Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2013/05

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

Q10336931

Please, merge Q10336931 (only pt link, delete it) to Q738906. Thanks. Jonas kam (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done  Hazard-SJ  ✈  05:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Q8706977 and Q9104771

Should these 2 entries be merged? I think they probably should (the only language in common between these entries is English, and these categories were merged), but I'm not sure. Od Mishehu (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be merged, and also with some of the sitelinks from Q8490908 (it has some links to categories for German tourist routes, others to categories for all tourist routes, I don't understand what the Polish and Japanese categories are for). PS. This is not a discussion for administrators, but for all users, so it is misplaced here. Byrial (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This should preferentially be placed on WD:IC. That said, this is a trivial merge, and to fix those you should follow Help:Merge. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark pages for translation

Please mark these pages for translation:

• Wikidata:Roads task force/Germany
• Wikidata:Roads task force/Germany/Bundesautobahn
• Wikidata:Roads task force/Germany/Bundesstraße

--Labant (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

We now have a translations noticeboard at WD:TN, so probably best to ask there. Legoktm (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for information --Labant (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Q3181578

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 47214

According to Toronto Blue Jays, the page about their manager, John Gibbons, has been deleted. However, it does not appear deleted to me. What is the problem? AutomaticStrikeout 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that problem also. --Izno (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. No luck with purging, nor with removing and restoring. (Actually, when I did that it showed up the right way at first, but was listed as deleted again when I refreshed the page.) I tried both adding it as a number and using the dropdown menu, and neither worked. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, if you click "edit" and then "cancel", the same thing will happen: It'll show up linked at first, but not work anymore once you hit refresh. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing and re-adding the property worked. --  Docu  at 20:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

At least it appeared that way .. aaaaaaaaah --  Docu  at 20:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Three different browsers, logged in, logged out, removed, rolledback in, and I still see it showing as a "deleted item" every time. Huh... Courcelles (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is bugzilla:47214. Legoktm (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Walbertus

Moved from Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walbertus
• http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3435452

and

• http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3553492#sitelinks

--Lidewij C J. (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, but please note that this is the bureaucrats' noticeboard, not the administrators' noticeboard. --Rschen7754 09:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wulfthrith and Wulfthryth en Wulfrida

De sitekoppeling nlwiki:Wulfthrith wordt al gebruikt door het item Q1927072.

> > Q3570158 Wulfthryth en Wulfrida --Lidewij C J. (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain in plain English. --Ricordisamoa 17:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved Lidewij C J. was reporting an interwiki conflict between Q1927072 and Q3570158. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 18:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sk!dbot

I would like to bring the administrators' attention to my message to Sk!dbot today. Between 17:05 and 19:22 on May 5, the bot created several thousand entries for the articles of Hungarian Wikipedia. These articles did not have the traditional interwiki links, so Sk!dbot created a single entry for all of them without checking whether a suitable entry had already been created where these articles could have been linked to. This resulted in a great number of duplicates. To make things worst these duplicates can only be identified by manually and tediously checking the articles one by one, and, only by a native speaker of Hungarian language. Therefore - in addition to blocking Sk!dbot - I suggest to delete all these recent entries created by Sk!dbot, so that our editors can add the Wikidata links from scratch. I can see no other way of solving this chaos the bot has created. Csigabi (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocking the bot at the moment is not preferred. The bot owner has been notified and the bot has been stopped on huwiki. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What about deleting all the entries? Who is going to fix all this mess? Csigabi (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are native, if you could produce a duplicate list that would be great, however we have an admin who is going to try and determine which items are duplicates and delete them. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to list all the contributions of the bot which affected hu langlinks? --Tgr (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be a good solution to delete all recently created Wikidata pages consisting of a single hu langlink and not having any other langlink.

79.122.45.122 06:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jigarrynorea

Hey guys! Another request for having my action reviewed by someone. I blocked indefinitely the above user, since (s)he doesn't seem to have made constructive contributions and frequently spammed his/her own talk page (my first block!) Could (s)he have spammed other wikis? --Ricordisamoa 12:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: (s)he edited once again his/her talk page, so I've sent another warning... --Ricordisamoa 12:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The block is valid. This appears to be cross-wiki vandalism/spam. Really, if they edit their talkpage again, remove talkpage access is valid in my opinion. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Account is locked. No further action is needed. Regards, Vogone talk 12:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Alternate accounts vs. Wikidata:Sock puppetry

There are two pages about the same subject, both contain more or less the same content. However the first one seems to me more sophisticated. Delete one of these and redirect to the other?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As they are both currently proposed perhaps have an rfc including details from both to come up with a final page? As there has already been an unsuccessful RFC indeed we should just get rid of one by merging them ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

we also should stop further translations of the pages until it is decided.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I blame the translation administrators who are marking unstable revisions (= proposed policies) for translation, as this is completely counter-productive and against all existing tool guidelines. Regards, Vogone talk 15:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to draft some guidelines if the translation admins are still causing problems with their actions. We do not have a local copy of any translation guidelines, so how can you say that it is against all existing tool guidelines and have it apply here? :) --Izno (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

