Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2013/04

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

Protection of aliases and claims

Hello Admins!

I came up over a question while working on my bot design (please confer Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/DrTrigonBot#DrTrigonBot). Is there a possibility to protect or semi-protect parts of an item like a single or all aliase(s) or a single (or all) claim(s)? Or will it be in future (something planned)?

Any ideas, thought and hints would be very welcome - thanks a lot and Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Wikidata pages are still wiki pages. It's all or nothing. --Izno (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see; all or nothing... - and that will be the case forever? Nothing planned for the future? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

AuthorityControl.js

I added Commons category, please integrate with the gadget. --Ricordi samoa 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please. --Ricordi samoa 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we're just waiting for you to be an admin. Umm, so you just want me to copy whats on your .js and sync it with the gadget.js? Legoktm (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I followed the coding conventions, so now it is ready to be copied in place of the gadget. --Ricordi samoa 06:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added also Property:P380 (Mérimée) --Ricordi samoa 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

KrBot

I have just blocked KrBot (talk • contribs • logs) indefinitely for adding claims for undiscussed properties. Review of my action is appreciated. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot is authorized, being flagged.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why are the properties it is adding claims for being pinged at WD:RFD? See WD:RFD#Property:P377. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. It does seem that the botop may have exceeded his authority by creating a property out of process and then using his bot to link it to countless pages. For now I

Support the block, until this can be cleared up. Have you contacted Ivan about this? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page that it is being discussed here. With that, I'm signing off for the evening. Let me know in the morning what's going on. --Izno (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I detect link to this discussion on my talk page only now. Could you please start new section for new themes please. The bot is authorized as say Jasper Deng. Task about adding claims for NSSDC ID was discussed during bot approval process. SCN task is very similar to it. Now I know that property creation process is exception from standard wiki-processes. I will use WD:PP until it is required step. Conflict with user Nightwish62 is resolved, he closes WD:RFD#Property:P247 and WD:RFD#Property:P377 requests. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC) P. S. I think discussion is more friendly and more effective way to resolve problems then account blocking.

Blocking is just a tool to make sure the wiki isn't damaged (and having a bot add things out of process is certainly damage, if not intentional). Since the requests are withdrawn, I will unblock the bot. Please do follow the appropriate process for properties in the future. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Username block

Can someone please block Special:Contributions/Roxypoop as an offensive username? Thanks. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 00:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a block as there are no disruptive edits. I'm sorry. Regards, Vogone talk 00:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted my action because, no edits. If him made disruprive edits then request again.--DangSunM (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzybot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. On Help:Editing/de i found that Fuzzybot has replaced the German translation in some parts by an updated version in English [here] and some more parts in the next following actions. Can somebody stop Fuzzybot and undo the changes? It makes just no sense to translate the same section again and again because somebody changed a link or added a word.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikidata:Project chat#Fuzzybot--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzybot once again!!!!!

[1]

Can someone stopp this stupid bastard programme. Im sick an tired of cleaning up the mess of this bot.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

FuzzyBot is not a completely automatic bot. It performs actions on behalf of translation administrators, and it is part of the translation extension.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when someone changes the source page (which is English), and then a translation administrator marks the new sections for translation, unless he/she checks a box that the new translations don't apply, it will consider it a new translation and will refresh the translated pages with the new English version so that translators can update it. Techman224^Talk 00:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why bot don't tag outdated texts so that they appear on pink background like before? --Stryn (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Im translating and translating and translating. The bot changes it back into an english version and changes back and changes back. Why not just delete all existing translations and block the translators indefinitely because they started an editwar with the bot?? Let him do the work. If it´s not the programme, send the guy to hell! --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We needn't speak about the translation tool. Translation admins messed it up. The translation tools worked reliably for years until this year somebody had any idea. Since then the translation tool doesn't work properly any more, especially the diff feature. The latest thing is that translations have been deleted and some translation admins probably think that translators shall translate the same documents a second time - see Help:Contents and Help:FAQ. For Help:Contents the translation has been restored in the meantime, thanks to Kaganer. But Help:FAQ is still set to zero, at least 55 messages. --Michawiki (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Stryn: See bug bug 44328. --00:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I decided to leave the translation of the FAQ untouched when I saw in what poor condition the page is in the English version. Most of the cases it is not needed to translate the whole section again, just to add a sentence or fix a link. In some cases my translation is still better than the updated version because I´ve seen the problem and solved it in the translation allready. And in some cases I´ve translated the page, found a problem and changed the english version to solve it, so the translation is more ahead than the untranslated version.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzybots next vandalism

See also project chat

Hi folks, the latest vandalism of Fuzzibot is found here and here --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't fuzzybot - that is just the extension writing over content that a translation administrator has incorrectly marked for translation. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked FuzzyBot because of the ongoing problems it is causing. I hope they will be fixed soon. @Ajraddatz: See also the project chat. The translation extension shouldn't be used until the extension is fixed. It just destroys translators work. Vogone talk 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So Fuzzybot is a tool not a toy. Nobody should use a tool he can´t handle. I quit translating, as long as my translations are vandalised this way. This is not a childrens book, it is hard to translating stuff and my translation determines to some extend the expressions used in German on Wikidata. So I´m a ware of how important the glossary is for the usabilitiy of Wikidata and what my responsibility is. Some others don´t.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt a block will affect FuzzyBot. It is just the name of the account that does the work of the Translate extension. It would just be like blocking the AbuseFilter or the Mediawiki Default account. It wouldn't be affected by it. Techman224^Talk 21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's silly. But we shouldn't use the broken translation extension anyway for now. Regards, Vogone talk 22:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather, you shouldn't use broken translation administrators. Those who damage the wiki, can be removed. Wikidata has way more then enough... it has more translation administrators than translatable pages! --Nemo 08:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Import AnonymousI18N.js

