los-extranjerismos-y-latinismos-crudos-no-adaptados-deben-escribirse-en-cursiva https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater --Melkart4k (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the item for one week due to the edit war. I didn't choose sides with this, just to be clear. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. So, what's next? How do I get that put with correct ortography and not with a typo? --Melkart4k (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Administrators will not decide which position is correct. You have to ask the community for more opinion, either at Wikidata:Project chat, Wikidata:Café, or maybe even at eswiki. Whether you continue at Property talk:P69#Alma mater or start a new discussion somewhere else at Wikidata is up to you. Please mind that both of you should not edit the controversial labels again before you reached concensus. If you agree on a label before the protection expires, feel free to ask for removal of protection here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Borgatya again[edit]

I need some help from my administrator colleagues. User:Borgatya is back to his usual unconstructive behaviour. I do not want to go into edit war with him as I know how stubborn he is (for the exact same behaviour one of his socks is currently blocked on huwiki for two months) and he would not stop. If I protected the article he would come screaming to this page claiming I am abusing my administrator rights. Therefore can someone revert the article and explain him that such descriptions go againts the guidelines: Descriptions are not full sentences, but small bits of information. In most cases, the proper length is between two and twelve words. One-word descriptions are almost always too ambiguous, and should be avoided. If the description goes onto a second line it is probably too long, and if it goes onto a third line, it is almost definitely too long. The current description is unnecessarily and excessively verbose. Thanks. Csigabi (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

186.141.197.67

Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a day. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolved deletion discussions[edit]

I recently marked a number of deletion discussions which were either stalled, or had reached a clear consensus not to delete, with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}, which renders the text:

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment.

User:Sjoerddebruin has reverted all my edits, with the edit summary "User is not a administrator and this is the wrong template".

Clearly, making a remark that one considers a discussion resolved is not something one needs to be an administrator to do, and the template seems perfectly adequate for the job of leaving such a remark.

It is highly irregular for an editor to remove another's comments in this manner; the invitation to remove them is conditional, and clearly states that they should only be removed if a reason why the discussion is given. Note that in no case did Sjoerddebruin actually do as the template suggests, and leave a comment as to why he disagreed that any of the discussions were not resolved.

Accordingly I have restored my comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And, without discussion, Sjoerddebruin has again removed my comments, still leaving none of his own. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You have a clear conflict of interest with some of these subjects and that template doesn't work on this particular page (only {{Deleted}} according to the archive template and probably {{Not deleted}} as well). Only administrators can make such decisions. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I have not acted in administrative capacity, nor indeed carried out any action beyond merely expressing an opinion and inviting others to disagree with it, your claim of CoI is moot. It is also not the reason given in your edit summaries. Nor - if it were applicable - would it apply in many of the cases (for example I made no comment at all in Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Wikidata:Identifiers, nor have I ever edited the nominated page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've said "some of these subjects". Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we got both of your viewpoints I guess.

  • @Andy: you have a point that some of the sections at WD:RfD could be considered due for decision. Admin workforce is limited and particularly the stalled discussions are difficult to decide and need a good explanation when being closed by an admin. However, please use this page (WD:AN) next time to request administators' attention, and be more reserved with discussions you have actively participated in, or even started.
  • @Sjoerd: In spite of not being the most appropriate manner to request action, Andy’s templates do not trigger the bot to archive and thus they do not really harm our project in my opinion. I think you could have been a little more relaxed in this situation.
  • @admins: there is indeed some work to do at WD:RfD, in the sections marked by Andy, but in others as well. Please participate over there…

MisterSynergy (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're allowing him to remove my comments, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
All comments he removed were meta-comments, i.e. not relevant for the decision of an admin. Anyway it does not matter any longer whether they are there nor not, because your request has meanwhile reached this page (where it belongs) and thus admins are informed that you wish the following sections to be resolved:
So my statement was not “allowing Sjoerd to remove your comments”, but rather that there is attention for your request now, so you don’t have to fight for it any longer. Please note that I also expressed my opinion about his reaction. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That's "yes", then. And I did indeed note that your response to my complaint that he removed several of my comments was to tell him that he "could have been a little more relaxed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems then that there's a new policy decision being made by fiat: it's ok to remove other editor's "meta comments" - the ones that aren't relevant to the discussion. I'll remember that for future use, thank you. In the meantime, it's about time somebody took action over Sjoerddebruin's harassment of Andy. How many times now has there been friction between these two initiated by some heavy-handed behaviour on Sjoerddebruin's part? Is it normal for this much latitude to be given to an administrator here in creating unnecessary drama, or is Sjoerddebruin simply entitled to special treatment? --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't order a meatpuppet, thanks. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Are we also now allowing Sjoerddebruin to make unwarranted personal attacks, for which he presents no supporting evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It's just a little bit too suspicious, knowing that the user isn't mostly active here and recently only came here to defend you. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
So your justification for making a personal attack is "suspicion". Right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Andy tried to achieve archiving of the discussions by a bot before an admin takes decision. On RfD this means, the disputed page will not be deleted. Since Andy is even the creator of some of the pages, it should not be him who decides that the pages are kept. --Pasleim (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I assume good faith on his side and consider his archive templates as an attempt to raise attention for the open requests. Unfortunately it was for a couple of reasons not the optimal way to achieve this, but effectively he has reached his goal meanwhile. It is completely pointless now to discuss whether his templates should be restored back to the place where they don’t belong to and possibly irritate other users. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
So now "possibly irritating another user" is justification to remove someone's comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn’t have posted them there, he shouldn’t have removed them either. You shouldn’t have reverted them in again, he shouldn’t have reverted them out again. So what? There is no position here which I could favor at all. When I made my very first statement here, the templates were not in the page and since your message was already successfully transported to this page, I did not see any reason to even only consider putting them back to WD:RfD again where other users, maybe not as experienced as you are, could wonder what the implications of your unusual activity are. My first statement as well as all others explicitly do not mean that I prefer Sjoerd’s position or activity over yours. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
"You shouldn’t have posted them there" There is no justification whatsoever for such an assertion. The position you should "favor" is that editors should not remove others' comments; and certainly should not do so a second time without opening a discussion, if their first removal is reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It was the wrong template, on the wrong page, in some cases also in wrong context due to your own participation in the discussions. Once again: you shouldn’t have posted them there. As I said, I do not assume bad faith in your activity. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
[ec] I didn't try to archive anything (I know full well how to archive a discussion), nor did I "decide" anything; I asked if people agreed that the discussions were resolved, and could be archived. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want to archive a discussion, don't use {{Section resolved}}. This template is used, and only used, to achieve automatic archiving. To get attention by other people, use an appropriate template or write your own text. --Pasleim (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
As MisterSynergy has already noted, the template is not used for automated archiving on the RfD page, on which {{Autoarchive resolved section}} is not used. Even if it were, there is, by design, a lag precisely to allow for the kind of challenge which I described above (and which Sjoerddebruin did not make). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)