Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/06

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

Repeat removal of data

Please watch: repeat removal of data on:

• Frithjof Schuon Q123382: (influenced by Meister Eckhart Q76548), cross wiki referenced

• Jean Robin (1946) Q2422962: ( birth date to differentiate from homonym born in 1978 + illustration being Rennes-le-Château Q332622, suject of author's researches)--DDupard (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You should find another solution for the second item though, descriptions should be used for the things you are doing to the label. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

my 2ct

• The data removal in Frithjof Schuon (Q123382) does indeed look strange. Maybe @Nomen ad hoc can briefly explain his intentions here? Thanks.
• Differentiation goes to the description, not to labels (as Sjoerddebruin said). The property image (P18) is intended to be used for image about the item subject itself, not “anything which might somehow be related”.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

yes, of course. The source provided didn't affirm that Schuon was influenced by Meister Eckhart ; and the different Wikipedia versions are not a source (futhermore, even if I don't know the subject very well, but experimented users on fr-wp said me it was false).

Of course, I endorse your other comments.

Regards,

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC).

Schuon, and Meister Eckhart, "experimented users on fr-wp said me it was false"  : they came back on this and corrected their statement--DDupard (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

... But there is still a lack of (serious) source. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC).

The lack of a source alone is not a reason to remove this claim. From the Wikipedia articles I understand the claim does indeed appear to be at least okay, but I don’t know which facts your frwiki collegue relies on. I suggest to leave it in the item, even if we can’t provide a source right now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Maluma" (Q17517186)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Maluma (Q17517186), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. 6 months semi-protected (once again). Thanks for reporting. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

IMDb ID

LolMiaKhalifaOficial (talk • contribs • logs) has made extensive changes to Property:P345 (IMDb ID), seemingly to attempt to point to a Facebook fan page. --Canley (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Canley: You have not left any message on their talk page, Please do so, and attempt to resolve the matter amicably, before raising such matters here. And if you do raise a matter here, you should notify the editor concerned of that, on their talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Account has been blocked. MechQuester (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata property (Q18616576) semi-protect

difficult to understand right, subject to many statements and queries, highly visible class. d1g (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Semiprotected indef. Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't edit

Hello. I think I am not blocked here. I also have more than a thousand editions. But I can not add any information or do any edition more than name, description and some interwikis. But, I don't know why I can not add anything else. I am doing something wrong? Thanks.- 你可以说 BlackBeast Do you need something? 23:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

please guide us on where you are experiencing problems. that wouls help us. MechQuester (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Which browser do you use to access Wikidata? ChristianKl (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to remove wiki-cookies? Lymantria (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion please

Ban Tha Pong school (Q18535327) was deleted as being a "not notable" school. The deletion policy does not say anything about notability, and a school which does exist is notable in a database. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Why did you delete this item? ChristianKl (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to meet the notability policy: there were no sitelink or references and it didn't fill a structural need. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

notability policy says nothing about there having to be cited references. A school is a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity which usually leaves a paper trail. Googling the name also shows plenty of hits. ChristianKl (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Notability matters here. None of the three notability aspects applied to the item for a long time.

1. The only sitelink (thwiki) was deleted three times in 2014 due to copyright problems; there were never any other sitelinks in this item.
2. There were four claims in the item, none of them with a reference. There was further no external identifier claim. It is very difficult in those cases to clearly relate the item to the entity it actually refers to. There was only one (bot) edit since the Wikipedia article was deleted 2.5 yrs ago due to this difficulty (the same happens to similar cases).
3. The item was not used by any other item (no structural need).

We have a really large number of such items, since Wikipedia article deletions happen a lot and the abandoned Wikidata items are not deleted automatically. During housekeeping we find them and judge their notability, mostly on the basis of their claims at this time. It is up to the Wikidatians to have “their” items in a good shape (as indicated above) that leaves no doubt about notability at any time. In case of unused items without sitelinks that means: it better had good external references and/or identifiers.