On the Italian village pump we have complaints from an unregistered user unable to edit entries in Italian because interface defaults to English. This problem causes a lot of mistakes in edits. mw:ULS is not on sight, so for now we must adopt the simple solution that Commons has been using for years: just add to MediaWiki:Common.js

/**
 * AnonymousI18N (internationalisation for anonymous users)
 * - This creates the "Language select" menu in the sidebar which sets &uselang= and saves choise in a cookie
 * - It appends uselang to the next page you visit
 * - It makes suggestions on urls without &uselang
 * Maintainer: Krinkle
 * [[File:Krinkle_AnonymousI18N.js]]
 */
mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.user', function () {
 if ( mw.user.anonymous() ) {
  mw.loader.load('//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:AnonymousI18N.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
 }
});

Then e.g. uselang=it will be easy to add to the URL and will be remembered when clicking a link to another page.

Done Legoktm (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! However, you also need to paste this line before it on Common.js.[2] Sorry! --Nemo 08:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Already fixed. :) Legoktm (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I tested: selector here, cookie memory, suggestion when coming from the sidebar link to Wikidata on Wikipedias, persistence of the uselang when doing some editing and clicking. All seems ok, except that after some actions the uselang gets lost, but it can't be perfect. ;-) Thanks, Nemo 09:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Block review requested

I welcome review of my block of Mac henry (talk • contribs • logs). None of his edits were vandalistic, but I judged that he was not here to build a database, and seemed more interested in pasting his (presumably fictitious) autobiography on his user page and talk page. Note that I've also RevDeled two of his edits, as they contained information about living people who I imagine would prefer to not be associated with a "N.A.S.A DETECTIVE" and "KING OF USA"; I also welcome review of those actions. (I know we don't yet have a policy similar to en:WP:BLP, but I saw this as a common-sense measure.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that his edits were out-of-scope, and I personally agree with the block, I believe it would've been better to open a discussion here before blocking, and the BLP violations were only slight, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think blocking them indefinitely and after only one warning is too much in this situation. I would say blocking to get him talk after two warnings would be acceptable if nothing else helps.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noting here that Mark91 has now revoked talk page access, and Tegel has locked it globally. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments to the new Translation Tool

Hi, I want to give some comments about the new translation tool:

the edit window is to small; it is resizable, yes, but it is always an additional action you have to do to see fully an existing translation if a translation is obsolete
the edit window cannot be opened on a new browser tab from the message list like it was possible with the old translation tool
the font is too big - for translation category, for the edit text and the button text. Reducing the font size could help enlarging the edit window
the size of the edit window should be saved.
there is no diff feature - an unbeatable advantage of the old translation tool - up to the disaster.

Advantages are:

you can reach all relevant pages by one click
next untranslated message is immediately shown after saving a translated message

--Michawiki (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree on 1–4, are you on a 1024x768px screen too? Sadly we're a minority.

The diff exists, but you have to click the yellow area below the message definition to see it. --Nemo 19:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also having those problems mentioned above. Furthermore, it takes long time to proofread a page or save a translation. I'm really not convinced of the new tool, yet. Regards, Vogone talk 19:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nemo: Yes, I used 1024x768px but I tested it even with 1600x1200px. The issue is, the actual translation tool area (the bordered area) has a fixed size. And there isn't a diff feature, clicking the yellow area nothing does. I think you mean this area with the text "This translation may need to be updated". --Michawiki (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen on the Translation extension help page on MediaWiki (on the image) that a link with the text Show differences should be in the mentioned yellow area. But with me it doesn't exist. --Michawiki (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki link migration progress

Addbot's statistics about progress in local interwiki link removel used to be here: Wikidata:Wikidata migration/Progress. Legoktm moved it to Wikidata:Wikidata migration/Sitelink removal/Progress without leaving a redirect. Problem is, nobody told Addbot, and so it re-created the page under the old title where he keeps updating it reguarly, while the new one now holds a static copy that has not been updated once since. This is not nice, as having it twice (once up to date, once outdated, hard to distinguish) and the version history is split. Could someone repair this? Thanks. --YMS (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your note on my talk page. I poked addshore on IRC and asked him to modify the bot. I was going to convert that page into a more general one for data importation but got busy halfway through and never finished. Will try again this weekend. Legoktm (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This wan't me. So I missed someone else already informed you... --YMS (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Should now be fixed or in the process of being fixed :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzybot still vandalises

For now I´ve lost hope. [3]. With Fuzzybot translations dont make sense at all. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Still, it's not Fuzzybot who "vandalises", it's translation administrator who let the bot make those edits. So contact to translation administrator, not to administrators, we can't help, regards, --Stryn (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So where is the right place to put my complaints? Where is the Translation Administrators Noticeboard? As long as there is no other place to discuss this things, this board is the right place and surely also the translation administrators will watch this pages. The problem is going on with the next bot here. I won´t stopp posting here until the problem is solved. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's annoying, especially since even admins cannot undo such translations. --Leyo 19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg 88: I've often written that we need a translation noticeboard. Nemo wrote if I want to have it I should create it. Probably we must do it ourselves and hope that translation admins accept it. IMHO it is a task of translation admins to create such a noticeboard.

