Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/10

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

English original page missing from wikEd documentation (regression)

en:User:Cacycle/wikEd can not be linked at Q11393426 due to policy. Matthias M. (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

PLbot

Hoi, the PLbot is changing entries on Categories. There is an objection to it to the extend that the property it is moving to is actively disputed. There are several problems involved. Adding new properties is only done by people who have the time and this process is deemed to be important enough that it cannot be questioned after the fact. This is inherently problematic.

Second it breaks functionality in the Reasonator and this too is considered of no significance.

This attitude where no consideration is given to the argument~s put forward is arrogant and it is not becoming of us as a community. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Would be nice to inform the bot owner Pasleim. --Succu (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Please provide links to relevant discussions, as well as to significant edits by PLbot. Otherwise we have nothing to look at. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I only see a bot following community consensus after a property proposal, discussion was open for half a year. Have you contacted Magnus Manske (talk • contribs • logs) about adjusting Reasonator? That shouldn't be hard to do. Asking for deletion of a property with clear consensus and blocking of a correct functioning bot doesn't sound constructive to me. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"the property it is moving to is actively disputed" You mean the property that you have just nominated for deletion? Is there anyone but you "actively disputing" it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

When multiple people engage in a conversation it is a dispute. It is about the quality of the arguments and the arguments to kepp are not strong at all. A catalog is a list. There is no reason for this thing. Given the breakage it is problematic. Given the unwillingness to argue it is problematic. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So, no-one but you, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So my arguments are fine. There is no further discussion needed. Talk to me Andy.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Q25136484

Please semi-protect It (Q25136484). Persistent vandalism from various IP addresses and vandal accounts, temporary popular theme. One month protection should be fine.--Jklamo (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Pasleim (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've stuffed up

Hi there, I've mistakenly made an error in Wikidata by merging the Wikidata entry for hu:Karl Wunderlin with the Wikidata entry Richard P. Wunderlin (Q16625429). I've then gone and compounded my error by attempting to delete the wrong information from Q16625429 before remembering I could revert the merge. I'm now at the point where I feel like I've completely stuffed it up and daren't touch it in case I make the situation worse ... much worse. Is there any chance someone can come and clean up after me? Reverting everything magically back to where it was before I suffered brain fade? So sorry to make such a numpty error and thanking people in advance for any assistance given.Ambrosia10 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

[1] I used "(restore)" link by the last revision before your intervention. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted linked items

Hi all! Could relevant admins please recheck their recent deletions? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Checking the backlinks must be part of the deletion workflow.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Q18149495

Hello, could you please protect Cuphead (Q18149495) because of vandalism? Already protected on Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks. --UAwiki (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done; 1 week semi-protected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Properties ready for creation - backlogged again

Category:Properties ready for creation has 70 proposals awaiting action from a property creator/ admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC).

this is largely because I marked a bunch ready after one of our users decided to support many of the outstanding proposals which had previously had only one or zero supporting comments. A few days ago there were only about 20 "ready". One person can make a big difference in the property proposal process, we should perhaps have a few more regularly paying attention there. As to creating them, I can do about maybe a half-dozen on occasions when I have a free hour or so, but it will take again a few more of us working on it to get the number down again. Also some of those marked "ready" may be a little dubious - there are a few with concerns expressed about copyrights and similar issues for example, so please be careful to read the discussions before creating. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Conversely, we also have properties that have been ready for some time, like Wikidata:Property proposal/International Standard Text Code, but not added to the category (I've just done that for the example given). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I had considered ChristianKl's query there to be sufficiently important not to believe it was "ready". It's something that still needs to be clarified when the property is created. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it not sufficient (and besides, the answer is available to ChristianKl in two clicks from the proposal); but the proposal met our criteria for creation well before that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Join

Please join Q6910 and Q33434089. I don't know how to do this. Q33434089 should be a redirect to Q6910. Thank you. --XRay (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done @XRay: see Help:Merge --Alaa :)..! 16:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --XRay (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism user Ogoorcs

Ogoorcs (talk • contribs • logs) looks like a vandalism-only account, it make only nonsense edit. Please check his edit and stop it or block it. The items creation don't respect notability criteria. For example look this nonsense edit--Edoardo88 (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't see how could I be a bad user. I've got over 5000 manual edits on this knowledge base; I've contributed in many ways to this wiki through discussions, proposals and creation of items of great public interest and in fields I've got expertise. I invite you to better read my contributions and to read notability guidelines: all items I created respected structural needs or are described using serious and publicly available references.

Further, the particular edit you mention is referenced and in general refers to a public known fact in Italy. If you dispute the content of the claim, we can discuss it (up to some degree, since it is about a court sentence). Accusations for accusations, I can think of you as a big fan of Valentino Rossi? -- Ogoorcs (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

To say I'm a fan is not a valid justification. I do not question the condemnation, but it's not right to say occupation:fraudster, the occupation is motorcycle racer. Please remove the statement from valentino rossi and from all the other items you've added this occupation, if you want add that information use a different property like significant event (P793)--Edoardo88 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata item of this property (P1629) for occupation (P106) is occupation (Q12737077), defined as "any activity (Q1914636) of a person (hobby, work, pastime, professional sport...)" that is has characteristic (P1552) habituation (Q1136816). It is also stated that activity (Q1914636) is different from (P1889) profession (Q28640), so occupation (P106) is not limited to profession (Q28640).