The deletion policy does not require formal lengthy public discussions before item deletion, thus this sometimes comes surprisingly for the editors. However, undeletion in case of mistakes is as easy and informal as deletion, so if you happen to think that this item is in fact notable, please let me know and I will undelete it for improvements. Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There are items without external identifier claim where it's hard to know which item is meant. For a school where the specific geolocation is given, I don't think that's the case. ChristianKl (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The applicable part of the notability policy says " It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Note that the key words in this context are "can be described ", not "is currently described in Wikidata", and nowhere does the notability policy require any "external identifier claim". As to your final point, undeletion has already been requested; note the heading of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is correct, I missed that point this morning. The item is restored, you can now add references (notify @Ahoerstemeier as well).

We have tons of items like “John Doe, American person”, where it is entirely unclear which “John Doe” they refer to after the last sitelink article was deleted. There is simply no useful definition available and possible. Experience shows that these items are usually abandoned by Wikidatians, so why should I invest as an admin here after 2.5yrs of abandonment? There is already now a huge backlog of item that need administrative attention.

However, this one is definitely on the edge due to the (unsourced) coordinates. Feel free to make it useful now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

But this item is about school. One school in needed to count all schools in area.

In geo projects we skip geographic objects if we haven't visited them recently. d1g (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anon user talk pages

What’s the common procedure regarding anon (IP) user talk pages? In case of non-static IPs it is probably not worth to keep messages forever. Does anyone look for those orphans regularly, and if so after which period would a deletion be appropriate? —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to remove IP talk pages, nor they have to be deleted. IPs don't check since this is a smaller wiki. MechQuester (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Ignatius Farray" (Q5913690)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Ignatius Farray (Q5913690), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. 6 months semi-protected, since vd activity started half a year ago and there was no protection on this item before. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Anuel AA" (Q26690130)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Anuel AA (Q26690130), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done one year due to excessive vandalism. Thanks for reporting. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Block 195.77.232.186

Hello,
Could you block 195.77.232.186 who makes obvious vandalisms, after multiple warnings on his talk page?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked them for a week. - Nikki (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing

Please block User:TheFunnyEditor, clearly not here to contribute (keeps adding nonsense labels in Romanian). Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Issued them another warning that mentions the possibility of blocking, please report again if they continue after this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Ignored. Jc86035 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fake user page

The page at User:James ville is a clone of my user page. Please delete it, and take any other action as necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

They've also been engaging in blatant conflict-of-interest promotional editing, so they've been blocked indefinitely. Once Wikinews and Wikiquote delete the linked pages, the items he created can also be deleted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• See also en:w:Wikipedia sockpuppets of N R Pavan Kumar.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi please help me to verify my page Szilvia Varga / Silvia Vargová (actress)

Hi i have issues with my artticle Szilvia Varga / Silvia Vargová (actress)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szilvia_Varga_/_Silvia_Vargov%C3%A1_(actress)

Please be consider and help me Iam new at wikipedia artcile creating but i want to start with it. If you can please help me with verification and with connecting this article wich same articles but at other language.

Thanks a lot Best Regards Grindcomber  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grindcomber (talk • contribs) at 14:36, 10 June 2017‎ (UTC).

@Grindcomber: This is Wikidata, not the English Wikipedia; but please see en:Wikipedia:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Dig.log

Please block this person.. Either he or she does not know what he does or it is a vandal. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: You're going to have to be a lot more specific about what this user is doing wrong, as well as any attempts to communicate with them, before I will consider any action, as it does not seem to be blatant vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Check his contributions. I never ask for something like this but this is not good. GerardM (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: If it is so bad that it warrants a block (including having attempted communication with them over this), then surely you could easily provide diffs or other evidence with appropriate explanations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

An example is this edit. --Succu (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) PS: A mistake.

That's most definitely the edit User:Dig.log called "erroneous" theirself and thanked Gerard for reverting it. Anything else? --YMS (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I will try to solve the possible misunderstanding. As mentioned in my talk page, I made a mistake during a import of data using quick statements. After the import I reviewed the data, and I found at 20:19 (in the history) that it was something erroneous (a wrong value for the property P21), not initially the source (that I changed accidentally the label of the item). The source of the mistake was found around 5 minutes later, and when I wanted to reverse it, User:GerardM did it for me - in a moment we were both on the same item. As I wrote in the answer, I was thankful for it. I think that can be considered as a stupid mistake, but not really as vandalism. I’m really sorry for all this confusion. --Dig.log (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There were two scenarios. I am happy with fewer vandals and making mistakes is not an error, it is what can happen and happens to everyone. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Labgeo and his his sockpuppetfarm

