Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/09

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.

Lex Murphy

Please protect Edward Murphy (Q35243900), edit war! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Eh? The item hasn't been edited for 24 hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pechkurov Aleksej – Q32859428

Another item created by this long time abuser. --jdx Re: 10:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Mbch331 (talk • contribs • logs). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hide my ip

Hi, I accidently edited wikidata from mobile app without login. Someone please [[Special:Contributions/…|hide my IP]]. Thanks in advance. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per Wikidata:Deletion policy#Revision deletion. The IP does not show up in the item's history and in the IP's contribution page — except for sysops. I have also hidden the WD:AN revision containing the IP address. Oversighters could further suppress this, if you wish. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Aftabuzzaman (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aftabuzzaman: In the future, please don't post such requests in public - it only broadens the attention received by those edits until they get deleted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Technical help needed

Could someone please help adding our new colleague, علاء, to MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins.js. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Unregulatory deletion of Wikiquote link

At Dutch (nl) Wikipedia the link to Dutch Wikiquote to Q9081 is being discussed, because they don't feel the quality is good enough. At least two people deleted the link to Wikiquote on Q9081 today, but as far as I know this is not how Wikiquote links/works. I don't want to enter into an edit war, so I would like to ask administrators with knowledge of Wikidata to keep an eye on Q9081. Thank you in advance. Ymnes (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg#Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Wikiquote_-_deel_zo_veel. I'll also comment over there. If the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't want to link to Wikiquote, they are free to do so on the Dutch Wikipedia. Removing valid sitelinks isn't the solution. Multichill (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
And I fully protected the page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

vandal bot! Red-link.bot

Please block the Red-link.bot (talk • contribs • logs) account which is clearly made for vandalism. This account is removing the links to existing articles in fawikip. -- Meisam (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Time for a new oversighter?

Hi everyone! I haven't been active here recently, and as such I will shortly be turning in my admin and oversight flags. Before I do that, though, I was wondering if anyone wanted to replace me, so Sjord's rights don't get kicked in the process. There isn't much extra responsibility, beyond enabling OTRS email notifications - you just need to be trusted to not abuse the access. Any takers? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

retirement? MechQuester (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
At least thanks for your work so far, it was a pleasure to work with you. It would be great to have a new colleague covering the times when I'm asleep. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ajraddatz, Very professional that you give this indication now. Thank you for all your work. As for a new oversighter. How about Rschen7754. Long time admin on Wikidata. Currently highly active on Wikimedia projects (see English wiki). Former steward so they have experience. Timezone GMT -8 so the other side of the world from Sjoerd GMT+2. Would you be interested Rschen7754? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought. I did serve as an oversighter here from 2013 to 2015. However, I've decided not to run again for two reasons: 1) while I am still somewhat active on this project, I would rather see the role go to someone more active and more able to respond to oversight requests. I don't go on IRC that much anymore, and I would prefer to keep it that way. 2) When my identification to WMF lapsed in 2015 with the new confidentiality agreement, I decided that I would not run for anything that would require me to (re)identify without a significant change in my current life situation.
I would be more than happy to answer questions by email from people who would be interested in running, and I did send a few names of who I thought might be good candidates to Ajraddatz. --Rschen7754 00:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nauru

Hi, Nauru in Wikipedia in Spanish lost its GA status. Could someone change its distinction here? Thanks in advance.--5truenos (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

return of Renkin-Swalem with same IP

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

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

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

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)

FUSION

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

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

Reusing items

I've noticed that Wolverène (talk • contribs • logs) 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)

Unhelpfull edits @Andreasmperu:

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 Niko 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)

Is this spam?

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

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

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

Hallo,

I cannot restore Q33000788 to the version from before I edited it today. ([1]). Can one of you do that? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 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

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

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

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

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

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)

Kylie Jenner (Q1770624)

protection please. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: 6 months autoconfirmed users only. Thanks for reporting. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

D1gggg

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)

Same behaviour seems to continue, see User talk:Andreasmperu#Q82650 not a service. Warned the user again, but I'm afraid this will end with a much longer block. Multichill (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:D1gggg : „I also may ask for a global block for anyone who will support this behaviour“

Should we tolerate threats like this one: If nobody support Andreasmperu I will ask for a global block. But I also may ask for a global block for anyone who will support this behaviour.? --Succu (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Multichill has warned them yesterday, and I hope he will look into this as well. I do not think that we should tolerate such threats. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Multichill warned him almost a day before this threat. Later on, he has moved on to attack another user. My opinion on the matter is here (you can skip to the last sentence, I don't think I've ever written anything that long before). Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 03:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Blocked 1 month. I fear the next one will be indefinite. --Rschen7754 05:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Getting reverted without arguments again

I'm getting reverted by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs • logs) again for removing a reference that doesn't support the claim (exactly the same problem again). I don't like this kind of language towards me. I didn't know that editing an item from "Popular items" on the main page is considered stalking. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Your ongoing harassment of me is noted by another user, RexxS, in the section immediately above this one: "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?" and has been noted here previously. Reverting me yet again, so soon after RexxS' comment, seems to be testing the bounds. As to "without arguments", immediately after I reverted you, I opened a discussion on the talk page of the item in question (so we can add the false allegation "without arguments" to the list of methods you have used), explaining why you were wrong to remove the citation from a statement, and how it does support it. Another editor thanked me there for restoring the citation, but I note that you have not posted there. It is also significant that in the edit I reverted, you removed a citation from an item which you yourself have nominated for deletion (just four hours after I first edited it - there is unanimous opposition to the deletion, with zero editors supporting you there; I asked you to withdraw the deletion nomination, which is disruptive - you have not done so) and that in that deletion discussion you falsely claimed that the item had "no references or identifiers that indicate notability", when as I showed, it did have at the time you made that claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I could also just remove the reference, but that doesn't give me the possibilty to enter an editing summary. I was not notified of any discussion on the talk page, so I wasn't able to participate yet. I thought it still only contained the flashmob template (that falsely indicates that there is some discussion about the item, very confusing). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I cannot even find the word "India" on that page. Someone here is testing my patience... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the talk page discussion, to which I linked? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Any of the statements you put on the talk page could be supported by that reference. However, country (P17) is deduced from those statements, not the website. Same with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. The website cited is http://rtiodisha.in/pa/T1RILzM4LzUxODQvMjY= and anybody can look at that and see the india.gov.in logo at the bottom of the page, even if you didn't know that "Govt. of Odisha" referred to the government of one of the 29 states of India. Of course the website supports the claim that Mangala Mahavidyalaya, Kakatpur (Q40342105) is in the country (P17) of India (Q668). Sjoerddebruin is stalking Andy's edits and making reverts to try to enforce his view that we don't need references. Such behaviour to try to make a point is disruptive and I am astonished to see him being given a free pass to continue his harassment. Enough is enough. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
What if I asked you (both) to add quotation (P1683) to the reference? Same with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that sources are quite capable of supporting a claim without a quote. An image may verify a claim. What if I asked you to quote an image? Why are you wasting everybody's time with such foolishness?
If you really wanted a "quote" then I could supply you with http://rtiodisha.in/img/indGovImg.jpg which is the image displayed. What's next? you can't read the word india on that image?
You're an admin - a trusted member of this community, apparently - Why not stop trying to defend the indefensible and start doing something useful like stopping Sjoerddebruin's stalking and pointy disruption? --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are you wasting everybody's time with such foolishness? Bring anyone whose time I was wasting. Not me, obviously. If it's you, you shouldn't have started this here.
Why not stop trying to defend the indefensible...? I'm not defending anyone, I was trying to deal with all this. And it's really funny you say that.
stalking: Evidence, please (preferably from stalked one).
Anyway, I must gratulate you for wiping me out because our dialogue went much personal, so I won't do anything now. For other admins: this needs some other's eyes. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Criticism is not harassment. Please, provide diffs that Sjoerddebruin is doing "stalking and pointy disruption". --Rschen7754 05:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandal User:Ali.amini.N

Inserting Nazi garbage in Persian. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ebrahim, Ladsgroup: please have a look. Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the user indefinitely, the user mistaken this place with a playground (one of the vandalisms is quite funny though). I reverted as much as possible, please check if anything left. I also protected one of the items because it has been under vandalism a lot. Amir (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
These edits are still live:
  1. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1774108&diff=549202658&oldid=495826496
  2. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q467021&diff=549203010&oldid=532329129
  3. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q324974&diff=549203313&oldid=492892503
  4. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q175299&diff=549203505&oldid=525265513
  5. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q9601&diff=551305266&oldid=546002515
  6. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q272300&type=revision&diff=551820540&oldid=545438217
  7. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q8467&diff=563902019&oldid=544183248
  8. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q83328&diff=563905399&oldid=546195946
—MisterSynergy (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
All of these have now been reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Protecion request: Q3238275

From recent vandalism, it would seem that Homo sapiens sapiens (Q3238275) may benefit from semi-protection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done; three months autoconfirmed only. Thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Gracmon

Gracmon is removing a lot of claims from items about artworks, and does not stop or reply after I left questions about that activity on their talk page. I am not sure whether this is vandalism or an inexperienced user who needs help with their edits. I thus request another opinion about the edit behavior, and suggestions what can be done here. Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

looks like vandalism to me - Gracmon removed ALL claims on Q30242512 for example. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
and removed ALL data in total on Q27524835. All this users' edits are data removals (seemingly all on Catalan artworks?). I recommend they be blocked and reverted. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now blocked this user, after they removed another 200 statements from items this morning without getting into discussions. I left a block notice on their user talk page.

Administrators, feel free to have a look at the block settings, and reduce it from indef to some shorter period, if you think that is more appropriate. After what I have seen in the past days I have now considered their behavior since September 19 as vandal-only, thus the indefinite block. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me, and should not be reduced. Indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks, they are "blocked until you tell us it won't happen again", and on that basis can be very short - it's in the hands of the blocked editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Q1835

Please semi-protect Zinedine Zidane (Q1835). Persistent vandalism from various IP addresses and vandal accounts. The vandalisms are not so frequent, but increasingly offensive. I think that per Wikidata:Living people living people deserve higher level of protection.--Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done; three months semi-protected, since it is the first protection of that item. If vandals come back thereafter, we need to protect it for longer. Thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Strain5000

Please block Strain5000, continute to vandalize although warned on talkpage.--Jklamo (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Protect Q2

Quite complete and subject to test edits.

