Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for all matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/04.





for permissions


for deletions


for deletion

for comment

and imports

a query


Requests for deletions


~13 open requests for deletions. (live)

What is User:Brya doing?[edit]

relating to this and adding " name that may not be used" to descriptions.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

@Brya: Surely this is not within Wikidata's policy on descriptions. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is certainly the wrong place to discuss such matters. Try Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy (and do not start the thread with what in hell). --Succu (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
incompetent, just like his indef block on enwiki.
Probably a self description?! --Succu (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Brya:, care to explain those edits? MechQuester (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
What is to explain? A "name that may not be used" is a name that may not be used. - Brya (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
a quick description, not "name that may not be used". The words show up on mobile and it looks a glaring error. MechQuester (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It is a quick description of a glaring error. - Brya (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It shows up when you view the article on mobile. Those descriptions should not be about the error. It should be about the item itself. MechQuester (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page (if it has not been cleared yet) is the error. - Brya (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Brya, please, take a step NOW and don't edit. MechQuester (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop edit edit warring, User:MechQuester. --Succu (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You two have to explain why "name that may not be used" is an appropriate description. MechQuester (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think it isn't? Do you have a suggestion how to improve the description? --Succu (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep it empty. A description is essentially a condensed version of the article in 1 sentence. There is no need to fill it it with that phrase because its completely irrelevant to any article. MechQuester (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
It is highly relevant: it is precisely descriptive, and warns the reader not to confuse the item (or any Wikipedia page linked) as dealing with a species. - Brya (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong about the role of a description. If this would be true a lot of descriptions have to be removed. --Succu (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
you have to explain why other than "not to confuse the item". I do not believe the descriptions should be left at the way you put it. You so far have not even put any sort of argument supporting your own arguments, much less made an attempt to. Isntead you to chose to attack me by calling one edit "vandalism", as well as "dstructive" edits, and replied in brief manners in attempts to obfuscate your own vision. What is and why the goal? MechQuester (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot tries of explanation at User_talk:MechQuester#beetle. --Succu (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Your "A description is essentially a condensed version of the article in 1 sentence" shows deep ignorance of basic Wikidata policies: "The description on a Wikidata entry is a short phrase designed to disambiguate items". A description should enable the reader to put the item in some ballpark: is it a popsong? is it a mountain? is it a treaty? Etc.
        Refusing to familiarise yourself with basic Wikidata policies, refusing to familiarise yourself with the topic in which you want to edit, refusing to explain yourself, calling other users idiots (and incompetents), deliberately blanking a high-priority field, it all shows you to be acting in bad faith. You are vandalising. - Brya (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am leaving here. Not gonna deal with this petty dispute. MechQuester (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

MechQuester, Oh - a personal one. --Succu (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not continuing this conversation. I don't know enough to continue. 22:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
If you „don't know enough“, MechQuester, whý are you trolling this way? --Succu (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Im not trolling you. Brya hasn't put forth any reason to defend his argument other than calling my edits vandalism. MechQuester (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure you are only? trolling Brya, MechQuester. --Succu (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
and? MechQuester (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

you two should find something better to do. MechQuester (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


At Warren Buffett (Q47213) User:GerardM is refusing to indicate sources for his edits and reverting instead.--Jklamo (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: I know you're going to dislike me for saying this, but at the very least, stop edit warring. That is a policy (per an RfC two years ago) and is thus nonnegotiable. It also shows your blatant disregard for the information on living people because "journalist" clearly does not describe Warren Buffet. I'm not going to take action because of my involvement in a separate discussion with you, but consider this a warning: if you keep edit warring and inserting dubious information, you will be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
the war started with jklamo indicating that he reverted because of a lack of sources. That is not a Wikidata policy, he could have asked. I already moved on. I do not care for a single mistake. I had a look and there are things where I disagree with the article. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
GerardM, you are stating „I have added hundreds of statements from the same source“ but you omitted to give a hint to your source. So what's your reference? --Succu (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Protetct please[edit]

Q5460604. Ip keeps adding the entire contents of it. MechQuester (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --eurodyne (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unprotect! Since when is adding information a reason for protection? User:MechQuester vandalized the item, and then asks for protection. 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC) (talkcontribslogs)[edit]