This vandalism you wrote about seems to be done by Betabot, the bot of Beta16. Reason for this issue is probably that this bot marks the English text as fuzzy and not the translated text. I assume that this is the reason that the diff feature doesn't work. --Michawiki (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Live DeletionHelper

DeletionHelper - as you all know it - won't exist anymore, I hope :-)

LiveDH is a new-concept, live system for viewing still-open RfDs.

It allows some filtering: empty/not empty items, rejected/open discussions.

It also provides a simple link to each section, and a quick view for each discussion.

But it is a preview, of course.

Coming soon:

has any sitelink been removed: what sitelinks, and by whom; and where are they now;
some quick buttons to:
- automatically delete an item, and mark the corresponding section as 'done', or:
- reject a RfD, or:
- comment upon.

Instructions on how to install follow on the page. --Ricordi samoa 19:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. I would love that "delete" button :) Legoktm (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats RFC

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining bureaucrats go comment! --Rs chen 7754 21:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

1.57.80.227 vandalized Q8196818 by removing interwiki links as you could see by the linked contributions. Vaca tion 9 04:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days. --Rs chen 7754 04:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Transwiki

Hello, could I get w:Template:RfX-notice transwikied, please? Thanks in advance. --Frigid Ninja 01:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, although I do not see a real need for the template. Please modify it (replace Wikipedia logos with Wikidata logos). Regards, Vogone talk 02:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a specific need yet, but it may be useful in the future. Frigid Ninja 02:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Modifications

Done by Hahc21. Frigid Ninja 02:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP

Please contributions here and block, if appropriate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 hours. Regards, Vogone talk 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are coming!

Within the next 5-6 hours, we will hopefully be getting our first bureaucrat. Once that happens, the stewards will no longer fulfill +admin, +/-bot, +translationadmin, or +crat flag requests. If any requests are due to be closed in the next few hours, it may be worth waiting to close them until we have our first bureaucrat, so that the requests aren't rejected should the +crat happen beforehand. --Rs chen 7754 10:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, probably worth an announcement on the News section of the Main Page once the first Bureaucrat is elected. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I dunno about anyone else, but the thought of Vogone doing anything is pretty scary to me ;-) - yay for us finally growing up a bit more as a project! Ajraddatz (Talk) 10:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's all good :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just notifying that Wikidata has two community-elected 'crats now (Bene* and me). Regards, Vogone talk 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! --Stryn (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

CSS for navbox/navbar

Please import Style for horizontal lists (separator following item) and Default styling for Navbar template from English Wikipedia's en:MediaWiki:Common.css to Wikidata's MediaWiki:Common.css. This is needed so that Module:Navbar and Module:Navbox are displayed properly.--Snaevar (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Legobot/properties.js

User:Legobot/properties.js needs new jobs. see User:Legobot/properties.js/Documentation#admin --Akkakk (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin look into these? -- Docu at 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Special:DispatchStats is now at zero. -- Docu at 14:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC close request

Could an uninvolved admin please close Wikidata:Requests for comment/Adopt metawiki policy for translation administrators? Thanks. --Rs chen 7754 01:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll happily close, but I'd prefer to let it run a week longer or so. 10 !votes does not a lasting consensus make. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking, too quick to close a low-participation RFC. Courcelles (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of having it closed soon since there have been some other issues that have come up that need a RFC, but I suppose we can leave it open another week. --Rs chen 7754 08:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Extend the RFC or create a complementing one? :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's been discussion of needing a RFC for bots, and socks, and usernames, etc... --Rs chen 7754 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about additional permissions for rollbackers

Please see WD:Project chat#Abusefilter-view-private and abusefilter-log-private for rollbackers. More input is welcome! Regards --Iste (D) 08:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Please delete the following pages in the usernamespace of my bot. Thanks --Pyfisch (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Legoktm (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability deletions

Just a quick note to say when deleting items for notability please make sure that all the links fail, otherwise just remove the links that fail notability. Cheers! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also if an entity happens to have a label saying it is a user page this does not mean it has a link to a userpage any more. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please take a look at Special:Contributions/188.118.144.25. It might be a case for the "rollback" button. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Already restored by me and Ymblanter. --Stryn (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

+ abus filter

please make an abuse filter to stop users to repeat a word more than 5 times as description or alias like this Yamaha5 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean a letter, right? -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 15:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/18. Regards -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Abuse filter for invalid IMDb identifiers

I started a request for an abuse filter on WD:PC, but on second thought this might be a more appropriate place. Gabbe (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify: I would like an AbuseFilter to react when an item gets an invalid IMDb identifer (Property:P345). A valid IMDb identifier matches the following regexp: ^(tt|nm|ch|co)[0-9]{7}$ Gabbe (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/17 -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for a new property

A week has past since I proposed a new property Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#Dantai code. I think the discussion has now matured (1 support other than mine and no objections). So I would like to make a respectful request to the administrator for creating a new property having the following spec.

label in English: Dantai code
datatype: string

Thank you. --F705i (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait a couple of more days to see if anyone else is interested.