So if a gossip newspaper reports that Valentino Rossi (Q169814) has once read a book about gardening and from 2007 to 2009 every sunday he dedicated its time to its roof garden, it is correct to add a occupation (P106): gardener (Q758780) statement on his element.

Since tax frauding is a type of crime, an activity, that takes time to happen and to prepare, even in giving the orders to a lawyer for it to happen (in fact court says that it happened over four years and that Rossi was actively involved into it, otherwise he wouldn't be convicted) it is correct to say that he is fraudster, that is, for convention here on wikidata, that his occupation is being a fraudster, from 2000 to 2004. Further, if his fraud is a significant event, for people outside the sports his fraud is the only thing he could be remembered. Ogoorcs (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that he was condemned? Because without condemned is only illation. --ValterVB (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course I am, this event is reported on Italian and English Wikipedia; neverthless I still haven't added the convicted for property because I've not found the exact crime for he was convicted for; in particular, this one wikipedia reference says that penalty (P1596) is imprisonment (Q41554735) with duration (P2047) 6 months.

It seems to me that few people on Wikidata have realized its usefulness for communication of democratic values. In Italy and apparently in many other societies, stealing 100 millions of Euro from the State, that is from the public, from the hospitals, from the old people, when done from public personalities is stopping being considered some kind of high crime, although it is a delict (Q41554073), which is by definition a heavy crime, one of which in a sane society, committers are subject to public ridicule and re-education in prison.

One of the way classification exposes new knowledge is by inheritance. If we are to remove occupation statement for people who commit crimes, in 100 years no one will remember that Valentino Rossi, other than a racer, was a criminal that stole a month salary to 100.000 average people. Ogoorcs (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A person is a con artist (Q41515083) when is condamned, I read here and here that Rossi have found an agreement with the fisco, so it's false say "is con artist (Q41515083)" I haven't found a judgment (sentenza) Can you found it? --ValterVB (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you think of Ogoorcs's edits, they are clearly not vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

User:JoRobot

User:JoRobot is a Bot without botflag. He adds lots of picture descriptions with wikisyntax (example). His owner, User:Joancreus, is not responding at his talk page for days now. --Succu (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

has a bot flog see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/JoRobot --Eurodyne (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not according to the bots user page. Even then he acts not within the scope of the approved bot task. --Succu (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The bot’s user page is apparently misleading. There is this log, and its recent edits have a bot flag. The operator Joancreus has not been active since July 2015 (Wikidata)/Feb 2016 (globally), so I blocked the bot for now and will write to Joancreus’ talk page later. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It didn’t take long until the new operator Joutbis showed up on my talk page. I will now unblock the bot with the request to the new operator to fix some things (see linked Topic). Crats are informed as well via ping. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection: Q2579463

Next season of this tv series will start at the end of november, but somebody continuously change the season number (that's the fifth time). Since he is a not logged user I suggest a semi-protection until november, 29th (day of the season premiere). Aquatech (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done 2 months. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection request: Q823373

Requesting semi-protection for Q823373 due to spam; its official website keeps getting changed to an affiliate link, mostly by IPs. Trivialist (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done 1 month. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandal: 78.83.94.41

• 78.83.94.41 (talk • contribs • logs)

Long-term and indef blocked on bg-wiki, -wikt, -source, and -quote for massive vandalism and harassment. Has apparently switched to vandalising Wikidata now.
— Luchesar • T/C 07:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

{{not done}} 78.83.94.41 07:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done; blocked for a month; was already blocked in July for a shorter time, so the IP seems to be somewhat static. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Thank you! It's definitely static and used by the same person for quite a long time: it has been active on the Bulgarian projects at least since the summer of 2016, when it also engaged in attempts at account theft.
— Luchesar • T/C 07:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting as well. If the IP becomes active again after the block has expired, don’t hesitate to report them here once more. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection request : Q23926151

Hi,

Some IP are changing the birthdate of this person. The article in french is protected for that reason. --Shev123 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done 1 month. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Badge edit failed

first: I'm new to wikidata, so please forgive any of my stupidity regarding technical issues. I was going to edit the badge of Q33417199 for the german version (good article) because it has been promoted as such today. But it says it failed because .. yeah.. I dont know.. english version says maybe because I am no trustworthy user (okay, its my first edit.. but since everything in Wiki is connected, why not my status from Wikipedia?) ,, the german version sid something like I did harm to it und violated the rule of "not adding badges".. but clearly there is an option of doing so. I'm confused. Help --Cum Deo (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done; Answer in German:

Ich habe das erledigt und dem Objekt weitere Informationen hinzugefügt. Technisch fängt Dein Account hier tatsächlich bei Null an, und es kann gut sein, dass Du dann noch keine Badges ergänzen kannst. Bei Bedarf bist Du hier aber genau richtig. Viele Grüße!

