Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/08

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

vandalism, please block User:Sarahj2599

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarahj2599

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Sarahj2599

--PigeonIP (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

She's been warned, let's see if she stops now. --Jakob (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Report vandalism

IP address: 217.12.20.253 - Joxemai (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any particular edits that I would describe as vandalism. There are some test edits, and some perfectly fine contributions. Besides, they don't edit frequently enough to warrant a ban. Del♉sion23 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing harassment

At [1] I made pretty clear rules for that page. But now Succu came to that page again, with a nonsense statement. He says he is sure that I can explain something. Yeah, super. Me too. But how can I stop this nasty user from coming to my talk page? Tamawashi (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You may ask the user to stop contacting you, but there is nothing preventing them from doing so. A user's talk page is the place to discuss matters as Succu wishes to discuss. I also ask you to please stop finding reasons to complain here, on PC or in general anywhere you see an editor button with regards to user conduct. Their behaviour is not harassment at all. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How can I stop finding reasons, if the reasons are brought directly to my user talk? What do you mean by "on PC or in general anywhere you see an editor button with regards to user conduct". Tamawashi (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason Succu came to your talk page is because he wanted to discuss an edit with you, nothing bad there. Also by that I mean, please chose a place to bring these complaints and leave it. Posting on WD:PC then here immediately after is not appropriate. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I now see PC may mean Project Chat. For the record: He posted a non-question statement on my talk page. If there would have been any question, the situation would have been different. Tamawashi (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tamawashi: Points 2, 3 and 4 from yout talk page are disingenuous and outrageous. We won't allow you to complain if a user ignores one of these points, but we will certainly take into account if you ignore any legitimate concern they have. This is a collaborative environment, and although your talk page technically falls within your territory, how you can use it is bound to the community's rules. These three notes you have there are not aligned with the community rules, and we won't do anything against Succu if he disregards them. However, edit warring on another user's talk page is not a very bright idea either so I'd advice Succu to pursue other methods of resolution. — ΛΧΣ21 20:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, for better understanding:
2) If you want to talk about edits I made to an item, please post the question at the item's talk page and ping me.
2.1) If you don't do that, I may move your question to another place
3) If you claim something without providing evidence, e.g. an edit diff, I may ignore your claim.
4) If a question started with a claim that has no evidence, I may ignore your question.
All these are "disingenuous and outrageous"? It is outrageous that I may ignore claims brought up without evidence? It is outrageous that I prefer to have item discussions closer to the item or a page related to that item? Both to get more people involved that might be interested in the topic - this is outrageous? Tamawashi (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
If people want to talk about your edits you made to an item, that belongs to your talk page. That's what the talk page is for: discussing your edits. If people is claiming something, there is a high possibility evidence exists, and you are not the best person to decide what is "evidence." That's for other editors to address. The problem is the "I may ignore" part of your claim. Ignoring other editors is disingenuous, even if they are wrong. Doing so is not polite and certainly not something we expect users to do. That's why it's outrageous. — ΛΧΣ21 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Look at Wikidata_talk:Item_classification#Programming_a_subclass_of_object_orientation_but_not_of_activity.3F - discussing content at a page where others interested in the item are more likely to get involved, actually gets others involved. Also see the edits to that item after I made a public posting about that. I thought Wikidata is a collaborative project? Tamawashi (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that your perception of "evidence" makes you ignore valid messages like Succu's. You do not own your user talk page, just like you do not own any other page on a public wiki. Therefore, your guidelines do not have the force and effect of policy, especially if it actually serves to prevent a valid use of your talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My perception of evidence made me ignore the message? What was my perception of evidence in that case? Tamawashi (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Succu had good reason, i.e. evidence, to post to your talk page. It's not your right to force users to post where you want them to, so Succu was under no obligation to post at the item talk page rather than your user talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A good reason to post "I think you can explain this"? I agree with the statement as made clear in the very first posting in this thread. I think the same about many edits by many editors. But I doubt they would be happy to get a message from me each time. And, since when is reason=evidence? And why do you think "evidence" was an issue here? Tamawashi (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Succu: I would suggest you and Tamawashi keep a distance from each other, because it seems like you two can't get along well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: No, a „Maulkorb” as ordered by you solves not a single problem with regards to content and modeling things. --Succu (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Succu: But even though I think Tamawashi is jumping the shark here by forum shopping at PC and here, I think it would be best for a third party to resolve disputes between you two over content, since he now perceives any interaction from you as harassment (not saying it is). On the English Wikipedia, this would be grounds for an interaction ban, which doesn't exist here - but I still suggest you consider not interacting with him as much.