Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/11

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2017
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Semi-protection for 2 items

Hi, see history of Wydad Athletic Club (Q1139095) and Raja Club Athletic (Q1051514). --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Verify

I think following wikidata linking is invalid/wrong https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7239289&curid=7142578&diff=588591025&oldid=522168328 , Please rectify if its wrong. ★ Anoop / ಅನೂಪ್ ✉ © 03:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Validity of data in Wikidata

We store data on papers on medicines. What we do not have is a mechanism whereby we can identify the problems with papers or medicines. It has been abundantly proven that Mr Martin Keller was the ghostwriting author of a paper that led to the authorisation of paroxetine in juveniles. A sad sideeffect was that they suicided. These facts are not in doubt. There is no neutral stance possible and yet I have been reverted because Wikidata is supposed to be neutral. The problem is that this is the opposite of neutral.

When the argument is used that a property is missing and it is used as an argument to delete well identifiable data, there is another problem. It may be that the meaning of a property is thought to be different but that is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to come with an alternative and change the data. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Which expectation do you have towards admins? Can you please also provide links to relevant discussions and/or problematic edits and inform involved editors of this discussion? Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We are talking about edits in Martin Keller (Q6775864) for issues that are basically about the authorship of Study 329 (Q34082892). GerardM doesn't seem to be actively interested in editing information about the underlying paper but wants to add edits about Martin Keller (Q6775864) that violate the constraints of our data mdoel to create a stigma against Keller. After BLP and our general principles of neutrality Wikidata isn't a place to promote stigma against individual people. ChristianKl (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have worked on the data of that paper. At the same time there has to be a way to identify those authors that are for sale. It means that all their work is suspect. Neutrality is not involved as the facts are beyond dispute.. PS I blogged about this. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You have added him as an "author" for the paper despite claiming that he isn't a real author of the paper without any qualifies that suggest that there might be doubt about his authorship but as only qualifier that he's the first author.
I think there are two questions: (1) "Should the claim that he's the author be deprecated?". That's a question for The Source MetaData WikiProject does not exist. Please correct the name.. I think not deprecating is okay but I don't care about making that call. (2) "How should this statement be qualified?". Your solution of adding no qualifiers but trying to put information into the item about the author seems to be bad.
I have added a new topic on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Source_MetaData#How_do_we_deal_with_ghostwritten_documents.3F where the general discussion of how to deal with modelling ghostwritting belongs. ChristianKl (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM, ChristianKl: I see unacceptable edit warring involving the two of you in Martin Keller (Q6775864). Please discuss and agree on a model before you edit the affected items again. I hope that this does not require administrative oversight, so please do so at WD:PC or within suitable WikiProjects. No further action is necessary at this point, but I will watch Martin Keller (Q6775864) and Study 329 (Q34082892) now to keep an eye on this issue and prevent further disruptions. In case of problematic edit behavior of the other side please report back here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The current situation is in violation of the 3R rule.
The existing situation is problematic in that I find that there should be a mention on this and other gentlemen that they were the "ghost writer" of influential papers, papers that were paid for by industry with consequences in this instance that people died. There is no doubt about the facts, it has been sufficiently documented. Another problem is that "neutrality" is mistaken for not documenting said facts. When the facts are plain, there is no issue. Not documenting is a non-neutral behaviour. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
GerardM, the paper is many years old and the item is a couple of months old, so it does not matter if it takes a couple of days to elaborate a solution before implementing it. As far as I understand, ChristianKl does not fundamentally oppose to include information about the issue in Wikidata, and he also does not doubt the facts as well. To my understanding the dispute is only about the lack of a robust definition how to do it, and this is indeed something one could elaborate collaboratively within a few days. Asking suitable WikiProjects is also a good idea, and I am happy to see that this has already happened. If the two of you need guidance or moderation within that process, feel free to ask for help. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on protected item

Hello,

The item Mnet Asian Music Awards has recently been protected due to vandalism; however, there is a statement that needs to be fixed – under "instance of" it currently states "No mamen culeros un asco". As I am not autoconfirmed here, I am unable to fix it myself. Can anyone help? Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism happened on another item, already reverted. What you are seeing is the cache. Add ?action=purge to the URL to fix it. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Got it. I'm still getting the hang of it :) Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ад1мины суч1ары е1баные