Apparently, this user juts makes vandalism according to his contributions (the last one is homophobic). Tubezlob (🙋) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Brya's editing[edit]

Hello. Could somebody take interest at user:Brya. He is clearly disrupting interwikies about plants. I have found various cases (like Q23485, Q37383 or Q23501) where he, imagining himself as solving sort of confusion, being lost of any common sense makes total chaos trying to split insplitable - tomato and tomato as an example. From Q23501 which lists all the wikipedia articles about tomato he managed to split (Q20638126) - an article of "tomato fruit". And listed there all interwiki links which are in small languages, exotic, ruling them out because "My impression is that most pages are on the fruit/vegetable, with varying degrees of material on the plant/species included." (from So, judging by his impression, user:Briya for example splited like ru:Помидор and tyv:Помидор being about the same or worse lt:valgomasis svogūnas and bat-smg:cėbolė being exactly about the same (I speak both languages as native and have written bat-smg:cėbolė). What are the mottos of Wikipedia being simple, easy to conduct and understand while in fact one user try to implore (and others silently agree) some kind of obscure and totally ilogical system. Instead of founding all iw links about tomato, peanut or onion in one place, an user now needs to navigate between two identical interwiki sets (one for "real" languages and other for "barbarians with their hyerogliphs who off course could only write about food and anyway nobody cares about all these zulus and navajos"). This is his attitude because he do not understand these languages but simply sees page with strange text and tomato picture and has impression this is food. In fact, no wikipedia has different articles about tomato plant/food or onion plant/food and only 3 about peanut nut as different entity. I ask you to take this case seriously and use your own sense. Because interwiki links are vitaly important, especially for smaller languages. Splitting them from main interwiki set without any reason and understanding is vandalism against all wiki community. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hugo.arg: Can you please avoid labeling his edits as vandalism when they are not clearly in bad faith? That's absolutely not helpful at all. Can you also please resolve this dispute by discussing with him first? Unless Brya is not responding to your messages at all, this looks like a content dispute, not a user conduct one. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Jasper Deng Could you please explain this edit? --Succu (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: I guess it is related to this. Pamputt (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm, lol you didn't read the above section about my complaint about Brya. He came at me to say that I am the vandal as opposed to any explanation. (you might want to see his contributions on enwiki and nlwikitionary. MechQuester (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

With these fruits and vegetables there are three big topics:
  • the taxon (with details on taxonomy and details of the plant, like flower structure, etc),
  • the fruit or vegetable (how it is used in the kitchen, nutritional values, the history of its domestication, where it is grown, production figures, etc),
  • its cultivation (how it is tended, its diseases, etc). The last rarely gets its own page (or item), but the first two may well have their own page (or item): this varies from case to case.
It will vary from case to case how prominent these three topics are and how prominent these are dealt with in Wikipedia's. In general, the more prominent the fruit/vegetable, the more likely it is to have prominent coverage. In some cases, there is no choice as there will be separate pages within a Wikipedia. In other cases, it can be argued in more than one way. For the big topics, known to everybody, the question is not if interwiki's will be split, but when.
         For "small" Wikipedia's, with "small" pages, there is no doubt that these are about the fruit/vegetable (Google translate is quite explicit). And this is just what is to be expected; the fruit/vegetable is what people know. It is the bigger pages that are confused (in differing degrees), and anything that is done with them will be controversial to some degree.
         I see that User:Hugo.arg acknowledges that there are three Wikipedia's with separate pages on peanuts as a separate entity, but that he intends to ignore the needs/wants of the readers in those languages, and those in the languages of other Wikipedia's having a page on peanut (instead of Arachis hypogaea). So, if there is anybody making high-handed, arbitrary decisions it is he, not me. - Brya (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: If you do wish to continue on this path of separating articles on different topics, you may want to consult with speakers of those languages to determine which of the topics you mentioned is the main topic before performing the moves yourself (actually you should do this for anything pertaining to which some other active user has some competency), and also consider that there may be articles that are meant to cover both the plant and its fruit and possibly separate those articles into their own Wikidata item. Mahir256 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hugo.arg: If you are going to argue about problems with interwikis, what will you say to those speakers of Armenian, Uyghur, Tatar, Ladino, Emiliano/Rumagnol, North Frisian, ... who read an article in an alternative script and visit the item only to find (gasp) that there are no other links to pages there? Oh wait, there's permanent duplicated item (P2959), which they can follow to find more links, and thus more information, about it! There's thousands more properties that can link to items where the other 'missing' articles may be found, all of which carry more semantic detail than the one I mentioned. Exactly these links between items, likely using part of (P361) and has part (P527), can be employed here. Mahir256 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB, Infovarius, GerardM: : you worked on or used Top1000 list, and here is Brya [1] 17:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The "should have" article is about the fruit lemon (Q1093742) and not about the taxon, Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's format ("fruit/vegetable") is human-readable data (Q28777989) (flat text, solid text, the connection between concepts is found by a person, model of the world - in the head of a person). Wikidata's format (fruit/vegetable taxon-source, fruit/vegetable taxon-result) is machine-readable data (Q6723621) (model of the world - in Wikidata, API-programms can use it). Small pages (exact concepts) in the Wikipedia environment do not survive, so they migrate from WP to WD. Therefore, the future (location of the model of the world) is for Wikidata (Q2013). --Fractaler (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Succu vandalizing Project chat and iawiki links[edit]