Labgeo (talk • contribs • logs)

Please block this user and/or protect the Q851303 WD page:

Labgeo make with his sockpuppetfarm permanent vandalism on this WD-page. Labego has created more than twenty sockpuppets, and he has made legal threats on huwiki and on OTRS – therefore he and all his socks are blocked. The site Budavári Labirintus (huwiki) (Labyrinth of Buda Castle (enwiki)) is protected on huwiki and enwiki too. Thanks, --Pallerti (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done blocked 2 accounts and 1 IP, and semi-ed the page. --Rschen7754 21:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

One more implementation of en:User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!? What harm was done to Wikidata? --Succu (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read WD:SOCK. I am implementing a local policy, as requested by a user from the Hungarian Wikipedia. The implication that I am trying to extend English Wikipedia here is entertaining. --Rschen7754 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Thank you! --Pallerti (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Notification: items for dictionary entries

I would like to draw your attention on the fact that there are 27,000 items for dictionary entries. Discussion started on Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Dictionary_entries. XXN, 19:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Block 72.25.24.183

Please block the anonymous IP 72.25.24.183 as it keeps creating an extensive number of duplicate items and refuses to communicate. Thanks, --Sintakso (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 6 hours. If the same editing continues after this block, please get back here and the IP-address can be blocked for a longer time. Lymantria (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please reblock the IP as it again creates duplicates despite being given one more warning. Thanks, --Sintakso (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done by User:YMS, blocked for a week now. Lymantria (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could an admin please block 173.174.81.12? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin: They came back again; please reblock. Jc86035 (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

1 month blocked now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Block request

Please, block 181.75.179.37 for continued vandalism. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Blocked for repeated vandalism. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism report of 181.93.33.39

Special:Contribs/181.93.33.39 is apparently adding vandalism despite the warning. Please block if you find it appropriate. Thank you, — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No edits after you warned him. Stryn (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This one in fact was after I warned him, or at the very same time. If you could at least keep an eye on it I'd appreciate it. Thanks, — MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Joy Agyepong

Joy Agyepong (talk • contribs • logs) tried to help out, but ended up adding a lot of incorrect links. these edits should probably all be reverted. Multichill (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Q9191

I suggest semiprotection. I see no constructive edits by IP in a recent reasonable period. While number of vandalisms is high. Ankry (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done for two weeks, will keep an eye on it.-- H^akan·IST 09:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocking of 78.83.94.41

Hi! I'm an administrator on the Bulgarian Wikipedia and Wiktionary. I'd suggest blocking 78.83.94.41 (talk • contribs • logs) for a very long period of time. This IP address belongs to a known prolific vandal on bgwiki and other projects, who's been harassing the community for years. I see that now he/she has turned their attention to Wikidata. I personally am not going to patrol their edits here as I have no time for this, so it's your call: they've already managed to vandalize quite a few of the items, and will surely continue to do so if left unchecked. Mind you, they are also known for creating hundreds of sock-puppets and summer is probably a time they have more time for this. If you need any assistance or further information, please let me or our community on bgwiki know. You might also use the admin-requestswikimedia.bg mailing list, which is read only by administrators--for matters that are best not discussed publicly. Thank you!
— Luchesar • T/C 10:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Support one month block; hopefully we aren't loosing too many editors from this subnet. d1g (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:FShbib

Mass spamming right now. --Grim (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you Grim for your message. I am updating the Arabic labels for articles that have been moved and corrected at Arabic Wikipedia (removing old wrong labels and adding the right ones). We have discussed this in arwiki, and I did not see a problem in this changes. In order to clarify, I have already changed a lot of labels, and I stopped now. Is this spamming? --FShbib (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard this entry and my comment. I misread and mistranslated a change you made and got the impression of you spamming. Wich is obviously not true. Reviewing your changes, I can not see any wrongdoing. I apologize. --Grim (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thank you Grim, I appreciate your efforts in maintaining this project. --FShbib (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism / POV edits

Please semi-protect item Luhansk People's Republic (Q16746854) or block user 91.201.108.209 (talk • contribs • logs) (I've already warned him, but he continues to remove data from this item. See https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q16746854&curid=18350431&action=history --XXN, 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Restored old version and semi-protected item for a week. Will keep an eye on it and the user. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: XXN, 09:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Veillg1

Hi, I would like that you can do some sanction to Veillg1. Even after my warning ([1] and [2]) and the ones of VIGNERON, he continue to add unrelated links [3], to add parenthese to label ([4] and [5]), to move link instead of merging ([6]). --Fralambert (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I am giving them a one-month block. This is a clear case of not listening.