Cross-wiki abuse.--Jimi Henderson (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User: 78.38.67.210

78.38.67.210 (talk • contribs • logs) - vandal.--Jimi Henderson (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done I've also semi-protected your talk page for a week considering the on-going vandalism. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

fuse Q19820317 ‎ Q35223701

Can anyone fuse Q19820317 and‎ Q35223701 ? (there is one denomination in Russian to transfer and an image)--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  Merged Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Accidentally created property

Just having been granted to right to create properties I went to quickly with my second creation: P4499 (P4499) should not have been created after Wikidata:Property_proposal/usage_discussed_on_page as pointed out by Jura1. Can some admin please delete the property? -- JakobVoss (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Q41624612

Hello.Please protect this item because of happening "Excessive vandalism" to it constantly using the merge tool.Thank you --David (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kadarganj Pukhta

Hello.Please delete the pages created by this user.Thank you --David (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  All gone. — regards, Revi 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

78.141.61.161

78.141.61.161 (talk • contribs • logs) - All edits appear to be vandalism. This IP address is also currently blocked on enwiki. Trivialist (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

78.83.94.41

Please block 78.83.94.41 (talk • contribs • logs), started another wave of vandalism despite being warned twice.--Jklamo (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Aliexpress spammed

Aliexpress has been spammed with aliexpress.moe . Please chime in. It is part of a cross-wiki spam campaign. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Where has it been used here? I can add it to the global spam blacklist, if it's part of a cross-wiki problem. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Abuse filter 49

According to the Kibana logs, abuse filter 49 is commonly taking over a second to run (thus slowing down edit saves on wikidata). Most matches from the filter seem to be false positives (often the Commons category having the same name as the item name). I would recommend that the filter either be disabled or rewritten to be more efficient if possible. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I disabled it for now. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I tried to improve the filter and enabled it. Could you please report back if the performance got better? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please allow adding the name data of Languages that not has any content yet in that language

I want to contribute to wikipedia of my home country by reference the wikidata in one language to the name of my language. But wikidata need to check that wikipedia has that page have that page first

Example image I attach is I try to add the name of person in my language (th) to the existing page and got error

 

And most of the times, wikipedia people in my country will always delete the page that have little content

So I wish wikidata to allow having reference name in languages tab to the not-yet-created page like these  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThainaYu (talk • contribs).

 

Inverser une fusion

Bonjour, pourriez-vous inverser la fusion de [1] vers [2] qui est la page la plus vieille et qui a été créée il y a 3 ans. Merci d'avance, Méphisto38 (talk) 10 novembre 2017 à 22:00 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection request

Please indefinitely protect China (Q29520) due to excessive vandalism. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done ChristianKl (✉) 15:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Brand new front opened up at Q3406628