True, and good idea. But I meant the general suggestions on meta and MediaWiki. Currently, every translation admin here is supposed to read them before requesting or self-granting the right. ;-) Kind regards, Vogone talk 16:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should proprosals not be allowed to be translated? The pages are clearly marked as proposed policies, so neither readers nor translators should be fooled about what they reading respective translating. There was a RFC about Wikidata:Sock puppetry. If it is translated, users who don't speak English well will be able to better understand what is proposed. So I completely fail to see why the translation admins should be "causing trouble" by preparing and marking these pages translation. Byrial (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's simple. If a single suggestion is made, there often occur major changes. Thus, marking such a page for translation would de facto invalidate all previous work. If you think, translations of a proposal are really needed, you should not use the extension, anyway. It just causes loads of work for admins and translators and there is very low benefit. That's the reason why only stable revisions should be translated via the extension. Regards, Vogone talk 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the translation admins do consider the stableness of a page before marking it for translation. I generally wait some days after a change to see if there is follow-up changes.

• Wikidata:Sock puppetry was last edited for content at March 25 and not since. It was first marked for translation at April 7.
• Wikidata:Alternate accounts was last edited for content at April 7 (with some very minor changes at April 8) and not since. It was also marked for translation at April 7 and 8 (by the last contributor).

So there isn't a lot of changes here causing high work loads on the translators. Besides the translators can see that is a proposal when they start translating these pages, and is able to judge if they will risk to translate something that maybe does only last for a short time, and what the benefit might be. Why should we deny them to decide for themselves, if they think it is a good way to use their time or not? So in my opinion it is not as simple as you say. It is basically about who are best fit to decide how the translators use their time. I say that it is the translators, especially because it is their time we are talking about. Regards, Byrial (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Both pages are nothing totaly new, there is a policy in every language and policies differ in the different languages only in minor issues. If we want to have a multilanguage project, we must enable the participation of every language and therefore it is necessary to translate also drafts and proposals at an early stage. I´d like to see more pages marked at an early stage for translation. The problem is not unstable versions, the problem is two proposals at the same time. Both have a french and a danish translation, so it is double work. One is translated into Gujarati, the other into Georgian. So if you want to merge, we run into trouble, because I know none of them. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The former (Wikidata:Alternate accounts) was created due to feedback from some users in Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sock puppetry. The newer version was created in order to better address those opposers' concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• MF-Warburg has histmerged them. Regards, Vogone talk 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Now all translations are gone! Can someone restore Wikidata:Alternate accounts/de or move the sourcecode to my userppage so i can revive the translation.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I second that with my translations for Wikidata:Sock puppet/gu in gu.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are there no Hungarian-speaking admins

Just out of curiosity (and sorry to wander off-topic): why doesn't Wikidata have any Hungarian-speaking admins? Huwiki is not only a thriving medium-sized Wikimedia project, it was also the first one to integrate Wikidata. Yet when the Hungarian Wikipedia community has a language-dependent issue related to Wikidata, a translator needs to be brought in just to explain to the admins what the problem is. Has no-one from among the Hungarian wikipedians volunteered? And if that's the case, are we making an effort to reach out to them for a qualified candidate? Malatinszky (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody has been denied Permission to be sysop, only because (s)he speak hungarian. I do not think it is enough to only be Hungarian to be a good sysop. Try to find somebody who has been here some time, and who know how things work, and you think can be a good sysop. In the Swedish part of Wikidata, a no/da-speaking sysop is "close enough", but there is no language who is "close enough" for the hungarian community, I'm afraid. -- Lavallen (block) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bináris was an admin but did not pass reconfirmation. By all means, if any Hungarian speaker has experience with Wikidata (say several hundred edits), is reasonably active here and wants to be sysop, they absolutely should run an RfA.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe User:Csigabi would be a strong candidate. I notice by looking at his talk page that he's been recruited; here's hoping that he's interested in the job. Malatinszky (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive attitude to my faux naive question above. I'm not claiming an anti-Hungarian bias, but I do feel that it would be important for every reasonably large Wikimedia project (say, 100k articles and above) to be represented on Wikidata by an admin speaking the language of that project (as well as English). I think this is an important enough goal that we should not be satisfied by declaring that there is no anti-XXX bias, but we should actively reach out to unrepresented Wikipedia communities, and encourage them to identify suitable candidates.

