Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/12

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2014
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Etiquette

Need a checkup by an native English-speaker. Should we say something about comments like this?: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&diff=prev&oldid=177661463? Quote: "Maybe you got confused by the interface that WMDE under the reign of User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) created.". It sounds like it is on the edge of slander, but I would like a second opinion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

On the edge, it is, I would say. Try to avoid saying things in that wording, Andrea Shan. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tobias1984, User:AmaryllisGardener - Maybe you look up the meaning of "slander" in Wikipedia first, before using that term again? Andrea Shan (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

S/he is Tamawashi and is adding tons of false claims via Widar. Please block him/her. --Succu (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Succu: Woah, hold your horses. You need diffs to support both of your accusations, specifically those of sockpuppetry and inserting false claims. I can't action anyone without such evidence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
See Taxonomy data removal. Same old story. --Succu (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I now see potential wrongful insertions (I'll have to examine it further). But nowhere do I see evidence that Andrea is a sockpuppet of Tamawashi. The incivility does look similar but not quite similar enough without further evidence. In either case, escalating the dispute by saying things like "Spare us all the time, Tamawashi" is needlessly provocative in my opinion. It certainly didn't help the discussion there. @Succu: At this time I'm just not convinced that Andrea Shan is a sockpuppet of Tamawashi, you need more evidence, or the claim should be retracted.@Andrea Shan: It goes without saying that both of you should cut it out with the personal attacks, which do nothing to solve your dispute.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I never used that word. I requested a block because s/he was adding wrong claims. --Succu (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Succu, Jasper Deng: So, what now, an SPI? Oh wait... there is no SPI, nor are there checkusers. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You can request a CU at m:SRCU, though you'll need to provide diffs to make your case. --Rschen7754 17:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: We don't need a whole process to carry out an investigation into possible sockpuppetry (in any case, I should also note that CheckUser data for Tamawashi is probably stale now, since it is discarded after about 90 days and Tamawashi has not edited since late July).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Pasleim: You marked this user as trusted. Do you know more than we do?
I don't really care that much if Andrea Shan is a new account of Tamawashi. You can abandon an account and come back later with a new one. What I do care about is the multiple personal attacks by Andrea Shan.
Andrea Shan, please refrain from anything that remotely resembles a personal attack, especially in conversations with Lydia or Succu, or you will find yourself blocked. And yes, I consider this a personal attack. Multichill (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know more than you. I marked the user as confirmed because its 4000 edits at that time weren't considered to be vandalism. --Pasleim (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You will find the full bandwidth of his/her behavior there. Jasper Deng, sure I could provide more evidence, but it's not helpfull if provided in public. Just keep an eye on him/her. --Succu (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Difference in treatment of users, libel to advance position

Interesting how one-sided people argue. This thread started with a claim that some of my text was on the edge to "slander". Now, above, one sees libel, and no one cares about that. Libel against me by User:Succu ("S/he is Tamawashi and is adding tons of false claims via Widar.") is not punished. You can see on my talk page, how this User approached me several days before. Now he directed a "spare us all the time" at me and called me a Tamawashi. When, I counter that with the same words, replacing Tamawashi with Dinosaur, User:Multichill threatens me with a block and states "I consider this a personal attack". Libel is no personal attack? And the libel by User:Esquilo [1] is not considered either.