Advice to sysops here: without naming names, a brand new front of disruptive edits was recently opened up here onion as food (Q3406628) and I absolutely intend to resist them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel has opened a brand new front in his war against Wikidate and is reporting it here, as if he is proud of it? - Brya (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The war is here is of "behind the scenes" WikiData users against multiple Wikipedia admins (of which I am one) where these WikiData users continually muck with our links to the main articles and the Wikipedia scoring on the "should have" lists. When will it end? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC) I don't want to get embroiled in any drama here as a pretext to keep blocking me. I just want small wiki's to be left alone on links the main articles, want species articles to stop being forcefully segregated into secondary "food" items, and then people who write those languages being chided by a user here who feels their quality is not sufficient. If there is no clear policy discouraging this war on small Wikipedias, there needs to be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Translation: User:Til Eulenspiegel wants to take away the freedom of Wikipedias to write pages on the topics they themselves have selected. Wikipedia pages on non-Til Eulenspiegel-approved topics are deemed to be "low-quality" and must be linked to Til Eulenspiegel-approved pages ("main articles") so as make them realize the errors of their ways, and make them correct their pages to be about Til Eulenspiegel-approved topics/in Til Eulenspiegel-approved formats. Til Eulenspiegel does not want to get embroiled in any drama, he just wants to be left alone to disrupt Wikidata in peace and quiet, and to repress Wikipedias everywhere that don't follow Til Eulenspiegel-doctrine. - Brya (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
When you have to resort to "translating" what I stated into something I did not say, and then attacking that position I did not state, I believe that is called a "strawman" fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I hope both of you have a great week off Wikidata. --Rschen7754 18:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Your blocks will resolve nothing, Rschen7754. And I don't think they should applied by you. --Succu (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Til Eulenspiegel reverted twice with the comment revert disruptive move that will penalize most wp scores (#1 and #2)
  2. At 2017-10-18 User:Hugo.arg made this changes. Followed by a removal of alisasis done by User:Jcfidy. Restored and corrected by User:Brya here. Followed by Til Eulenspiegels first revert.
  3. Boivie told us
I've helped with both lists for several years, but I have never heard anything about them being given some kind of official status from the WMF'.
I know that some Wikipedias actively have been working towards improving their score in the list, for example Russian, Romanian and Galician. But, as far as I know, it doesn't have any official recognition from the WMF.
In my impression Til Eulenspiegel is following his old pathways, based on his sole interpretation of some private approaches on Meta.
--Succu (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
No entiendo muy bien lo que está pasando pero el ítem trata sobre un taxón biológico y en «conocido como» se habían añadido absolutamente todas las subespecies y variedades de esa planta cuando cada subespecie y cada variedad debería de tener su propio ítem cada una. Es como si en el ítem ave se pusieran todas las especies de aves del mundo en el apartado conocido como. Ver también la discusión. Gracias Jcfidy (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Muchas gracias para comenzar la discusión. --Rschen7754 04:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you please translate this comment, Rschen7754. Thx. --Succu (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: "I don't understand what is happening very well but the item deals with a biological taxon and absolutely all subspecies and varieties of this plant had been added as aliases when each subspecies and each variety should have had its own item. It is as if within the item for birds every earthly species of bird had been put as an alias. Also see the discussion. Thank you" // "Thank you very much for starting the discussion." Mahir256 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Succu, Brya, Til Eulenspiegel: The discussion I have hidden is not constructive. It's not the end of the world if the truth and/or meaning of a week-old statement is left unresolved. Focus on your content work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"In my impression Til Eulenspiegel is following his old pathways, based on his sole interpretation of some private approaches on Meta." This is a very unfair and false assessment from Succu to which I could not even respond when I was blocked while trying to explain better. This has been going on and off for six month now on similar items, still with no resolution. There has been no resolution, because in the entire six months to date there has been no compelling explanatory argument as to why these specific languages' articles about the species, "need" to be segregated to secondary items, limiting their accessibility as much as possible. In default of such a compelling explanation, this will never end. The only explanations offered so far have been unsatisfactory - first it was "because they are stubs and insufficient quality to link to the 'big boys'", then that argument seems to have been dropped and replaced by a simple 'appeal to authority' argument of 'because we say so and you've been told already." No, I haven't yet been told any valid reason why, and some individual's quality assessment of the language is NOT a valid reason. Why this individual deems for instance bat-smg:Cėbolė to be officially "not about the onion species" to the point of 3RR and beyond? I am not unreasonable editor. If someone could have 'shown me the light' and shown me where I am missing something, I would have dropped this case long ago. Until that happens, I have to continue to represent the interests of "small wikipedias" against these acts of apparent malice directed against us "small wikipedias". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
And yet another episode of User:Til Eulenspiegel's propaganda war (misrepresentations only), trying to justify his campaign of repressing small Wikipedias. - Brya (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
„...I have to continue to represent the interests of "small wikipedias" against these acts of apparent malice directed against us "small wikipedias".“ - Wow, you are anouncing further edit warring... --Succu (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I did not announce further edit warring at all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You self-proclaimed yourself as a lobbyist of „us "small wikipedias"“... --Succu (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I can't really purport to speak for all of them; the ultimate decision for what item their links belong at should be the responsibility of the administrations of each respective project. I have seen for example the staff of the Navajo project move some links -to- the 'food items' recently, which I would respect since surely they know more about Navajo than I. On the whole I would say it seems most projects would rather not link their species articles to these 'food items' and in the event of a conflict the decision of a project administration should not be able to be overridden by wikidata users who, as far as we know, are not actually sysops at any language project. This should be the policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
They could act on their own. I don't think the small Wikipedias need a spokesperson like you. Your actions are reminding me to the drama The Fire Raisers (Q857165). --Succu (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Lol, it would be great if everyone let them 'act on their own' and left the links where they'd put them, but we are talking about wholesale transfer of numerous projects to a more segregated item even against their expressed wishes in some cases... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No, we are talking about you and your actions here. --Succu (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh really? And what about the repeated wholesale transfer of numerous smaller projects' links to a more segregated item, even against the expressed wishes of their local admins in some cases? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I ask you much earlier (months ago) to give difflinks for statements like „against the expressed wishes of their local admins in some cases“ to prove them. As an amdin of a „smaller wikiproject“ you should be able to do so. - At least I hope so. --Succu (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You should recall the Central Kurdish admin only last month, among others... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Namely User:Épine Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Help:Diff (Q9037428). --Succu (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
So again, since you aren't actually an admin with any language project as far as I can tell, I hope you can appreciate my telling you to let it go and let the projects speak for themselves, and I'm doing no wrong to say so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Help moving page