I am increasingly uncomfortable discussing this issue here, where it is arguably off-topic. If you think the problem merits discussion and can suggest a more suitable place to talk about it, I'll be happy to move the conversation there. --Malatinszky (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but from Swedish-speaking point of view, I think it is enough for us to have two Norwegian-speaking sysops. Norwegian, Swedish and Danish users normally understand each other well, even if it's not perfect. -- Lavallen (block) 15:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe User:Stryn can help. He is a native speaker of finnish. There are similarities to hungarian so he migt be able to help as long as there is no native speaking admin. On the other hand we have lots of other wikipedias who don´t have a native speaking Admin either.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No... Finnish is a completely different language than Hungarian, they are just distantly related to each other. I don't understand Hungarian at all, so I can't help about this. --Stryn (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want a Hungarian speaking admin, find someone that speaks Hungarian and recruit them to run (which it appears is already happening). I have serious problems with the statement "I do feel that it would be important for every reasonably large Wikimedia project (say, 100k articles and above) to be represented on Wikidata by an admin speaking the language of that project" because that's essentially affirmative action. Wikidata has (intentionally) kept its standards for adminship in edits and tenure very low, and they are possibly the lowest out of any large project. It shouldn't be that hard to find someone who meets our standards, and if it is, roll up your sleeves and start editing and in 3 or 4 months, run for adminship yourself. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 --Rschen7754 21:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Q744748

This item, (en:George Bush Intercontinental Airport) is linked to Tamil Wikipedia (ta:ஜார்ஜ் புஷ் கண்டமிடை வானூர்தி நிலையம்) oneway only. that is one is able to go to tamil article from english page and tamil page is not showing any links. Kindly resolve and post your comments for future guidance.--Rsmn (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Purge helped. --Stryn (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Rsmn (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Making yourself a flooder to delete multiple pages

Is there a point in this? I've seen it done twice now. Last I checked the deletion log doesn't show up in RecentChanges, so basically all you accomplish by doing this is hiding your actions from anyone who happens to have any of the pages watchlisted. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pink, check it again. Deletion log definitely shows up. --Bill william compton (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm dumb. Forgot that I have my preferences set to hide patrolled edits. Okay, that answers half my question. Still not sure about the watchlisting part of it. I guess it's okay if you're only deleting pages that have never been edited by humans, though. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the watchlist is awesome enough to monitor bot-marked deletions by default. ;-) Vogone talk 12:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We cannot make exception for each and every case there is. Many deletion requests, like deprecated templates, outdated translations, etc, will always be on someone's watch. I believe admins are prudent enough to use the bit properly. But I agree with your last part of bot edited pages. --Bill william compton (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, also bot edits are visible on watchlist. So there is absolutely no problem at all. Regards, Vogone talk 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I hide bot edits from my watchlist. I used to watch them, because it was cool to stay up-to-date on the latest improvements in data migration through the random sampling of items I have watched, but eventually it just became a distraction. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• A related issue is how I could hide w:en:User:ProcseeBot from the English Wikipedia's block log. See bugzilla:19322. It's about time it got resolved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Our RC is so flooded anyway that there is no point to the flooder right in general. Shame I wasn't around to oppose its creation. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted items which are used as value for claims

Hi, I found several deleted items which are used as value in claims in the database dump from May 5. I suggest to check Special:WhatLinksHere before deleting. The list is here. BTW I found none deleted items used in qualifiers or references. Regards, Byrial (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I already dealt with one request via IRC. Since there appears to be more it may be a habit that admins really don't check what links here. I shall go through and un delete items as appropriate which may be more or less all of them. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 Undeleted John F. Lewis (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

in many cases it should be enough to look at the reason for deletion to see if they are merged with another item. --Akkakk 15:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A few were merged/dups. They were left as they obviously should have been deleted. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Please note that we currently have a backlog.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Has been cleared, not by me. Courcelles (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Property creation request

Could anyone process and create properties for ISO 4217 code and central bank? These are proposed over 15 days ago, and there are no major oppositions and data for these properties are unambiguous. I think these two properties are eligible for creation. Thank you. Kwj2772 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Hazard-SJ. John F. Lewis (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

vandalism by 27.141.63.60

See Special:Contributions/27.141.63.60. Japanse/日本語　「日本語」において、名誉棄損・中傷の記載。犯罪・性器(penis)関連の記載。--Los688 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through and deleted the summaries that I thought inappropriate using Google Translate, but please let me know (on my talkpage) if there are more as I do not understand the language. User blocked. --Rschen7754 10:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism...

...by Special:Contributions/82.16.198.240. Stop him! Punish him! Block him! Littledogboy (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked for 31 hours. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Second thought, I probably blocked to quickly. I have unblocked and will reblock if the IP conducts similar if not the same activity. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And if you think blockage is a punishment like an arrest, it's not. Blocks are only done to prevent disruption, not punish users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Block FischBot?

