Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/07

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

User:Structor

Is a bot running without a bot flag. --Succu (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Succu: I left a note on Infovarius' talk page (he apparently operates it). Please attempt to discuss such issues with the user in question first on their talk page before asking here, unless it is an absolute emergency or the user is an outright spammer or vandal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: You'll find the discussion here. --Succu (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Spambot user pages without spam

Hi all. Is there a consensus about what we do with pages that are created by spambots (usually single-contribution users with a random user name creating a user page built in a typical pattern, often with some cyrillic letters hidden between the latin ones to avoid them being found using a search function/engine) but don't contain any spam links, product names, etc.? There's currently a deletion request for User:Ilene7697wcnu, and other examples are User:AnitraAguilera, User:Delmar6642, User:Fay25Mjcmmg, User:MarceliParramor, User:MarvinMileham, User:Melodee47M, User:HectorBoyles, User:RogelioDunford among others. They get deleted sometimes (I may have done that, too), but formally those pages don't violate any policy of us (and at least the ones that I watched never were edited to add a link without appearing in the list of new pages). --YMS (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think these should be deleted as out of the project scope. As for blocking them, I'm not too comfortable with doing so if there hasn't been actual spam, unless CheckUser absolutely identifies them as spambots, and even then I don't see much evidence to warrant a check.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a classic m:NTSAMR spambot pattern. --Rschen7754 10:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As no one dared to remove User:Haplology's speedy deletion template from the User:Ilene7697wcnu user page or opposed here for more than 24 hours now, I deleted that one. However, in general, I still think the question is open. Comments welcome. --YMS (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deleting these pages because they are definitely spam. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k<

I have to agree with Bene* here and the definition of spam ("unsolicited bulk messages"[1]) is not limited to spam links. Vogone (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bene*, Vogone: Do you think they should be blocked as well? --Jakob (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion on that but I agree to what Jasper Deng said that there is apparently now reason to block them as long as these are the only edits performed by the accounts. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 21:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

They could be globally locked, but usually stewards are lazy more effectively use their time by not locking them. --Rschen7754 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Bene* and Vogone. --Konggaru (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User removing items from the tree of geographical features

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GerardM , e.g.

• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2771910&diff=prev&oldid=142099601

Please stop him by temporarily disabling editing for him. I asked him already to stop, but maybe he is not looking at his talk page.

If he removes then he should set "instance of=geographical feature".Tamawashi (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamawashi: No we're not just going to block him. The main type property is deprecated. He replied on his talk page anyway. Try to tell him to replace them with "instance of". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know it is deprecated, I am maybe the one that worked the most in the last month on these items, but in a careful manner. Please block him to prevent further damage. He is actually removing information from Wikidata. I don't say he is evil, or acts with bad intentions. Tamawashi (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have block him for 6hours because GND propriety must be replaced with another propriety before delete it as property talk and rfd talks, feel free to unblock him it first if the block is wrong --Rippitippi (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Soong family (Q15663631) (Soong family) was merged with Soong sisters (Q714663). This was a wrong merge, as the sisters are a part of the family and not the family itself. —Wylve (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the undeletion request from WD:RFD to here. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyways,  Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Properties for deletion archive

Yesterday, Hazard-Bot archived three open discussions from WD:PFD to Wikidata:Properties for deletion/Archive/2014/1. Normally, I welcome th fact that inactive discussions get removed after a while, but is it okay for PFD? Moreover, we have two archives for PFD now: Wikidata:Properties for deletion/Archive/2014/1 and Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2014/Properties/1. --Pasleim (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I definitely would endorse it for PfD, but there being two archives is problematic, in my opinion. Also, for prefixing purposes, the numbering system should be changed to date-based in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hoping to return from my blocking hiatus