Missing claims can be corrected by registered users. d1g (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done; six months semi-protected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Katy Perry - czech

Hello, I thing the page Katy Perry in czech version is on the good level to get a silver budge. - (Katy Perry (Q42493))

Thank you for thinking about it, Pe-Fa-Pe  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pe-Fa-Pe (talk • contribs) at 18:05, 29 September 2017‎ (UTC).

Is it your personal opinion or can you point us to a discussion page where there is consensus about this? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Little bit it is my personal opinion, but I think nobody works to get the budges to articles. Pe-Fa-Pe (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If there's no community consensus to give it the status Good Article, we can't give it a badge. Badges shows how the local community sees the article. Get community consensus that it deserves the status Good Article and come back here. Mbch331 (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism 190.26.175.39

Special:Contributions/190.26.175.39 Looks like Vandalism to me. --Manorainjan (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. There was only one edit until now, which I reverted. Let’s watch it for a day to see whether we need further action… —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account Maliang123456

Maliang123456 (talk • contribs • logs) looks like a vandalism-only account. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

CoI, abuse and probable spam

User:AbridgedPause has added a number of social media accounts to several items they created about various arms of their business (currently at RfD) - the same account names on several items:

I have removed some of them and, when challenged, patiently advised them that this is not correct; and that it is on the parent company item (if anywhere) that such accounts belong. In reverting me, they have responded with [3]:

I am the sole company founder and owner, and I am confirming that these are the CORRECT and OFFICIAL social media pages for Abridged Pause Apparel.

and [4]:

Right now it feels like you're just being a jerk and singling me out.

The latter edit summary also asked me to "escalate this issue higher up", so I'm putting this in the hands of our admins.

It may be worth looking over the account's other creations, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider also Q39947291, a neologism, which is unsourced. A search for sources finds only sites linked to one of AbridgedPause's bands, Vision Eternel (Q29287816) (I came across this after removing notable work (P800)=Q29287816 from Q39947291), including a page on the band's website claiming Vision Éternel Officially Coins The Term Melogaze. This is just marketing hype. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Abridged Pause response

It is unfortunate that Andy (Pigsonthewing) has found it necessary to highly edit the communications between he and I in a way to manipulate the situation to his favour and make me out to be the aggressor. I believe that the truth can speak for itself and therefore I will retell the entire story, which can easily be verified by looking at the original posts.

  • Item 1: My name is Alexandre Julien and I am the founder and owner of several companies named "Abridged Pause". I founded "Abridged Pause Recordings" in February of 2008 as a record label, and shortly after "Abridged Pause Publishing" as a music publishing company. Several more companies followed such as "Abridged Pause Blog", "Abridged Pause Archiving", "Abridged Pause Publications", "Abridged Pause Apparel" and "Abridged Pause Entreprises". "Mortified Studios" is a completely different entity; it is a professional recording studio and though it works closely with all the Abridged Pause companies, it was founded prior to Abridged Pause and is a separate entity. I am unsure why Andy has chosen to include it in his list. The only connection is that I am also the owner and founder of Mortified Studios.

As I have explained to Andy (in a message on his talk page which he conveniently decided not to include in his description above), because the different "Abridged Pause" companies work so closely together, I decided from the start to use a single website for all the companies as well as the same social media account on every platform for all the companies. In other terms, because all the companies are working together, ie: Abridged Pause Recordings will release the album, Abridged Pause Publishing will copyright it, Abridged Pause Productions will edit the music video, Abridged Pause Blog will post the news, Abridged Pause Apparel will release the t-shirts, and so on; it makes more sense to narrow the fan base to a single social media profile and website simply linked "abridgedpause". That means that abridgedpause.com is the official website for each and every single one of the "Abridged Pause" companies. Same goes for facebook.com/abridgedpause, which I use to post news from the blog, apparel, publishing and releases, and more. It is in every way the official links for each of those companies. But payments, royalties and companies registration are separate (for tax purposes). So they are separate companies but they all use the same website and the same social media profiles. It would make little sense to ask fans, followers and customers to like 6 different profiles when they can get all the news on 1.

  • Item 2: On September 25th, Andy removed all the social media links from Abridged Pause Apparel's Wikidata entry (Q39952591).
  • Item 3: On September 25th, I restored the official social media links the comment:
    I am the founder of Abridged Pause Apparel. Please do not remove the official social media pages from this Wikidata entry. They are official."
  • Item 4: On September 26th, Andy removed all the social media links again from the same Wikidata entry with the comment:
    "Accounts do not say they are for "AP Apparel", but for "AP"; adn are used there"
  • Item 5: On September 26th, I restored the official social media links again with the comment:
    "I am the sole company founder and owner, and I am confirming that these are the CORRECT and OFFICIAL social media pages for Abridged Pause Apparel."
  • Item 6: On September 26th, in view of an obvious misunderstanding, I take the initiative to message Andy directly on his Talk page in order to give him additional information on the official social media links which he keeps removing:
Hello Andy. This is Alex, the owner and founder of Abridged Pause Apparel. I thought that it would be easier to resolve this amicably and in a mature conversation instead of the limited amount of space I have to write out the details of the corrections when making changes. In 2008 I founded several companies under the name of "Abridged Pause"; Abridged Pause Recordings, Abridged Pause Publishing, Abridged Pause Apparel, Abridged Pause Blog, Abridged Pause Publication, and a couple more which are not as active anymore. Rather than create several different social media profiles and websites for all these companies, which are very closely intertwined and more like divisions of the same head company, I decided to use the same website and social media pages for all the companies and divisions. That's why all the links are simply "abridgedpause". The website, the Facebook page, the Google+ Page, the Twitter page, the Tumblr Page, and so on are all simply url-ed "abridgedpause" so that I can keep them all connected and only need to post once. To help you understand why, let me give you an example. All these companies are dealing with the same topics. For example, I release a "Vision Éternel" album through Abridged Pause Recordings, it's copyrighted through Abridged Pause Publishing, the music videos are produced through Abridged Pause Productions, the news are posted on Abridged Pause Blog, and the t-shirts are made through Abridged Pause Apparel. It's all music-related and always for the same bands. So it would make no sense to have different social pages for each of those companies because that would alienate my fanbase, and when I'm releasing material that is so closely related, it's easier for fans and followers to see it all in one place. That's why the generic "abridgedpause" pages are purposely for all the Abridged Pause companies. Even my Wikidata username is only "abridgedpause". I hope that this helps to explain it and that you understand why those social media links are valid for Abridged Pause Apparel. If you want to talk some more, please email me at alex@abridgedpause.com. I hope you have a wonderful day. Abridged Pause (Abridged Pause); Abridged Pause 11:33, 26 September 2017 (ETC)
  • Item 7: On September 26th, Andy dismisses my explanation and accuses me of spamming the database with accurate information:
I already understand all this, having examined the items in question before editing them; but it's not the correct data model. All the other "AP" items are shown as subsidiaries of Abridged Pause Enterprises (Q39952796), and it is on that item (if anywhere) that such accounts belong. Scattergunning them across all the items is not only bad data modelling, but also seems very spammy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Item 8: On September 26th, Andy removes the official social media links for the third time and bullies me with the comment:
    I donlt care of you're the Queen of Sheba, this is not the correct data model
  • Item 9: On September 26th, I restored the official social media links again and respond to Andy's bullying comment:
    I'd like to have a second opinion. Can you escalate this issue higher up? Right now it feels like you're just being a jerk and singling me out.
  • Item 10: I was under the impression that Wikidata was an open-source database, and based on Google's suggestions that anything that was once on Freebase can and should be submitted and improved on, onto Wikidata. I have been attempting to improve the database with more information and accurate content. I have done my research and I believe that all my edits are valid and accurate and are within Wikidata's rules. It's quite demoralizing when someone decides to bully you and undo all the work you've put in, instead of amicably trying to improve the listing together. How can listing officially registered companies and its official websites and social media links be spamming? I think that the truth here will speak for itself and prove that Andy has unjustly bullied me and mischievously withheld parts of our conversation in order to manipulate my image into the aggressor. Andy's attitude and comments towards me are inappropriate and I believe that he owes me an apology.

Abridged Pause 15:09, 26 September 2017 (ETC)

  1. Not everything which was on Freebase should be added to Wikidata. Wikidata has its own notability criteria. If Abridged Pause Enterprises and its subsidiaries meet these criteria is discussed on Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Abridged_Pause_group.
  2. Links to social media accounts are in the Wikidata terminology external identifiers. The goal of external identifiers is to uniquely identify an item. If multiple items could have the same external identifiers, they should only be added to the item which describes the class/group of these items. Since in your case all subsidiaries are using the same social media accounts, the links should only be added to the item about the company. --Pasleim (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


  • Item 11: I cannot help feel a continuous bullying and arrogant attitude from Andy. In revenge for defending myself and calling him out of his bullying tactics, Andy has submitted my entries for deletion. It seems like a no-brainer that if he really believed these entries were worthy of being deleted, he would have submitted them for deletion two days ago, instead of simply editing the social media links out. Suddenly, after my lengthy defense, my entries appear in the deletion request list, signed by Andy.
  • Item 12: I may not be the most Wiki-knowledged user. But everyone starts somewhere. Bullying and arrogance has no place in encyclopedias and databases. I would be happy to improve any entry I have made on the Wiki websites, given the opportunity and guidance. But being rude to a new contributor is not the way to go. This article sums it best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Be_nice_to_the_newbies

Abridged Pause 15:09, 26 September 2017 (ETC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "In revenge for defending myself and calling him out of his bullying tactics, Andy has submitted my entries for deletion." The time-stamp on the deletion nomination is 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC), which was before my first interaction with User:AbridgedPause and indeed even before their first revert of one of my edits. I therefore invite them to acknowledge that the quoted claim is an outrageous lie, and retract it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I've blocked them (AbridgedPause) indefinitely, for the reasons brought up above. Although I think he feels too bitten, it is also true that they're letting their conflict of interest get in the way of contributing to our project, and they will need to at the minimum change their username.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Greg Toumpel

Please have a look at the „contributions“ of this user, especially in human (Q5). Most of his edits are unnecessary. --Succu (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have left him a warming, and will keep an eye from now on. Thanks! Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why haven't these games been blocked yet?

[5]?