Usually, at least two or three support votes might be needed. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Another administrator has created Property:P429. --F705i (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually not admin, but Property creator ;) --Stryn (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Q1449737

Hi, could you please protect Q1449737 so that the french wikipedia link stays until the debate to delete the page on frwiki is finished ? Thanks. JeanBono (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Protected for a 1 week. --Stryn (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging items

Hi, around here for the first time. I did not find a solution for the following problem yet:

Q1833905 should in my opinion be somehow merged with Q175715 and Q1620921.

Q1620921 is referencing the article page dedicated to both the hobby and the article of interest in de:WP, to where Q1833905 and Q175715 are both redirects now. The article in lt:WP is referenced by Q175715. The article page in the rest of the languages (en, ru, it, pl, nl, es, fr) is referenced by Q1833905.

So, in ontology language: Q1833905 is the hobby of collecting/fancying Q175715 = Q1620921. The items don't have any other use than collecting, which is why they don't have a duplicate article in any languages (except de:WP before they were merged there).

With manually set interwiki links, I made it possible to navigate from de:WP to the other languages - but I guess that can't be a solution forever. --Enyavar (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And please speed-delete Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Merge/redirect_several_data_objects_into_one, I created that page without realizing that the RFC area was made for polls. -.-' --Enyavar (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please list this on WD:Interwiki conflicts. Thanks. We have a dedicated page to make sure that we have approximate standardization on how to deal with issues like this. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki-namespace edit request

Sorry that I don't know the direct name of the MediaWiki page, but it's the one responsible for the Import interwiki dialogue on any Q-page. Could you please update the name of the no: language, as it is currently without a name if you are viewing Wikidata in the en language? According to m:Special:SiteMatrix when you have your Preferences-language set to en over there, the local name for no: is "norsk bokmål", and the English name is "Norwegian (bokmål)". Also, by changing your user language, you can get the name of the language in other languages – e.g. in French, the name is "norvégien". Not sure if there is a quicker or more elegant way of aligning Wikidata's names for languages with Meta's, but, in any case, I hope that helps. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to MediaWiki:Gadget-slurpInterwiki.js? — Hazard-SJ ✈ 06:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the translation? — Hazard-SJ ✈ 21:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

According to m:Special:SiteMatrix, no is called "norsk bokmål" in no and "Norwegian (bokmål)" in en. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the languages, but, rather, the translation to, for instance, Import interwikis in that language. Hazard-SJ ✈ 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've added them. Hazard-SJ ✈ 01:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

changing of the name

Hello I would like to change user name I was Laurentleap on wikipedia and changed to Herodotus I would like to do the same with wikidata. Regards.--Laurentleap (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As we do not have bureaucrats on this wiki, you will need to go to m:SRUC. --Rs chen 7754 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Now we have bureaucrats, choose one of the guys without WMDE in the name and ask for rename. Greetings, Conny (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC).

Or Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard might be more appropriate ;) Hazard-SJ ✈ 01:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

I misplaced a comment which was intended for Help talk:Sources and instead created Help talk:Sources/da by mistake. Would you please delete it (the latter) again. Thanks, Byrial (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done(?) --DangSunM (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to help

Guys,

I think it is a good idea to give links to help whenever possible. As I see, one of the most popular questions is about merging. So why not give a link to {{Ll|Help:Merge|this page}} (so that the user would read it in their language)?

I'm not sure where giving a link without any other action is considered polite or rude. But at least the next time this user comes across the same problem, they will be able to follow the documented steps. --Michgrig (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oversight RFC

A new request for comment about the roles and rules of local oversighers has been started. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Нужно объединить страницы

Q11452035 и Q5830485 - это про одно и тоже село. Я создал Q5830485 не зная о Q11452035 и теперь не могу ни добавить данные о en:Gitari в Q11452035 ни данные о fa:گیتری в Q5830485. Qnyx77 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't speak Russian, is Help:Merge/ru what you're looking for? Legoktm (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. He created an item unaware that another about the same subject already existed and he's now unable to add the iterwiki links to the correspondent items. I think that, as lego accurately said, Help:Merge/ru can be of much help. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I will take care of this (provided it is not already done).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please correct error in Danish message in the MediaWiki namespace

Please correct a spelling error in MediaWiki:Translate-workflow-state-updating/da. The text "opdater" should be changed to "opdaterer". Thank you, Byrial (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Rayzer75h

See this and this. I've already reverted it. Silver hr (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked as vandalism-only account. No regular edits on other wikis. Regards, Vogone talk 18:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you maybe add a {{subst:Blocked}} template to his talk page, Vogone? I don't disagree with the block, but I think it's worth giving him the option to appeal and whatnot. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. I'm completely confused about the amount of templates here. :-P Greetings, Vogone talk 11:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for deletion - optin list

Hi admins, while my bot is waiting for approval you can test the optin list for some test runs now. If you want to help me and find some bugs in the test run, you can add your username there. If you like the feature, you can also support the request and the feature will be available later, too. Regards, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 11:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

About a month ago I wrote this RfC, but it seems not being noticed. What happened or did not happen? Thanks in advance for your attention, Klaas V 12:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be better to post on meta-wiki. ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Katesharpphotography

Can someone block User:Katesharpphotography as a promotional username? Thanks, ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 13:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point since they haven't edited yet. It looks like they just created an account on enwiki and clicked all the sister project links. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. The user has no regular contributions anywhere so that a block would have no effect. Regards, Vogone talk 13:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Q11705713

can you please delete the page named above. Found out later that the page was already existing under another name. Thanks Supermohi (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can request deletion at WD:RFD. --Stryn (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Our log table is exploding

I just got a warning from Ops that our log table is growing extremely fast. Basically, a vast majority of edits on Wikidata are written to the log table as they are autopatrolled. And since we have a lot of edits, this makes the table grow very very quickly.