Hi. About five or six months ago, I voluntarily agreed to stop using the block button after making some stupid blunders with it. Since then, I've still been editing and doing work such as deletion and property creation, mostly without any problems. To the point, I'm hoping to return to using the block button to block users who trip the spam filters (I had filter 22 in mind). Since I was never formally forbidden from using the block tool, I could just return to doing so, but I thought that it would be more honest to seek community feedback first. Thoughts? --Jakob (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but be very careful. I wouldn't want to see you get desysopped. BTW, I dug this up in the AN archives so everyone can see what Jakob's talking about. Jasper? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here rather that just jumping back into it. I have no problems with you using the block tool. If you ever need a second pair of eyes, feel free to ping me any time. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If and only if your judgement has improved. One condition I'd like to see (not absolutely needed) is to immediately resign your admin tools should you be found to have erred in another block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I am certainly confident that my judgement has improved. I can't guarantee that I'll never make a mistake again (we all make one sooner or later), but I certainly won't block an established user again without looking much more carefully into the situation and/or bringing the matter to AN. --Jakob (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Thoughts? --Jakob (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you blocking again really but note that not all accounts caught by filters are spambots and the like so use discretion. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Everyone: Thanks for your faith in me. I'll start monitoring the filter and report the first few blocks to AN. If anyone disagrees with any, I'll revert it immediately. --Jakob (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember to warning the user before the block :) --ValterVB (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

undelete

Q14823858: this is probably the same group of plants as Q8316, but the relationships are different. If "parent taxon" is to be meaningful, and if we can ever expect to generate taxoboxes these need to be separate (but, yes, there is something missing in our ability to handle this). - Brya (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

made a new item. - Brya (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous archiving by HazardBot

HazardBot has lately been archiving open discussions at PFD. I tried reverting the bot, but it just did it again. I left a note on User:Hazard-SJ's talk page, but he hasn't edited in a month, so it could be a while before he sees it. Not sure what the best course of action is here. --Jakob (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say block it but that would cause havoc at RFD. I reverted the wrong archival again and also removed a single {{done}} template from the middle of one of the threads (not sure if this was causing it to do something bad). Other than that I can't see anything badly wrong, other than one of the sections actually has the heading == {{Q|15978181}} == which could be throwing it off. *waits to see if it does it again* ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding instance of award to humas

User:GerardM is adding Property:P31 Q618779 to humans on a mass scale (10%+ error rate). I warned him on his talkpage, but no reaction yet (and adding continues). --Jklamo (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the user stopped adding these statements and already started to rollback them. --Pasleim (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have.. Am interested in what the calculation of 10% is based on .. <grin> GerardM (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrongly merged item

Please undelete Dong Yen (Q16976379), it was wrongly merged with a same-named administrative unit in a different part of Thailand. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Rzuwig^► 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I worried that this will happen with making merge much easier accessible - Bang Rak (Q14203501) Ban Tai (Q15839181), San Kamphaeng (Q13025277), Mae Sai (Q15273763), Don Tan (Q15989168), Chok Chai (Q15861673), Mai Bang Bua Thong (Q15904499), Bang Rak Phatthana (Q15904504) Choeng Thale (Q15629606) are all wrongly merged. Merging without reading or understanding the descriptions of the items is never a good idea, how else than with descriptions and lots of statements can one make sure these items will stay unharmed? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All  undeleted on my phone. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly, all of these merges were performed by different users (some of which current admins). It means the problem is not just one user who needs to be informed; the issue of people not being careful enough with the merge tools is endemic. I'd encourage people to ask if they are unsure or simply leave ones they are unsure about and only merge ones they are 100% certain the items are the same. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Daviduglyass

Daviduglyass

Vandalism, inappropriate name. -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked. Rzuwig^► 20:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Wedding World

This user has engaged in spam (see Special:DeletedContributions/Wedding_World) and has an inappropriate username. I'll block if anyone else agrees with me. --Jakob (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: I'd say it's safe to block. Promotional user name and only edits are promoting a business. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Jakob (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

TuWass

TuWass -- vandalism. -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User warned. But there seems to be a language barrier here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated property

WWF ecoregion code (P1294) was created by Jakec, but not marked as created in wd:pp, so I created P1426 (P1426), which is the same property. Please, delete one of them, thanks! --Micru (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

95.153.203.8

95.153.203.8 -- vandalism. -- Vlsergey (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User has not been warned and it doesn't look serious enough to warrant an immediate block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So where should i write about such cases if i'm too lazy to warn them by myself and don't have an instrument to quickly rollback their changes? -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, you should take the initiative to warn them with a message on their talk page - and I'm personally not sure that the edits warrant rolling back here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what's happening here ...

but I think there is trouble in paradise. The number of controversial issues is toprocketting and edit wars also for no clear reasons. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Socket puppetry misusing WIDAR? --Succu (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Care to explain in more detail? John F. Lewis (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tamawashi does appear to simply make the rules up as they go along without consulting any kind of previous consensus. Not sure exactly what's going on but I've seen their edits everywhere recently. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TomT0m - maybe next time you start to talk about me at a noticeboard, you have the courtesy to ping.