I tried to move Help:Alternativnamen to Help:Aliases/de and accidentally created Help:Help:Aliases/de. It turns out the action requires admin anyway. Could some admin please:

Thanks! -- JakobVoss (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@JakobVoss:   Done --Alaa :)..! 11:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Protection request : Q23926151

Hello,

The previous protection ended a few days ago and the birthdate of Q23926151 (Jeremstar) is constantly changed by his fans. We have the same problem on fr wikipedia (article protected). Thanks--Shev123 (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected for 1 year. During this time, people may find another topic to vandalize ... Pamputt (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion of Q42306565

I'd like to request (possibly) the undeletion of Q42306565. I think it was the item for "Swarm behaviour", and site linked to en:Swarm behaviour and maybe the equivalent in other languages, and deleted by User:Andreasmperu because "Does not meet the notability policy", which is puzzling. It's possible that I'm wrong and this is a different item: there's no information in the logs, but en:Swarm behaviour is lacking a Wikidata item. Ghouston (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, it may have been a duplicate of swarm behaviour (Q14915018). I'm not sure why it wasn't redirected in that case, and I'm not sure why the site link isn't showing up on en:Swarm behaviour (caching issue?) Ghouston (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixed with purge. Ghouston (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you go to my talk page. Q42306565 was labelled "swarming object" and had the description "type of object" (no idea what was the idea behind it). Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Ghouston (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Block for Ajt1145141919

Please block Ajt1145141919 (talk • contribs • logs). This user doesn't stop vandalizing at description of items.--本日晴天 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please give some evidence that they insert nonsense. Most administrators (if any) don't speak Japanese. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems that Penn Station speaks Japanese. He could have a look. Pamputt (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
--本日晴天 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please revert my bot

Please could someone revert all the (QuickStatements) edits made today, by my bot account, User:Pigsonthewing-bot? Annoyingly, I had an off-by-one error, matching rows in a spreadsheet. Apologies for the trouble. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. And again, apologies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ontology related deletions