@Fralambert: please let me know if you have any suggestions regarding the French in my block notice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected "heed" (I learn a new word today) from obéir to prêter attention. Obéir seem to me to hard and generally we translate it for "obey". --Fralambert (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User:PokestarFan

I think this user don't really care about Wikidata. Here is a topic on his talk page, opened on 28 May, that he closed yesterday as "resolved", but without resolving the problem. I came to his talk page after I noticed accidentally this issue while searching and analyzing film items without some properties (e.g. P1476, etc). I've done several reverts to the edits generated by him, but there are more to be done.

Here is another topic: opened on 27 May, it also was closed yesterday as "resolved", but the problem still not be resolved, and Nikki had to re-open it later. Even after this, user PokestarFan ignoring this fact, 'was busy' with other things all day, and haven't tried to fix even a single item from that batch, although they can be found with ease.

I'm concerned also about the fact of making by ~350 edits(!) per a item page just to add labels in all possible and impossible languages, regardless if they are appropriate! A bot have done some clean-up after him,[7] but more still needed, as per what Nikki mentioned.

See also Topic:Trak1v7hrukyz52d (CC Multichill), Topic:Tqy25chzadumux34 (CC Billinghurst).

Moreover, after all this, he even want to have a bot approved. For what? To do more harm to this project? Who will do clean-up after him and then after his bot?

Taking in consideration also his rich block history on other projects, I suggest blocking him, as he is an unserious, immature, and irresponsible person. --XXN, 00:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I do not think that the user is ready to operate an account with bot rights. Their editing can be problematic and I would agree with XXN that there has not been sufficient progress in improving. A response to error that they were "operating at 5 or 6 levels down a category chain" as some sort of excuse is not encouraging, and possibly more self-condemnation of lack of understanding of the requirement for fine detail work. It is better to do a whole less work, with greater accuracy, than more work with less accuracy. PokestarFan needs to go beyond "see" and "accept" and move on to demonstrate the characteristics and value of quality data. One could reflect that whilst we have edit counts, rather than quality measures, this sort of misuse will continue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree that it would be inappropriate for them to have a bot account. Users are expected to clean up mistakes that their bots make and if a user is already not cleaning up after themselves, there's no reason to believe they would clean up after a bot. However, I don't think an immediate block would be very helpful - that would mean we definitely have to clean up the edits ourselves. I think a warning would be better to start with, along with a request to fix the existing mistakes within the next couple of months and to do that before doing any new mass editing (other than anything needed to clean up the mistakes). That way they get the opportunity to prove they should be given a second chance, and we hopefully won't have to clean up after them. - Nikki (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: You should have the opportunity to address the concerns of other editors regarding your edit behavior. Do you have anything to add here? Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I think PokestarFan (or any person) can work on some very narrow item set or using limited number of properties in order to make less mistakes.

Wikidata is far from being complete PokestarFan can help us if he/she really wants to help.

@PokestarFan:, easily automatable tasks are less valuable than non trivial human edits. d1g (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Seems to me that I work best when I spend time looking up info, such as my edits to Revista de medicina interna, neurologe, psihiatrie, neurochirurgie, dermato-venerologie. Medicina interna (Q27713192). Maybe I should focus on individual items at a time, as in no editing a large amount of items all at once. That way, mistakes are easier to fix. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 19:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's "a bit" too late to decide what you want to do here. Now it's the time to do clean-up after you.

XXN, 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement, @PokestarFan. I issue an administrative warning to you:

As indicated by the other editors in this topic, your edit behavior has been regarded problematic recently. It is specifically criticized that you appear not to feel responsible for your own edits in case of mistakes and (implicitly) refuse to tidy up. The evidence provided here clearly supports this criticism.