—MisterSynergy (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

please block special:contributions/223.140.58.43.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Pasleim (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexmar983

I have told User:Alexmar983 not to post on my talk page. However, he continues to do so, shortly afterwards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some reason to lock a user to wite in your discussion page? --ValterVB (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And another. It seems a block is going to be required to stop this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a real block reason. Lymantria (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So you condone such behaviour? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what is the problem here (why you do not want to discuss about content) but I agree with other admins, there is no reason to block him. If you do not want to reply him, simply ignore him. Pamputt (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have told him to stop posting on my talk page, yet he continues to do so, repeatedly. You think that is acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Telling people to stop posting on your talk page is a poorly-thought out enwiki concept. --Rschen7754 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Could your please explain in which part of Less patrolling, more talking you feel addressed in an „Inappropriate tone“, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

For my knowledge of English, I don't read nothing to diffamatory to delete post of other user. But probably people has different sensibility or there is some difference in language that I don't understande. --ValterVB (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not receive any ping, I would like my comments at least relatyed to content to be put back. Now I read the rest of this discussion, I was coming here to discuss it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW the first edit on his talk page comes from his revert on my edit, which originates from this:

• I had to send a final draft of an article for a webpage and I need a list of wikidata items to be ready as urls. Just the urls, the article is not published yet, is in proofreading now, but I needed them on the version. I am presenting wikidata in a bigger framework. That's where the typo come from, I was in a hurry to just put an ID to make the item asap. Than I am refining them, as soon as the draft was sent.
• I work with newbies, I oppose such behavior of undo without discussion, I know how disruptive it is. I never ask what I don't do myself, I never undo edits if I can, as I consider a gesture of goodwill, and I correct things myself. When a newbie send me a mail for help, I point out that I always did what I could to improve the environment, everytime.

That being said, I am also surprised to see him looking around in my edits without discussions, and even doing some "mistakes" here and there, I need to talk about that too now. Last one is few minutes ago... I came to refine the last item of this series (independently of his undo which I ignored, it was not my first idea of the day) and I have found another thing to improve from his edits. I told him, talk pages are to discuss content, he came himself on the things I am working on, now we have to work together apparently. I am even thanking for his good edits, but he should really communicate with me.

I could also express a general comment at an "anthropological level", but so far I just keep a funny anecdote to show to newbies. Tell me what do you expect me to do. I'm here, ping me. Have a nice day.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just remved yet another two edits from my talk apge, Why are admins enabling this behavour? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

maybe because they are standard discussions about content of items Mr. Mabbett and you should show more respect. They are enabling your behaviour so far, do you have any idea how your behaviour make other people feel? Plus, it is not "another edit", it is the same content-related edits that I am asking you to keep, as it should simply be.

Tell me what do you need to find a solution, which is, I hope, not any gesture against the respect of your interlocutor. First of all, I am a real person and I am in front of you, if possible you should not ignore me in front of my face, I am quite sure you wouldn't tolerate this behavior if it happened to you.

See the positive aspect, you now have a nice anecdote to show at your next wikimedia conference or meeting or workshop. So imagine you are in front of a room of people, and behave as you would do in that situation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:: AFAIK there is no guideline that gives you the right to forbid other users to address you through your talk page. I do not think that is a right we should have, but I understand such right may exist at some wikipedias. I don't see excessive behaviour with the edits you quote here. So in my honest opinion there is no reason for any admin action. Lymantria (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

if it exists Lymantria I hope he can show it, I'd learn something new.

My request to the sysops is in any case to restore my content-related edits. Normally I would ignore this, but because he is a public speaker, and get professional attention from our platforms, it is important that he shows respect. If I find any communication related to item, I will edit his talk page and I will restore those edits, as it should be.

In addition to that, I deal since many years with the fact that not all Britons are the standard "British gentlemen", but his attitude is kinda offensive, and if he keeps doing it, this is something that unfortunately should be addressed. Any ideas how?--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case Mr Mabbet I am still here to talk. Not for long, I have to quit my office now.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I come back and i still have no real communication with you Mr Mabbet and how am I supposed to discuss with you about for example this one?

Was it in the wrong place? Was it a typo? Who knows, that's how apparently I am supposed to "work". What am I suppose to do? I don't browse what he does, for example, he does that. I am just saying that is correct is to put back in his talk my edits and that someone instead of treating him with such sweetness, be more clear in expressing what a real healthy behavior should be in these cases.

People with expertise do not behave this way if they don't fell they will be tolerated. As a person who cares I have no other way to require that this is clearly pointed out, not avoided going in circle. It's not people like me who create this sort of people, so it is not fair that it is up to me (or anyone else) to pay the cost of such disfunctionality.

What do you want me to show to a newbie, that people who use platforms they way they want, take the liberty to decide what is right and what is wrong and are somehow "trolling" can be tolerated because they have a public role? I will always tell to a newbie and I am telling to you Mr Mabbet that you need these platforms more than they need you, and you have to show respect to them. And this starts with the way you behave. You owns a lot to this platform, and you should act like you care. But than of course life it's life, and I will link to this sections so everybody can have his/her own idea. At least I will be transparent.

Is anyone amongst you sysops willing to take some sort of responsability now? I have the feeling someone did not do in the past already, and we might be overdue a little, but as they say it is better late than ever. I am open to any ideas, but this has to be solved somehow, not ignored hoping it fades out. Thank you.

I still believe that my edits related to content should back to his talk page, like every other edits, and it would be nice at this point that he thinks about some apology, IMHO.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked for his behaviour in this case, it's User:Pigsonthewing. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I might be missing something here (quite a long thread already), but I don't understand the continuos removal of non-abusive comments from a talk page. @Pigsonthewing: could you clarify? Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 03:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

and also, can I restore this back? It might be trivial here, but I can't ask you @Pigsonthewing: in your talk page so...--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andreasmperu: This is indeed a long thead; but everything you need to know is in the opening post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not Mr Mabbett unless you provide a reason why I am not supposed to do something other people can do (that is post on your page) and how am I suppose to communicate with you. You are not answering my request here, and this is not your talk page.