Apparently Andreasmperu deleted many items without motivation

@Andreasmperu:, deletion objects only say that items didn't meet notability criteria, without specifying how and why. Now that they're gone, there's no chance to correct what they said, if they said something at least partially meaningful. I'm referring to items continuity (Q33198290), Q42401688, word (Q42559432), Q39475060, Q38673250, Q39475060, Q28859140. I'm sure at least two of them respected notability criteria because they were created by me: "first element in an ordered couple" and "second element in an ordered couple", which fulfilled structural needs. --Ogoorcs (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing with them first? --Rschen7754 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
With them you mean Andreasmperu? I left a message on his talk page and I noticed there were other topics reporting similar behaviour left blank in the last few days. Maybe he hasn't signed in in a while but anyway I don't think deleting pages without motivation and without reporting the deletion to the creator of the page is good behaviour. I noticed the items were gone when watchlist reported statements related to them being deleted. --Ogoorcs (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ogoorcs: If you would have checked my Special:Contributions/Andreasmperu, you would have known I haven't been connected since before you left me a message. Couldn't you just wait at least 48 hours before coming here? I have left a reply to your message on my talk page. By the way, you shouldn't expect other people to consider you as a priority. I learnt that it just doesn't happen that way. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a procedure for restoring deleted items (for them to meet the requirements of "Wikidata: Notabilites", if they really did not match at the time of deletion)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
At first, ask the administrator who deleted the item. If they are unresponsive or unwilling to restore, you can ask here for a second opinion. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the pattern of Andreasmperu making controversial edits and administrator actions and then not being around to explain his actions when they are questioned. The fact that most of the entries on his talk pages don't get responses is also concerning. If he doesn't enter this discussion in a reasonable timeframe it might be worthwhile to write a request for moving the admin flag. ChristianKl (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite a fair characterization of the talk page there. I see a lot of complaints, but only from a small number of people, some of whom were clearly being disruptive here. I also see a lot of apologies and thankyous. Andreasmperu has clearly been doing good work here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that it's a problem that people complain. The problem is that they aren't answered. I don't think "being disruptive" is ground for ignoring a person when a person complains about admin conduct even if that charge would be true.
Besides that, can you explain to me where LeadSongDog was disruptive in a way that might warrant being ignored? ChristianKl (✉) 18:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question there was explained in the undo message. LeadSongDog's comment seems mostly a personal attack, I don't see what response you would expect? Sometimes saying nothing is better than prolonging things in cases like that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
If the edit message would had said that it's about the name of a persona and not the persona it would have been clear. It didn't.
A pen name implies that theres a persona that's distinct from the actual human who wrote the book. Understanding the difference between the name and the entity represented by a name is not trivial, and could have easily been explained. ChristianKl (✉) 19:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, sounds like a judgment on whether to respond or not. You say it's "not trivial", but "could have easily been explained". That doesn't entirely make sense to me - it seems obvious a name is quite a different entity from a persona and there wasn't much fruitful discussion possible there. If it was me I would probably err on the side of discussion but it often seems to be a huge waste of time - see this discussion with Ogoorcs who opened this complaint here. Now we have "tuple" subclass of "ordered pair" and "ordered pair" subclass of "tuple" - and Ogoorcs repeatedly undoing my attempts to fix this despite lengthy discussion that seems to go nowhere. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I can understand that having long discussions doesn't feel good. On the other hand, we do need to find a way to come to consensus when people disagree. Engaging in discussion is even more important when there's a power difference due to one person being an administrator.
If you don't have discussions but simply revert other people you don't solve the conflict. Unsolved conflicts means a bad atmosphere and in the end people leaving the project instead of feeling at home. When discussions between two people don't seem to go productively it's better to involve other people in the discussion than to simply rely on fighting with reversion. I don't mean to say that it's bad to revert bad edits, but without having a discussion it's not enough. ChristianKl (✉) 22:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hold on just a moment, folks. If I'm being accused of making personal attacks, could someone (preferably the accuser) please take the trouble of identifying where in my contribs that I'm supposed to have done so? The closest I can find is this, which would be very difficult to construe as such. Also, it would be helpful if someone making such accusations took the trouble to let me know. I'm not difficult to reach. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: This comment is what I was referring to. It implies that Andreasmperu has a poor understanding of English, at least that's my take on the comment. It was at the least written with a rather condescending tone. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Wow! Just wow! What happened with good faith? I had two very long sessions of performing administrative tasks during two consecutive days that basically took my full attention (and not the fun type). Understandingly, I needed a break which happened to have lasted less than 48 hours. I don't think that qualifies as making myself unreachable. Just out of curiosity, I checked that you have only performed 16 administrative actions in total, and that 69% of your edits are in the main namespace, which suggests that you are more confortable discussing issues than I am (it is called having different personalities). If I see a problem, I need to fix it, and I do avoid lengthy discussions, specially when I want to stay imparcial. But, please, if you continue feeling uncomfortable about my behaviour, you can start a request to remove my sysop flag at any moment. I welcome democracy anywhere. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I started with good faith a week ago when it came to you deleting the first items that Fractaler complained about. You didn't defend your action at that point but instead continued deleting more items and from the list that Ogoorcs showed here even items that have an even stronger case for existing. I also saw cases on your talk page like the one of LeadSongDog and that lead me to formulating a stronger position.
I don't think you can be at the same time impartial as deleting a large amount of items that multiple people edited. Making controversial decisions about deleting peoples work means to leaving impartiality.
I'm happy that you now write your case down, so see no further need to complain. ChristianKl (✉) 03:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see you have plenty of opinions, but we could use some actions too. Since you keep bringing LeadSongDog's message up, I didn't even consider answering it. I found the "Do you understand that in English..." a bit rude and definitely condescending, so I decided not to engage with him. It is my right to do so. All of us are volunteering our work here, you seem unhappy about my actions, and yet won't step up and do your share. Do you think deleting items is actually satisfactory? Or maybe you think is an easy task. Did you consider that I didn't want to engage in a discussion with Fractaler, but that I was following all the complaints from multiple users? Any administrator can restore an item if they find there is good reason for it. You could give that button a try yourself. I don't mind my actions being undone if I have clearly made a mistake (I don't think this is the case, by the way). If you think being a sysop provides some superior status, you should probably quit. It is actually a big responsibility, and sometimes can become a burden, specially when it is not always possible to edit stuff one likes. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
In my experience in most cases where an item is unnecessary I prefer merging over deleting. If I would have decided that Q33198290 shouldn't exist I likely would have merged it into some other "continuity" item instead of deleting and merging doesn't appear as admin action. Working with people to make their items fit our standards is another way. One of the last bigger cases was the import of British castles without any identifier or references. Instead of going to delete hundreds of items I worked with the person to create identifers for the castles and integrate the data into our system.
Additionally, I don't want Wikidata to become as deletionist as Wikipedia and err for that reason more often on the side of not deleting. Wikipedia does a good job of driving away editors by deleting their contributions and I don't think we should do the same. ChristianKl (✉) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu:I had no intent to offend or disparage in that question, and I regret if it had that effect. I have had no other interaction with you prior to this and certainly have no motivation to offend. We cannot, though, avoid challenging each other when we believe an error has been made. The distinction between "person" and "persona" is rather a subtle one, and your edit looked to me as if you must have misunderstood that distinction. Is there some other explanation for your revert that I have missed? LeadSongDog (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions to @Andreasmperu:

1) Dear Andreasmperu, whether the Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard is the place where the most likely to get answers to questions to you, clarify the situation? --Fractaler (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andreasmperu: in the game (game theory (Q44455)) on the ru-wikipedia version of 2012.01, my opponent turned out to be weak. He was very afraid of my questions and compensated for his weakness with forbidden rules of the game techniques (he used rights that I did not have). In our game with you, you also started with a prohibited technique. But, unlike your ru-colleague, you still have a chance to return the game to its original state and start fair play.
Your administrator's actions (eg systems theory (Q269699), Synergetics (Q1506712), TRIZ (Q631910), biology (Q420), chemistry (Q2329), physics (Q413), linguistics (Q8162), computer science (Q21198) field) say, you are well versed in these areas, maybe even an expert. Therefore, do not consider the training. Just accent your attention.
Here you measure, who has more (use a quantitative approach). But in fact, in the matter evolution (Q5418608), quantity (the first stage of evolution, class (Q17519152)) turns into quality (the next stage of evolution, entity (Q35120), object of the next level), by Q4184872.
This object can be a precursor (initspace object) for the emergence of the space of existence of objects, the space of their descendants (for example, the first cell, the first cosmonaut, the first semiconductor, the first transistor, the first microcircuit, the first computer, the first Wikipedia, the first kiss, etc.) and may not be (for example, an extinct species). If the object creates such a space, that is, the offspring of objects, group objects appears, then (at the next stage of evolution) appears an interaction (interaction (Q52948), by feedback (Q183635)) between these objects of the group, as, for example, it is in multicellular organism (Q36458), human social group (Q874405), superorganism (Q916139). Wikidata has already replaced Wikipedia (the first object of the international creation of the world model). The number of representatives of items (Wikidata editors (Q28859214)) is increasing. There was already a feedback between them. The lack of feedback to you now indicates that either 1) with you reliable feedback is not established, or 2) you are in some other superorganism (Q916139). --Fractaler (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Fractaler and deletion of non-notable items