User:John F. Lewis One detail left out in the link posted by User:TomT0m is this edit by Succu using the word nonsense and not contributing in clarification. He is mobbing me for quite some time. Apart from that he is re-creating constraints violations by removing subclass of (P279) from items that are targets of a subclass of (P279) claim.

I saw that edit. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Delusion23 - can you show me where my edits violated consensus? Tamawashi (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Did he/her? My impression is he/she is playing around the long line we got no claer consensus... --Succu (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Tamawashi's edits and behavior and user:Joshbaumgartner probably has similar feelings about this user. Some examples: [1], Talk:Q749, Talk:Q889, Talk:Q134390, vp. Multichill (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tamawashi has also made personal attacks against Succu on the Project Chat. --Jakob (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget this, where he demanded we block GerardM because he was removing obsolete statements. (Even though he was blocked eventually the attitude goes along with those other examples.) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:Q192287 he had a run in with Michiel1972 and User:Infovarius

The account appears to be quite new, but the edit pattern doesn't really look like your typical new user. Multichill (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

1. The label issue in the content itself is addressed at Help talk:Label#Inclusion of class names, Joshbaumgartner edited at little bit above, and we seem to agree. No input from Multichill. I did not edit in that area anymore since then and don't plan to do so, since IMO a consensus should be bot enforced.
2. The label issue in the interface has been raised by me in the project chat Groningen in Groningen and Groningen. Some helpful feedback came already from a third party, but not from Multichill.
3. The issue with Michiel1972 and Infovarius seems to have been settled after a third party said s/he sees nothing incorrect about my edits
4. The issue with GerardM is, AFAICS, solved, he even thanked User:AmaryllisGardener for his suggestion, which the latter obtained from me. And to say I object removal of an obsolete property is not in accordance with the truth, since I objected to the removal of information contained in that property.
5. I don't know what problem TomT0m sees. He makes great contributions in the area of classification. I was actually surprised when I saw that he started this thread here.
6. The issue with Succu is ongoing. He is re-introducing constraint violations as mentioned above. This is nasty, since I work on fixing them, and suddenly items like dog breed re-appear, since they are subclasses of "dog" and from there upwards many classes cause constraint violations. His language and behavior is scary, e.g. "shut up".

I hope that soon a) P107 (P107) is empty and can be deleted, b) all constraint violations for P279 and P31 are fixed. -- Cheers Tamawashi (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamawashi, Succu: From the looks of it, you two probably need to chill - i.e. you two may want to consider interacting less with each other until such interaction won't lead to more incivil conduct. In particular, edit warring on someone's own talk page is rather disruptive; but also, removing good-faith comments is frowned upon.