This bot is adding duplicate values and its operator doesn't answer since yesterday (see here). I dont know if blocking it is the best solution, but since it's adding lots of duplicate claims, it should be corrected quickly and all the duplicates removed. Thanks. Ayack (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as it's only happening occasionally, I'm personally hesitant to block. Obviously Pyfisch will be expected to clean up any errors the bot's created, but minor glitches in bots like this are fairly routine; let's give xem a few more days to respond. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If theire are no more than the reported duplicates, I do not think that I have to stop the bot. If you want me to stop it, I will interrupt it until the error is solved. --Pyfisch (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The bug should be solved. If theire are many new duplicates after now, block the bot, I will be at least away until 8:00 UTC. --Pyfisch (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

block 84.228.46.9

repeatedly removed legitimate ice hockey related iw. DGtal (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've re-warned him. IMHO a block isn't necessary for now. --Ricordisamoa 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Q44810

Can someone semi-protect Q44810, lots of IPs have been messing around with it. Honestly, I have no idea how this edit to it stood for almost 2 months . ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 18:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Only 1 IP has touched it in the last week... Legoktm (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection is definitely not justified here. Only 4 IPs have touched it at all over the past 3 months.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ehm... --Ricordisamoa 22:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't even agree with that protection, although it's much more justifiable because the vandalism rate was higher, with the vandalism much more recent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Not enough vandalism. Definitely should be monitored, though. Watchlist it if you haven't already. I'll stalk it in ##PinkAmpersand^connect, like I do with a bunch of other intermittently-vandalized pages. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

 reverted. --Ricordisamoa 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. My comment was re Kjc2, but probably the right call there too. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Move pages

Please move these pages without leaving redirection:

• User:Vivaelcelta/MediaWiki:Gadget-CommonsMedia/gl → MediaWiki:Gadget-CommonsMedia/gl
• User:Vivaelcelta/MediaWiki:Gadget-CommonsMedia/es → MediaWiki:Gadget-CommonsMedia/es
• User:Vivaelcelta/MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl/gl → MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl/gl
• User:Vivaelcelta/MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl/es → MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl/es

--Vivaelcelta (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Stryn (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

World Cup 2010 (talk • contribs • logs) removed many links from several pages, but his contributions are not easy to revert, because some links are used elsewhere. I am afraid repairing will be for longer time (which I have not now). JAn Dudík (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

They've not edited for 24 hours so I'm not sure what effect the 24 hour block will have. Secretlondon (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From the two I've looked at it looks like an incompetent attempt to move a fa: link from a disambiguation page to another page (by deleting all the other links too) Secretlondon (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you make an item Q13207103? I was going to revert user's edits in Q154614. --Stryn (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• What I see here is a lack of communication. The user should have at least been warned, and when blocked, notified of it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to catch up with his contribs. He's trying to fix the links to fa.wiki, but he's definitely making a mess. He's merging items, but he doesn't bring the properties. In another case, he was trying to fix a conflict, but he forgot to fix the disambiguation item. I don't think it can be called vandalism, since he's trying to edit in good faith, but he definitely needs some help in editing.

I would have not adviced to block him, but to talk to him first and explain him how to merge items. Anyway, let's try to talk to him and later we can think of another block, if he continues to mess with items. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I must be crazy...

I actually went and created the "official" anthem of the Wikidata Admin Corps. Lyrics:

♫ We're the Wikidata admin corps ♫

♫ We love having more work to do ♫

♫ Isn't that what we're here for? ♫

♫ Although I guess we do other things too ♫

♫ Don't worry, we don't think it's a chore! ♫

♫ The ones who deserve thanks are you ♫

♫ We're the Wikidata admin corps ♫

♫ And we love having more work to do! ♫

Inspired by the "Empty items" section above. I hope you enjoy it! Regards, FrigidNinja 21:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

moved to File talk:Wikidata admin anthem.ogg --Akkakk 10:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Message documentation for translatable messages in MediaWiki namespace

There are a few translatable texts which only can be translated by administrators. I suggest to create message documentation pages for these messages, like this:

The messages in the message group [[Special:Translate/translate-workflow-states|Workflow states]] are in the MediaWiki namespace, and can therefore only be translated by an administrator. Please ask for new or changed translations at an administrator speaking the language or the [[Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard|Administrators' noticeboard]].

I ask an administrator to add this documentation message or similar to the 6 messages, as that also only be done by one. You can go to the Workflow states message group, and then use Add description for each message to do it. Thank you, Byrial (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. --Stryn (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And now I've converted this message into a translatable template. So please replace the same messages with {{Autotranslate|base=Workflowstatedoc}} --Michgrig (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... it does not work if language in settings is English. --Stryn (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why but FuzzyBot did not create the /en subpage of this page. Now I've edited the translation and the bot did it. --Michgrig (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is done now. --Stryn (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Sorry for me not having done this before the first round of changes. --Michgrig (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

protection of high usage pages

i would like to propose the indefinite semi-protection of properties and items that are used more than 100.000 times. any opinions? --Akkakk 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of indefinite protection except when it's absolutely necessary. q328 would qualify for protection under your scheme, however a lot of first time users are doing good work with translations there. Protecting it would mean we lose those people's help, possibly project wide (if it is indeed their starting point, they may not realize that only that page is protected). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not against semi-protecting properties and items that get a lot of vandalism, but I don't think we should semi-protect them at all except for in those cases, because that ends up doing more harm than good. TCN7JM 20:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could selectively semi-protect certain parts of an item or property. FallingGravity (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be the preferred solution. I'm pretty sure there is a bug out there for it, just can't find it. Legoktm (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this would actually be incredibly useful. For instance, most items rarely get their links vandalized, and conversely, requests to add links are probably the most common type of edit-semi-protected request. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how often is semi-protection/full protection used now and how much vandalism has to happen to an item for any kind of protection to be considered? TCN7JM 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See Special:ProtectedPages (pages protected now) and Special:Log/protect (protection log) for how often used. Byrial (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Q7564725 & Q13115221