I have said it before, and I say it again! Who thought it was a good idea to turn Wikidata into a Game Boy family (Q2916338)? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It was even an administrator who's ranked first... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
What I question is why we allow a lot of external tools that constantly cause us extra work?! We do not have the resources to check every edit with these edit-summaries. This tool even succeeded to semi-merge two pages which both had sitelinks to svwiki. How is that even possible? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
If someone causes extra work, engage with them. If they don't listen, bring them here, we will block them. Any edit is worth checking, I don't understand your bias towards external tool that has actually helped Wikidata a lot.
Merging two items with conflicting sitelinks is not problem if you know how to do it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but WHO should I bring here?! I doubt Andre Engels designed that tool, it was somebody else! If it is the usual suspect, then he hasn't responded to any call from here since Book of Genesis (Q9184). But blocking the developer does not stop others from using these tools! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It would be useful if the merge game didn't offer geographical suggestions that were more than, say, 1km apart. But perhaps this filter has already been implemented? Circa early 2015 there used to be a *lot* of bad merges of eg UK churches with the same dedication, sometimes hundreds of miles apart. I fixed a lot about this time last year. But more recently such merges seem very rare? Jheald (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the candidates are based on User:Pasleim's lists (tweet). Jheald (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't get fooled by the "game" name. Such tools are powerful interfaces that make otherwise time-wasting tasks much more efficient. They should be used by responsibly, like any other Wikidata editing interface. Let a newbie make 100 edits via the web interface, and let another newbie make 100 edits through a game: I am sure the first one will have made much more mistakes. By the way, could anyone review a sample of 100 game edits and tell us how many mistakes they found? Thanks! Syced (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
And another faulty merge, castle getting merged into a human settlement. This shouldn't be possible. @Magnus Manske: please check if there are sitelink conflicts. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a personal attack (again)

here - Brya (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to alert the community here the same thing, namely that "African projects still getting shunted to a "junior" list not linking to en if certain user finds them "embarrasing" as he put it".... If you see a personal attack, I don't. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Same to me. I don't think he "owns" sitelinks refering to Northern Sotho (Q33890) projects.
Please note that User:Brya once again continued the edit war, reverting me with the edit summary "Let's keep political agendas out of this", with the result of ENFORCING his scheme not to have African articles about "tomato" link to the English article because as he has previously stated, he has adjudged them in his estimation, "embarrassing". His willingness to continue the edit war should be a measure of how important it is to him, not to have those African tomato articles accessible from the English tomato article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
And yet again Brya reverted to segregate Northern Sotho tomato article (along with Hausa and several others he previously segregated in a baseless duplicate entry) so as not to have any access to the English tomato article. What I would like is for it to be clarified by WikiData or WikiMedia, ideally in policy, that it is not appropriate to segregate lists into two split items according to subjective "embarassment" about a language's supposed article quality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The silence here in over 24 hours is deafening. If no one can give me assurance that having separate items to segregate certain mostly African languages violates policy, and instead I am harassed and threatened with blocks when I put a spotlight on this behavior, am I to conclude that this program of separating out these languages into separate items meets with the tacit approval of the Wikimedia Foundation??? Do I need to explain in detail why this clarification is necessary? The ostensible purpose of Wikimedia is to make articles in ALL major world languages, and the ostensible purpose of WikiData is to facilitate linking different language articles about the same thing, and this tactic runs counter to that purpose. The article "tomato" is on WMF's "expanded list of articles every Wikipedia should have." African wikipedians working off this list see that an article for Tomato is needed and attempt to satisfy the demands of the list. Then along comes another user who speaks only English, deems the language's attempt "embarrassing", and therefore disconnects it from the item list and puts it on a "junior list" of putatively "embarrassing" articles. When the African wikipedians run the list to see what's missing, "Tomato" still comes up as deficiency that hasn't been created yet. It even affects their score for encyclopedia completeness. The article for "Tomato" has been created, and yet it is not counted, because an English-speaking only user somehow found it unacceptable. Policy needs to be outlined to that user why this should not happen. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Info there is previous discussion of this case at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/05#Editor edit warring with me.

Til Eulenspiegel, we have excessively explained to you in the previous discussion (linked above) on which basis sitelinks are assiged to items, and which roles individual editors as well as administrators have in this process. We do not need to re-iterate this again, so please refer to the previous discussion for details. You may of course ask for clarification in case you need this. Please also note that there is no discrimination factor included in this process, so small projects in general or African language projects in particular are treated the same as all others, of course.

With that in mind one clearly sees the many problems with your request:

  • We do not have “separate items to segregate certain mostly African languages”. We have items about related, yet clearly different concepts (here: taxon and fruit) and assign sitelinks on the basis of exact matches. There is also no special treatment of African languages (or small language editions of Wikimedia projects), neither formally coded somewhere, nor informally practiced at Wikidata.
  • The purpose of Wikidata is much larger than providing sitelinks. There are in fact very different purposes. Your “ostensible purpuse of Wikidata” assumption is not correct.
  • If you have a problem with WMF’s “expanded list of articles every Wikipedia should have”, discuss the items on the list, at the place where it is hosted. Alternatively, if you deliberately want to have a sitelink for a specific item, you need to write an exactly fitting article.
  • I can’t see that User:Brya has recently used the term “embarrassing” or “junior list” in connection with this issue (correct me if I’m wrong). Please refrain from using aggressive language such as this one.

Besides this I have to mention that I still think that you should not be able to edit in this project after what has happened in the beginning of July. After a lot of explanation and help for your request in the previous discussion, you made unacceptable edits on your user talk page at Wikidata, and left an unacceptable accusation against the Wikidata project in amwiki at am:ውክፔዲያ ውይይት:ምንጭጌ#Racism on WikiData. I do not see that you have shown any regret regarding the former, or that you have retracted the latter section from that central amwiki talk page. It is still publicly displayed there. You are the only bureaucrat and the most active administrator in this project, but you fail to behave accordingly. On this basis I am not at all convinced that you edit Wikidata with good faith, sorry. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC) PS: I have removed your duplicated request from this page; it is enough to have it once here.

  • In point of fact, the basis for distinguishing language articles into the items on "taxon" and "fruit" in the case of Tomato for example does NOT appear to be based on "exact match".
  • In point of fact, the basis for distinguishing language articles into the items on "taxon" and "fruit" in the case of Tomato for example has only received one attempted explanation in the entire discussion dating to May and that is when User:Brya indicated he felt some language articles are "too embarrassing" to him. To date, he has offered no better rationale for his hamfisted behavior such as moving the Hausa, Northern Sotho articles on tomato to where they don't link.
  • In point of fact, I support Tomato being on the "list of articles every issue should have", and have no "issue" with it. My "issue" is with African projects such as Hausa and Northern Sotho and others trying to fulfill the needs of this list, and getting penalized for it. I have already informed the African Languages Wikimedia project in email. @GerardM: Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I am forced to conclude from your hostility that the program of separating out certain languages into separate items about the same thing, does indeed meet with the tacit approval of the WikiProject, which means such users have a green light to segregate all articles into separate topics if they find some of the languages "embarrassing" (Brya's word). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You are forced to nothing like that, you were explained so and must be aware of that. Please, stop whining over links moved to their correct places and try to understand why your articles don't fit the item where you thougth they'd belong. Please, stop reframing a discussion on an individual item or a couple of them as a Wikidata policy of harassment towards African Languages.
It is quite unfortunate that you seem to ask for respect, while dealing with others so very unrespectful, and undermining cooperation. Lymantria (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again:

  • In point of fact, the basis for distinguishing language articles into the items on "taxon" and "fruit" in the case of Tomato for example does NOT appear to be based on "exact match".
  • In point of fact, the basis for distinguishing language articles into the items on "taxon" and "fruit" in the case of Tomato for example has only received one attempted explanation in the entire discussion dating to May and that is when User:Brya indicated he felt some language articles are "too embarrassing" to him. To date, he has offered no better rationale for his hamfisted behavior such as moving the Hausa, Northern Sotho articles on tomato to where they don't link. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had read that already. Shouting doesn't make it more clear. You seem to suggest that nso:Tamati is not about the fruit, but about the plant species/taxon.... Hmmm. And that is an explanation of your claim that Wikidata is a project aiming to segregate African Languages where they don't link (Q20638126 bears only 37 links). I understand what Jasper Deng wrote below. Lymantria (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
What is not clear in what I am saying? How simple can I make it? Please don't willfully look for a way to misconstrue everything I say! The 37 links are all about tomato, arbitrarily segregated on a shady basis (I'm STILL waiting to hear something other than or better than "because of embarrassment about article quality") and when I say they "don't link" (other than to one another) I mean obviously they don't link to English, they don't link to the "higher quality" articles, and the automated programs register the article "Tomato" as missing for those languages for purposes of "articles every Wikipedia should have". How is this productive of having a project to link languages together? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You circle around in wrong assumptions. If completing the list of articles every Wikipedia should have is important for you, create a correct article in stead of insisting on a wrong one to be linked to it. Lymantria (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Your response is highly ironic, because I am trying hard to see and understand on what actual logical (non emotional) basis you decide which item is the "wrong one" when it is about the same topic, and the ONLY rationale offered to date is, once again, "because a certain user adjudged it embarrassing" (see previous conversation from May). There's got to be a more valid basis than a certain user's "embarassment" for segregating the tomato articles, and I'm waiting to hear what it is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
One about fruit/food one about taxon. You are well aware of that. Lymantria (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Still unclear, if you could explain just a bit more clearly, how you distinguish languages supposedly about the "fruit", and if the previously offered (and to date only) explanation of "Because Brya finds it embarrassing" still stands. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