I have no doubt that you edit with good faith; however, your edit behavior has to improve in order to be valuable for Wikidata. Quality is much more important than quantity, so please always work with great care whenever you edit Wikidata. There is absolutely no need to hurry or risk insertion of wrong data. While mistakes happen occasionally, it is important that you react swiftly to them and that you repair wrong data completely before you start any new batches/tasks, or mark related discussion sections as “resolved”. Please keep log files of all your batch edit activities for a long time (e.g. QuickStatements input and output plus important meta data in local txt files), they could be very helpful for yourself in case of a mistake.

If you happen to find yourself in a situation that plenty of users complain about your edit behavior and you are trapped in repair batches, please seriously consider changing your edit behavior in general. It might be a good idea to refrain from batch editing for a while, and use manual editing only (particularly for corrections/improvements). You have offered that by yourself, and I think this would be a good idea to find your role in the Wikidata project.

So this time there will not be a block of your account, as already suggested by User:Nikki earlier in this topic; please mind that after this warning a block of your account would be an option if the criticized edit behavior does not improve significantly in future. An ongoing failure to take full responsibility for your own edits would be regarded as a local abuse pattern and thus a reason to issue temporary or permanent blocks (per Wikidata:Blocking policy).

Please engage in corrections of your edits as much as possible. In case of questions feel free to ask the involved users or me for help. I also kindly ask all involved users to give constructive advice to User:PokestarFan in case they request it. PokestarFan’s request for bot flag is not dealt with in this topic, the colleges at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot will do so. Whoever wants to influence that application process should show up over there. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There were 3,200 items. And I have done the first installment of error fixing, [11] which is to remove category's main topic (P301) from said 3200 items. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 01:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged in this topic. User:PokestarFan does more harm than good. Creates a mess and walks away. I see a warning has been issued. For me this is the last warning. If you don't clean up the mess you made or if you make it worse, I have no other choice than to block you to protect this project from more harm. Multichill (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I closed all the bot requests submitted by the user as not done.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I have queries approved?

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by PokestarFan (talk • contribs) at 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC).PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, PokestarFan, most of them are wrong. No way. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why I asked. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits • I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I expect you to work with great care. You offered to make 302 different year items part of a single century. This way you do not get anything approved here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

At least 2959 (Q26211315)    and 2164 (Q19826203)    aren't part of 23rd century (Q49832). d1g (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Omg, why are you asking? You should know if it makes sense! I took the first line and I saw that cholera (Q12090) already has instance of (P31): disease (Q12136). Moreover, why would you classify a Wikidata property as a disease, four times?! Please stop flooding this page! Otherwise I am no longer going to expect a good will but a trolling. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you stop using Huggle to welcome users? It is an automated tool and people request you to do things manually. MechQuester (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

a formal proposal to limit PokestarFan from using automated tools. This includes Quickstatements, Petscan etc. MechQuester (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have had the same idea before issuing the warning to them, but I do not think this would be useful. PokestarFan meets our expectations for edit quality and appropriate behavior in case of problems from now on, or this account will be temporarily or permanently blocked. I am pretty sure that other sysops will not hesitate to do so in case of new problems. It is now fully up to the user to use tools that they are able to control, or to refrain from batch editing otherwise. I guess PokestarFan knows that this case is already pretty much on the edge to a (permanent) block, and that any step further might already be one step too much. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we may be just block them as a better alternative? They already have proven incompetent all over the place, including other projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I just looked through his contributions and it seems to me like he does more harm than good. Edits like Benevolent Dictator for Life (Q11271) instance of (P31) programmer suggest that he doesn't understand our data model. I would advocate banning. ChristianKl (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin delete Q30319596? He is treating the item as a Wiktionary item. MechQuester (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

pure incompetence. MechQuester (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria mass removing reference urls and Findagrave as a reference

User:Nikkimaria is applying rules at Wikipedia to Wikidata and blacklisting certain websites as "unreliable", she is deleting data and removing urls. There is a discussion on Findagrave here. Can she get an administration warning to stop the removal process, it is creating needless work to reverse her removals. If she wants to create a blacklist, she needs to discuss it, and get consensus first. Wikipedia rules do not automatically apply to Wikidata. Here she removes links to Familypedia as unreliable. At Wikipedia she has an aversion to user generated websites and deletes them en masse, but we link to dozens here at Wikidata. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I requested on their talk page that they wait till the RFC concludes till they remove more links. ChristianKl (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

By technicality, all news sites are user generated. The reporters are users and write. MechQuester (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

72.25.24.183 again

Please block the IP 72.25.24.183 once more as the creation of multiple duplicate items mentioned above continues. Thanks, --Sintakso (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Jared Preston (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please Help on wrong merge (my bad) !