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not asking for a „Maulkorb” with regards to content and modeling, but for you to stop saying things like that you are sure that I can explain something. Yeah, I am sure too. So, what? I am not molesting other people with bringing a diff for one of their edits and say "I am sure you can explain this." But you, you do. That's the point here. Tamawashi (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tamawashi: By the way, this is not harassment nor molesting since Succu is not doing it in bad faith. Such a message is in fact perfectly acceptable and normal. It concerns your editing, after all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no mind reader and cannot talk about his faith. But he only made a statement about himself. I said he is sure of something. I am sure of the same thing, so we even agree. But I am not interested in such messages. Tamawashi (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Then you must assume good faith. And quite frankly, you should not be editing here if you are not interested in messages from other users, as that is contrary to the norms of a wiki community.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
IMO, this has gone on long enough and Tamawashi needs a longer block because of things like calling Succu "nasty", and accusations as you can see above. I don't think Succu is behaving like he should either, correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen any personal attacks or name-calling from him. May there possibly be a language barrier here? Tamawashi, what is your native language? --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree; I don't think it warrants a longer block any more than accusations of "trolling" and "socket puppetry" (presumably accusing sockpuppetry) from the other party do. Succu is a great contributor, but he can sometimes be curt or flippant and sometimes bluntly reverts others' edits. Tamawashi is also a great contributor, but he can be sensitive to such comments, is unusually persnickety (which can often be a good thing, but not always), and until at least recently has been a bit too quick to make sweeping edits without due consensus or at least quorum.
Beyond perhaps talking about the editor a bit too much more than the edits, and bringing up such things with perhaps undue frequency at high-profile forums, I think Tamawashi has handled this particular editorial dispute reasonably. He moved the editorial question from Public Chat to a more focused venue when an uninvolved editor recommended it, and it's now gathering useful feedback at Wikidata_talk:Item_classification#Programming_a_subclass_of_object_orientation_but_not_of_activity.3F.
Tamawashi, I think a few techniques could help reduce friction between you and any given editor you might disagree with:
  1. Do not use words like "vandalism" or "harassment" to characterize the other person's edits. Let uninvolved editors make that determination.
  2. If you have a content dispute with others, bring it up on more specific, less visible venues first, and maybe even sometimes walk away from disputes with editors that get under your skin.
  3. Grit your teeth a lot. Channel into an impersonal and polite, well-written comment any fuming anger you might feel when another editor rudely retorts or wantonly reverts your edits.
  4. Focus on content, and not others' schemes or tricks you might feel are being aligned against you, even if you feel like you are being unfairly targeted.
  5. On occasion, find a way to genuinely compliment and thank editors you strongly disagree with. Many of the long-standing editors here have strong disagreements on basic things. Yet we are by and large cordial with each other, rarely get into edit wars, and (virtually?) never need to escalate things to the Administrators' noticeboard or call each other out for supposed vandalism, harassment or some such on Project chat. If we did, Wikidata would quickly implode.
You are a promising editor and I would really like to see you contribute to Wikidata for a long time. But your approach to collaboration and conflict resolution needs improvement in certain key areas. Whether they are right or wrong, the community's patience is thinning. Emw (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't think he should be blocked... if he has the excuse of English not being his native language. But he hasn't answered that question yet. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @AmaryllisGardener: Personally, I think possible language barriers are not a possible excuse if he demands that people message him in English.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a good point there, Jasper. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... Tamawashi made an edit. Succu would like an explanation of why the edit was made. Tamawashi refuses to answer because he has arbitrary rules for the use of his talkpage. Succu keeps posting on Tamawashi's user page, knowing this annoys him. Wouldn't all this have been avoided by the original "question" simply being answered?