Note that User:Esquilo and User:Succu both have content related disagreements with me and seem to use libel to advance their positions. Andrea Shan (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have an opinion on whether you are Tamawashi or not, but it's not the right time to state my opinions. Succu, I advise you to stop throwing around accusations, if this were enwiki, you might (while unlikely) have gotten blocked without warning for that as a personal attack. If you want to further this process, Steward requests/Checkuser is the place to go. Andrea Shan, you should stop making accusations and calm down too, you're also guilty of accusing people here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
User:AmaryllisGardener - "you're also guilty of accusing people here" - So are you. Is it forbidden to accuse people of having done something? Andrea Shan (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Andrea Shan: Hmm, you just shot yourself in the foot. And how many times and how many users have you used/accused of "libel"? --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: Do you think that "you just shot yourself in the foot" is not a personal attack? You accused me here of being guilty of accusing people here. Don't you see that you did, what you accused others of? Yes, I accused other people of libel, and I provided evidence. IIRC it were two. So, far these two didn't provide evidence for their claims. Andrea Shan (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Folks, I don't think this thread is moving in a productive manner... --Rschen7754 05:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Andrea Shan: No-one will be punished. Blocks, if they ever occur, are preventative, not punitive. My warning above went for both of you, not just you.
Note that it would indeed be unfair to block only you or only Succu based on just that evidence, because neither of your conducts were really civil. As Rschen7754 said, I suggest moving on from this thread and continuing to discuss at the project chat thread. It goes without saying that calling people names is almost never appropriate. Nor is an accusation of sockpuppetry without evidence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with moving on. It was User:Tobias1984 who started this thread behind my back and it was User:Succu who was the first to ask for a block of me. Andrea Shan (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't add spanish language

I´m trying to add spanish language to articles in Vsevolod Bobrov and Valentin Nikolayev (footballer) but always show up "Invalid token". What's the problem? Thanks! --Rowley 21:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Muhammad_faisal_nazeer

Spambot --FischX (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Warned. --Jakob (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Q18574815

I am requesting undeletion of Red link example (Q18574815). This was deleted by User:Sjoerddebruin, with an edit summary of "Does not meet the notability policy". Three was no prior discussion, nor was I notified of the intention to delete; I merely noticed the red link in my watchlist.

I have asked Sjoerd to undelete it, but he has refused.

The deletion has broken the documentation of en:Template:RedQ, whose purpose, ironically, is to display existing Wikidata links next to red Wikipedia links, in order to reduce the number of duplicate items created here on Wikidata (and to assist article creation on Wikipedia).

The matter raises wider issues of admin roles and accountability, deletion and notability policies, and so on, but these are being discussed on "project chat" and I suggest such discussion continue there, rather then being split. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

restored. But please provide some more information to the item, otherwise it is likely that an other admin will delete it again. --Pasleim (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added another few words to the description; and the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Close a discussion or two

Hi from my Wikibreak – why is WD:PFD#type of administrative territorial entity (P132) still open at nearly a year of having been open?... --Izno (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't close the discussion as I have voted on it and so have many other sysops. --Pasleim (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Epìdosis, Stryn, Lymantria, Delusion23, 분당선M: You haven't voted. Can someone of you close it? The discussion is now running exactly one year... --Pasleim (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do it today or tomorrow, but if anybody else wants to close I am perfectly fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Closed. yeah. it took a year--DangSunM (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Close a RFC

Hi. Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion has been opened for more than 2 months. I think it should be closed by an uninvolved admin. I won't close it as I have participated in it. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed, the result was that "items should be redirected when merging". You can read more on the RFC page. --Stryn (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's a clear result. We should probably:
Anything else? Multichill (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
We can use mass message to set an edit notice to warn nominators and admins about the change in RfD. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, something else: could someone who is part of this discussion update Help:Merge, which still talks about deletion of obsolete items, both in the manual and automatic process? I took the liberty to add it to the above list. Place Clichy (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you user:Stryn for doing this. However, you stated that "Deleting is however appropriate if an item has not been existed longer than 24 hours and if it's clear that it's not in use elsewhere.". Do you mean it is recommended or just it is ok ? And do you have any way to know that an item is not in use anywhere ? Depending on this we should, or should not remove the deletion-related options in merge.js--Zolo (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear; I mean that it's recommended to delete the item if it's not older than 24 hours. However, if someone makes it to be a redirect, it doesn't actually break anything, but deleting is really the first choice. I don't think that there is a way [on Wikidata] to see for example if Q1919 is in use on some Wikipedia. I think that we should add in merge.js some text like: "Try to automatically delete extra item after merge (only admins) only for items created in the last 24 hours". --Stryn (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Re-applied the change. After redirecting an item an admin can always delete this item. Multichill (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So everyone can now create a redirect from A to B? Who is controling this? Who is correcting (moving) links? --Succu (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, why do we need to "fix" links to redirects? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In the past they caused constrain-violations. --Succu (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Why was this RFC closed already? Does a way to create redirects through the UI exist already? (other than Special:APISandbox) Vogone (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The Merge gadget now has a visible option to create a redirect (instead of requesting deletion). Not tested it myself yet though. Place Clichy (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I tested it, it works.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I was not talking about user js scripts (gadgets) but about UI implementation. I strongly disagree with making redirect creations a policy before it is possible to create them without js "hacks". Vogone (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Movie missing from F in A to Z movies list....