Would you like Mr Mabbett double standard in your life? How do you think this describe you as a person?--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, while I remind you all that this thread is not solved, I will probably undo Mr Mabbett your edit on Guido D'Amico page, since you refuse to discuss your action so far. Also, the thread should be maybe changed to Mr Mabbet's name, in my opinion. He showed a problematic behaviour with no regret and people are confirming me in private such attitude is even known to a certain degree. Please if not for me, provide the generic reader with an explanation on why this behaviour is tolerated this way. I'd like people to know a reason when I link this discussion in the future.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So Since I have an emergency at work, he undid his edit before I could. Of course without any communication to me, domine non sum dignus... is this what should happen in the future? is it ok if I come here everytime so when I cross him and he acts as a "prima donna"? This way he can indirectly communicate or reply at his own terms, because he can fix his own terms. I rarely saw it in years and it was on all the items I was working on and that was again a little bit of statistics. And again, why is it ok if I have to pay the price of his attitude? Why is he allowed to behave this way?

You were all very attentive to ask what was his issue, what he was feeling, what was his point... can I have 10% of that attention? --Alexmar983 (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to take a pragmatic approach: Andy wishes that you do not edit his talk page, but we do not have a rule to enforce that. This will very likely never change, since Wikidata is a collaborative project und discussions are a core element of our participation. So if there is something to talk about, write it down on his talk page, or, if ever possible, at another suitable talk page using Ping. Particularly on his own talk page, Andy is of course free not to write any reply, and to my opinion he is even free to remove your section from his own talk page (we do not have archiving rules either). However, if there is a dispute between the two of you, I expect him to have taken notice of your comment, regardless of whether it is still visible on any page or only accessible in the history (you can link old versions, in case this is necessary). So consider your messages as “delivered, read, and understood” once they have been written to his talk page and seen by him, but do not repeatedly write it again, particularly on his talk page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC) notify @Pigsonthewing of this comment as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that discrimination between users should not be approved, nor described as "pragmatic" ever. it is IMHO pragmatic only if you want to avoid an issue discharging on other people. basically it like saying that if someone throw trash outside of the bin is "pragmatic" to ignore it. It is not, at least not on the general framework.

You are saying basically that he has the power to unilaterally deciding I am a B-class user, insult me by ignoring me, and than edit the items I work (probably on purpose), including wrong edits. Now if I link this discussion around a lot of people will they think that he does because he knows you will probably react this way, or not?

Basically you are telling to collaborate to the guy that tried in any possible way to do it. it does not add up.

To me this is one possible clue that WMF should give more money to those who sell the platforms, the spirit of the platform and not themselves. Just to be clear, this is not a nasty comment based on my "pain" or "pride" or whatever, it is based some RSC people I know I have discussed about wikidata in the last months, and I had no clue this guy worked there as WIR, I discovered it right this week. I so much think now that some 25-years old with a more collaborative attitude would be more performant.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RSC & WIR? I am not familiar to those abbreviations …

If you think you are right, and Andy makes “wrong edits” to items without explaining you what the matter is, revert them or open a topic here if there is an edit war. He has to explain himself then, and if he fails to do so it would be to his own expense. Failure to properly communicate in an edit war on his side will not qualify for his benefit, of course. I agree with you that it is a pity if a community member chooses not to collaborate in a collaborative environment, but in the end we can’t prescribe a particular communication behavior as long as it does not damage this project. I can assure you that we do not consider you or anyone else as a “B-class user”, just because a single community member avoids you. My suggestions is thus an approach which allows you to deal with a user you find difficult to handle otherwise, without giving way in situation where you feel to behave and edit correctly. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

MisterSynergy is long story not really related to this issue here. While I was trying to understand his behaviour I didn't look into his edits like a child, but i took a look at his profile. I discovered he was a Wikimedian In Residence (WIR) at the Royal Society of Chemistry... I had no idea before that, I knew him generically as "some British science-related guy who is often on commons and is on meta in the grant pages".