Tamawashi trolling. --Succu (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (= Tamawashi)[edit] (talkcontribslogs) - vandalism, look at Q12536. Thank you in advance. --Sintakso (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Other IPs used by this user: (talkcontribslogs) (talkcontribslogs) (talkcontribslogs) - already blocked
--Sintakso (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

hey Sintakso, that is not vandalism, nor it comes to it. It is a content dispute. In fact, both of you are correct. the addition or removal is a matter of preference. MechQuester (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Abbasid Caliphate is not a sovereign state, so statement "instance of-sovereign state" without a qualifier is just incorrect. The user discussed has repeatedly removed a qualifier from this statement, which I believe can be considered vandalism. He has also removed valid statement "instance of-former country" which is used widely and I believe there is a consensus on it's usage. --Sintakso (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"The Abbasid Caliphate is not a sovereign state, so statement "instance of-sovereign state" without a qualifier is just incorrect." - that statement by you is false. The whole item has P576 "dissolved, abolished or demolished" = 1258.

Albert Einstein existed 1879 - 1955. He was a P31 "human". The Abbasside Caliphate existed from 750 - 1258, it was a "caliphate". It was not a "former country". There aren't any items on humans having P31=former human. It is rubbish. Next you go and state "future country", because in the time before the existence it was future? There is no consensus and you have been invited to help with the clean up. And why do you leave transcontinental country as normal ranked statement? Shouldn't it be "former transcontinental country" and "former sovereign state" and "former legal state" and "former caliphate" too? You can just add "end time" for each P31 claim in case it stopped to be valid before 1258. Before 1258 it was not a former country. That's it. 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Sintakzo from project chat[edit]

Related to Q12536 he four times for P31 replaced the values

sovereign state
Islamic state
legal state
transcontinental country


former country

He repeatedly removed the vandal warnings on his talk [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and refused to take part at Talk:Q12536. It was pointed out several times that he shouldn't remove vandal warnings [11] [12] and that his edits have effect on Listeria output [13] [14]

Additionally to vandalistic effects, four reverts within 60 min constitute edit warring [15] [16] [17] [18]