I feel like Tamawashi (talk • contribs • logs)'s behavior is somewhat confrontational, such as what I saw at Talk:Q192287. But at the same time, Succu (talk • contribs • logs)'s comments aren't really helping ([2]).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: At Talk:Q192287 I confronted the person in question with requests to clarify their claims. See how the person started with "should not", then says "it is just the way", and switches to "Oh man you made a terrible mess". At the same time I stayed focused to the content. Tamawashi (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have recently been at odds with @Tamawashi: and found that he'd also been causing similar headaches for @Multichill: and others, though I only speak of my personal interaction and observation of his actions. I applaud @Tamawashi:'s apparent ideal of improving the consistency of classification of geographic entities--an ideal I share with him. However, he seems to approach everything from a singular perspective of his vision of what the classification scheme should be, which has led to causing problems in other areas beyond classification. I am not terribly concerned with classification itself, but an area I am concerned about and where I put in a fair amount of work is labels and descriptions. When his mass editing overwrote a significant amount of that work and I brought the issue up to him, his responses were all within the context of classification and the need to include class names in the labels. Instead of recognizing that there may be some other perspectives on labels, and that in fact Help:Label and other guidelines were the basis for such differing views, he responded combatively and used brute force to enforce his personal view by blanket changing all corrected labels back to his viewpoint and pointing to pages he has created as guidelines, such as Wikidata:Administrative territorial entity. I hope to work with Tamawashi to improve the accuracy and consistency of geographic entities on Wikidata. To do so he needs to realize that this is a collaborative project, and while individual zeal can be great for getting things done, one needs to respect others' views and efforts as well. The page I linked has some very good work on it, and again I applaud Tamawashi for his efforts, but he should be doing so in a way that is cooperative with others who have done so much work in this area, instead of simply setting aside and/or overwriting that good work. Citing lack of consensus is not a blank check to run roughshod over everyone else, but instead I view it as a caution against sweeping changes until such time as a consensus can be reached. I very much look forward to his continued efforts but should he continue to use his considerable technical expertise and available time to out-edit those with whom he cannot reconcile with, then I hope that administrators will take a careful look and consider appropriate action to encourage an end to such behavior. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue with User:Joshbaumgartner is solely related to editing of labels of geographic objects (I am not aware of any other edit by me that Joshbaumgartner disliked) and this label issue is under discussion at Help talk:Label#Inclusion of class names. That is the short reply. Since Joshbaumgartner wrote a longer text, containing several statements -true or not- and all(sic) unsourced and many unverifiable (e.g. "technical expertise", "good work") about my editing and his editing, the longer reply is:

1. Joshbaumgartner wrote "should he continue to use his considerable technical expertise and available time to out-edit those with whom he cannot reconcile with" - there is no evidence that this happened. To the contrary, Joshbaumgartner claims for himself "an area [...] I put in a fair amount of work is labels and descriptions", and since the issue here are labels, it is him who may out-edit. Specifically since at [3] I mentioned that I think there should be a rule table and that then bots can check and edit the labels. My unverifiable counter claim: "I lack special technical expertise with respect to label editing" and "I put less time into label editing via the Wikidata editing interface than him, if that was the interface he used."
2. Joshbaumgartner mentioned Help:Label above and at Talk:Q889 he mentioned specifically Help:Label#Disambiguation information belongs into the description. That section reads: "When a page title includes disambiguation in it, either through commas or parentheses, the disambiguation should be left out." (bolding mine). I told him so already at Talk:Q749. That means "County" in "Washington County" is not disambiguation under that clause. So all his class name removals are not covered by Help:Label, which even makes efforts (=extra text, the bolded part) to restrict what could be considered "disambiguation".
3. Joshbaumgartner wrote "pointing to pages he has created as guidelines, such as Wikidata:Administrative territorial entity" - there is no evidence that this page has ever been tagged with {{Guideline}}, or claimed in any other way to be a guideline. It is just a page that collects and links information. That aside, does or did it talk about how to set labels?
4. Joshbaumgartner called his labels "corrected labels" and mine he calls "his [i.e. Tamawashi's] viewpoint". But all changes where he removed the class name (e.g. "District") when included in the label without parentheses are changes based in "his [i.e. Joshbaumgartner] viewpoint". See examples listed at Talk:Q889. If he put a lot of work into labels and description as he claimed above, then probably several sets are affected by his edits. I wonder whether he is doing this class name removal only on less watched items of non-English-speaking countries, such as provinces and districts of Afghanistan or also on other items. I still see "Washington County" not "Washington" and Central Oregon Irrigation District not "Central Oregon"?
5. Joshbaumgartner wrote "he should be doing so in a way that is cooperative with others who have done so much work in this area, instead of simply setting aside and/or overwriting that good work." - Again self-praising by calling his own work and that of some co-workers "good". I look for Joshbaumgartner to use rules when overwriting the work, be it good or not, that English Wikipedia editors have put into labels of geographic objects and the work that Wikidata editors did put into Help:Label when specifying what "disambiguation" is and therefore should be moved from label to description.