The funny anectode is that I like to discuss with people and I keep some exchanging mail here and there with people from RSC I have knew over the years, I like to share information so many people keep some communication open with me. It happened to me to discuss about wikipedia, wikidata (or commons, about the science competition while I was looking for jurors) and so on and I pointed out some sort of gap compared to other countries or fields. I kinda joked for example that I though "remembrance poppy wearing Britons" had more national pride, that was the core of the idea. In the publishing sector for example RSC is very active to defend the status of his journals. And than I said something like "well, few months of a good WIR at RSC and you can fix it"... now I discovered they did have a WIR and was him. Next Christmas mails will have some nice sarcastic comments on the wonderful gentlemen RSC hires. in the end, this is the sort of anecdote I hope they enjoy from me...--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing is not free to not answer to other users if they ask questions without being offensive. The talk pages are spaces offered by the Wikimedia Foundation to allow users to discuss about the project or about edit of other user. Wikidata like other projects of Wikimedia are collaborative project, mean that interaction between users is mandatory and must be accepted, if one does not cooperate, he is accompanied to the exit. It is not even free to cancel the discussions if they are not offensive, he can archive them, but not selectively (es. only discussion of user x) and I don't see problem on the intervention of Alexmar983 on talk page of Pigsonthewing, I think that the continued elimination of that discussion looks like vandalism. Unfortunately I often find Pigsonthewing's interventions are not nice and destabilizing in shape (not sure of this word), at least for my knowledge of the language. --ValterVB (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am too much used to German Wikipedia’s user talk page conventions, where it is pretty much up to the user to moderate the own talk page, including the mode of archiving. Nothing gets lost due to the history anyway, so “proper archiving” is just a matter of convenient access to old messages. Of course I am not very happy about the selective removal of messages of particular users, but what is the value of putting it back again and again? I do not see any. Andy has taken notice of it, he wishes not to respond and I do not like the idea to force him to do so. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am free to archive my discussion page like I want, but if I archive immediately only discussions with yours contribute, I abuse of my freedom, and I have a behavior not correct. "the value of putting it back again and again?" is that other people can always see what's happen without search in deleted discussion, --ValterVB (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy has as his motto "talk to me". However, when he is asked to communicate in order to smooth things out he fails to do so. It is his job to work with the community in order for him as a serial Wiki(p)edian in residence to accomplish whatever. To put it mildly, this is not his strong suit. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Andy has as his motto 'talk to me'..." Please stop making things up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Pigsonthewing is not free to not answer to other users if they ask questions without being offensive" This is indeed true; the qualiifer is significant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the original post: I have told User:Alexmar983 not to post on my talk page. However, he continues to do so, shortly afterwards. by Andy Mabbett that started this discussion and I do not understand why would Andy object to Alexmar983's posts. They were friendly, short and raised a valid point, I could classify it as constructive criticism. I do not think any of us has a right to request that others should not talk to them. Period. If the edits feel like personal attacks you can ask for a user to be blocked, based on Wikidata:Blocking policy. But otherwise you should discuss why they find your edits problematic. --Jarekt (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Look I abandoned this discussion, i though it was closed actually and archived. I see the ping but I moved on, at least he is not in my edits workflow so this reduce the need to "try to communicate" somehow... What I though in general about this situation in the end, I still think so. I did not came out lightly, and I might change my mind, but I think so, we should always sell the platforms not ourselves, or these things happen. That being said, I have other things to do now, but if he joins anyhow, than my condition remains very simple: Andy Mabbett is not allowed to discriminate users the way he does, IMHO. He put his conditions, I put mine. And I believe mine are actually more appropriate.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection: Q18388296

Page has a long history of vandalism and other dubious edits with BLP relevance, which are unlikely to abate soon: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18388296&offset=&limit=500&action=history Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Eurodyne (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q5994

Please protect against repetitive spam. --Infovarius (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

spam mainly comes from two users. I warned them. --Pasleim (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q6659788

Please protect -> crosswiki vandalism. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, I'm watching the item now. There was some activity in the past week regarding an image which has meanwhile been deleted at Commons. I restored the old version. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q849823

Tigres UANL (Q849823), about a football team, has been the subject of frequent vandalism; please semi-protect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added semi-protection without a time-limit given that it was already semi-protected for a time in the past. ChristianKl (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection? Q95

I'm fairly new here and can't find any of the policy pages on this place (just data items about Wikipedia policies which made me laugh) but basically what warrants protection here? Things like Google (Q95) (did I link that right?) which was called some random thing for awhile today... Is there a policy about protection or just persistent vandalism? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is Wikidata:Page protection policy. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Change badge (wikipedia heading) from Arrowhead (2015 film) to Arrowhead (2016 film)

Hey Administrator,

My name is Samuel Baulch, I was the cinematographer, producer, visual effects artist and story consultant on Arrowhead, other than Jesse O'Brien I have full authority and knowledge about this film. It was not released in 2015 it was release in 2016. It was only shown at one film festival in 2015 (which wasn't even a final cut of the film). Please amend, thank you for your time.

Regards, Samuel Baulch – The preceding unsigned comment was added by DirtyWookiee (talk • contribs) at 12. 10. 2017, 01:49‎ (UTC).

 Not done You need to change the name of the article at Wikipedia. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

One page creation deleted, no other contributions found. Done for now, thanks for reporting! —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Error in a town's name

Hello! I would like to inform that the name of the following town is incorrectly written on Wikidata: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echarri-Aranaz It says that town's name is "Echarri-Aranaz", when on reality it's "Echarri Aranaz", without "-" Thanks! I would like it to be changed by an admin.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.24.248.154 (talk • contribs) at 18:51, 13 October 2017‎ (UTC).

If it's written as "Echarri-Aranaz" in the Spanish Wikipedia, then I would say it's pretty official. Also changing labels don't require admin action. Stryn (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Q6527

Please semi-protect Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Q6527). Persistent vandalism from various IP addresses, popular theme.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added a one-year semi-protection. ChristianKl (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Q7026

Thanks.
--- Jura 21:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done for 1 week. --Rschen7754 02:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Continued vandalism

Please, block the IP 81.45.65.145 due continued vandalism since September. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done 1 month. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia language codes list fused with Scheimpflug principle

Someone knows how to undo this edit?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ogoorcs (talk • contribs) at 20:29, 19 October 2017‎ (UTC).