Please merge Q7564725 & Q13115221. They are the same article in two different languages. I do not know how two pages were created. --Sreejithk2000 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Merged and deleted John F. Lewis (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Empty items

There are loads of empty items that fail WD:N in Hazard-bot's contribs here that have never been reported to RfD in Bulk Deletion Requests. Would appreciate any help with going through the list and deleting the items that are now empty due to the only article being deleted from Wikipedia. Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Awww that's my favorite secret way to rack up my deletion stats. Now everyone will be doing it. :( Jk, no, that's a good idea. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thought I was the only one! Hazard-bot usually reports them to RfD, but I'm not sure why most don't get reported properly. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The empty items date back weeks. Is there a bot that could make a list of empty items? Obviously a few will be exempt from WD:N, but most are just waiting for deletion and it would save a lot of time searching through Hazard-bot's contribs. Legobot used to report empty items to RfD until this month. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

At User:Byrial/Empty items you will find a list of 6047 items with no sitelinks, no statements, and no uses as value in either claims, qualifiers or sources, made from the database dump at 5 May. I cannot guarantee that they are still empty. Byrial (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Legobot has been dead in the water due to a combination of replag and the toolserver taking a dump. Whenever it comes back up I can try a run. Legoktm (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I could add them I found to WD:RFD in batches of say 80-100 items using {{subst:Rfd group}}. Should I do that?. Byrial (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2013‎

If you've got the time to add them, we've got the time to delete them. "We love having more work to do" is, after all, the motto of the Wikidata admin corps. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it won't take much time to make the list. PS. Sorry about the unclosed nowiki. Byrial (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hehe no worries. You just happened to pick one of the worst tags to leave unclosed. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

♫ We're the Wikidata admin corps ♫

♫ We love having more work to do ♫

♫ Isn't that what we're here for? ♫

♫ Although I guess we do other things too ♫

♫ Don't worry, we don't think it's a chore! ♫

♫ The ones who deserve thanks are you ♫

♫ We're the Wikidata admin corps ♫

♫ And we love having more work to do! ♫

--FrigidNinja 01:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

, anybody? ;) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Wut. WE HAVE A THEME SONG?! YES! --Izno (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WD:RFD couldn't take more than about the first 1000 items before template include size was exceeded, but you have something to start now. More will follow when there is room for it. Byrial (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to excessive page load times, I've moved the request to WD:Requests for deletions/Bulk and WD:Requests for deletions/Bulk/2. Others can feel free to continue that numbering—forty batches a page sounds good. Please note that I don't intend this to be for most bulk deletion requests... just the ones with more than a few hundred items. Incidentally, Byrial, just so you know, {{Rfd group}} can take up to 120 items last I checked, and I can always crank it up higher. (Back when I made the template for cases just like this, everyone thought it was overkill. :P ) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that the best practice of dealing with these items seems to be rolling back the last edit in the history (yes, this is the abuse of the rollback flag, I know). If the links are available at some other item, the result will provide the Item Qid. If the rollback succeeds, the results should be checked: This is either accidental removal of valid links, or the links were deleted on the wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I act so, too! (The rollback won't succeed in 99.9% of the cases) --Ricordisamoa 11:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for helping to sort this backlog out! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't sorted yet! I just filled Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk and Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/2 with more empty and unused items, and I am not even halfway though my list yet. Byrial (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am currently working through the list from your page, is there any chance you could remove the redlinks from the list? If not I will try to work on this tomorrow. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed red links from start of the list, but not all way down.. I thought it was quicker to delete from the RFD/Bulk pages using the predefined delete links. Byrial (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize about the delay in my response, but I've had computer problems over the weekend. However, verifying first with the live code, I am able to say that it is currently only requesting deletion if it "wasn't already requested" (based on checks to the RfD page) and if it is "orphaned" (based on whether or not it is linked on the wiki with the deleted page; I added this around the time of the bot's RfA per request, and per previous experience, this would likely be the relevant issue here). I've just allowed it to request deletion of those which are not "orphanned" to get rid off the problem.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas of how to archive bulk requests? Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2013/Bulk Requests has exceeded template include size, and Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk and Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/2 are full, so I placed the next requests at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/3 and Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/4. Byrial (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we can archive them manually to the same archive as regular deletion requests. However what I would like to stress is that we need a better communication for bulk requests. For example, if I come and see a batch of 15 of which 12 are deleted and three are not, and otherwise there is no sign of activity, I would obviously check the remaining three. Please, if you have done it and the batch is done, mark it as done. This would save some users from unnecessary work duplication and also would make it easier to archive. Another this is that it might be good to have the list of all active bulk deletion pages somewhere (on the top of regular RfD?). Now we have four plus archive, and they became difficult to follow.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done a quick run through the whole list for the really easy to spot ones and updated User:Byrial/Empty_items where there are now only 550 links left :) Might it be worth re building the above RFD pages from these? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I cannot do that. I have my data in a local database created from the database dump, and it cannot see what you have deleted from the first list. So I don't think that handling easy ones out of order is a good idea. Byrial (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/2 was completed, and I deleted it; feel free to re-use when you need space.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/Deletions