heading

Hello everyone, I'm an administrator on the Central Kurdish Wikipedia. I'm here to kindly ask @Brya: to permanently stop delinking our articles from the main list simply because they find it "embarrassing" when it comes to quality. This is based on community consensus. Please stop deviding Wikipedia. All the articles should be linked to each other. Thank you. (Note that I haven't read the previous discussions, if you have a response for me, ping me, because I will not see it otherwise) Épine (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Épine: No articles were delinked because they were "embarassing"; this is a complete fabrication by Til Eugenspiegel. In the real world he could be sued for defamation of character. - Brya (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
We might have been able to AGF, that you perhaps honestly thought these articles were not all meant to be about the same thing, but that's a little hard now when all you have said in previous discussions is that you see it as a quality distinction and yes even used the word "embarrassing" youself... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
As you perfectly well know, I have at no point said that I "see it as a quality distinction", and at no point have I used the word "embarrassing" in connection with any Wiki except amwiki. At all times I have been at pains to explain that this is done on as objective a basis as possible. - Brya (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like more eyes on that item because the articles in it all clearly seem to be intended to belong to the main taxon article on the "must have" list, except maybe Interlingua, the only language to actually have a dedicated article for the fruit as opposed to the taxon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I support the unity of the articles, they should all be linked to each other in my opinion. If there is a specific statement made by Wikimedia that allows the separation of articles on the same subject, it should be reconsidered.--Épine (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Épine: If by that you mean that all Wikipedia pages about the tomato should be linked, then we are in agreement. And so should all Wikipedia pages about the species Solanum lycopersicum. The problem is that there are Wikipedia pages that cannot make up their mind what their subject is. - Brya (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
From the Hausa Wikipedia here. I want to assume good faith and don't want to get involved in "ideological" debates.
So I will just say that it's quite hard to see why the articles in certain languages (languages that Brya does not speak as far as I understand) would be put in a separate Wikidata item. On the Hausa Wikipedia it's just a stub at the moment but it's meant to deal with the plant/fruit/food at the same time, as it's the case on most Wikipedias including the "biggest" ones. If the article grows that much that we need a separate "Tomato as food" article (like ha:Tumatir (abinci), we'll think about it in time, thank you. I deleted "ha:Tumatir" from Q20638126 and added it to Q23501. Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@DonCamillo: If it's meant to deal with the plant/fruit/food at the same time then I suggest hawiki follows up this intent and makes sure such a page is realized soon. After all, the purpose of the list cited by Til Eulenspiegel is that the WMF wants to encourage Wikipedias to offer useful information on these topics. A good solid page is what is wanted. I see that the page is not marked as a stub, which is a good thing, since experience shows that once something is marked as a stub it is unlikely to grow much. Anyway, as it now is, the content of the page is purely about the fruit/food, which is only natural as the fruit/food is what the the public at large knows. The tomato is an important topic. - Brya (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well. When I read that I can understand Til Eulenspiegel's anger. Please refrain from any new inappropriate edit on this topic and from any new patronizing comments on who should "follow up this intent" and "make sure such a page is realized soon". Unless someone appointed you general manager of "small" Wikipedias, but I'm not aware of anything like that. Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Rest assured I will not make any inappropriate edit, whatever that means. - Brya (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not advise any language to have separate, dedicated articles for tomato "fruit" and "taxon". The only language to do so, Interlingua, it turns out was following an automated program that creates articles based on Wikidata taxon entries, meaning the entire concept of having separate, dedicated items for tomato "fruit" and "taxon" can be traced back here, to WikiData, in the first place and does not reflect any actually spoken language way of doing things. BTW are you not on en for some similar reason? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would advise several Wikipedias to have two or three separate pages, especially enwiki which has a long meandering page; three pages would be better. - Brya (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note

Til Eugenspiegel has posted messages to some twenty wiki's calling for users to come here and utter their protests. - Brya (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all the affected languages projects deserve to be informed that you are segregating them from the higher quality articles, and I have another 10-15 projects left to go! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
And, again, a personal attack. - Brya (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I have tried very hard to be as diplomatic with you as possible, in consideration for your extra sensitive personality here, but your past behavior of segregating items like "tomato" on your quality assessments, and even now denying it, is a very very serious thing, that has upset many other users, and that now thank God is being ignored no longer, as awareness is increasing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
And, again, a personal attack. - Brya (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC):::
The specific behavior itself, namely a user making "quality" judgements on all other languages and segregating them accordingly, has got to stop, as numerous people have been telling you. No doubt you will perceive all attempts to throw light on the questionable behavior, as a "personal attack". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
And, again, a personal attack, namely Til Eulenspiegel (again and again) attributing improper motives to a user, namely me, instead of addressing content. FWIW, if quality were a criterium here (I cannot see how it could be, whose quality?) the only Wikipedia page that I looked at closely enough to spot errors is the enwiki page, so that should be the lowest quality page. How would that be relevant? - Brya (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Another case

Another case: He removes a link to lawiki in four kingdoms of Daniel (Q699242) without a real reason and without creating another item. --Succu (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Succu is now stalking my contrib lists and edit warring with me to restore an incorrect link to Latin la:Quattuor regna with Daniel 2, when the Latin article does not even mention that topic. Please deal with this gratuitous harassment making my work here miserable, thanks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

„gratuitous harassment“ is indeed a „miserable“ wording. Having a look at your recent contributions I found at top the mentioned sitelink removal. Maybe the Latin article is incomplete, but has a reference to Die Vier-Reiche Lehre the de-lable of four kingdoms of Daniel (Q699242). --Succu (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what you are doing here is indeed miserable, and I am asking you politely to stop this nonsense and bickering. Since this has been ongoing with you and Brya, I will again request arbitration if you continue to stalk and revert my valid contribs just for the sake of harassment. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

miserable, bickering, harassment - I doubt I ever used such words in any discussion. --Succu (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You should not have split the articles the way you have just done. Now you have messed everything up. That will all have to be reverted. All of the articles are about Daniel 2 and need to be on the same link. The Latin article is about Daniel 7 only and belongs with Daniel 7. It has been a mostly Catholic pov that the animals in Daniel 7 correlate to the metals in Daniel 2 while others do not assume this is necessarily so. The German article seems particularly to push this pov, as it alone combines Daniel 2 and 7 in one article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
If what you are doing now is not "deliberately trying to muck things up and make someone's life miserable" I sont know what is... you should have left this all alone and not stalked my contribs. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I extended Book of Daniel (Q80115) a little bit. Should remarks like Catholic pov or push this pov discussed here, Jasper Deng. I don't think so. --Succu (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Succu, "pov" is simply an abbreviation for "point of view". That is, after all, a "point of view" of certain theologians who interpret Daniel that way among others. Is there a list of words or phrases I'm not allowed to use here that I haven't seen? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

sigh

If there is one thing to solve problems, there needs to be a firm administrator intervention. BLOCKS should be strictly enforced for events like this if it happens again like above. MechQuester (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Til Eulenspiegel, Succu: I'm going to make it quite simple again. If you can't respect the fact that this is a collaborative project, I am going to block you, and possibly indefinitely. We do not need this type of toxic jabbing and fighting on this project. Please comment only on the content, and not each other. If discussion reaches a standstill, please reach out to other editors, perhaps at WD:PC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
What is the appropriate response to stalking harassment reverting my contribs, or is there any? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't make accusations of "harassment" without clear, concrete evidence of such (i.e. diffs). Both of you are in the wrong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
He went to my contribs, and started reverting my removal of the Latin article about "Daniel 7", from the item for "Daniel 2", then edit warred, then he made a duplicate item for Daniel 2 and split all the articles up, replacing Latin Daniel 7 at Daniel 2 in the meanwhile. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see where I am in the wrong here at all. I only see Succu clearly in the wrong here, not me, and others tying to get me blocked by appealing to a misguided sense of 'even handedness between right and wrong', when it is clear-cut I am in the right here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note that as soon as the protection expired on the original "Daniel 2" item, Succu resumed reverting to split the Daniel 2 articles into two separate items, despite all of them clearly being about Daniel 2. Please protect the item again for longer. @Jasper Deng: Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
four kingdoms of Daniel (Q699242) is about Daniel 2 (Q40807488) and Daniel 7 (Q3013629). What is am:የናቡከደነጾር የምስል ሕልም about? Same as en:Daniel 2? --Succu (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC) PS: Merged four kingdoms of Daniel (Q699242) with four kingdoms of Daniel (Q3366979). --Succu (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
SUccu, I am only going to explain this to you one last time. The Amharic article is about Daniel 2. The English article is about Daniel 2. All of the other articles are about Daniel 2. Kindly stop removing the Amharic link, and do not remove it again, and stop edit warring. Much thanks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Your unnecessary reverts created a mess: en:Daniel 2 and en:Four kingdoms of Daniel both point now to four kingdoms of Daniel (Q699242). The de article is not longer conected to a wikidata item. Probably more harm was done. --Succu (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
You are the one who has created a total mess. All of the languages refer to the original item as either "Daniel 2" or "Nebuchadnezzar's dream", and it should stay that way. Only German called it "Four kingdoms" but I changed it to Daniel 2 in German to make it clearer that it is the original Daniel 2 item, and should not be turned upside down to comply with the erroneous German label of "Four Kingdoms". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin please fix the mess. en:Four kingdoms of Daniel (and related items) belong to four kingdoms of Daniel (Q699242), en:Daniel 2 (and related items) belong to Daniel 2 (Q40807488) (see chapters listed in Book of Daniel (Q80115)). Thanks. --Succu (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The item with the smaller number was originally assigned to Daniel 2 and mislabeled in German only, and he created a duplicate item for Daniel 2 and rearranged everything on the basis of the erroneous German label. The links for "Four kingdoms" belong somewhere else. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest renaming your new creation with the higher ID number as "Four Kingdoms" and moving all the links you collected for that over there, also fix the chapter listing to point to the original Daniel 2. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I asked an admin to undo the damage you've caused with your incomplete revert, because - as your „arguments“ show - if I did it myself you would revert me again. --Succu (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't do the damage, I undid your damage and restored the status quo ante. The solution I outlined above, to rename the duplicate article you created to "Four kingdoms" and locate those links there, is the easiest and most obvious solution, since the labels at the original Daniel 2 have always said Daniel 2. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Note also that you should not usurp Daniel 2 with a new topic "Four kingdoms" and move all the links away from there, because the GFDL history since creation is associated with "Daniel 2". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This edit removed the wikidata links to en:Four kingdoms of Daniel and others.
This edit removed the sitelink to de:Vier-Reiche-Lehre which is now not linked to any wikidata item.
--Succu (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Both of those would belong at your newly created item which should be renamed accordingly, and should not be usurping the previous GFDL for the "Daniel 2" articles. It's that simple. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The GFDL is not applicable here. The item started as a mixup. Splitting up such items is a normal procedure here. There is no reason to enforce a special ID as you suggest. Especially if the item has no links to other items. --Succu (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree, since all of the original items save German and Latin were indeed for Daniel 2... but if you did decide to usurp it with "Four kingdoms" I should think it would be a lot more work when simply redesignating the newer higher item for "Four Kingdoms" would be far simpler and easier. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Since no admin acted on this issue I made two reverts to undo the mess. Problably TE „would disagree“ and revert again. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
As advertised. --Succu (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, I did not revert you, I had to clean up behind your usurpation of the original GFDL for "Daniel 2" (still in the item history) including relabeling it in English to correspond with your scheme. I also moved zh and he to their correct item. I did not revert your scheme, but it would have been much simpler (less cleanup) to use the higher numbered item for 4 kingdoms, and preserved the GFDL integrity. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Good! A sidenote: do you speak zh and he. I don't. --Succu (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I am familiar enough with both to be certain that those are the articles for "Daniel 2" and not "4 Kingdoms", but I can't really say I can speak or read either well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably in the same sense other users are „familiar enough with [...] to be certain that those are the articles for [...]“, Til Eulenspiegel? --Succu (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I read Hebrew, and am absolutely 100% positive that it says "Dream of Nebuchadnezzar" i.e. Daniel 2. The Chinese article obviously says Daniel 2 and quotes it in English. No need to run this into the ground. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

de-sysop?