 Done You already undid the merge in Scheimpflug principle (Q1570106). I did the same in the other affected item [2]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for a block (2)

Edit warring

@GerardM, Brya, Succu, Pigsonthewing: I have noticed edit warring on the section above [6] over the last several hours. Please stop, immediately. I will start handing out blocks on sight if you keep this up, and I encourage other admins to do so as well. This is just downright silly. --Rschen7754 06:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If that means to keep it as it was when "Please do not modify it." was posted by Jasper Deng (06:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)), I wholeheartedly agree. - Brya (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: I don't really care; just please stop reverting. --Rschen7754 06:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That really sounds like the Kindergarden teacher's approach "whenever there is fighting, both parties are at fault, just put each of them in a corner and hope they forget about it". - Brya (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. --Rschen7754 06:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And when admins follow the Kindergarden teacher's approach the sneakiest one will win. - Brya (talk)

No, everybody will lose.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the consequence. - Brya (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You haven't noticed any edit it warring by me. What you probably have observed is that every attempt to move, remove or collapse the above originally-misplaced, and now-duplicate (repeating verbatim over 570 words currently present higher up the page) section, has been disruptively reverted by Brya; and in one case the removal by them of one of my entire comments, which I of course reverted. None of this would have happened, though, had admins dealt with the original issue, currently at the top of this page, and which has been tiresomely rumbling on for months. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I kept my eyes open, so I did notice. I have seen Andy Mabbett attacking my perfectly legitimate request for a block, demoting it by moving it to become part of User:Til Eulenspiegel's series of daily rhetoric attacks. As to "the removal by them of one of my [=Andy Mabbett] entire comments", there was no good way to handle this. Andy Mabbett made a comment in a different thread, on a different topic. Given, in addition, Andy Mabbett's personal theory that the meaning of comments depends on their exact placement, with a single ":" (adding space from the margin) radically altering the meaning of the comment, any action regarding his comment is guaranteed to be wrong. A case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".

        And then, after Jasper Deng archived the request, with "Please do not modify it." in bold red letters at the top, Andy Mabbett repeatedly attacked it again. Pretty much the soul of an edit warrior. - Brya (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

NB: You Til Eulenspiegel started all this edit wars on behalf of an obscure scoring, not Brya. --Succu (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is "obscure" only to you, Succu, because you have in mind other goals as more important than expanding knowledge in all languages? What exactly are those other goals that are so important they "obscure" or eclipse the meta project to rank languages by completeness and length of articles? (stub, medium, long)? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point here. But my goals are to write good articles in my language (around 4,000 until now, some of them are featured articles) and to have content rich wikidata items here. --Succu (talk)

Okay. It's only common sense to keep all articles clearly about the same species at the same item where they can be counted together, and only use secondary items for rare instances of a secondary article, not as an apartheid homeland for stubs of smaller wikis. Smaller wikis also like to link to the larger wiki articles, and to have the larger wikis link back to them - not be inaccessible because some person said they were embarrassing or that the speakers probably don't know what a taxon is. Make sense? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because thats not true. And once again your rhetoric is inappropriate. --Succu (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Brya, will you please shut up. This is about you and your behaviour. What I want is to see less of it. Hence my edit. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you were edit-warring just to edit-war. - Brya (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert request

Hello,

I have imported some data from German Wikipedia. Unfortunetly some of the edits were errorneous (maps imported as P18 items). I would like to ask you for using an admin tool that would revert my last 220 edits. Thank you! Aktron (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aktron: I made a bot which is removing the wrong statements (so you don't get spammed with notifications). For rollbacker rights, see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights#Rollbacker. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Carstuckgirls.com

Please add http://carstuckgirls.com = official website (P856) to carstuckgirls.com (Q1045734), as the spam filter prevents me from doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators are blocked by spam filters as well. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): How can this be resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

By adding it to the local whitelist (I'm against it, though). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That would seem to be "taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut". What about adding it temporarily, adding the property to the item, then removing it from the whitelist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That would make the item uneditable for everyone. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing the request for comments about links to redirect links

The voting patterns seems clear with roughly 2/3 supporting the creation of redirect links. I think the request for comments was open long enough that anybody who had an interest to voice their opinion had the time to do so. Given that I started it, I'm the wrong person to close it but I would appreciate if another person would close the RFC. ChristianKl (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were still waiting for a response from the developers. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Same here, but the developers are strangely close-lipped regarding this RfC. Maybe it helps to close it and ask Lydia once more to comment. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE): consider yourself asked. ChristianKl (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping does not work reliably these days, so I’d suggest to show up on her talk page. I would still recommend to close the RfC first, so that she can prepare a statement based on the summarized outcome. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, folks. I still have this on my todo but it constantly falls off with WikidataCon and other things :( --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Offensive change

I think this is needed to be hiden. Красный (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, removed revision from public view.-- H^akan·IST 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@HakanIST: Remember to hide also the object :) Now I did it --ValterVB (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wilt Chamberlain

Hi, the article in es:wikipedia lost its GA (good article) category. Could someone romove that in Wikidata? Thanks in advance.--5truenos (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

looks like it already has been changed. Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Please block An12vua12

An12vua12 put offensive Vietnamese description for Korean bands. Tuanminh01 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I let a message on his talk page. Let see how it evolves. Pamputt (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please semi Q167607

James Comey (Q167607)

I think we had the similar ip edits on Robin Williams and elsewhere.
--- Jura 06:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Alaa :)..! 13:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It might be worth looking into the other edits of the IP.
--- Jura 04:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining account creators

I have started this RFC about account creators. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

Request for the promised block

On 06:18, 15 October 2017 User:Rschen7754 wrote "stop, immediately. I will start handing out blocks on sight if you keep this up, and I encourage other admins to do so as well." which was pretty indiscriminate, as Jasper Deng (06:57, 13 October 2017) had posted a "Please do not modify it.", and the only user who had violated this request was Andy Mabbett [7], [8], [9], [10] (and later once GerardM), with the other two users trying to honour Jasper Deng's request. Later User:Rschen7754 handed out blocks to users who had not violated his request (apparently arbitrary).