That's it! (it was approved some time ago, but never created)

WDYT? — Nobody can measure a sysop by number of deletions, of course. --Ricordisamoa 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked by this lank--DangSunM (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Legoktm (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting to read. And by the looks of it there are more and more deletions as time goes by. Yesterday looks to have had the most RfDs of any day so far, based on the size of the archive of 184,685 bytes. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Please review this request MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-CommonsMedia.js. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done and thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Undelete request Q11755853

This page was recently deleted Q11755853 for not being "notable". I had around 15 items linked to it: Wikidata:Stratigraphy_task_force/Supergroups. I'm assuming good faith and that the editor did not know that "supergroups" are an essential part of the stratigraphic nomenclature. I am a little annoyed that the page was deleted without notice although task force pages were directly linking to the item. I don't know where the deletion policy is written up, but that should be just commons sense or bullet point 1 on that policy. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange, it seems to be a speedy deletion. Maybe the deleting administrator hasn't read notability policy lately. I notified them on their talk page. --  Docu  at 12:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC) (edited)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw it might be good if someone writes a Wikipedia article in any language.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Most wikis just have one article for the whole nomenclature en:Geological unit. But I can do some thinking on how one could expand on the topic. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has the redirect page en:Supergroup (geology) which can be linked to (whenever that become technically possible), other Wikipedias might have redirections too. Byrial (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry, it is my fault. When I deleted mass items, I added it mistakenly. I admit my mistake and I am sorry again. Sotiale (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries, stuff like that can happen ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Block User:KLBot2

A block of User:KLBot2, please, to let the owner respond to this. -- Lavallen (block) 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please?! A short block to only halt the bot is enough. I do not expect you to deflag it! -- Lavallen (block) 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally do not see a valid reason nor any good resulting in the block. John F. Lewis (talk)

The claims that the bot is adding for Swedish urban areas are wrong, and have to be reverted. They should be located in other items, related to administrative units, rather than statistical. -- Lavallen (block) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 Solved Contact with the botowner is established. -- Lavallen (block) 17:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with translation

I have asked in Translations noticeboard to remove the marking of translation. The request is already ten days unanswered. Instead, administrators mark to translate these pages again instead of deleting the translations. --Labant (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the pages was excluded from translation earlier. Now I've excluded the other. --Michgrig (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally requested too many pages to mark to translate. This has then everything becomes independent. Now I have integrated the translation subpages with {{LangSwitch}} in its mainpages. Please delete these subpages. (see Category:Wikidata:Deletion) --Labant (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Deleted The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge request

Excuse me if it's not the right place for this request:

• Q8045147 links to the same article en:Xu Yinsheng than (Q1532779) de:Xu Yinsheng & fr:Xu Yinsheng

 Done Please read Help:Merge for an instruction how to merge items. Regards, Vogone talk 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Kuyi123w

Perhaps a well-meaning user contributing dubious edits, many of which have been reverted. [2] No response to my warning, keeps editing. Probably a blockage candidate, I am afraid. Littledogboy (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think a block is necessary yet; furthermore, you have not fully explained why you think his edits are dubious; a quick scan of them reveals that most are OK. However, some of them are not. I think another warning is needed before we can block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also found that he was blocked on the English Wikipedia and have issued a warning. If this continues, he may be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a vandal, but certainly not working in the right direction. Just look at his contribs: removing sitelinks [3], adding completely wrong translations where not even necessary [4] [5] among many many others, does not react to my warning. The sooner s/he stops, the less mess to clean up, I think. Littledogboy (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped after my warning. A block will only be needed if he continues this after that warning.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I felt a certain sense of urgency looking at increasing number of edits. Thanks. Littledogboy (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently he was already blocked March 30 for 31 hours. Seeing as he hasn't learned anything, I've indefblocked. No need for us to have to waste our time having to check all of his edits. --Rschen7754 02:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WD:News

Hi

I duplicated Subj (Wikidata:News/temp), modified it for the new translation system and created subpages for translating it to all languages. Now I'd like you to move my page to the old one so that from now on the news will be synchronized in all languages (now some of the main pages show 'news' as old as December ).

Because many of the target pages already exist, the moving needs the sysop flag. Also, I think that for the sake of history preservation, the deleted edits of the existing pages need to be restored.