Conditions: answer your own questions. Do not mention each other when answering your question, so things can remain civil. Once this issue is settled I would suggest you both avoid each other in future. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment 1: "Succu would like an explanation of why the edit was made." - I never said so. Tamawashi (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment 2: In the mean time, I had taken it to Project Chat and transferred later to Wikidata_talk:Item_classification#Programming_a_subclass_of_object_orientation_but_not_of_activity.3F. This gave more user feedback and several edits by third parties. That is one reason why I prefer to talk about items in venues that may get editors involved that are interested in them. Tamawashi (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for harassment

The first round was at 9 July, a small strange edit at 10 July, then a second round 11 July. I had no time yet to document the third round.

  • 9 July 2014
    • First edit on my talk page by Succu: "Dear new user Tamawashi, please stop this. This was discussed at length before at different places. --Succu (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)" [4]
    • I told him that there was no reference for "this" and that he should use an appropriate venue [5]
    • He re-posts again not saying what "this" and "it" refer to [6]
    • I remove with edit summary "(again no reference for "this")" [7]
    • Then finally he specifies "this" [8]
    • I thanked him and I asked him to specify where rooting of taxon elements was opposed [9]
    • No answer instead he writes this: [10]
      • What I reverted there was a "better not" statement on a documentation website.
    • I revert this. Because after all the time spend with the above stuff, he simply ignored my request for clarification, instead he again tries to command what I should do and what not "So calm down please." - I was calm before. [11]
    • he writes "please discuss" [12] but is was him who actually dropped out of the discussion by ignoring my request for clarification
    • I revert, since his statement was defamatory, I was discussing, he wasn't [13]
  • 10 July 2014
    • He asks me a question about notable instances of "flag of Libya" - sorry, am I his support desk? [14]
  • 11 July 2014
    • TomT0m asks a question, I couldn't address that immediately, I will do later. But here is Succu:
    • he writes about my work in Item classification: "It's part of his/her nonsens rooting of offensive..." [15]
    • I revert [16]
    • He reverts and writes: "talking not included" [17]
    • since I was talking and he was the one that dropped out - the above request for classification is still not answered - and he only made an attack statement "his nonsense rooting" [18]
    • He reverts [19]
    • He writes: Socket puppetry misusing WIDAR? --Succu (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC) [20]
    • He reverts [21]
    • reverting forth and back
    • writing "Talk Talk Talk" and "not interested" [22]
    • Finally I have time to reply to TomT0m [23]
  • 19 July 2014
    • Succu: "more trolling?" [24]

Tamawashi (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for talking

I can bring a lot of evidence where I was involved in talking, if other editors were concerned with certain edits and raised a question. But this would take some time. Tamawashi (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Tamawashi, please answer my question that I stated above: what is your native language? --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Also language skill level information is private information, by the way. Vogone (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine, then. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
He is perfectly able to speak German. --Succu (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

De-escalation

I have been observing with awe how this issue has escalated. I would like to make a recap, so we can put the issue into perspective:

  • there has been a long-standing unclarity in the usage of two of our main properties (p31/p279)
  • as a consequence of this unclarity one dedicated, hard-working contributor has entered into conflict with other dedicated, hard-working contributors
  • the conflict has not been managed in the best possible way. There have been accusations, there have been personal attacks, there has been too little understanding for each other and too much aggresivity.
  • this resulted in a temporal ban (violence) and the wish for more

This has to stop for the benefit of all. My recommendation to defuse this is as follows:

  • Emw, TomT0m, Zolo, me, and others are working hard to resolve the unclarity that originated this conflict. I would like to ask to everyone involved to have patience, and to participate in the consensus-building discussions if they feel like. We are doing progress and we are getting close to more clear guidelines.
  • when two editors enter into conflict about how to classify an item, my recommendation is to try to solve it amiably. If that doesn't work, bring the topic to Wikidata talk:Item classification. If the admins feel it appropriate, we can determine that page as the place to arbitrate item classification conflicts.
  • Both Tamawashi and other editors have to be more aware of their language as Emw suggests above. The existence of Wikidata depends on our kindness and collaboration with each other. The more kind we are to each other, the more successful Wikidata will be. The opposite is also true.
  • I would like to invite admins and everyone involved to realize that this situation arose from unclear rules and from inappropriate communication. The solution for it is not punishing for following unclear rules and for not knowing how to communicate, but to clarify the rules, and to teach how to communicate properly. Both need patience, and require remaining calm and unaffected.