Cheers Tamawashi (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue with Joshbaumgartner is even much worse. Remember, he complained about me "pointing to pages he [i.e. Tamawashi] has created as guidelines", which was false. But actually Joshbaumgartner is the one of being guilty to point to a page as justification for removal of class names, namely Help:Label, and that page is labeled at the top "It is proposed that this informational page become a policy or guideline". Tamawashi (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamawashi: just one of your claimed edit on your takpage I claim this edit is a troll : you jumped both feet into a controversy : class membership and claim redundancy.

Yes, a class like <inner planet> imply its instances are part of <solar system>. It has been one reputed way to abuse not in my opinion the class system. You don't care about wether or not we should remove that claim, you just want this : a Troll launch by annoying others. This is just one of the many time. And it is all but the last, on that account or on another. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see arguments on both sides of the content dispute, with Tamawashi perhaps being more technically sound and TomT0m favoring redundancy for possibly better usability. One thing I would say: asserting such or making edits to express that is emphatically not trolling. Regarding thinly- and not-so-thinly veiled accusations of sockpuppetry: Tamawashi strikes me as either not a sockpuppet or an extremely well-concealed one. I have interacted with virtually everyone involved in high-level discussions about basic membership properties, and Tamawashi's editing style and patterns are substantially different from any of them. The fact that he has become well-acquainted with Magnus's tools and gotten into (mutually) less-than-civil spats with several users is not typical, but it is also not necessarily indicative of a sockpuppet or a troll. Jumping in and trying to clean up our semantic rat's nest with class membership and claim redundancy is natural for some users, and should not elicit allegations of trolling or sockpuppetry because of a content or editorial disagreement, which seem to have been contributing factors here.

That said, I agree that Tamawashi should exercise much greater tact and seek to build more consensus before making sweeping changes on Wikidata. Being correct and not enraging a majority of those one interacts with are equally important in a communal project to structure all human knowledge. If he can successfully resolve these important "soft" concerns, I think Tamawashi has great potential for positive impact on Wikidata. Emw (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for a duration of 24 hours after they refused to acknowledge a few messages left by Jasper Deng and myself. I did this also noting this discussion in particular along with the edit warring the user and Succu participated in. Succu has been warned by Jasper for the record. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I will also say that Tamawashi's been not so careful with his editing of items, with many messages by other users on his talk page unanswered.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have decided to disable Tamawashi (talk • contribs • logs)'s talk page access for the rest of the block, because even though I've tried to explain to him why his failure to communicate was a problem, and why others have been trying to contact him, he persisted with talking about others instead of his own behavior. I don't like doing this, because it impedes further communication from him, but I felt like I could not let this continue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, he has now "archived" his tp without an archive [4], setting some rules too [5]... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Undelete wrong merge

Bo Pla Thong (Q16739347) was wrongly merged to Bo Pla Thong (Q13025235), different administrative unit sharing same name. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeleted. Vogone (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge info

My bot merged around 5,000 species items. I'll add them in batches of 200 to WD:RfD. Maybe one of you could help to delete the merged items. Regards --Succu (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Løkken Station (Q12325401) (Løkke Station) was merged with Løkken Station (Q15243240). This was a wrong merge; It is 2 railway stations in Norway and Denmark with same name. --Steenth (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism/wrong edits by User:189.83.87.185

Hello,
can you temporily block that user because of those edits: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.83.87.185 I'm not 100% sure if this is vandalism or "just" wrong edits (I'll try to talk to the user via the talk page). But so far almost all of the edits in the last two days look wrong to me (and I already reverted a few). --Bthfan (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the user, but to me, it would seem like a misguided user more than a vandal. Definitely not blockable yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's alright. --Bthfan (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW the problem seems to continue. Maybe it's not vandalism, but to me it seems like at least 80% of the edits are just wrong (random removal of data, changing dates without any indication why it should have changed, etc.). --Bthfan (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Definitely blockable now. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 22:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Block

Just blocked NildaBorowski (talk • contribs • logs) for being a spambot (see the filter log). Reporting here since I agreed to do so a few weeks ago for future blocks. --Jakob (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

persistent vandalism to Ukrainian labels and descriptions

My Ukrainian is not so good, but these edits are definitely not helpful, and more to the point this contributor doesn't want to stop: Special:Contributions/193.169.80.50 --Haplology (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

undelete

Q4038293 : subgenus merged with a genus. - Brya (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! - Brya (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)