Thanks in advance, Michgrig (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Doing… The Anonymouse (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for having done. --Michgrig (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's one thing left. I don't know why but FuzzyBot has not moved some of the subpages of the page. For one of the languages, I created a new page but I don't think it's right. This new page cannot be deleted; I removed the translation tags from the main page but this did not unlock these subpages. What can be done here? --Michgrig (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Oh. After I removed the translation tags and restored them, all of the locked translations except for /ar have been moved to their place. Now please delete Wikidata:News/temp/ar --Michgrig (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

   Deleted Glad to see that it's fixed. The Anonymouse (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerlind vom Elsass

• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerlind_vom_Elsass
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerlindis_van_de_Elzas

--Lidewij C J. (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Respective items merged. FallingGravity (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Administrators by language

Just a page I created to easily find administrators by what given languages they speak. If there's an error, you feel like changing your level of proficiency or think of a way to improve it, feel free to edit. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it — it's a really useful page! Because I marked the page for translation, I had to move the table to a subpage. The table can still be edited by clicking the (Edit) link. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You had to move it to a subpage? Why? Marking is also possible without doing this. Regards, Vogone talk 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, every time the table is changed, FuzzyBot (talk • contribs • logs) has to update all of the translation subpages. By using a transcluded subpage, it doesn't have to do that. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's true. But FuzzyBot is never tired, it would be no problem for it to do that. ;-) Vogone talk 16:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think FuzzyBot only updates it if the page is marked for translation after the change, which would mean that every time the table would be changed, a transadmin would have to mark it for translation. But even if it does update without marking for translation, I've seen cases when FuzzyBot took a while to update the pages. By the way Wikidata:Administrators/Timeline and Wikidata:Bureaucrats/Timeline also do this — I was just copying the style. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

All right. Vogone talk 17:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, could you (or another admin) please indef semi-protect {{Smiley}} as a widely used template? There's a lot (and will be even more) of tranclusions, and I could see some IP abusing the template. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Vogone talk 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)  Done, by the way.

Thanks! The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Very informative...never knew we had one Admin with advanced level of Hindi and with primary Gujarati. Good to know (although all the admins have been equally supportive and assertive, so qualms there)...--Vyom25 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems counterintuitive (to this left-to-right reader) that "most experienced" is on the far right. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps best to switch the order. Also, as much as I love flaunting my Canadian pride, perhaps the (en, en-ca, en-gb) should all be merged into just en for the purposes of this page? :3 Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. They may be different dialects, but that doesn't matter too much on this page. TCN7JM 20:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put the languages in groups of languages with some mutual understanding? The nb/nn/da/sv-group is one for example. I cannot write in Danish/Norwegian but I can almost always read it. -- Lavallen (block) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Dialects merged and table swapped John F. Lewis (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of items

A question from the latest administrator: When I merge items, should I just delete the obsolete item immediately, or should I list it at WD:RFD for someone else to check it first (Two pairs of eyes ...). Byrial (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Do it yourself, if you trust in yourself enough. --Stryn (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've always done it by myself. You were trusted with the tools by the community, so use that trust. Someone will trout you if you make an error, and life will go on. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I'm the latest administrator! TCN7JM 17:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, then try the second link in my signature, and see if it work! -- Lavallen (block) 17:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(It does.) TCN7JM 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey yourself! I was the latest administrator when I wrote that. Since then I have merged and deleted plenty of items, when I wasn't busy developing my program to find merge candidates. (The program selects candidates for merging based on category memberships for pages in different Wikipedias attached to the same items). Byrial (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well have fun! TCN7JM 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BoulaurBot still doesn't login

I blocked twice 92.146.229.192 as being BoulaurBot not logged in. --Ricordisamoa 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A few more edits have been made. If it continues, may be appropriate for a longer third block until the bot operator solves the issue (if the issue is not already solved). John F. Lewis (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

After the block expired the bot made 3 more logged out edits. Maybe you should block it for a longer term. --Pyfisch (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocking the bot will not prevent it from making further edits while being logged out, though. Vogone talk 11:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

blocking the IP would though..... ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP was blocked several times. And we definitely are not allowed to block an IP indefinitely. Vogone talk 13:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but currently it seems rather static, although I know it is dynamic. It is a shame we could not add a specific abuse filter for such edits... ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

BeneBot*

BeneBot* has stopped marking completed deletions at WD:RfD since the 20th. Bene* hasn't edited since the 14th so may be on a wikibreak. Are there any other bot operators who can get their bots to perform this task? It is very helpful and makes the whole RfD process work much more smoothly. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to propose having multi maintainer bots for tasks, such as this, that form a part of wikidatas 'behind the scenes' functionality. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Q240126

Can someone semi-protect Q240126 as it is being heavily vandalized (12 vandals have been at the page this month alone)? --Jakob ^{Scream about} _{the things I've broken} 23:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why indefinite? If you don't mind, I'll reduce it to 3 months. Indefinite protection is only for high-visibility (non-item) pages, or when multiple long-term protections have failed to stop the vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, first time protecting a page, got to learn somehow I suppose :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Probably the best way to go, given such persistent vandalism:

• 163.179.62.9
• 163.179.62.36
• 163.179.62.116

I have already protected some of the most heavily vandalized elements, but not all of them. Opinions? Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 02:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 163.179.62.0/25 is blocked for 3 days.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The block has now been extended to the entire /24 due to further vandalism from the range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we block 10.64.0.127?