We would like to:

stop logging so many edits
drop those logs that are already there about patrolling

We want to understand how that influences your workflows and what we can do about that. Please speak up if this change would be an issue. --Denny (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, is it essential to "autopatroll" botedits? They are already maked as a botedit, and that is maybe enough for counter-vandalism? -- Lavallen (block) 16:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just abolish these logs. Nobody cares about them, anyway. Regards, Vogone talk 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I echo Vogone's statement. Drope these logs. And also drop the "mark this page as patrolled". Both are useless! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

While I prefer to see autopatrolled used myself, if it's causing tech problems then I'm not sure we get a choice. As for usage, I just use it to keep track of the obvious good faith editors in recent changes or on watchlist. If we could keep autopatrolled but not log anything, that would be fine too, or possibly have the opposite log of "edits which aren't patrolled". --Izno (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see patrolling every edit and page that useful. Just get rid of it. Techman224^Talk 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am using tagged edits which are probably also in the log table. A possible solution may be to log only the last week, then the log is not going to grow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented on the bug, basically saying that RC patrol is useful and the log entries aren't. Legoktm (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Block of BeneBot*

I have blocked BeneBot* (talk • contribs • logs) per the issue at User talk:BeneBot*#What happened here?. (In summary, the bot is adding hundreds of duplicate claims; check the history of a page it has recently edited.)

Other administrators are welcome to unblock the bot when the operator has informed us that the problem is fixed. --Izno (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Izno has already unblocked the bot. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Bene is going to revert the previous edits and I presume fix the problem. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists of people (was: Stop bot)

Can someone stop Legobot. The P360->Q215627 claim is added but it seems not right. Articles are not 'lists of' and the claim is not general usefull for all wikipedia's but English wiki only (maybe with a qualifier). 145.53.76.181 17:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I see, the related articles are indeed lists of persons, I do not really understand your concern. Could you clarify, please? Vogone talk 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The property is meant to be used for actual lists, not disambiguation pages as it is currently being added by the bot e.g. this edit. What it is meant to be used for is to document the connection of en:list of basilicas to en:basilica. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking at en:Keith Edwards, and I see a list of people. Yes, it's a disambiguation page, but it's still a list of people. Anyways, it's really easy to reverse Legobot (takes me like 5 minutes) if that's what consensus is. I'll let Docu know of this discussion since he was the one who originally requested the run. Legoktm (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is true that it is a list of people, but it seems to me that that could change without explicitly changing the page name, for example. And still, I believe that the purpose of that property is to tie obvious things such as character lists to fictional character or the above example of basilicas to a list of such. Disambiguation pages get their own instance of. Shrug. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorization was based on w:Category:Human name disambiguation pages being included in w:Category:Lists of people by name.

Some languages see them primarily as disambiguation pages, others as lists of people. If we add both statements to an item here at Wikidata, one can select/query to include or exclude them. -- Docu at 17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

NuvieK

Is he still interested in adminship? Only 526 contributions, and the last was over a month ago... --Ricordi samoa 06:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it is too early to desysop. Although Wikidata currently has no policy on the definition of sysop inactivity, most wikis go with around 6 months or a year.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We can probably take care of this in the first round of activity desysops, once we have a policy in the summer. --Rs chen 7754 06:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd support desysopping with 6 months of inactivity/no admin actions. --Ricordi samoa 07:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, could a bored sysop with nothing better to do please fulfill this edit request? Thanks, a very grateful Frigid Ninja 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Translations at Help:Merge

Why has someone used Fuzzybot to translate the German translation back into English here? I've seen other edits like this that I'm not too sure about. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FuzzyBot is just removing invalid translations after the English page was updated. You can only avoid that if you check the box "Do not invalidate translations" while marking a page. Regards, Vogone talk 11:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that this check box "Do not invalidate translations" just does not work. --Michgrig (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It indeed does look strange. The time line for actions is this:

22:32, 6 April 2013: Beta16 edits all the headlines in Help:Merge
22:33, 6 April 2013: Beta16 marks Help:Merge for translation
22:33, 6 April 2013: FuzzyBot invalidates 1 translation, but leaves the others (My guess: The check boxes was checked, expect for one which was overlooked
08:14, 7 April 2013: Rsocol edits one paragraph
18:02, 7 April 2013: Kaganer marks Help:Merge for translation
18:02, 7 April 2013: FuzzyBot invalidates the rest of the headlines edited at step 1, but not the newly edited paragraph (My guess: Again the checkbox was checked)

I suppose it is a bug when the old edits which were once marked for translation without invalidating translations, suddenly later cause the translations to be invalidated when the page is marked for translation another time. Byrial (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, seems to be a bug. I just tried it with a test page. Regards, Vogone talk 15:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
See also Bug 47178. Regards, Vogone talk 15:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the bug. I made a more clear description (I think) of how to reproduce it. Byrial (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The bug is closed as fixed yesterday. Now we just have to wait for the fixed code to be deployed here. Byrial (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Two concerns about recent deletions

Hi all.