So is this section to request de-sysop Brya? If yes, ==> Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Removal. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No, this section is about Til Eulenspiegel's campaign to assign sitelinks to items for other reasons than their content, and the abusive language he uses. - Brya (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Brya is not actually a sysop. However, note he has recently opened an entirely new front shifting languages from "Potato" (taxon and required article) to "Potato" (the food) for no apparent reason other than that they are stubs, which I am reverting and prepared to let more projects know their articles are being linked to these artificial "stub lists". And unless I am wrong, it was this same "Tree of Life" issue insistence that he was pushing on en. that caused him to have to be blocked there some 10 years ago, seemingly explaining why it has found a home here at WikiData. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please give a diff for your assumption: „And unless I am wrong, it was this same "Tree of Life" issue insistence that he was pushing on en.“, Til Eulenspiegel --Succu (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This may be a new "front" in Til Eulenspiegel's war, but to Wikidata it is just a matter of continuing to place sitelinks in the correct item (that is the item representing the concept that is the topic of the Wikipedia page). - Brya (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Based on his, what some might characterize as "stubborn", insistence that he gets to decide what topic all language's "potato" articles are about, and that the lower quality ones are about some other topic because their quality does not satisfy him, it appears I had better get busy notifying all the affected projects. When I did this for "tomato", so far at least five languages switched their article to the one that counts for the "must have" list and away from being relegated to one of his useless stub farms. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It is long past time for Til Eulenspiegel to stop misrepresenting the situation. Quality does not come into it, in any respect. Placement of sitelinks should be done according to the topic of the Wikipedia page. There are both pages on tomatoes and pages on Solanum lycopersicum that are extremely short: length does not come into it. In his canvassing campaign Til Eulenspiegel has been ignored in something like three quarters of cases, in five cases a user has let himself be swept along by the inflamatory language, and in two cases a user has taken the trouble to respond, and has countered Til Eulenspiegel's arguments. Of course it is possible that his political campaign gets support and that there is pressure to start assigning sitelinks to items according to political motives, that is, helter-skelter. - Brya (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting anything; you are. It IS NOT ACCEPTABLE for you to go to the Potato item, pick out various languages you don't speak, and "decide" for them on their behalf that they should be moved AWAY from the "must have" article to where they link ONLY to stubs in other obscure languages, not even a link to English. More and more people are imploring you to stop your presumptiveness with language projects you are not involved on. You are doing HARM to these projects and their scores for purposes of calculating how many articles they have completed on the list. How many more languages projects have to ask you to cease and desist, it's not like nobody notices what you are doing or your stealthy edits are going unnoticed without complaint; it is right in the wide open for everyone to see here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
"Quality does not come into it, in any respect." That is strange that you are now taking the opposite tack than you took at first, when you insisted with infinite edit warring that Amharic be segregated unless the quality met your approval for you to deign it good enough for the "taxon articles". COme on Brya, this is preposterous and idiosyncratic behavior on YOUR part. Only last week you lectured the Hausa editor in a similar manner telling him he had to improve the article in Hausa to your standards. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The misrepresentation of facts by Til Eulenspiegel goes from bad to worse. His Amharic be segregated unless the quality met your approval for you to deign it good enough for the "taxon articles". appears to be based on my expressing that I felt embarrassed to see an "encyclopedia article" consisting of a bot-produced page of which the total content existed of "tomato is a plant found in Ethiopia". I am allowed to have feelings, and I feel it is sad that in a project that aims to make available "the sum of all knowledge", such an accessible topic rates no more than a few bot produced words (I note that a user on one of the Wikipedias canvassed by Til Eulenspiegel described a local page with more content than on amwiki as a "childish joke"). As to my "lectur[ing] the Hausa editor telling him he had to improve the article in Hausa to [my] standards", see here!
        Even aside from that there is no such thing as good enough for the "taxon articles". The WMF franchise has hundreds of thousands of "taxon articles" that have no actual content, beyond the scientific name, author citation and putative taxonomic placement (the existence of a scientific name does not mean there is a taxon, or that there ever was a taxon). There is no minimum requirement for "taxon articles".
        And, again, there is no such thing as a "must have" article. The WMF provides lists of topics on which they would like to encourage users to provide useful information. Instead of trying to provide information, Til Eulenspiegel appears to regard it as a game in which points have to be scored at all costs, even by tilting the machine when he can get away with it. - Brya (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again, I am NOT misrepresenting anything, He is. I am quite plainly and matter of factly trying on behalf of many projects to somehow get User Brya to see the light and stop ham-fistedly moving other projects around. I have no other secret goal here to hide other than that one goal I am quite open about. It is Brya who started the potato front the other day, cavalierly moving language's potato articles (Kurdish, Cherokee etc.) around to other items like they are his personal property, in reaction to his setbacks on the tomato question, with now nearly all tomato articles on one page at a single one-stop-shop item where they belong. Any investigation of the item histories and time stamps will reveal this to be the case and that HE started it, not his lie pretending that I started it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Épine:, please note that after you informed him about the Kurdish tomato article, he then moved on to the Kurdish potato article and similarly insists it is no longer about the "taxon", but now to be relegated to a separate item with no useful links. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
so that Brya or anyone else won't get the wrong idea that the project's "score" for completeness of articles is a unique obsession of mine, if that were so there would not be this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_expanded_sample_of_articles Removing languages from the expanded list items does indeed cause those articles not to be counted, it causes them to turn up as missing when they have already been created and should be counted at least as stubs, it causes the project to reflect a lower score of quality or completeness, and additionally it harms the project in that there are no useful links to complete articles, only to other stubs, or also if someone reading the English article happens to know that language, they wouldn't even know the article exists in their other language to go and improve / expand it from the English one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Calak: it seems that Brya ignored our warning, could you please somehow block them from interacting with the Kurdish related items on Wikidata?--Épine (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
As I have already pointed out at some length, Til Eulenspiegel is badly misrepresenting several things. No need to repeat this, but since he brought it up, lets examine the cherokee entry, . The text consists of one word, the cherokee word for potato. It has one picture, of a potato. It has a link to Commons, to the Category:Potatoes. That is it (ok, a link to a list of cherokee words). How is this possibly not about the potato? But no, Til Eulenspiegel disregards content entirely, to him this is merely a counter in his game, and the poor, oppressed cherokee sitelink must be moved so as to achieve its rightful score in some game I had never heard of until he pointed it out. (One good point is that Til Eulenspiegel points out the board where scores are kept, confirming that he does play this game)
        Til Eulenspiegel's they wouldn't even know the article exists in their other language to go and improve / expand it from the English one. must be as silly an argument as ever presented. If somebody wants to write something about potatoes and tries to look up anything on the world wide web, he will find it completely impossible to avoid the enwiki page.
        As to Til Eulenspiegel's I have no other secret goal here to hide other than that one goal I am quite open about., he is indeed clear that he regards Wikidata as no more than a depository of sitelinks, and that all that counts to him is to have everything linked to enwiki. This also, is a misrepresentation. More than that, his "goal" is damaging to both Wikidata and the small Wikipedias he claims to 'protect'. - Brya (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Who does this Brya guy think he is kidding? Anyone with eyes can see that he brashly goes into an item, brashly starts tossing languages out, to where they have NO USEFUL LINKS and are NOT COUNTED, because he deems himself to be some sort of "judge" of their quality. In the name of any decency the admins may have in them, and in the name of smooth continuation of this project, I and several others from all language projects continue to implore the administration to stop coddling this guy like he's above us all, stop letting him try to make it about "me" in reprisal for bringing attention to him, and stop him from making a mockery of the intention to have articles in ALL languages link to useful information, just because he looks down on the language quality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Til Eulenspiegel clearly believes that he can sway everybody by throwing enough empty retoric at them. The facts are that the user who is moving sitelinks because they represent short Wikipedia pages is Til Eulenspiegel. He apparently believes that the only Wikipedia that counts is enwiki, and that all other Wikipedias are copies of enwiki and should link to enwiki, no matter what. In other words the user who discriminates against other projects is Til Eulenspiegel, not allowing them to stand on their own merits, not allowing them to be judged by their own content, and not allowing them to be linked appropriately. No, his motto is always "this is a page in an inferior, disadvantaged project, and it is to be beaten down and to be moulded in the shape of the enwiki page as soon as possible". It indeed seems past time for some kind of measure against Til Eulenspiegel, to stop him from venting his false accusations and personal attacks on this project. - Brya (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
And as for moving sitelinks against the wishes of users at that project, this is just what Til Eulenspiegel does; he goes to a project to ask for preferences and then goes against these expressed wishes; after all, as an 'enwiki suprematist' nothing (content of the page, expressed wishes, or anything) can be allowed to stand against his supremacy-motivated repression. - Brya (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To the admins, to WikiData, and to WMF: The question here is very straightforward, despite all Brya's desperate spin-doctoring attempts to make it about "me", it is really only about HIS behavior. The straightforward question being asked at numerous projects, is What is it that makes user Brya think he is a god and a judge over the quality of Cherokee, Kurdish, Hausa, Amharic, languages he does not speak, and re-assign them accordingly to useless "stub items" where they negatively affect the projects' "should have" completion scores, with repeated edit-warring dragging on for months; what is it that makes anyone else think his obvious, in-your-face condescending view of these other languages could be acceptable in 2017; and why has he been coddled by sysops here to the extent that he feels he can continue if he has anyone who complains, like me, "dealt with" and "blocked" by sysops who may share his disdainful views of other language projects??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are only two ways this can go. Either WMF will decide that yes, Brya does get to play judge over other languages' articles and reassign them according to his views that do not seem appropriate for the 21st century, or the answer will be no, he does not get to do this. There is no other possible resolution. Please note that Épine (talk • contribs • logs) from the Kurdish project has also asked him repeatedly to stop messing with the links to their articles, yet he continues to feel entitled to defy this request and continues to move the Kurdish potato article to the useless, duplicate item about once every 24 hours, from Oct 2 to present. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So now you acknowledge what is correct and belittle it by using the phrase "political correctness".. and deny it? We have a problem and there is no solution because of intransigence and a sense of superiority. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