In view of the opinion of a sysadmin and the fact that editing from the address has continued, I now support such a block (and think this thread should be re-opened).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this is the ip recorded as the source of the edits, MW 'ought' to be able to do what it always does with such a block: check if the user (IP) has edit rights or not and then say 'sorry, go away'. Bear in mind that some logged-in users may seem to have that underlying address, but in theory they won't be affected as long as they are logged in. Just my two cents, -- ArielGlenn (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of traffic will pass through the squid, the big question is will blocking it break stuff..? Apparently someone has popped into irc -tech again where they can find out from the CU table the useragent of the bot so we can hunt them down. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added an edit filter to the IP which can be seen here, see its hits here

I have also added all other squid I can see that are listed as squids for the API, I have labeled all as such as we should no longer have this problem :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you ever come across an edit with what appears to be the completely wrong IP address associated with it, please file a bug report at <https://bugs.wikimedia.org>. I've filed bugzilla:48919 to track this specific issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilter 18

...is tagging almost every insertion of a property with datatype Point in time, due to frequently long sequences of zeros. --Ricordisamoa 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out digits from the filter for now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Dolichocephaly & Dolichocephale

Please merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolichocephaly and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolichoc%C3%A9phale. They are the same article in two different serie of languages. best regards Erwan1972 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. In future, you can try and do it by yourself by following the procedure described here --Michgrig (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the link Erwan1972 (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge request

Please, merge these elements: Q12912209, Q3926503, Q12738876. Qnyx77 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Do not merge! Q12912209 is a company from Hong Kong, Q3926503 is a quantum network and Q12738876 is from Romania --Pyfisch (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Info Additionally this is not the right place to request merge, you have to check, if the items are about the same topic and then merge them. After this you should file a request for deletion, for the merged items. See also Help:Merge, WD:RfD --Pyfisch (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

incorrect name in Yate Fortuna

The two articles in this element (Q587940), is written about Yate Fortuna (2000), but alredy exist other "Yate Fortuna" (see dissambiguation page in spanish wikipedia [6] and about 1979 ship [7]).

Los dos artículos del elemento Q587940 (wikipedias en español y portugues), hablan sobre el buque que entró en servicio en el año 2000, pero en wikipedia en español, hay artículo sobre el buque de 1979, así como una desambiguación en la que se listan los "yates reales" con dicho nombre.

Takashi kurita (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Esquilo

Could an admin please resolve this situation? I have pointed out to User:Esquilo that they are using instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) incorrectly in some situations, on many items. For example: P-15 Termit (Q177218).

See also, User_talk:Danrok#.22instance_of.22_vs_.22subclass_of.22 and the comment below where User:Stevenliuyi has confirmed the correct use in the example of P-15 Termit (Q177218).

When I correct any mistakes by User:Esquilo, he/she simply reverts back to the incorrect version. Danrok (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. Is this our first edit war? How exciting! Okay, in all seriousness... while we don't have a formal revert-limitation policy here, you both have been at this far too long. If either of you reverts on that item again, I'll give you both a day or two to think about what you've done wrong. (By which I mean I'll block you.) This wasn't an administrative issue until you made it an administrative issue. It's a content issue, and since administrators have no special role in settling content disputes, it belongs nextdoor at WD:PC. Seriously, I'm rather disappointed to see experienced users like the two of you edit-warring like this. Please don't do it again. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Very large bulk deletion request

Note that I have placed deletion requests for 5,363 items at:

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/2
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/3
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/4
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/5
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/6

They are found in 2013-05-27 database dump. They had no sitelinks, no statements, and were not used as value in any statements when the dump was made. Note however that it should be checked before deletion if they have been used since, or if they shouldn't have been emptied. Byrial (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk done. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: I found a bug in my program, so some of the items are used as values in statements. I will remove these items from the request, and undelete them if they have been deleted, but do not have the time to do it right now. Sorry, Byrial (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I've been checking their whatlinkshere to see if they were used in statements, but I've only seen a couple instances in a few hundred checks, so no worries. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed items which are used from the request if they are in meta-batches which is not yet done, and restored deleted items which are used. That includes the items for juror 1-12 discussed at WD:PC (now archieved at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/05#Jurors 1–12) I don't think any consensus regarding such items was formed. Byrial (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Bulk/6 done. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All  Done! Regards--DangSunM (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thank you all. I only deleted very few myself as I have been busy IRL. Byrial (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)