When the project was first starting up I remember it being discussed that if there were two items and one was a duplicate of the other, that the newer item be deleted. So if both Q4000 and Q8000 were of the musician Yanni, even in Q8000 was more developed, we'd merge the content from Q8000 into Q4000 and delete Q8000. This doesn't seem to be happening anymore.

Additionally, admins are deleting duplicate pages without making sure that all of the information made it over. I strongly suggest that admins all get the LabelLister gadget and check to make sure that all of the labels and descriptions made it over. I know that they're not because I'd move them over and come back to see that the items were deleted by another admin while I was doing the moving.

I know that sometimes we just get a torrent of deletions coming at once, but we've got to be careful to do things right. Please and thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not the fastest deleter, and that's a good thing. I verify each item before I delete it, and I highly encourage all other admins to do so too. In general, you can never be completely sure of the requestor's word, so you must do this verification.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can speak to the first comment and that that's in many cases, it's "1 link on this item" for the earlier item and "10 links on this other item" for the later item. One is much easier to deal with than the other. Even cases of 4 links vs. 6 links... I still see it as much easier to nuke the one with 4 links.

As for making sure information moves, there's information associated with the links (see label/description) and then there's information associated with the claims. I would trout the admin who doesn't make sure the latter type of information gets moved. But the former? That's an absolute pain to ensure with or without LabelLister. (Unless you know something I don't.) We probably need to ping the gadget dev or possibly even the Wikibase extension team to make it easier to mass change these parameters. I can see the pain that we're going to feel when we get to the point where there are more than 5 claims and 20 links on a particular item and we decide to merge it elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I always verify the item first, and then I delete it. The verifying part before the deletion is always done by me with the LabelLister gadget. Aswell I use the history of the item I delete to be completely sure I don't make a mistake. In rare cases I make a mistake and then correct it myself. --Wiki13 _talk 17:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as deleting the higher number goes, I don't think I was present when that was decided, but I don't think thats worth it anymore. To start with, the numbers are completely arbitrary. It should really be about how much effort it takes. If Q7million has 2 claims with sources and a few sitelinks, and Q5million has one sitelinks, it makes much more sense to delete the 5 million since it's less work to merge that way. Legoktm (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the older a number the more likely it is being reused by external users. This might not be an issue right now, but it could become one in the future. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be more cautious with the first 10,000 since they may have some historical value, but the rest is indeed not so much important.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good point Izno, one that I forgot. bug 38664 and bugzilla:38962 both deal with implementing redirects so that it wouldn't be an issue. Legoktm (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I know about the bugs, and I personally concerns about them. But that's an issue for sometime else. :) --Izno (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I created Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Hazard-Bot 8 about a week ago to help with merging, but so far there has not been any consensus for it. Please see details there. Hazard-SJ ✈ 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the help it is written that generally the item with bigger Q-number must be deleted but " if a lot of work could be saved by merging to a higher Q####, this is also acceptable" --Michgrig (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop Special:Contributions/Sk!dbot

~~Please stop Special:Contributions/Sk!dbot until User_talk:Sk!d#Please_leave_q4167410_on_disambiguation_pages is resolved. -- Docu at 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)~~

Withdrawn. It seems to be done following a discussion at Property_talk:P107#Q11651459. -- Docu at 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Full protection of main page

It has come to my attention that the full protection of Wikidata:Main Page is disputed by administrators, so I'm seeking the feedback of the community as a whole. Arguments in favor include the size of our project and the visibility while the arguments against include the discouragement of constructive good-faith edits to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who weren't aware, the Main Page was vandalized today by a long-term abuser who has done a lot of template vandalism on the English Wikipedia. We don't want to mess with these guys, and since by some metrics we're now the second largest wiki, I think it's time that we full protect the Main Page and all transcluded templates. I've left Wikidata:News on semiprotection since there are legitimate reasons for non-admins to edit that, but it has also been added to the #cvn-wikidata bots. --Rs chen 7754 07:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

«the free knowledge base with 110,013,187 items that anyone can edit»... --Ricordi samoa 08:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit spurious, because all the wikis of our size (that "anyone can edit") fullprotect the Main Page, and the Main Page is not an item in the knowledge base. --Rs chen 7754 08:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The Main Page wasn't vandalized. Template:Main Page/Header was vandalized, and I have no objection to the protection there, since its content is more-or-less static. The Main Page wasn't vandalized, because it was already protected. If and when people care about trolling us enough that they're willing to game autoconfirmed to vandalize the main page, then we can fully protect it, but otherwise this is the kind of administrative overreaction that trolls live for: Hindering the free editing ability of other good-faith users by keeping us in fear. I edited the main page numerous times as a non-admin, and other users have as well. There have been a handful of test edits to it, but those were all before we increased the autoconfirmation requirements. I propose that we downgrade the protections of the main page and Template:MainPageLanguages to semi-protection, and that in the future we avoid fully protecting pages when there's no plausible reason to believe that semi-protection wouldn't work. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