And now Andy Mabbett once again attacks my perfectly legitimate request, even now that not one, but two admins have asked him to leave it alone. It is high time for the block that was promised. - Brya (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You've left out the part about the warning being for edit warring, which Andy has not done in the latest diff. --Rschen7754 18:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I see, the aggressor has free play and anybody standing up to aggression is blocked? - Brya (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: Where in WD:BLOCK does it say I can block him for simply modifying the contents of an archived discussion?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead, spin it however you want. --Rschen7754 05:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: you would know better than me when you can block a user. However, User:Rschen7754 said "I will start handing out blocks on sight if you keep this up, and I encourage other admins to do so as well." aimed at anybody who modified an archived discussion. And then of course, he didn't when it did happen. - Brya (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, Brya neglected to notify me that I was being discussed here. Meanwhile, they have resumed edit warring (by their own definition) to disruptively unindent the subheadings above and below (not part of) the discussion hatted by Jasper. Perhaps an admin could now re-indent them, settling the matter once and for all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

By any definition I can think of, Andy Mabbett's edit was edit warring (again subsuming the request for a block to become a part of Til Eugenspiel's daily rhetoric assault, just like his earlier, reverted, edit), so he was deliberately courting a block. No doubt he was alert to see if this block actually happened. Also, it seems very superfluous to notify a user who practically lives on this page (of the ten edits preceding my request 70% was by Andy Mabbett), and even feels he is in charge of it. - Brya (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"and even feels he is in charge of it" Is this egregious - not to mention wholly false - personal attack to be allowed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it is :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Who of the people involved in this dispute will be at WikidataCon? Are there enough people in attendence that we can come together and talk in person about this conflict and come to an agreement about it? ChristianKl (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell me, another bottleneck (Q18210350) from the same cause?! (I assume your question was facetious, ChristianK!) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: This isn't a facetious question. ChristianKl is genuinely interested in seeing if this conflict can be resolved in-person, which can be really useful to reconcile differences that aren't apparent online. If you can't avoid being snide in response to good-faith attempts to resolve this conflict, I'm afraid you will have to be blocked again. Please don't let it get to that point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I really have little to say about this particular terrible dispute, though it does sound rather like you are just looking for any excuse to block me. ChristianK is surely being facetious since you can't seriously expect a matter of this serious importance (whether or not to indent those two sections) to be resolved behind closed doors where not everyone can attend... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think the question of ChristianKl, was „facetious“ and not an honest approach to settle down this matters? BTW: He is refering to Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017. --Succu (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

OMG, I just answered that question. Facetious does not imply dishonest, only light-hearted, as I presumed he was joking. If you want to have a meeting of select people in Berlin to decide what to do about this matter of indenting the sections, knock yourselves out. It's just not fair that I can't make it or be represented but if you upload some vids of the proceedings at least it should be good for a gander. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This section is not about you, Til Eulenspiegel. So why do you care? --Succu (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask yourself the same question, Succu Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for administrators, this conversation is getting useless for them. Such a meeting can only happen when all of the people can attend, period. Thanks to ChristianKl for the constructive idea, though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we would need to have everybody in attendence. If we get enough people who are interested together to talk that can still be useful. An outcome of sitting together might be an RFC that allows us to clarify policy and afterwards have this issue resolved. ChristianKl (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It was clear weeks ago (months ago?) that 'discussion' is not going to resolve this. It could be solved by:

• admins deciding not to allow political campaigns to be run on this page, especially political campaigns filled with deliberate misrepresentations.
• admins deciding to uphold Wikidata policy such as no personal attacks, having items on one concept per item with sitelinks to pages on that concept assigned to that item.
• an RfC might also work. - Brya (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, it would have to be enforced on all sides. There have been political campaigns run on this page by all sides. --Rschen7754 07:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

No political campaigns means no political campaigns. However, I should point out that, clearly, I took the initiative only a few times, and almost exclusively responded. What I posted in response to this political campaign, pointing out misrepresentations and such, will perforce have something of a political dimension. But nothing remotely comparable to the umpty repeats of rage-fuelled rhetoric that this page has been filled with. - Brya (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Import request: Template:Google

Using a link like https://www.google.com/search?q="test+search" fails. Please will someone import en:Template:Google (and subtemplates if applicable), to facilitate the easy posting of Google search links on talk pages and noticeboards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Q6146383

This item is frequently vandalized, can somebody please check if all statements are correct (some are obviously wrong) and then block the item for IPs? Steak (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done; semi-protected for half a year, and all claims compared against enwiki article. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Q6172979

Please put a semi-protection to this page, it's vandalized currently with hard words or wrong info. Thank you. Galandil (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done; 1 month semi-protected. Thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ;) Galandil (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please put a semi-protection to this page Q2474955

Religion in the Netherlands is repeatedly changed in old data and color biased informographs (dull colors in atheism / irreligion vs. bright colors for religion). The responsible user is possibly switching between different accounts: user:JimRenge, user:FrankCesco26 and possibly user:SparklingPessimist. There appears to have been a temporary blocking before since the same situation occurred around 6 months ago. Please reinstall the protection again. Thank you. User:Hazelares 21:45, 26 October 2017 (CEST)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.221.102.40 (talk • contribs) at 26. 10. 2017, 19:46‎ (UTC).