Best regards from Small Wikipedia Watch Team - that actually USES Wikidata in Wikipedias. But "former"-nonsense replacing actual values is really of no help. 16:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You should understand that disagreement does not allow you to call it vandalism. MechQuester (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
But vandalizing does. 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that I might have overreacted in this case, but I would like to point out that the user discussed was the first to call my edits vandalism. The user has reverted the page 6 times and continued to do so even though three different users clearly opposed his edits. The statement "instance of-former country" is used 2190 times on Wikidata, so there is a clear consensus on it's usage and it shouldn't be removed without discussion. --Sintakso (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As this is apparently not considered a case of vandalism, I am withdrawing my request. Apologies for my misunderstanding of the policies. --Sintakso (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sintakso, there is no clear consensus. 2190 - you know how many items exist in Wikidata? No single human that is dead uses "former human", it is rubbish. And you, you even added it as "preferred rank". 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There is not much former countries, so I believe the number 2190 is quite big. I apologise for my former attitude towards you - I have done everything I could to fix it. I have removed the vandal warnings from your talk page, I have withdrawn my request and I have apologised. I am no longer involved in this conflict and I have let you revert the item Abbasid Caliphate (Q12536) View with Reasonator View with SQID another three times without any action from my side. So, could you please stop putting vandal warnings on my talk page and instead focus on the discussion ongoing at the project chat? --Sintakso (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I have no opinion on this discussion, but on the general issue of P31 for something that existed in the past, I do tend to agree that the present state does not make the use of P31 regarding a past state invalid. I've added P31 statements on defunct organizations to indicate that they were, when they existed, instances of universities, nonprofit organizations, etc. I don't think it's helpful to duplicate every non-immortal class in our hierarchy with a "former" version of itself. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The only correct value is "former state". What kind of state it is, when in its timeline is secondary. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
GerardM, you talk rubbish. It was not a former state during existing. You go out and tag all humans that are dead as "former human"? 20:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating "type of reference" and "suicide rate"[edit]

It seems like the majority of properties are currently created by me and the rule forbid me from creating properties I suggested. There are two properties I suggested that have to support votes and no opposition votes:

Can someone create the two? ChristianKl (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Usuario vándalo[edit]

El usuario anónimo (talkcontribslogs) se dedica a vandalizar el ítem Q3163141, como puede verse en el hitorial y en las contribuciones del usuario. --Jcfidy (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They reverted everything back.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Es insistente Ymblanter. --Jcfidy (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Protegió por un ano.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pax Deorum (Q7156458) x No label defined (Q766566)[edit]

Q766566 has no label, even if it contains the links to six articles named Pax Deorum (in Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan and Danish).

Instead, the label Pax Deorum is in Q7156458 which is described as a "Wikipedia disambiguation page". Actually it contains only one link (in English) and it is not to a disambiguation page but to a redirect page.

So I suggest to move the label Pax Deorum from Q7156458 to Q766566 (also providing an adequate description). Is it possible?--Yone Fernandes (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you need from administrators? Is there anything you cannot do yourself? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I could move the six links from Q766566 to Q7156458 by myself but I don't know how to edit the description of the page. Sorry. --Yone Fernandes (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't move the six links, it isn't correct. Link in Q766566 aren't disambiguation pages, but Q7156458 it's only for disambiguation. --ValterVB (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. So what could be done about the label of Q766566? --Yone Fernandes (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the current state of both items is correct. I can't see any problem. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks to Jklamo, Q766566 is not untitled anymore. Yone Fernandes (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


I erroneosly deleted this item and for whatever stupid reason I can not restore it. Could an administrator please do it for me? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I can't either. Looks to be a bug.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, will report it to the developers now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be a side-effect of phab:T108138. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I left it with the development team anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tourist attraction[edit]

This IP has spread a lot of instance of (P31)  tourist attraction (Q570116) for nearly 100 monuments in Turkey ... is it possible to rollback them massively? --Epìdosis 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is that wrong? (Not obvious to me.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: All the beaches, museums, places of worship etc. could potentially have instance of (P31)  tourist attraction (Q570116). Why only those items and not others? And, mainly: do we really need these statements? Without any reference giving the amount of tourists? --Epìdosis 17:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
SELECT ?item ?date { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q570116; schema:dateModified ?date } ORDER BY DESC(?date)
Try it!
There had been more such statements before. So I would either delete them all, or none of them. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Esther Afua Ocloo Q5401133[edit]

Please protect this page for a bit. Repeated ongoing vandalism (and racial slurs on en-Wiki) probably due to current Google Doodle. 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, one week. --Epìdosis 18:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Commander[edit]

Please create the proposed property, as there is no objection for ~3 weeks. Thanks, Eran (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done yet.... Also no support so not enough comments for an admin to decide. Multichill (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-WMF/WMDE harassment[edit]