One more heading

I have no kind of desire to prevent Brya from his no doubt valuable and valid taxonomic work here that he regularly does, which is why I would not ask him to be banned or blocked, the only resolution I want is for him to stop moving stub articles of projects like Cherokee or Kurdish away from the WMF "should have" items, to where only stubs link to one another. It ought to be assumed that any project is trying to complete the "should have" list and to have their article about the "taxon", even if it is only the Cherokee word for "potato" - unless in rare case they have a secondary article dedicated to the food product, such as Interlingua for tomato. Before there was any wikidata, we were able to interlink all of our projects manually. The advent of wikidata was hailed as an advance and an improvement for us who work on actual language's 'pedias, to facilitate having the articles link correctly. Most of my edits that register on wikidata are made remotely, in consequence of moving or creating articles on my home project and I otherwise would care to spend little time here. It is unfortunate that I have to get bogged down explaining how it is out of line to tamper with languages linking to "should have" items simply becaue one finds them short on quality. None of those who have purported to "explain" to me so far has succeeded in making me understand any rationale for dividing the articles thusly apart from some sort of argument based on their quality, which has been made from time to time, however I reject that "quality" rationale as backwards and contrary to the purpose of the entire project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
If you prefer the old style of linking just do it at your local home. --Succu (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm missing your answer, Til Eulenspiegel. --Succu (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't owe you any answer. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Surely not, but if your are interested to settle down this conflict, your opinion is wellcome of course. --Succu (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If someone reading the English, German or Russian article for potato happens to be familiar with Moksha, they still would not even know there is a Moksha article in existence, with that solution. Also the score on the Expanded list score is penalized when it should be counted for Moksha as a present stub at least. Thus I do not think your manually adding old style links to the Moksha article was particularly helpful as a solution, and there are bots that automatically will remove them again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you understand my technical proposal, Til Eulenspiegel? --Succu (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your intent to resolve this, but this does not seem like it can be a meaningful two way conversation so I might not respond to you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's rephrase that: What is it that makes user Til Eulenspiegel think he is a god and a judge over the quality of Cherokee, Kurdish, Moksha, languages he does not speak, and re-assign them accordingly so as to become proper little followers to enwiki. Let's take the Cherokee page, which is written on the sole topic of "potato". Most anybody would feel this is fine; potatoes are an important topic, eaten by hundreds of millions of people. But no, in swoops enwiki-supremacist Til Eulenspiegel, enwiki does not have a page on "potato", so it is not doctrine; the poor disadvantaged Cherokee language does not know what is good for itself, and must be Guided toward the Light of Enwiki and made to sit properly deferentially at the foot of enwiki, where it may hope, one day, to become a full-grown copy of the enwiki page.
        Til Eulenspiegel is here only to push his agenda, not caring how much he disrupts the project and how much he damages small Wikipedias. Before there was Wikidata, interwikis made the oddest connections, depending on the mood or the agenda of who made the interwiki. Let's not go back into darkness. - Brya (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That's precisely why we need a decision, a resolution to this. There are only two possible outcomes, it's got to be one or the other. Either Brya among all users here has some sort of unique, privileged right over all languages to judge their "quality" for being stubs and delink them from English and from the "should have" list, or he has not. (I am a linguist and indeed have at least studied the grammar of all of these languages he named at some point, AMOF) The longer this drags on without conclusion, the more emboldened he becomes to play "god" with other languages' articles as if no one's paying attention. Despite User:Épine patiently explaining to Brya, more than once, that the Kurdish article is intended to link to the "should have" taxon article and to be accessible from English, and to cease and desist his moving the Kurdish link, please note instead User: Brya has, as of this morning, continued to edit war, continued to delink Kurdish, continued to insist that his "divinity" OVER-RULES the actual Kurdish speakers, continued to insist that he presciently "KNOWS" the Kurdish article does not belong with the informative articles, because he alone has adjudged it "not about the potato species". Do the admins find this charade entertaining enough to let it continue without putting an end to his aggressive behaviour? Because it's not entertaining, but highly stressful for people who really care about the original Wikipedia projects in other languages. Your response is here on the permanent record for all time and it is quite a simple matter to bring it to even wider attention if necessary. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: Brya is not only defying the community consensus, but they also move the articles to unintended and irrelevant items. If this is not a ban and not called vandalism, i surely don't know what it is. I went over this thread and I'm still not sure what the motive is behind all this. I say, invite an advanced user (such as SYSOPs) from each of the involved projects and ask them to alert the community and state their opinion in this discussion. For me, in behalf of all the Kurdish users, ask Brya to please stop moving the articles. We know what we are doing. This has to end.--Épine (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Épine, could you please point me to this mysterious „community consensus“? --Succu (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As to this „community consensus“, to Til Eulenspiegel it means that among the dozens of Wikipedias to which he went with an inflammatory message, he found a user (ok, two users) who went along with his inflammatory language and who reports here when called upon to do so, and he found a user who did not go along with his inflammatory language and who he then ignored and overrode. Til Eulenspiegel's „community consensus“ apparently is Til Eulenspiegel plus whoever did not stand up to him.
        I guess that like Til Eulenspiegel I am coming down to repeat myself In other words the user who discriminates against other projects is Til Eulenspiegel, not allowing them to stand on their own merits, not allowing them to be judged by their own content, and not allowing them to be linked appropriately. No, his motto is always "this is a page in an inferior, disadvantaged project, and it is to be beaten down and to be moulded in the shape of the enwiki page as soon as possible". It indeed seems past time for some kind of measure against Til Eulenspiegel, to stop him from venting his false accusations and personal attacks on this project. - Brya (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Brya's arguments to flip everything back on me are absolute spin-doctoring nonsense. HIS AGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR ON WIKIDATA HAS GOT TO STOP!!! Nothing is being done to stop him, so he continues to edit war vs. Kurdish every single day. I am not in the least at fault here for resisting his over-the-top meddling with other language links.
  • On Oct 2, after local admins had responded to the "tomato" issue by moving all items to the productive, functional "taxon" item and away from his duplicate "food" item, the record shows it was Brya, not me, who then proceeded to "open up a new front" at "potato" on his own by ham-fistedly, aggressively, and authoritatively moving various languages including Kurdish from the "taxon" item to the useless, spurious "food" item, in the process penalizing these projects scores for completeness at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_expanded_sample_of_articles .
  • He has repeated this ill advised move on Oct. 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, and now again Oct 9. This is despite the best efforts of myself as well as the Kurdish speaking staff to persuade him that he needs to leave other projects alone and not engage in these sorts of disputes with them. Not a few other language projects have had the identical issue with him, yet he is relentless in his insistence. Surely this is the opportunity for a kaizen (Q376444), not to rejoice as spectators in the dysfunctionality here. Instead, he responds with a lot of handwaving about how I am a "supremacist" using logical fallacies so twisted even I can't follow them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
And once again Til Eulenspiegel repeats his sermon, hoping that his vehemence will sweep up readers to the extent that they don't notice that it is not in accordance with the facts. - Brya (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: @Succu: here it is we are all sick and tired of your hostile behavior. Once again, Please stop messing with our articles. We do not want you to edit ANYTHING related to the Kurdish items. This conversation is going in case if you're wondering. There will be more users voting against your childish behavior.--Épine (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If this is intended as a request, could you be a little more specific, leaving aside Til Eulenspiegel inflammatory and misleading rhetoric? - Brya (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I talked about the issues in whole. Nobody's portrayed as a villain. However as the native language speakers, we know what we are doing, and kindly ask you to stop. I'm speaking on behalf of all the other members working on the project here. It's extremely offensive if you continue to do this even though the community voiced their opinion about this. --Épine (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is not very specific. As you will have noticed Til Eulenspiegel has been campaigning here for a special treatment of some selected Wikipedias which he judges to be of "inferior quality" (he called them "stub farms") and of which the pages are not to be linked to on the basis of the content of these pages but on other motives. Do you want the Kurdish pages to be so regarded?
        When it comes to placement of any Kurdish pages, this is mostly in the hands of the Kurdish community, since it is they who write those pages, and thus determine the content. The safe way to ensure maximum linkage of Kurdish pages to all other Wikipedia pages is to have pages on both topics (say a page on the tomato and a page on Solanum lycopersicum), and to make they link to each other. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not refer to any Wikipedia project as a "stub farm". I referred to the "food items" on WikiData as "stub farms" being artificially split off from the useful taxon items that actually link to higher quality articles and where they will be counted as stubs as they should at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_expanded_sample_of_articles ... These duplicate items seem to serve no legitimate purpose, only the shady purpose of forcing some languages not to be counted or to link but to other stubs, even against their expressed will to you. You don't speak or read the language, but you seem to have, what they call in the Middle East the "I know for you" attitude of some westerners - that you know better than the language speakers themselves what is "best" for their project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If a given set of pages is called a "stub farm" if arranged one way, then the same holds if they are arranged differently.
        Til Eulenspiegel may feel that "tomato" and "potato" are not legitimate concepts, but hundreds of millions of consumers, substantial libraries and many regulators concerned with food quality are quite sure that this is not so.
        And it is Til Eulenspiegel, the enwiki suprematist who does not want to allow Wikipedias the freedom to decide on their own pages. - Brya (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Taxonomical Mafia"