 Not done You probably want to contact the administrators of the wiki. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Please permanently semi-protect Wikipedia language edition (Q10876391) to prevent IP vandalism. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Infinite semi-protection enabled since there are frequent vandalisms since several years. Pamputt (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Unflagged bot

Hi! JJMC89 bot (talk • contribs • logs) (an en.wiki bot) is moving pages and updating the Wikidata items without a flag. Please check the edits and mark the account as autopatrolled.-- Meisam (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the bot and directed the owner to RfP.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, Meisam: this appears to be an approved bot on enwiki (and some others) and the cause of these actions in wikidata is because the bot is moving pages in enwiki from "..., Jr." to "... Jr." - this may lead to some spurious duplication of wikidata items if the bot is blocked here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I already unblocked, but it would still be good if the bot could get a flag here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Ymblanter: These automated edits makes it harder for patrollers to check the recent changes. Please grant the autopatrolled flag or ask the owner to stop it until receiving the bot flag. -- Meisam (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Granted confirmed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Q7227546

Please block this item, there is constant vandalism. Steak (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seems like all edits by Johnnilingo (talk • contribs • logs) so far have been vandalism. Nit a lot of edits, but they were done over the span of three months. Account seems expendable. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Username

Another vandal, hujwamwdupe (talk • contribs • logs), sports offensive username which in Polish means "dick you in ass". Already blocked in enwiki for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/hujwamwdupe DESERVES IMMEDIATE BLOCK FOR EVER. 90.66.117.83 17:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done - block indef - Taketa (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Related to Catalonia (Q5705)

Catalonia (Q5705)

Catalonia (Q5705)

This item is excessively vandalized in the last hours. I request the reversion to last stable edition 584064771 of Ijon and protection of this item. Carlosmg.dg (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The page has been protected since the early October. I don't think we should apply the strongest protection. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Proteger Cataluña (Catalonia (Q5705))

Es necesario proteger el ítem Catalonia (Q5705) por el alto riesgo de vandalismo por los hechos sucedidos recientemente. Jcfidy (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully protected for a month and blocked one user. Attention of users who speak languages with non-Latin alphabets is appreciated; I had to revert a number of descriptions which read "Unrecognized territory" or similar, but there may be some more around in alphabets I can not read. I also did not check the properties.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: por la aplicación del artículo 155 de la Constitución española actualmente las funciones de presidente de la comunidad recaen sobre , habría que actualizar eso. Gracias Jcfidy (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please make specific suggestions at the talk page. --Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "autonomous community of Spain" (autonomous community of Spain (Q10742))

Hello,
Could you semi-protect autonomous community of Spain (Q10742), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done for 6 months Pamputt (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalismo Catalan Republic (Q138837)

Vandalismo en Catalan Republic (Q138837), no logro identificar en que diff se hizo el vandalismo. Por favor, verificar y restaurar a versión estable. Jcfidy (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 01:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549)

President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Q16933549) was also getting some not so useful edits. Protected it for 2 weeks. Please add it to your watchlist. Multichill (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Article on Catalonia in Hausa

Hi,

Given the protection of the article, could an admin add ha:Katalunya to the Wikipedia links? Thanks! --DonCamillo (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Q30597340

Can somebody help me with that issue? I tried to put it on RfD several times, but the item was then always just turned into a merger and my request as such was marked as "done" by a bot! I don't get why it creates mergers instead of deleting items with no links to it that are proposed for deletion. Thanks a lot in advance for any assistance. Best regards--81.173.232.180 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no way that you can know that nobody links from an external source to the item. As a result we prefer to have redirect over deleting items when we merge. ChristianKl (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Thanks, first of all, but there is a way, in fact: Special:WhatLinksHere/Q30597340! So why do need all those "empty" redirects?--Bloro (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That pages only shows you links from inside Wikimedia. Items however can also be referenced by other websites and institutions. ChristianKl (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

ScorumMEBot

Note that I blocked ScorumMEBot indef for spam. I left a message at the talk page, User talk:ScorumMEBot. At this point, I am prepared to unblock them if they come up with a plan how to revert spam and replace it with valid refd. However, I will welcome all comments here (or at the talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

After thinking more, I removed the flag and started a general discussion at Wikidata:Project chat#Bots. Please participate in this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

By 93.119.248.126 (talk • contribs • logs). --Drahreg01 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Q1444

Please protect and block a couple of Vietnamese, especially Bfvietnam (undefinitely, I suppose). --Infovarius (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Both are now blocked, I am not sure protection is needed as the incident is couple of weeks old.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence (Q170596)

Please, add a Good Article badge to interwiki to pl.wikipedia.org, sincr the article after discussion has received this status today - [11]. Thank you, Mikus666 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done with Special:Diff/586981959. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

EmptyBot

User:EmptyBot looks to me like a bot without botflag. What do we do with it? ChristianKl (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing, because it's not a Wikidata bot. It's a bot in plwiki, moving category pages there. Moving pages reflects on Wikidata, no matter if you are a bot or not. --YMS (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, similar problem as with JJMC89 bot above in #Unflagged bot. I still think it would be a good practice if these bots get a bot flag locally, but apparently most of the owners just do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know the aftershocks. Technically I don't make any bot-based edits here. It just happens automatically after my bot-based edits on pl.wiki. I have no intension to use a bot on wikidata (for now). Do you think, I should still apply for a flag? EmptyBot (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say if you do not mind pls apply. It will not have any benefits for you except for that possibly someone can block a bot without really figuring out what is going on (like I blocked JJMC89 bot).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok :) I did apply. Have a nice day, EmptyBot (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)