So everyone go out for a walk, look around to the wonderful world, and realize that we are not here forever. Better to enjoy it and to help everyone enjoy it while it lasts :) --Micru (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

One problem is our nearly complete lack of user conduct policies - WD:UCS does not work when "common sense" is not agreed upon by everyone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Formally forbidding personal attacks and edit warring would go a long way. --Jakob (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The general lack of policies in Wikidata in general is an issue. We have WD:UCS and we assume it covers everything so leave major stuff like blocking policies etc. as guidelines then name them in a misleading way? John F. Lewis (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
+1. My thoughts exactly. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of another problem: Tamawashi made around 500,000 WIDAR contributions starting from 6. Jun. 2014 - the day of his/her second (!) edit here. AGF and other rules vanish into nothing if we have no means of control mass automated contributions, or establish clear rules how to deal with external (API) tools. --Succu (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Succu: That's really a big problem! Is there any "grow into the community" guideline that we could import from wikipedia? It would help new contributors to know that they have to take time to get acquainted with the way we work here instead of "fixing" everything on the first day, and getting burnt on the second day. Access to automatic tools should be something to use only after a month or two editing manually, at least.--Micru (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Succu. He has hit a major nail on the head here. I also agree with the gist of Micru's proposal: mechanisms for large-scale edits should be restricted to users who have been editing Wikidata manually for a certain period of time. I would support something closer to one month, and I think two months or more is a too long. A minimum edit number, e.g. 250 - 500 edits, also seems reasonable. I would prefer the large-scale edit user right to be granted automatically after the whatever minimum time period and edit count is chosen, with exceptions for the time criterion possible if users request and are granted access by an administrator. Emw (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This RfC aims to address this problem.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think a more useful RFC might be on the use of Widar... --Rschen7754 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
YES +1 [enter other 'I agree' thing here] John F. Lewis (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rschen. An omnibus RFC on user conduct policies is not necessarily bad, but an RFC on Widar would be more relevant here. Emw (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Micru: Thanks for your summary. Looks helpful to me. Still one observation: You write 1) "Emw, TomT0m, Zolo, me, and others [work hard on P31/P279]" 2) "bring the topic to Wikidata talk:Item classification". Any reason you leave out me, Tamawashi, in 1), me who has been attacked in this thread so often? And you don't mention that it was me who started Wikidata talk:Item classification and brought people there? And started talks there? And it was me, Tamawashi, who created Wikidata:Database reports/Item classification?

@Tamawashi: I was referring to the long conversations that had been happening since long ago (including the rfc about "part of", which is tangentially related), in which I am not aware that you participated. Sorry if you did and I didn't realize!. But of course all the merit of starting the project "Item classification" is yours and I hope you continue with that important task in the future.--Micru (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Emw, Rschen7754: you want to regulate Widar, following an attack statement by Succu on my Widar edits. Any specific problems with my Widar edits? Remember that User:Succu on purpose re-created constraint violations. Maybe before regulating users that work in accordance with constraints, a RfC on users introducing constraint violations would be more interesting?

And why don't you want to regulate Widar for longterm contributors? Do they make less errors? Before enacting something, could you bring scientific statistics as evidence that new users do more harm than longterm users? Or don't you have that, and just think that the group you belong to is the "trustworthy group" and that new users belong into "not so trustworthy". Tamawashi (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if I was not originally "pinged", I will try to give my version. It is a matter of growing trust. With automatic tools you can do a lot of good, but also a lot of harm. How to know if a new user will cause more good than bad edits? There is no way of knowing, just to let them increase the trust progresively until they can be considered to belong to what you call "trustworthy group". Anyone can use bots, but it is requested that they do some test edits first to make sure that the user know what he is doing. Something similar could be thought for widar, it just needs some talking.--Micru (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

undelete

Q13107161 merge of species and genus

Q15629945 merge of subfamily and family. - Brya (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thank you for reporting. --Stryn (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. - Brya (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Desysop paperwork

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)

I will do it, thanks for pointing out.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nipponese Dog Calvero (Q12646551)

Please indef semi protect this page. It's often vandalized.--GZWDer (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:32, 11 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)

Move page

Please move the item Q8245771 to a tittle in English. Blue235 (talk) 10:26, 13 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)