A while ago, @Infovarius: made this remark about Fractaler. I took note of that because I considered Infovarius knowledgeable enough to spot a problem, but mostly because he is a Russian speaker like Fractaler, so there was no chance of a language misunderstanding. After becoming aware of that potential problem, I began following discussions relating to his creations and kept encountering dubious edits.

A few weeks ago, I reached the conclusion that Fractaler had decided on his own to create a parallel ontology without providing any references to support it. Items created by him were either completely made up (for example, Q30126951 labelled as "bad thing for its recipient", or Q37724659 labelled as "physiological quantitative characteristic") or closely duplicating already existing items. Created items were either not abiding with the notability policy at all (without sitelinks nor linked to any other item) or they were circumventing it by being linked between each other. For instance, Q42267365 labelled "possible relations" with the description "relations, interactions that may arise (no, but possible)" linked as opposite to Q42267978 labelled "impossible relations" with the description "type of relations (no and will not)". Or Q38890799 labelled "group of 31" with the description "group or series of thirty one things/objects" linked as follows (P155) Q38889049 labelled "group of 30", and as followed by (P156) Q38896462 labelled "group of 32"

For what I have seen, Fractaler does engage in discussions with other users, but he doesn't listen to them, which turns such discussions useless. When @JakobVoss: challenged him about an unnecessary creation, he replied with "Ok, then merge or delete", taking no liability and leaving JakobVoss with the job of fixing his mess. Even when Fractaler starts a discussion on his own like in Wikidata:Project_chat#Paired_and_unpaired_organs, he ignores other users' opinions about searching for references other than his own mind, and keeps on creating non-notable items.

As you can see here, Fractaler has 738 deleted items, which amounts to 42,3% of the total number of items he has created. I am not responsible for deleting even half of those items, but I have deleted plenty by spending several hours during two days of almost exclusive dedication to this issue. Unfortunately, the job is far from over. I have avoided deleting items including edits from more than 2 other users, even though they do seem to not abide with the notability policy. My plan is to list all of those dubious items to make possible an open discussion about their deletion/inclusion.

On the other hand, I have deleted items that I found potentially useful because that was just my opinion, which is what started this whole problem: Fractaler having a personal opinion about the need to create an item without backing up that need. With no references to support them and no real structural need, I saw no point of keeping them. Also, I consider it a dangerous precedent for other users to create potentially useful items before there is an actual structural need, but also to create items of any imaginable thing in the universe, including abstract concepts that are not widely used.

The good news is that Fractaler stopped creating new items after I left him this warning on his talk page, so I do not think there is reason for a block. However, I do think that we need to establish some form of ban to prevent him doing this again. His original project, Russian Wikipedia, has imposed an indefinite block to him. I do not understand Russian, so I don't know if he displayed a similar behaviour back there that could illustrate what just happened here (I have really hard to understand his motivation to replicate his mindset into this project without consideration to others or even if it makes sense). All it matters is that he doesn't damage this project any further.

