Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive/2014/04

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

2014-04-06 – Antonio d → Don Antonio

--Antonio d (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, please log in with the new username.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

2014-04-09 – StevenGomez → Romain Rousseau

2014-04-03 – 昏君 → LC

--LC (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, please log in with the new username.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I don't think this rename here should have been done as an unattached dewiki account with a few thousand edits exists (de:User:LC). Vogone talk 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Also I believe the enwiki account with 950 edits does not belong to this user. But I do not quite see what we can do here. Just not to rename anybody to LC?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. We aren't allowed to rename to usernames in case on other wikis users with the same username and 1 or more edits do exist. Vogone talk 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Good, what should we do? Rename them back?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the user is about to request another rename here, anyway (see #2014-04-11 – LC → Nice). Vogone talk 09:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. This would resolve the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

flood flag

Hoi, I regularly edit using tools that enable changes using Widar. They can be thousands of edits. I would like to be able to toggle the flood flag on and off at will. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the recent changes could also hide "Widar"-edits similar to what is done with bots. Tobias1984 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That could possibly be done with a "Widar" user group which toggles on the flood flag each time you run the script, I guess. Vogone talk 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny timing. An hour or so ago I found three errors[1][2][3] in your Widar edits done using AutoList.
Also, Widar should be required to add a source statement when it mass-creates claims on lots of pages. They are not just regular edits by normal editors who we allow to do junk data. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Why? . GerardM (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Replying below. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM: What you request (being able to toggle the flood flag on and off at will) is technically not possible for non-adminstrators. So the remaining options are 1. to create an alternate account which gets a bot flag assigned or 2. to wait and hope that what User:Tobias1984 proposed above gets implemented. Vogone talk 11:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I personally am a bit uncomfortable with using the flood flag to hide edits performed with Widar, because that makes them harder to monitor, especially in the event that the changes turn out to be controversial. With that being said, I do think that people who use that tool should be courteous and not have like 10 tabs running at the same time. (Disclosure: I have a few thousand edits from Widar). --Rschen7754 05:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Widar

"Widar" is a tool that provides authentication from a tool to edit Wikidata. It uses oAuth for this. Most of the tools that use Widar cannot be characterised as tools for mass edits. They allow for instance adding an image or a label from Reasonator. GerardM (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Widar needs to act responsibly as a gateway. And AutoList shouldnt be used to mass create unsourced junk. AutoList appears to allow automated mass creation, and often those items will all have the same source, so it would be easy for AutoList to do good rather than filling Wikidata with unsourced junk. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I like Widar and use it myself. But John is absolutely right. It is a pity that you cannot specify sources Autolist should use.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear John, remember Wikidata is a wiki. Typically when Autolist is used, it makes use of Wikipedia data. Now either Wikipedia is junk or it is like research shows; it is as good as what professional sources provide. When Wikipedia is of similar quality, your argument has little merit.
John, we discussed privately that we can legally compare our data with the data from another source. As I know that you professionally use Wikidata base, I assume that you make use of the Wikidata as well. For this reason I asked your help to work on quality by comparing information from sources. Reporting on the difference between the information that Wikidata holds with sources is an obvious method to improve quality in a measurable way.
The problem that I have with your argument is that sources while important are secondary to usability of Wikidata itself. When an article does not have an item, we cannot harvest its data to populate Wikidata. When we do not have all the data on all relevant items with a specific template, we cannot TECHNICALLY provide the hosting of the data used in that template. The comparison of data between Wikipedia and Wikidata, sources and Wikidata is how we can easily work on the quality of our data.
As you know sources are often wrong. So the notion that sources are a "condition sine qua non" is debatable. FYI I work towards software that compares the data between sources. This is also a key feature of my DBpedia proposal. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Gerard, we did not privately discuss anything relevant here. Since you publicly misrepresent that private chat, of which there was no real substance, I will put forward my summary: You privately asked me to dedicate my time to help your DBpedia project, and I said no thank you - I had my own work to do.
When you add claims, especially large batches using Autolist, and especially errors like you have repeated today[4][5][6], other people using Wikidata should be able to follow the 'sources' section to find out where the data came from.
While the software doesnt support this yet, IMO Widar edits which have a source claim could be given the flood flag, whereas Widar edits without source claims should be visible in Recent Changes, and Widar should throttle those edits so they dont overload reviewers. And in the case of people repeatedly making erroneous claims using Widar, I think Widar access needs to be removed from that person. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In our talk I tried to explain the exact same point I made above. Consequently it is not a misrepresentation. What I asked for had nothing to do with what I propose in the DBpedia proposal. I asked if you could use this methodology of comparing and reporting with the sources you work on. You were not interested, you have other things to do is what I seem to remember.
I am not asking for a flood flag, I want to set a flood flag as a convenience to others. People may look at my changes, I am happy when they do. Given that I am currently at 300K edits, I am as likely as every manual user to make the same percentage of errors. That is typically at over 8% ... All kinds of reasons, typing error etc. My position about quality is common knowledge, I have written an RFC about it. It has two parts, without data there is no quality and quality can be achieved through comparison and working on the differences. Sources do not make for quality. GerardM (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"manual user" huh? You manually claimed that The Press Democrat (Q3988817)&San Francisco Chronicle (Q139103)&Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada (Q6483577) are instance of (P31) human (Q5)? TWICE?!? This is the problem with Widar-enabled mass-edits. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it is a problem with me. You may have noticed that I blogged about the George Polk award several times, that I added many related statements about the subject with and without AutoList. Yes I make mistakes and I also work toward more quality. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

2014-04-11 – LC → Nice

2014-04-12 – Giuliopp → Deeday-UK

Userrights of User:Lavallen

I intend to orphan the Lavallen-account and use the account of Innocent bystander instead. (The present Lavallen-account is a result of a namechange of Innocent bystander to Lavallen some years ago.) I do not have fully control of that username on enwp and dewp, something I do not give a damn about today.

My Q to our bureaucrats is if they would like to transfer the userrights of Lavallen to Innocent bystander. I do not request a namechange, but I intend to move the content in my user and user_talks to the new old username. If you deny it, I still intend to make this change and then request that you give Rollbackrights to Ib instead. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) (The user previous know as Lavallen) 13:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not have problems with the request, but I would not like to have two accounts with the administrator rights, so that I think you should go to Meta. Please wait what other crats have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A request have already been sent to SRP, see meta:Steward requests/Permissions. -- Innocent bystander (talk) (The user previously know as Lavallen) 13:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
+sysop was set. Vogone talk 13:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
And the sysopflag for Lavallen has been revoked by Mentifisto, Thx! -- Lavallen (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive/2014/04&oldid=129570680"