Hello, this morning, I successfully merged Michael Ondonga (Q18068739) and Michael Ondonga (Q26243733) who were obviously the same Michael Ondoga (dead in 1974)...

But then, I mis-merged (a little too quickly) with Michael Ondoga (Q23416724) who clearly is not the same Michael Ondoga (since he's still alive). I tried to undo it, but am not sure it's allright.

Could you please check and correct it for me, please ? Thanks a lot. --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You undid all your changes caused by the merge, so this looks alright to me. --YMS (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

user:LetsBangArianaGrande

Hello. You should block LetsBangArianaGrande. He ist blocked in the de-Wikipedia already. Kein Einstein (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Jared Preston (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec identifier (Q22916615)

Hello, hello administrators, do not know if this is the proper place to ask; I wanted to know how to activate either of these in the Identifiers section

(Q22916615) , BanQ author ID P:P1823 , BAnQ ID P:P3280 when stated in VIAF (as B2Q). Thanks for any clue.--DDupard (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@DDupard: If I understand your request right, you want us to copy data from VIAF. Unfortuantely, we currently don't have a bot that directly imports from VIAF. I think that's partly due to the fact that VIAF is licensed via the ODC Attribution License and Wikidata is CC-0 based. ChristianKl (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Isaac Newton (Q935)

Please semiprotect Isaac Newton (Q935). Excessive IP vandalism. --Succu (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done (1 year semi-protected, as it is already the third time this items needs protection); Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with edit war on Chiang Mai (Q52028)

I have a problem with the User:Alice Zhang Mengping, now editing anonymously e.g. as User:82.203.24.241. This user keeps reverting my edits to Chiang Mai (Q52028). It seems this user has two intents - first to reduce the accuracy of coordinate location (P625) which would be OK given its an entity covers some km², second to remove all the imported from Wikimedia project (P143) references as these are no citable references (which would be vandalism), and because of now blindly reverting my edits also deletes valid information I added in the meantime to that item. Apparently that user seems to only use the edit summary for communications, my attempts to contact on the user talk were fruitless, only made him more arrogantly claiming to be smarter than me in the edit summaries. What can I do other than keeping the ridiculous edit war? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked 82.203.24.241 (talk • contribs • logs) for 24 hours due to an unacceptable edit summary.
• Alice Zhang Mengping (talk • contribs • logs) has been warned by User:Ymblanter a couple of weeks ago on their talk page.
• In general: imported-from references with Wikipedia editions as values are perfectly acceptable. Please do not remove them, particularly if no external sources are provided.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I know the imported from references can only be replaced by better references, its that user who didn't get that yet. BTW, would be nice if someone else would revert Chiang Mai (Q52028) to make sure that user notices its not just me who has a problem with him. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This comment was primarily addressed to the person who continuously removes these references. They are already notified of this topic. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I reset the item to the last version by Ahoerstemeier. ChristianKl (talk) 11:21, 23 June 20

Page protection

Hi, could The Holocaust (Q2763) be semi-protected indefinitely to deter vandalism? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for one month. Thanks, Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 04:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andreasmperu: This seems like a topic that's going to permanently draw vandalism. Is there a good reason to not permanently protect it? ChristianKl (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

So you think the best action is to permanently protect an item that hasn't been protected even once before? I don't agree with that course of action in any case. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Babel AutoCreate

As phab:T112868 is fixed, this account should be unblocked.--GZWDer (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If you read the comments, people were talking about multiple problems. I get the impression that multichill blocked the bot because of more general problems with it creating lots of unwanted or duplicated categories, such as phab:T63993 and those problems are not fixed (@Multichill: can you comment?). - Nikki (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikki: exactly, blocked the bot because of the auto mass creation of unwanted categories. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Please temporarily or indefinitely semi-protect Johnny Sins (Q18749736), Johann Sebastian Bach (Q1339) and Mahatma Gandhi (Q1001). Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done eurodyne (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Inactive bot accounts