It started with Topic:Tmgrtepf7yaupnm2 and then Topic:Tnhanu1u8bhw2eh6 and now Topic:Toujd4axb3e4b4m4. Can someone do a proper action about User:Jura1? Amir (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth telling us what the later two have to do with WMF or WMDE. Especially as Ladsgroup affirmed the contrary in the past.
In case, I don't think Ladsgroup should use their admin access to protect editorial pages about development projects they are leading or involved in. It would obviously be even more problematic if they were paid contractors of WMDE (something Ladsgroup mentions as their role on their phabricator profile). Maybe we should ask WMDE for more transparency about the later.
As for problematic bot edits, maybe someone else can tell me which of the 12 requests approved them.
--- Jura 11:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I asked several times why you think it's crap and you didn't answer. It's obvious WP:HOUNDING. Amir (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You asked once in return to a question I asked you, a question you merely answered by "read my user page" (as if this wasn't done). Clearly this is not helpful and apparently none else could determine when this action was approved.
Again, here you fail to explain the link between WMF/WMDE and the two topics on your userpage. Further, it's not clear why you link this to a discussion with a WMF employee about edits with their private account on topics they appear to be paid for by WMF.
--- Jura 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Jura: Your behaviour towards user:EpochFail and User:Ladsgroup is not acceptable. Drop it. Multichill (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain what you consider inappropriate? I think it's legitimate to question admin actions when the administrator or WMDE contractor is involved in matter of different editorial views, or to question a bot operator about when their bot action was meant to be approved.
--- Jura 02:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Read en:WP:HOUNDING. Multichill (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess it could apply to Ladsgroup's beviour, but I wouldn't really want to bear such an accusation.
--- Jura 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
In Jura's defense, a quick visit to the article in question shows that the producer, screenwriter, original author, and none of the cast of the film had anything to do with its direction. For this I have to agree that the edit is crap and that similar edits should be avoided in the future (and I'm sure this issue has been corrected in the past four years). I also understand the concern for impartiality with respect to administrator actions (why do all Wikipedians in Residence need separate accounts for official business but not all those working for the WMF and its chapters?) Unfortunately, Jura, not everyone is as attentive as you are to the detail paid to items modified by bots, so explicitly pointing out that 'Hey, none of these other people directed Public Cowboy No. 1!' harms no one. Demanding information from Lydia pertaining to Amir's connections with WMDE over an easily avoidable editing issue—just because your ideas on item quality don't get adopted automatically and you don't immediately explain them or defend them before changing criteria on your own—runs close to the sorts of behavior that the community tries to avoid and must still actively prevent. Mahir256 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Mahir256, I'm not aware that „Wikipedians in Residence need separate accounts for official business“. Could you point me to the requesting policy? --Succu (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting question indeed. Not that it really matters as Ladsgroup presented himself (also) as a WMDE contractor on his main account at the time when I commented on his talk page about it. I don't think there is a "WMDE contractor"-account either. This question is naturally unrelated to the bot malfunction.
--- Jura 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I spoke way too rashly; seeing the example of people such as James Hare, John P. Sadowski, and Emily Temple-Wood, all of whom work with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Q60346) and who have personal and official accounts, in saying this. There is definitely no such official policy for Wikipedians in Residence. I do not think my other points are affected by this, though. Mahir256 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Here it would be about a WMDE contractor, not a Wikipedian-in-Residence.
So it's actually a legitimate question in a matter related to an admin account used in the protection of a WMDE-lead editorial project page.
Using a separate account wouldn't make its user acting as an impartial admin though.
--- Jura 04:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Hello.Please Prevent the user from performing the action in question (vandalism 1 2) or at least Trigger these actions after giving the user a warning because these mistakes happen a lot --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Added warning to both and fixed a mistake. Please keep an eye on false positives. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Matěj Suchánek ✓ Done yesterday.Greetings --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Q254 protection[edit]

Please semi-protect Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Q254) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Please block 2001:56A:F6FE:BA00:8440:8AB4:62BE:D7C8 (talkcontribslogs), already blocked on enwiki for vandalism. Thanks. Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a day.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Q8605 protection[edit]

Please semi-protect Simón Bolívar (Q8605) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for 1 year. Pamputt (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

please block User: for spamming[edit]

spamming of Q34253 - perhaps semi-protection required... Thanks--Hsarrazin (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)