I believe "The five people you meet in heaven" movie should be listed under F in the A to Z movies list! Thank you for any time taken reading this! Erica meindl  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericameindl (talk • contribs).

I think you're in the wrong place. Doesn't sound like it's related to Wikidata. --Stryn (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:John B. Sullivan

Blocked him for edit warring. Judging from his posts at Wikidata:Project chat#ISNI - 200 000+ items have wrong value and Property talk:P213#Spaces are wrong he doesn't really know how a wiki works and is now learning it the hard way. Can other admins please keep an eye on him and maybe gently nudge him in the right direction? Multichill (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Q3741747, Q3938888

Hello, the items have links to: [2], [3]. Please restore the items or fix links. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Restored. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

sensitive personal information

Maybe somebody should hide this edit. --Haplology (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Haplology: Revision deleted but in the future please please forward your request in private to oversight wikidata.org, public exposure doesn't help one bit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's oversighted, but it shouldn't give us Wikimedia Error page. --Stryn (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought I was the only one who got it. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Me too.--GZWDer (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalisme sur Q5582 - Vincent van Gogh

Bonjour,

L'article Q5582 - Vincent van Gogh subit depuis deux jours un vandalisme puéril [4]. Cette page peut-elle être semi-protégée ?

Merci.

--Jmh2o (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the item for two weeks. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Merci ! --Jmh2o (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sjoerd, nothing much useful coming from the IP. Maybe a (long) block? Multichill (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
They've stopped for the time being. --Jakob (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

108.49.57.186

Please block 108.49.57.186, template vandal. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just done. --Stryn (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect male (Q6581097)

Please semi-protect Q6581097. --- Jura 21:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata and Open Copyright presenters

Forwarded by BrillLyle (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC) with permission (authorized at end of entry)....

This request is re: Wikimedia NYC will be holding an event -- NYC Wikidata Workshop and Skill Share -- with the Wikimedia NYC community on Sunday December 14, 1-5pm.

Hi All, I'm looking for people with specific skill sets to do trainings/workshops/lectures in New York but am having some difficulty locating the right people. I'm looking for someone to give a presentation/demo or introductory training to a group of information professionals (librarians, archivists, data scientists) about Wikidata, and to describe some potential points of entry and applications for WikiData. I'm also looking for someone to give a presentation/demo about Creative Commons and other open licensing options for different types of publications (i.e. academic, blogs/websites, images)... I loved this article and would love to have someone give a general overview that branches from some of its central topics. Ideally these people would have experience giving such talks/presentations at least in some capacity. Any ideas? Please feel free to forward this message to anyone that you think might have experience or interest in this subject! OR drohowa (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Double redirects

#Close a RFC closed Delete vs Redirect as Redirect, but double redirects (such as Phab:P132) is not being fixed, becuase pywikibot's redirect.py (double-redirect fixer bot) doesn't know how to fix it. Until this bug is fixed, should we delete the items, or leave it as is? (Special:DoubleRedirects says double redirects on ns0 is being deleted.) Possible way to fix them may be merge.js or WD game detect double redirect and merge it to double redirect target. — Revi 04:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Leave as-is until a bot can fix them, or fix it manually.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I don't see the problem, but Special:DoubleRedirects is empty (except some user redirect) because there are users that sometime check e fix them. I missing something? --ValterVB (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems no problem, because double-redirect items are deleted (or fixed) already. See Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Revibot 3 and Special:Contribs/Revibot. — Revi 09:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Adi Baloch

Adi Baloch is possibly a spam account. —Wylve (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wylve: The tribe does seem to exist: en:List of Baloch tribes. Looks more like a inexperienced user to me. I will try to dig up a source for the tribe. The user also seems to think that the user page is a Wiki-page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: Thanks for the heads up. I'll look more closely into the edits next time. —Wylve (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Gadget-Merge.js