Comments welcome.--GZWDer (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting semiprotection for Q17477937

We are currently experiencing vandalism in the spanish wikipedia. The wikidata Q17477937 is about a colombian congresswoman, whose recent declarations have caused a renewed interest in displaying incorrect satirical information. Thanks. Linguaphonia (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 3 months. eurodyne (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Linguaphonia (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

kidnapping/overload of Wikidata-items

FYI: A discussion has been initiated on sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Projekt geografi/Småorter 2015 which complaints that items about Swedish localities like Gysinge (Q2339533) has been filled with data about nature reserves and other things in a way that makes the items useless. The project has been supported by the Swedish Wikipedia chapter. I have tried to notify involved users and posted both at the Swedish WP:Village pump and the Chapter Village pump, but without response. I intend to revert these edits and I think some of the edits have already been reverted by other users. But first I want to give the involved users time to move the statments to new items. (They are most likely notable even without articles in the clients.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Now resolved! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

EmausBot appears unattended, please consider blocking

Hi. Emaus the owner of EmausBot is not responding to commentary on their talk page about their bot's actions and it appears no response for many months, and as such the bot appears unattended. The bot merrily creates duplicate categories that need to be merged, and I have just now tried for the second time to get attention to this issue. If there is no response, and no action, I would like for admins to consider whether there is grounds to block the bot. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

His user page seem to say: "To contact with me please use my talk page in ru.wiki". Was that approach already tried? ChristianKl (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this would be sufficient. I don't think it needs to be attended (it's a bot afterall), but if the user isn't responding even after weeks, I think it should be stopped
--- Jura 10:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot operators at a wiki running at the rate should be available and responsive. Not responding for months seems unreasonable to me, especially with the configuration available through notifications. Why should have I have to navigate off-wiki to get them to address their bot's actions?  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is Emaus' fault, and hence I don't see reasons to block the bot. AFAIK, at the moment EmausBot is the only global interwiki bot which works on this field continuously (correct me if I'm wrong). Simply blocking it isn't the smartest solution. This bot probably works just as any other 'standard' interwiki bot, based on a common algorithm which looks aproximatively as follows:
For a newly created page in a client wiki

• if it's not connected in Wikidata yet, and has interwiki links in page source to an existing page in another wiki...
  • if that page from another wiki (to which points our interwiki link) already has a WD item -> then the bot will try to connect the new page to that item.
  • if the page from another wiki does not have yet an WD item -> then the bot will create a new item connecting these two or more pages in the current item.
• if it has no interwiki links in page source and it's not already connected in a Wikidata item -> then after some time the bot will create a new item for that page.

The issue with new duplicated items created it's not easy to avoid. While some homonymous pages in client wikis are exactly about the same subject, other pages even if they are homonymous - are about different subjects[12]. Until now I suppose it was ok to follow the current algorithm for handling interwikis and items. But, as the project is in a continuous development, and duplicated/poor items are considered a major problem, if there is reached a consensus, there can be imposed new restriction(s) to all bots (all interwiki-bot operators should be notified about this), and also human users. It's easy to say "don't create duplicated items", but it's not easy to implement this in a program (bot). The simplest way and decision for bot-ops will be to disable the function of creating new items for lonely pages in client wikis (unconnected in WD & without interwikis). XXN, 11:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Hello! Unfortunately I don't have enough time to spend it to Wikimedia projects (not just Wikidata, but all other sister projects). That's why I can not answer to the questions. But as I see on my talk page, there is no case of incorrect work of my bot and it isn't require significant supervising.
• As for the issue under discussion, in my opinion the best way is check of existence of relevant category in English Wikipedia when Commons category item is created, since most of Commons categories have relations to English Wiki. It is simplier and more useful than adding any filtration by type to bot's code because Wikipedia categories should be added to the item anyway, sooner or later.
• Just now I swithed off category page maintnace (adding and creating) until all Commons category task would be done. Please let me know when Commons category item are correctly connected with Wikipedia categories, then I'll switch it on. --Emaus (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Block request