Thousands of incorrect tags

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: Sverker Johansson (Q17417773) (aka User:Lsj) made not a lot of contributions to wikidata until now. His bot is not active. So where is a lack of cooperation from the side of Wikidata? --Succu (talk) 10:07, 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#.21.21.21.21.21_What_.21.21.21.21. This time to a property that explicitly requires a source to be set (religion or worldview (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)

Main page link for yue (Cantonese)

MediaWiki:Mainpage/yue currently points to the redlink 頭版. Please would an admin edit that to Wikidata:頭版 which is the correct main page in Cantonese. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Vogone (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Deryck Chan (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Q16658628

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 Restored the item in it's un-merged version. --YMS (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please also undelete Mae Chan (Q15310472) and Rawai (Q15629557), also wrong merges. So bad, have to fix all the incoming links again :-( Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for your precision on Thai districts items. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And another one - Bang Lamung (Q15980634), quite annoying to repair stupid wrong merges again and again. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry for the trouble. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And another one: Chan Di (Q16295676). Ahoerstemeier (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored. Thanks. --Stryn (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

ARGH, Mueang Phan (Q13025321) as well. Hopefully the redirect come soon, then I can revert the wrong merges myself. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored as well. --Stryn (talk) 16:19, 19 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)
The policy pages say post here so I did. :p John F. Lewis (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging properties

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)
@YMS: Good idea, I will create a new property.--Micru (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete Q16908665

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.166.6.128 (talk • contribs)..

✓ Done, --Epìdosis 21:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete redundant property

Today I created P1452 (P1452), but I realized just now that it is equivalent to P794 (P794). Please, delete p1452 and sorry for not noticing before.--Micru (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done John F. Lewis (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

spam?

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).

The user seems to be legit, for example it has edited the property proposal page.
Your question is more on notability ground than a spam account intent.
It seems he created items on Wikidata describing the members of a German video collective.
This is so a community question about the notability of artworks, not a spam issue requesting administrators attention. --Dereckson (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Maybe is necessary to decide how to use redirect. Discussion here --ValterVB (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a wider discussion is preferable than on a page supposed to be used to talk about technical implementations... Anyway, for the record, Wikidata:Project_chat#Redirect has some related discussion. whym (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
... and more recently Wikidata:Project chat#Deletion vs redirect. whym (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Q2854058

Hello,

I would like to know if it's possible to undelete Q2854058. In the notability criteria list, I think it meets this criteria: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity". This item was about a mayor in France, the article was deleted from Wikipedia but politic people may have available references. I don't know if the references are enough to restore this item, experimented contributors and administrators may help me about this. Thank you! Jeriby (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored Antoine Homé (Q2854058) and linked it on Wittenheim (Q659533), so that it clearly fulfills another notability criterion, "It fulfills some structural need", in my eyes.
Independent from your case, I (still) think we have to clarify on that notability criterion you're refering to (see Wikidata talk:Notability#Criterion 2). Depending on how you define a "serious source", we would hardly be allowed to delete items about any person (and a lot of other things), and e.g. for any item that is to be deleted just because it doesn't have any sitelinks any more, we would have to investigate whether it was deleted for a reason like being nonsense (then we probably could delete the item, too) or for something like being a copyright violation (then we probably couldn't delete it, as the subject itself seems to be notable, only the article wasn't okay) or for something like being clearly irrelevant (then we would have to check on our own whether there are serios sources for the subject anyway). This is totally impracticable - and until a suitable clarification is made, I personally think the criterion "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" is completely useless. --YMS (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please merge

Q10897454 and whatever Q is en:House of Lords (Austria). That page doesn't seem to link to wikidata for me. And Wikidata is way too unfriendly for me to find where to report such mergers (I guess I could if I spent few minutes searching for a place that should be easily linked from any relevant Q page). So, I am leaving this error message here. --Piotrus (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the two should be merged. Q10897454 seems to be about the term "Herrenhaus" in general, including both Austrian and Prussian incarnations, whereas Q680144 is specifically about the Austrian Herrenhaus. Gabbe (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be merged, but I forgot to mention here that I added the en-wiki link to Q680144. My apologies. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oversight access request

Per the requirements of the oversight policy, I would like to inform anyone here that there is an open request for oversight access for me at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/SPQRobin, starting now, lasting until 14 September. Any comments, opinions and questions are welcome. Thank you, SPQRobin (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2014/08&oldid=2113160496"