Looking at the history of this talk page, especially the thread that was just archived, it appears there have been numerous complaints from numerous users about Brya and Succu, whom they term the "taxonomical mafia". And it appears that this "taxonomical mafia" has got carte blanche from the current administration here, to do as they please with any language they do not speak. Anyone who challenges Brya and Succu gets shown the door. You, Brya and Succu are thus making quite the international reputation for yourselves and your project. You see, the internet is funny like that - reputations seem to spread mysteriously in places you cant see, no matter what you do. With shenanigans like splitting article items into "embarrassing languages" and "quality languages" on Brya and Succu's advice, this project seems to be at odds with WMF's goal to make information as accessible as possible so that someone as Hausa and Northern Sotho can easily access the information in English about "Tomato" fromn their own "Tomato" stubs - which they are prevented from doing now thanks to the "taxonomic mafia". More and more other projects are becoming aware of what game WikiData is really running on all the other projects. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If this is actually about 'being about the fruit not the plant', then why is Sesotho moved, but not English ("The tomato is the edible fruit of Solanum lycopersicum") or Dutch ("De tomaat is een vrucht, afkomstig van de tomatenplant (Solanum lycopersicum, synoniem: Lycopersicon esculentum)."). And why, if all languages have just one article anyway, can't we just say we're putting them all at one or the other? - Andre Engels (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The English Wikipedia article carries a note that the introduction does not appropriately summarize the article, which is in fact about the taxon, not the fruit. No idea about the Dutch version, since I don't speak that language.
  • The assumption that all languages have just one article anyway is not correct. In this particular case there is not much overlapping (at least iawiki has both articles), but this may be different for plenty of similar situations. Merging items is not an option here due to the interwiki situation.
  • Once we start to allow assigning sitelinks based on personal preferences—and this is what Til Eulenspiegel effectively want to enforce here—this project will become very messy. Wikidata’s data model defines that the connected articles describe the entity of an item, not something which is loosely related. That is an utterly important part of the model. Otherwise inconsistencies would soon stray into the statements as well, via imports or “corrections” by editors based on wrongly assigned sitelinks. We have put a lot of effort into getting things sorted.
  • It is a pity, however, that the often-quoted list of “1000 articles every Wikipedia should have” contains complex matter such as taxons. I am not surprised to see that small language editions have problems to compile articles for scientific topics.
  • There is still this redirect-RfC which waits for a solution, and this could become very useful here. The majority of the voters support having redirects in some manner, but a statement by the Wikidata developers is still lacking (for months now).
—MisterSynergy (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that nobody else seems to want their "tomato" article at the "fruit" item with ia, all projects would seemingly rather have it linking to the articles with actual useful information, and counting toward the goal of required articles. I will continue to make inquiry at the remaining affected articles, but rewrite the references to Brya's use of "embarrassing". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, I'm not certain that you're correct. I think that the Wikipedia goal is not to specifically link to "kind of fruit" or "kind of plant" items. I think that the Wikipedia goal is to maximize the likelihood that people can get to the nearest related article at another Wikipedia. If you put all of them on "kind of fruit" or all of them on "kind of plant", nobody's likely to complain. The problem is someone deciding that "well, enwiki's article talks about both, so I'll stick it over here, and xxwiki's article also talks about both, so I'll stick it over there, and zzwiki's article talks about the one that enwiki's article is mostly about, but I'll stick it in the other one, and..." – and ignoring the resulting problem that people reading one or the other won't be able to find the article with a matching subject at the other wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy, tomato is listed in the section Vegetables and Grain.
BTW: Could someone please remove the personal insults by Til Eulenspiegel on top of ths section. He was blocked for his ad hominem remarks earlier. --Succu (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

confusion

The confusion about the enwiki article can be traced back to this copyedit effort, which left the antecedents for some phrases unclear. I've repaired it and incidentally removed the unexplained complaint about the lead (per standard practice there; the tag didn't apply).
The subject of that article is both the fruit and also the plant. Combining these closely related subjects into a single page is an editorial decision made by the English Wikipedia editors. This decision is doubtless unfortunate from the POV of Wikidata. If one-to-many linking is still impossible, then presumably the sensible thing to do would be to have a Wikidata item for the plant, and link it to the redirect w:en:Solanum lycopersicum, and a Wikidata item for the fruit, and link it to w:en:Tomato. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: the confusion at enwiki is not limited to this one page, it can be found in other pages, as well. The cause of this is ideological: the Tree-of-Life Wikiproject tracks any page which may be felt to have some kind of connection to their Tree-of-Life and makes sure it is formatted as a Tree-of-Life component. This leads, on the one hand, to pages on notable topics being forced, by hook and by crook, into the format of a page on a species (or genus), and, on the other hand, to very long and meandering pages, which would be better of being split into several components. - Brya (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
        The workaround with redirects would be more appealing if redirects were clearly recognizable as such in Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Vegetables and Grain

This is the mysterious expanded list of articles every Wikipedia should have. At the top of this list all of them seem to be claimed to be used as vegetable (Q11004). Why should they be linked to a taxon (Q16521) item --Succu (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No regularly spoken human language in practice actually distinguishes "taxons" from "food items", as seen by all of them having only one article to cover both as a single topic, and the example we have seen of two separate articles happens to be "Interlingua", an artificially constructed language with 50 or so speakers worldwide. This is despite Brya's longstanding firm belief that all wikipedias ought to split these into separate topics, which seems to have been the very same issue involved at English Wikipedia 11 years ago, although I haven't spent that much time looking in detail. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The last time I checked, all the items in that group on the WMF list had pointed to the taxa. It now becomes apparent that Brya recently repointed them all to the "food items". This will cause English and most major languages' scores to drop dramatically, and I think they are counted on the 15th for the expanded list. Since we did not know Brya had done this, can we ask if there was any consensus discussion preceding such a drastic move at Meta? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again, it proves Til Eulenspiegel's makes wild, exaggerated claims with little or no regard of fact. To take an example, in French there is a word for apple "pomme" and a word for apple tree "pommier" (this adresses the gist of his post, as strictly speaking it is true "No regularly spoken human language in practice actually distinguishes "taxons"" for the simple reason that there is no such thing as "taxons"). And French is only one example.
        And once again, Til Eulenspiegel shows his preoccupation with using Wikidata as the game board to score points in the game he plays. - Brya (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The list at Meta started here and was expanded here as a major expansion based on en-wiki list, that is much better and structured. All topics are linked to enwiki articles only. In 2013 these links were replaced with links to Wikidata with the remark For Oriole, Rattlesnake, Cypress, Nectarine, Pinto bean and Illness the enwiki articles didn't exactly match. Maybe this is the source of Til Eulenspiegel misunderstanding. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Misunderstanding what? I don't believe there is anything I am misunderstanding. These articles were linked to taxons for four years, until Brya came and changed them 2 weeks ago, as he did also on the even more vital 1000-article list, which also includes potato. The regular keepers of the Meta list reverted his change there in short order noting it was completely undiscussed. Vague accusations that I am misunderstanding anything are unhelpful. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just another blunt lie (Q4925193): „The regular keepers of the Meta list reverted his change...“. No he/she started a discussion. --Succu (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
HERE is the diff of User:Yerpo reverting his edit to the 1000 vital article list, 11 minutes after he made it. You really need to stop with the false accusations, Succu. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe User:Boivie should talk with User:Yerpo first, as they are regular keepers of the Meta list? Could your prove this statement somehow? A revert is often a reflex as lots of your contributions show. --Succu (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Succu, what exactly is your role here? You have "me too!" 2 cents to chip in about every comment. Now you are suggesting to me, that Boivie and Yerpo need to talk with other "first", before what??? What do you want done and what do you want me to do? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There are two lists. The one with 1000 articles is older and more mature, that's why every change there has to be discussed first. For the list of 10 000 articles we are more thankful for anyone who is willing to help improve the selection of items. In general we prefer topics that are relevant for Wikipedias in many languages, so I try to replace every entry on the list that has less than 10 Wikipedia links on its Wikidata item. I've helped with both lists for several years, but I have never heard anything about them being given some kind of official status from the WMF. Boivie (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming this. Could you please say something about the status of your scoring list m:List of Wikipedias by expanded sample of articles, Boivie? --Succu (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I know that some Wikipedias actively have been working towards improving their score in the list, for example Russian, Romanian and Galician. But, as far as I know, it doesn't have any official recognition from the WMF. I don't think the other scoring list has that either, even though it has been used by lots of Wikipedias for several years. Boivie (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Succu (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User Brya's tinkering with the WMF list must be reverted

Brya accuses me above of having a "preoccupation" with the scores at WMF's https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded ... However, I did not originate that list or come up with it myself, which ranks all wikipedias with scores to indicate how many of the "should have" articles they have present, even if they are stubs. This list is a collaborative community consensus WMF effort to measure the Wikipedia's regardless of how much ridicule or contempt Brya pours on it, and on me for paying attention to it.

Brya's obsession with proving "he is right and everyone else is wrong" led him recently to do THIS to the WMF list in question - repoint all the taxons to "food items" he created, that are populated only by his "stub farms". This bold, undiscussed and surreptitious move is now going to have to be reverted, because the scores are calculated on the 15th of each month, and all major projects with "good" and "featured" articles are counted at the "taxon" items where they should be, and all of those projects are going to be penalized now if the list doesn't point to the "taxon" items.