There are three open edit requests at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Merge.js. Although they may be controversial, I am sure that they are not harmful. Let's apply them and see the users' reactions. Reversion is quick and easy... Petr Matas 22:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that there are more requests at Category:Wikidata protected edit requests, which does not seem to get much attention... Petr Matas 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P70 (P70)

The last obsolete taxon rank related property ist not used anymore. P70 (P70) can be deleted now. --Succu (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  Deleted by Matěj Suchánek (talk • contribs • logs). 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove rollback

Hi there all,
Owing to this page can any of you please strip me off from my rollback right? Plus I haven't used the right or is active here in wikidata for too long. Thank you.. --The Herald 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no inactivity policy for rollback in place and thus also no "too long". Regards, Vogone (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it odd that Leitoxx has such a subpage. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. While there is no inactivity policy on this wiki, the user is self-resigning it and to me is saying "I don't really need it". Also, I'm renaming this section because "Strip me off!!" can be misinterpreted in a certain way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeh do know what strip means..  Thanks..--The Herald 13:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Club Atlético River Plate (Q15799)

Seems to be a vandal target in the last few days--Dr Zimbu (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for one week as there does seem to be some cycle of vandalism over the past few weeks. This can be raised up to a month if needed. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion requests Q15634564

It seems that two different items has been merged: Q15634564 (that was the edition item) and Q8065468 (that is the work item).

Please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Books/2014#Author.2FWork.2FEditions.2FTranslation_case_study:_Pinocchio

Can someone restore the right edition item Q15634564? Thanks.

I requested Cycn to fix the error and this is his answer... NO COMMENT. --Accurimbono (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, he did resign and now cannot help you. Also the merge wasn't done by Cycn but by Rigadoun.
  Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Username policy

In light of my first block-action, I wondered why we don't have a username policy. In fact, I couldn't help notice that the link WD:Username policy redirects to WD:Use common sense. Jared Preston (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User name policies are becoming harder to handle because of SUL-accounts. We need some global rules imo, but there is no need for a policy here I think. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
True, true. It'd be nice if something was done though, on a global scale, that is... Jared Preston (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark WD:Property proposal/Proposal preload for translation

please, Petr Matas 08:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How to unmerge items?

On Trial (Q15839256) was merged with On Trial (Q2870532) (requested by Rigadoun, Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2014/07/15#Q15839256). In result we has a mess of the short story by Anton Chechov and the translation by Robert Edward Crozier Long. Can you rollback both items to its state before merging? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/163.179.58.212&offset=&limit=500&target=163.179.58.212 (deleting content, replacing text with random symbols). Kf8 (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kf8: Warned with a level 4. If he vandalizes again, I will block him. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. If they've been vandalizing that much, just block right away next time since they know what they're doing... --Rschen7754 23:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Kf8 (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to close my account