People game autoconfirmed all the time on Wikimedia sites - that's what sleeper accounts do. --Rs chen 7754 08:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PinkAmpersand about not overdoing things. I'm not sure if it's possible, but I think that the idea middle for the main page would be something along the lines of "you can edit this page if you've been given autopatrolled". My only concern with that is that it might change how liberally autopatrolled is given, which would be bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say they can't. I said they haven't. The only effort put into today's "long-term abuse" vandalism spree was coming up with the font styling for the new text. If that guy decides to come back and do 50 edits and wait 4 days, then we can talk. Until then, I think my point stands. (Of course, if he does 50 edits and disrupts the main page for all of a minute or two, that might be a net-positive.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to move the protection back to semi, but I clearly think that this is the wrong decision here. After you've seen hackers go to the lengths of running dictionary attacks against enwiki sysop accounts just to edit the Main Page, and seeing the enwiki Main Page transcluded in 5 pages just to get 5 pages worth of cascading protection, you never look at the page the same way again. This makes gaming autoconfirmed look like nothing, honestly. Considering that starting today we will be hosting data for the English Wikipedia, we will soon be attracting all the socks and LTAs that enwiki has. So I'm going to go ahead and do this, but it is not my responsibility to fix things should the page get vandalized again and again. --Rs chen 7754 08:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia won't be hosting data from Wikipedia until the RfC finishes, which will take some time. Plus, we've been one click away via the interwikis for a while. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to pile on here (I did this immediately before Rschen's post), but in the interest of full disclosure, I just un-RevDel'd the GNAA edits. I think we admins sometimes forget how many people we're hiding something from when we use that tool, and in my opinion four simple letters just aren't disruptive enough to warrant that. Has the GNAA serially disrupted Wikimedia activities for years? Yes. Is the phrase "GNAA" disruptive enough to hide from 99% of our active users? I'd say no. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally against moving back to semi-protection. Main page is THE most visible page par excellence, it would be a huge mistake to reduce protection. I suggest to think about it ten times, and then not do it. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 08:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Pink, I know you feel strongly about this, and I know you've ragequit, but you cannot just revert Rschen without asking first. The only reason why I'm not reinstating the revdeletions is that it would constitute wheel warring, but I feel that your actions were totally inappropriate and should be reverted. You were told in the Wikidata admin IRC channel by multiple other admins that your actions were improper and the revdeletions were justified, and I told you many times, in what I feel was a reasonable fashion to self-revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with PinkAmpersand, that it was not so disruptive, that it should be hidden. But you should discuss first before doing un-RevDels. --Stryn (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually malicious HTML or CSS code like that (which sometimes can block out the entire page like the SOPA blackout) is revdel-ed out of courtesy for the poor user (admin or non-admin) who stumbles on the diff. --Rs chen 7754 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Noting that PinkAmpersand has blocked himself for 5 days. --Rs chen 7754 09:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to apologize for that. I will admit I was the main arguer with him on IRC and, while I was right in most cases, I took the arguing quite a bit overboard. That he had to ragequit was an unfortunate result of the increased channel temperature resulting from that argument. After all, I believe consensus in favor of my view will be gained here anyways.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be calling some people out here; I don't like being this confrontational on a public noticeboard, but this just needs to be said.

The primary problem that I'm seeing here is not revision deletion, or protecting or unprotecting the main page, but a refusal by PinkAmpersand to consult other admins before undoing their administrative actions. While 1 revert may technically be "allowed" on many wikis, it is common courtesy to ask the admin first before undoing their actions. In this case, you did not consult the community prior to carrying out this admin action. This is a concerning pattern of behavior to have in an admin. As a Wikidata administrator, you are given certain technical powers, and are allowed to use them within policy, but you are still bound by the consensus of the community; you cannot decide that you know better than everyone else and make a rogue action. That being said, I am not advocating for a desysop at this time, because we are all human and make mistakes, and should be granted the opportunity to learn from our mistakes. I know that I've made plenty of mistakes as an admin and am grateful that I was not desysopped right then and there, and it would be hypocritical of me to recommend otherwise.

Another failure that I'm noticing in the above conversation is the failure to respect one another's viewpoints. We all come from different wikis with very different policies. We need to be able to listen to one another and respect each other's views; that is one of the necessary realities of a crosswiki project like Wikidata. Speaking for myself, I felt quite marginalized in the above discussion and felt that my opinion did not matter. I've been an admin on the English Wikipedia for over seven years (longer than many of our admins here were even editing any WMF site) and while a) I don't like pulling out the tenure card and b) I don't like rejecting new ideas just because they're new ideas, I don't feel that I should be completely drowned out by people shouting "Anyone can EDIT!" either. Sannita has been an admin at the Italian Wikipedia for 6 years and feels the same way.

Over the last few days, even before this happened, I have become quite dismayed at the level of discourse taking place in #wikidata-admin; there has been too much cabal-like behavior similar to that which #wikipedia-en-admins was accused of years back, and granting everyone the right to edit anyone else's flags is not working out too well either. "Professional" and "diplomatic" are two words that do not describe what has been going on there lately. Something needs to change.