It is deeply regrettable that Brya's intransigence and surreptitious stunts like this have now spilled over onto yet another WMF project, and that he may initiate an edit war there as well. It is even more regrettable that no one with sysop tools is taking any steps to stop him and his egregious behavior toward the entire project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded is IMO the correct place to discuss this problem, as I have already (indirectly) expressed on Sep 29 on this page (see above). However, whether Brya's single-handed activity there is appropriate or not is beyond my knowledge, and anyway nothing that the Wikidata project would judge about. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
A sysop IS reading this! Can you please explain why it is tolerated for Brya to move the Kurdish potato article every single day, from Oct 2 to the present, to a non-linking item where it is not counted, and why it is acceptable for him to unilaterally declare the Kurdish speakers "overruled", insist that " the Kurdish potato article is not about a taxon" (even though he does not read Kurdish, and Kurdish speakers say it IS certainly about a taxon) and how can he continue defiantly to make this move despite their objections? Can the potato items at least get page protection to prevent Brya from doing this to the item history? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Please recall that in an earlier discussion Brya gave the rationale that it was okay for him to overrule Amharic speakers because he "doubted Amharic speakers even know what a 'taxon' is" as if they had never heard of a 'taxon' before. This remark of his clearly displays his attitude and character here. Perhaps he also feels he can overrule Kurdish because he similarly feels Kurdish speakers cannot comprehend what a 'taxon' is, and therefore do not deserve to have their "potato" article counted as anything but a "food item"??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
You better do not ask me for help, I am still not at all convinced that you edit with good faith here (see my posting from Sep 27 above regarding details and reasons); I also doubt that your new companions here really understand the matter, unless they have read this and the other section (May–July 2017) entirely. I thus do not engage much in this dispute any longer beyond basic moderation and viewpoints, to avoid possibly imbalanced decisions against your position.
However, since you have asked: I do not watch any of the items in question, but I have seen plenty of reassignments of sitelinks within the course of this discussion, by both sides of the dispute. Similar to all of us, I need to use translators to understand the matter of some articles. My general impression is that Brya typically assigns the sitelinks as ever intended by the Wikidata project (1 item = 1 concept, sitelink assignment based on exact matches), while your side does somehow the opposite. Maybe we can discuss about some of Brya’s assignments as edge cases, but in general it looks good to me. The general Wikidata principles of sitelink assignments are to my opinion very good, I do not see a reason to adjust them at all.
Nevertheless I understand your desire to expand small Wikipedias by the articles “every Wikipedia should have.” Unfortunately, I don’t really know how this list was compiled, and why it contains articles about complex scientific topics. If I may speculate, it was probably built from pre-existing enwiki (or large Wikipedia) article sets, so that it sometimes includes very complex topics. It is no surprise that small language editions struggle to find editors that can provide articles for all these topics, so the current metawiki list somehow discriminates small language editions. It is worth to mention that this list does not appear to be a WMF list; it seems to be compiled by the Wikimedia community of volunteer editors. So Brya’s attempt to remove some scientific topic from this list and replace them by related, more commonplace articles appears to be good idea to me. You will probably not be surprised if I tell you that I am disappointed to see that this dispute is fought within the Wikidata project, although the list in question is not a part of Wikidata, and neither has it been discussed or invented here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, the issue of the Meta list, which is supported by the WMF, and which I happen to agree with the longstanding consensus incarnation of, should be discussed there. But the issue at hand here is Brya continually moving "potato" in Kurdish and other language articles he doesn't speak, every day, hurting their scores according to the canonical list, insisting that the Kurdish article is not about a taxon and that he overrules all speakers of all languages regarding what they are about. Regardless of how he thinks he acquired this unique privilege to dictate to Kurdish and other projects that their potato article "is not about the potato species", I am asking all sysops for immediate page protection for potato (Q10998) to stop him from penalizing these projects further. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not alone in pointing out that Brya seems to enjoy some sort of unspoken, unexplained special privilege or prerogative here with sysops to do as he pleases to languages he is ignorant of. Your response above, that you are "not convinced" *I* am editing "with good faith" here, or that I am somehow the one out of line here, for simply challenging his offensive actions (and otherwise I only expand Amharic Wikipedia) and implicitly allowing him to continue unabated, is sufficient proof. It does not inspire much confidence in users here in your responsible performance of your duties as a sysop here when your role seems to be merely that of enabler for his bad behavior and his flagrant insults directed at all Amharic, Kurdish, Cherokee speakers and anyone else who disagrees with him, or his didactically / magisterially informing any projects if they complain, that they need to create a secondary, useless "food item" to correspond with HIS visualized scheme of things, and continually reverting them anyway . How did you get to be a sysop here? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My opinion about your editing here, and particularly about the question whether it is “good faith editing” or not, solely depends on three issues:
  1. your handling of the July 2 episode on your Wikidata talk page (which you have not shown any regret for to my knowledge)
  2. the still-online racism accusations against Wikidata in amwiki, a project you have sysop and crat priviledges in; this is not acceptable
  3. and, to a lesser extent, I notice that you are unwilling to accept the advice given here, multiple times, by multiple users (editors as well as sysops)
I want to explicitly express that my opinion about your editing does not depend on the matter of dispute itself. If it was up to me, you wouldn’t have been permitted to edit Wikidata any longer after what happened on July 2, at least until the first two issues were resolved (which is still possible to my opinion). However, I accept that other admins were more friendly to you and blocked you only three days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
And likewise my confidence in you as a sysop is practically nil now, since you continue to turn a blind eye to Brya's outrageous behavior and continue to focus on my attempts to bring attention to him as if I were the one at fault. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I already told you earlier that I am not going to make any decisions here, and you know the reasons for it. As I said in my second comment of today in this section, I do not plan to be actively involved here as a sysop, neither on your side, nor on Brya’s side. It just wouldn’t be fair and this has in fact not changed since July 2. However, I have an opinion about the dispute and I am free to express it, like I did in all my comments of today here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please protect Q10998

Will any admin please protect potato (Q10998)? Even the admin from the ckb project has repeatedly asked for the relentless and pointless campaign of moving the ckb article away from the main item without due cause, to cease, yet the campaign has continued unabated every day since it was first initiated on Oct. 2. The Kurdish article is unequivocally about Q10998 and needs to stay at Q10998 and not be moved repeatedly elsewhere by non speakers. Even if some argue that this is about "politics" (though I don't really see that making sense as a rationale) the page needs to be protected ASAP to stop this from continuing unabated indefinitely. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware of #Reporting a personal attack (again). --Succu (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Does that supposedly somehow justify allowing the campaign vs. ckb to continue on indefinitely? That seems like pretty twisted logic. No matter what anyone may think of me personally, or the bizarre attempts there to make the discussion about me personally, this campaign vs. ckb (also similarly Cherokee and Moksha) still needs to stop one way or the other. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for a block

It seems the time has come to ask for an indefinite block of User:Til Eulenspiegel:

  • in language wildly inappropriate for Wikidata [6], [7], [8] he has declared war on Wikidata. In addition he posted a message at the amwiki equivalent of Project Chat, in language wildly inappropriate for any WMF project. Obviously, this was done in the heat of the moment, but he has not apologized for the language, called off his war, or removed the message at amwiki. He has not used language quite as bad again, but has repeated the same inappropriate accusations again and again.
  • for quite awhile he has posted at this page, practically on a daily basis, disrupting it. In doing so he basically just repeats himself, again and again, ignoring all arguments (and facts), only trying for even more dramatic language.
  • Today in his edit summary he has called Q16587531 a "useless item". It is possible for an item to be useless, and to propose it for deletion, but that is nowhere near the case here. It deals with an important topic, the potato, eaten by hunderds of millions of people, with lots of books dedicated it, and which has its own Unicode character. The item has a link to a Commons category dedicated to the topic, five external links, and almost a hundred incoming links from other items. As Wikidata items go, it is well above average (perhaps in the upper ten percent). By calling it "useless" User:Til Eulenspiegel shows he regards Wikidata as a depository of links only, and that any other aspect of Wikidata beyond that is "useless". In fact, he is still at war with Wikidata.

As he has shown now sign of relenting in this war with Wikidata, an indefinite block seems the only option to deal with what appears to be a festering wound. - Brya (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On a daily basis, Brya insists he knows what is best for every language he does not speak, and edit wars to move the Kurdish, Cherokee and Moksha articles for potato against expressly being asked to stop by me and the Kurdish staff. Editors who have no interest here but to expand their own language 'pedia projects have the misfortune of having to deal with "behind the scenes" people like Brya who move links to articles in our languages around and act infuriatingly condescending when we tried to reason with them. Brya is perpetually causing ill feelings toward WikiData among a number of the smaller wikis and other language projects, compounded by sysops who have seemed sympathetic to his erratic behavior without engaging in further or deeper inquiry as to why he is doing it, and actually (once again) his doing this is penalizing these languages' completion scores on the WMF approved "10,000 articles every wp should have" that we are all struggling to complete.. There is an opportunity here for WikiData to do better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't you should write here the same again. Admins can have a look at #Reporting a personal attack (again). --Succu (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The diffs shown at the top of this subsection are from July. This is not amwiki. Describing an item as "useless" is not a blocking matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Update for today, Oct 13

All adnins here should know that no sooner did User:Jasper Deng lock the potato page (although with ckb NOT where they requested it, but where Brya began arbitrarily reassigning it on OCt 2, so it still has to be moved), then immediately Brya opened up anew "fronts" at the items for "Date" and also back to "Tomato", seeming to insist he is like a god for all languages and can penalize the stubs by segregating those languages to where they won't count. What this should suggest to everyone here is that this is definitely not going to be "smooth sailing" around here for as long as Brya is "on the loose" acting like a disruptive bully. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note:
  1. the new PA against Brya
  2. the lie about opening a new front at date (Q1652093). Brya restored the status quo before a new user switched links. He never edited there before.
    Til Eulenspiegel reverted with the following comments
User Brya now moving Atj, Bg and Ht articles to useless "food" items where they are not counte or linked to good or featured articles and
...returning these languages' articles to the main "Should have" items.
--Succu (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Also as feared, Brya has initiated another edit war at Meta, with a disruptive move that would cause numerous "long" and "extra long" articles at the taxon items to drop off the score for most languages... I have now let the "should have" project there know what is going on here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Bryas adoptions (=update Wikidata items) are dated 26. Sep. 2017. Your first revert is dated 12. Okt. 2017‎ (revert disruptive move that will penalize most wp scores). What are wp scores, Til Eulenspiegel? --Succu (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
You just falsely accused me of lying. I stated that Brya's revert to the 1000 vital articles list was reverted in short order, I demonstrated with a diff where it was reverted in 11 minutes, and you still want to make a case that I am lying??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again: What are wp scores, Til Eulenspiegel? Could you please explain this to everyone here? Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you falsely accuse me of lying, and assume the role of an interrogator with me. You have not retracted calling me a liar although I already showed the diff and have no reason to lie against diffs. My edit summary on Meta, which was not addressed to you at all, states in abbreviated form "I am reverting a disruptive move, that will penalize the scores of most wikipedias". This is because most wp's {short for wikipedias} have their Vegetable and grain articles, which categorize on the scores as "long" or "extra long", locate these articles at the "taxon" items. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again (Take 2): What are wp scores, Til Eulenspiegel? Could you please explain this to everyone here? Thanks in advance. --Succu (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above again more carefully, get a dictionary if that helps. I answered you enough already in plain English. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I know I've already given this link like 5 or 6 times, but just in case you missed it, HERE AGAIN IS THE LINK TO THE PAGE SHOWING ALL THE WP SCORES. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
And one more daily report on User:Til Eulenspiegel's war with Wikidata: he has opened a new front and puts the blame on somebody else. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Update for today, Oct 15

Today is October 15, the day when User:Boivie usually runs the wp scores at Meta... The species items on the "should have" list are all now correctly pointed at the "taxon items". However, Brya to mark the occasion of Oct 15, took it upon himself this morning to move almost every single Solanum lycopersicum "Tomato" language link, even including English, from the "taxon item" to the "food item". This obviously has the effect of penalizing all languages, aside from being undiscussed and hamfisted. I reverted again and am changing my mind about blocking Brya, I was hoping it could be avoided but now fear it will be necessary before this serious project turns into a total "kindergarten". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocks

I have blocked 3 users (Brya, Til Eulenspiegel, Succu) 31 hours for edit warring across multiple items: [9][10][11]. If it was fewer, I would have considered protections, but we can't run around protecting items and then watch them move on to other ones. --Rschen7754 17:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I will be unblocking Succu per the discussion at [12], which was a point that I didn't consider. However, they have agreed to not continue revert warring during the time the other two users are blocked. --Rschen7754 18:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2017/09&oldid=657460304"