‎Suik 2000, without any explanation, removes the original broadcaster (P449) from various queries, like El Bienamado (Q28091176). Gabriel (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User has been requested not to do so and still does it. I've now blocked the user for 24 hours and requested the user to either seek consensus on removing the statements or stop removing them. If the user continues, you can report it here and the user can receive longer blocks. Mbch331 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mbch331: The user has returned with these edits on El Bienamado (Q28091176). Gabriel (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the reason I write is that the user "Gabriel", has been putting the "original network" parameter, which is affecting us all users and librarians of Wikipedia in Spanish in which we work these parameters In local form, since there have been many constant changes in the identities of the channel, I am originally from Mexico and I know the constant changes in the television channels, so it makes me unfair and pathetic that it requires my blockade, For making such changes. I think that we have to leave this for peace, since I will not be blocked by the whim of the user, apart I have seen that in the versions of the different languages that has translated the page of this novel, also work of Local form, and better should not have that parameter. Greetings. --Suik 2000 (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Suik 2000: There are users that have problems with your edits. If you get blocked for not trying to reach consensus, the solution isn't to continue with the edits, but to find consensus. If those opposing you end up being the only ones having problems with your edits, they need to accept the changes. If you're the only one that has no problems you have to accept that. That's how Wikidata works. Mbch331 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mbch331: Plantilla:Ficha de programa de televisión documentation on Spanish Wikipedia states the following about the |cadena= parameter, that uses the property original broadcaster (P449): "This element must be inserted in Wikidata so that it automatically picks it up from there and leaves this parameter blank. As a last option and in a temporary way they can be inserted here only in new articles and with a view to moving the data in the short term to Wikidata." In other words, the template documentation makes clear that the parameter data should be entered in Wikidata, and not locally, as Suik 2000 claimed. Gabriel (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel dos Santos: Please go in conversation with Suik 2000. If there's discussion it's up to the users part of the discussion to seek consensus, not up to an admin to define consensus. If the two of you can't reach a consensus, try getting other users in the conversation like requesting help on Project Chat. Mbch331 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate creation by bot account

Please see User_talk:GZWDer#Duplicates_creation.
--- Jura 18:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Block of GZWDer (flood)-bot

As it's not clear how it's working and it's not working in the way its operator tells us it's working, I think the bot should be blocked and a new approval request be done. @GZWDer:.
--- Jura 03:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not create intended duplicates (i.e. will use the PetScan option that eliminates duplicates when creating new items).--GZWDer (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you wrote that before and then later intentionally created duplicates to have people like Hsarrazin and myself search for dates on duplicates you created.

I suggest we block this bot until it's clear how it's being operated and past problems have been cleaned-up by its operator.
--- Jura 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

At the rate you create items from petscan categories, it is obvious you do not take the time to check for duplicates.... the number of them I found in the last days is very high and would have been avoided by a simple duplicity check :( --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

PetScan have the feature to check duplicates. It pre-selects pages have no label/alias with that name on Wikidata yet. Thus items about them will not be created unless the option is disabled manually (by "select all").--GZWDer (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what you wrote you'd be using last January. How do you plan to clean-up all the duplicates you created by not using it?
--- Jura 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This bot should be blocked until its owner cleaned up the mess. Steak (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I mentioned this issue a couple of weeks ago after discovering enwiki-commons merge and it was discussed at Project chat. The resultant mess is still not resolved, and I still feel it unreasonable that the mess is left for volunteers who could instead be doing productive merges, and other maintenance. It becomes disheartening to get the queue to next to zero, and then get 1000 rubbish duplicates. It has been mentioned previously to the operator; and instead of a block of the account, I would like a fix. If no fix, then I would hope that the account would sit quiescent without the need for a block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

And cleaning up after bot edits that just force their way onwards with no evidence of why they make a mistake is just sucking big brown ... Obviously frustrating when one works on a cleanup queue to find that bots have been through and put more dogpiles for human sweeping.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

These mass creations have also led to huge numbers of duplicate items for user language categories. The number of recent merges here for example is crazy. - Nikki (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

a large number of duplicates, obviously, but how does it relate to the number of creations? Only in the percentage is this relevant. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are some cases that are easier to handle by creating a duplicate item first and then merging two items. The problem is that GZWDer deliberately creates duplicates in cases where the tool tells them that it shouldn't be done and where they even agree that they shouldn't do it. As for a cleanup effort, it seems to be left to others ..
  --- Jura 14:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)