Pink, I think blocking yourself was an overreaction and was unnecessary, and I (and I am sure several others) would be willing to unblock you if you so desire. However, if you choose to remain blocked for the remainder of the 5 days, we will respect that decision, and welcome you back at the end of it. --Rs chen 7754 11:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably, it's time to develop the rule about Wheel wars? --Michgrig (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess so.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, rules shouldn't have to exist for things that are common sense. -- Cheers, Riley 14:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Only a brief note to confirm what Rschen says: I share his opinion about the situation, but I do hope too that Pink will get over his anger, and come back with more energy, since all this issue is not a fundamental one. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not really common sense: For example, in Russian Wikipedia, unless things changed over the last two years, the first revert of an admin action is considered a wheelwarring, and an admin can lose the flag over it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And if it is common sense, then that's the best kind of stuff to put in a policy/guideline! That way we don't have to apply common sense ourselves and can instead tell someone "hey, please don't do that because we think it doesn't make any sense to do that". --Izno (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Why not something like "Admin actions should not be undone without first discussing with the community, or unless they were unmistakeably and unambiguously in error. Repeated violations of this principle may lead to a request for deysop."? --Rs chen 7754 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good IMO. --Stryn (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds terrible, IMO.
If an action is contested, it should be possible for the status quo to be easily restored. The ability of an admin to restore the status quo surely makes it easier for more adventurous admins to try to be bold – if this safeguard isn't there, the community would soon come up with relatively restrictive controls on what admins can and cannot do. As I elude to in the previous sentence, I'm all for admins trying to be bold. If an admin can do something out of the ordinary to the benefit of Wikidata without kicking up a drama, fantastic. But the default method of contested change should be consensus, not a messy fait accompli (which would happen if no admin could revert another's actions, and in the resulting discussion there was no consensus either way). —WFC— 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
And that basically summarizes what is wrong with the English Wikipedia, where bold actions and bold undos have been one of the primary sparks in the drama war that is still going to this day. --Rs chen 7754 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been a firm believer that Wikidata, being highly multi-cultural, can work with multiple viewpoints, and I've always hoped that we could resolve everything by the synthesis of multiple view points. However bitter I feel doing so, I must agree that although the admin channel is often very productive, it sometimes produces undesirable results. Still being burnt out, I'm likely going to take a break from most admin actions and take a break from IRC, at least for the rest of today. That I dominated the discussion with Pink in the channel is my fault and probably shouldn't have happened. Like Rschen I do not think Pink deserves to be desysopped, and I frankly believe that I kinda stepped on his feet a bit too much, but I was really dismayed with his actions, and thoughts of swallowing a bitter pill and voting in a future desysop discussion were my nightmare last night. I believe he has the potential to be a good admin, but I was extremely disappointed last night, not just at him, but also at how we failed to work this out well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of principle, I am never on IRC (with the exception of scheduled meetings, I participated several times as a member of several committees), because one of the basic principles of Wikimedia projects is transparency. This is why administrative decisions should never be taken on IRC and should be always documented on-wiki. I am realistic, and I do not think that IRC can be prohibited or whatever, though I generally do not approve when some people come here merely to build a social network, but in any case transparency should be there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that IRC, when used appropriately, is a net positive, but conduct needs to remain professional. Much of the conversation over the last few days has not been that way. --Rs chen 7754 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel this discussion is now getting a bit off topic, we can leave the main page protection as it is for now unless something new occurs further down the line. IRC isn't going to go anywhere and as Rschen7754 said above it is a positive when used appropriately. All big decisions should have some kind documentation and discussion on wiki. I would hope that wikidata tries to use common sense when issues like this arise in the future, which to a point they have above. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

¨

vandalism by 85.19.187.21

See Special:Contributions/85.19.187.21; I've reverted it already. -- Phoebe (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Legoktm (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Rollbacklink en suédoise

Change: MediaWiki:Rollbacklink/sv -> "återställ", please! It's shorter and take less space, but means the same as "rulla tillbaka". Both sv.wikisource and sv.wikivoyage prefer "återställ" while sv.wikipedia uses "rulla tillbaka". -- Lavallen (block) 11:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Task force page not being listed

I created: Wikidata:Stratigraphy_task_force, but it doesn't show up in the list Wikidata:Task_forces. Did I break something? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, the page just needed purging. Legoktm (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful ;), thanks --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it needs purging again. Space and Pokemon task force are not showing up. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Space is there. Pokemon is under Video games. Frigid Ninja 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But not here Wikidata:Community_portal ? --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Exclude sandbox from Abuse filter

I think we can exclude item Q4115189 from abuse filter 13, 14 and 15, for not create false positive and not mislead the new user who want to do only a test. Maybe also filter 8, 10, 11 (private, don't know exactly), 17 and 18 can be excluded. --β₁₆ - (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done--Vituzzu (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I'd like all of You to review my sysop action: protecting Q4654783.

I did it for very high number of frequent vandalism/test edits by anonymous users; probably they come from en:Wikipedia:Contact us or something like.

Do you agree with that action, or would you have changed the protection level/expiration date? --Ricordi samoa 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

PS it had already about 6-7 rollbacks... --Ricordi samoa 15:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay for me. Regards, Vogone talk 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's OK with me. I think this action is similar to my own protection of Q4395506.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Q4654925

Can someone protect Q4654925, it's getting huge amounts of vandalism? ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 21:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi Protected for 3 months. Techman224^Talk 21:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Q9319800

Please restore Q9319800, links to Q148224. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect Q3945

Important page, recent heavy vandalism. ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 17:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done for 2 weeks. Regards, Vogone talk 17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oversight nominations

The following users are running for oversighter access, and the global policy on the right requires these notifications. See Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight for voting pages.