Please close my account on Wikidata. I do not wish to edit here. --Martin Taschenbier (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. We cannot and do not delete user accounts. Just don't use the account. With that said, I'm sad that you have lost interest in our project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I hereby request to block my account with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) as you have done many times before: [5]. --Martin Taschenbier (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC) 
  Done --Pasleim (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Those were spambots, and they are usually blocked indefinitely. They didn't ask to be blocked. --Stryn (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't block on request, as the blocking tool was not designed for gaming. Vogone (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Vogone: Can you give me a solid argument why self-requested blocks are not allowed? Our blocking policy is based on Wikidata:Requests for comment/User conduct policies in which self-blocks weren't discussed. So with common sense I think I'm allowed to block this user. --Pasleim (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Personally, I oppose the block on the grounds that the RfC did not gain consensus for it and as per Vogone, it could be gamed. If the user wants to retire, they just need to stop editing. I also oppose this block because it could set a dangerous precedent. Blocks are only for preventing disruption, that's the bottom line (all the reasons in the policy boil down to this).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The blocking tool is designed for abuse prevention and should be used with caution. Fulfilling self-requested blocks would defeat the tool's purpose and merely make an example for future requests of similar kind, which should not be in our interest. Regards, Vogone (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is my third -and last- polite request to block my account. Otherwise, I will not hesitate to take alternative steps where your "policy" certainly applies. You have been warned. --Martin Taschenbier (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make threats in such a way. Instead, please just stop using your account as blocking it makes no difference beside giving your account a negative view by the community. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  Info The request is related to this discussion: de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia#Wikidata: Wer editiert da unter meinem Namen? --Succu (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Short summary: He does not like the automatic edits after moving pages in the German wikipedia. --mfb (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Obviously we need to have a discussion on whether or not we should allow self-requested blocks, and perhaps add it to the blocking policy. That above is what I was afraid would happen. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In dewiki people who want to take a break are allowed to request a block of their account. This prevents hacking of the account and some are "addicted" to Wikipedia and want to stay sober, especialy when they are doing exams or just dont want to be tempted to be involved in discussions. Some request a block after they have been bullied. What ever the reason is, it is sensible to allow users to have their account blocked. Dewiki also allows user to request to unblock their account by requesting on admins board sometime later as unlogged user. The user has to confirm the unblocking by editing on his user page. This also is a help for other users. You know, you won´t find an answer on the page of a blocked and inactive user. On the other hand, you´ll get a notice when the user comes back, if you keep the user page on your watchlist. There are very few users who use this for gaming, as all is documented in the logfiles. We simply should not force users to be users indefinitely. This is not North Korea. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88: This is wikidata not dewiki. Maybe there it is nessacary to implement sharper rules in the future, but not at the moment. --Succu (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, no acceptances of self-requested blocks = North Korea? That's a new one. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Comparing that to North Korea is a new one. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No we havn't. That's exactly what s/he wants to achieve. Let's keep us polite and friendly. And let's us remember of the cause of this request. --Succu (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the reasons are (AGF), the issue has been raised and there is nothing wrong about opening an RfC. I think that users should be allowed to deactivate their accounts (without the negative block conotations) to prevent abuse/hacking (not all people use different password for each website). Petr Matas 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
They can just change their passwords to a a generated thing they will never guess. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This request is about disabling the account on wikidata only while it should stay active on other wikis (so changing password of the SUL account doesn't help), as there are automated edits appearing on wikidata on wikipedia page moves. I'd consider this as a reasonable request, nobody shall be credited for edits he doesn't want to make. --Krd (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Since we contribute under CC0, there isn't any "crediting" here on Wikidata. Look at it like an information about who has when moved a wiki page rather than as an edit. Regards, Vogone (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, while I personally oppose such blocks, I would be open to them if explicit consensus for self-requested blocks existed. But absent such consensus, such blocks should not be made. Anyone who wants a discussion on this is free to open an RfC on it. But until then, it stands that blocking reasons can only be for disruption prevention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  Info: The show is going on. --Succu (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked him once more for 1 month for repeated harassment. Vogone (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Dexbot

I know that, In December 3rd, we pass the new policy that we should not allow duplicate items(exception <24 hrs) However, if you see special:logs/Dexbot, This bot did some deletion. Are we should let operator to stop?--DangSunM (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That was my wish to remove all items connected with a Wikipedia soft redirected category, true duplicates are also sometimes deleted. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I dug up the original requests: bot and admin. Now that the software has changed I would say that Dexbot no longer needs admin access. Amir, can we drop the admin rights for your bot? Multichill (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Amir has already been notified and wasn't many of those soft redirect categories (that doesn't meet the notability)? --Stryn (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Eucomys

And merge of 2 categories was wrong. Please restore Q9638039 and add link to it in Eucomis (Q2706641). --Infovarius (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Jared Preston (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Lorde

Hello, Lorde is a good article at Wiki en, and I try to signalize it in Wikidata, but it doesn't allow me because I'm not a "trusted user". Can somebody help me? AleD (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the article. AleD (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
What exactly are you looking for? The Wikidata item for Lorde can be found at Q13476175. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
AleD probably meant that en-wiki article was not marked as good article on the Wikidata item. But it's now done. --Stryn (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2014/12&oldid=2133527057"