Finally, I think we have a bigger problem here than just one user ignoring how a collaborative project works. I have come across and even created items that are supposed to abide by the third point of Wikidata:Notability by fulfilling some structural need. But now I wonder if we need to put more control over this. Maybe explaining a proposed ontology to the relevant Wikiproject before going ahead and creating it? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem. It is not quite true that Fractaler ignores what others say, but actual communication is quite limited: he bases himself on logic, not on reality. - Brya (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I checked items deleted by Andreasmperu and, if these items were not connected, I don't see notability. A simple loop of items without references, what is the utility in Wikidata? If user want a new ontology, before he discusses about this and after, if exist consensus we can create and use the new ontology. If I find item like those deleted by Andreasmperu (not easy because of the loops), I will deleted them for lack of notability. --ValterVB (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Abstracting from the particular user I would like to rise requirements to create new items at least a bit anyway. See Wikidata_talk:Notability#Criteria_on_items_for_structural_needs -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that a lot of Fractaler creations are problematic.
Let's take an example from Ogoorcs list continuity(continuity (Q33198290)) (I undeleted it and did my best to integrate it). Continuity seems to me to be a clearly defined concept in mathematics. You could say Continuity (Q27715741) is named after (P138) continuity.continuity (Q2141130) could reasonably subclass it. There are likely tons of other reasonable ways that it relates to various things listed in Continuity (Q382618)
The problem is that Fractaler doesn't really try to integrate the newly created item with our exisiting items but tries to create a new structure. He also adds weird claims like "continuity has quality discontinuity quantity 0".
As far as the utility of the "Continuity" item goes, it was translated into 5 languages by the five people that edited it.
In the field of human anatomy I cherish Wikidata as a multilingual dictionary and I see no reason why it can't fulfill that use-case for mathematics by having items for mathematical concepts. Having a structured description of how different mathematical concepts relate to each other is also a good application of structured data.
  • I do agree that the amount of work that Fractaler causes isn't waranted even if some of his items can be rescued and integrated into our structure. Unfortunately, I don't think a ban on creating new items for Fractaler solves the problem completely as adding statements like "continuity has quality discontinuity quantity 0" to existing items would be as problematic as creating new items even if those claims can also be removed by non-admins. ChristianKl (✉) 17:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you tried to "rescue" items if they don't have sitelinks, references or obvious structural use. If new technical (e.g. mathematics) terms are not referenced with a link to mathematical literature so we can look up a definition, then better delete -- JakobVoss (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The concept of "continuity" is hardly a new technical term. Wolfram MathWorld has a section and I added the link to it. "A seventh" is even a concept that most school children understand. ChristianKl (✉) 22:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, there is the issue of contraint violations on most items created by Fractaler. How come is the responsibility of other editors to find the value of an item if the original editor didn't care to establish it? Fractaler was enquired by several editors, and was even pressed to find references, but he ignored those demands, and continued creating more and more items. By the way, the good news are over. I just realised that Fractaler created another questionable item two days ago, so basically all this time-consuming effort is a joke to him. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 20:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's different for items created by Fractaler and items where Fractaler adds statements. One example would be him saying hand should subclass part (Q15989253) but you can also find plenty of others in his history. ChristianKl (✉) 22:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Can you see the difference of the version of item Q33198290 writed by Fractaler and version of the same item writed by you? The first version can be everything, we can't check what Fractal want say with this item, instead your version is a precise concept because you have added a source, the item is what is write in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/, we haven't doubt about this, "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" so is notable. It's also possible that your version is a total different think from version of Fractal, but we can't know it. --ValterVB (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The standard Wikipedia procedure that's used when dealing with a bad article created by good faithed effort is to have a deletion proceding. That allows for discussion and people improving the item. This in turn can teach new users our standards. If you simply delete items without any discussion you don't get good learning effects.
I think there's a point where you can say that attempts to teach a users are fruitless. I think that was the case with PokestarFan. If that's the conclusion to a case, the best solution is to ban the person in question. With PokestarFan I think we would have done better with banning him earlier. ChristianKl (✉) 23:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
If I understood correctly and considering you are the only administrator who's been keen to save some of Fractaler's creations, I am leaning to read your message as you volunteering to monitor Fractaler from now on, as well as undertaking the big clean-up effort that his actions are demanding. That sounds like a good plan to me. Actually, you won't believe the burden you are lifting out of my shoulders. Thank you! Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to take on the task for newly created items from Fractaler, provided I get power to ban him when I consider that to be necessary. Does anybody object to me banning him in the case I consider that to be the best action without seeking consenus with other admins beforehand? ChristianKl (✉) 01:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I am confused to read this. No special informal rules here, please. You better stick to the blocking policy and prepare a good justification for your activity when it comes to user blocks. At this point I cannot see any reason to consider blocks or, as you say, “bans” for Fractaler. Blocked users may of course request unblock and that would be evaluated independently by another admin. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If a user keeps creating new items and a large number of them get deleted for similar reasons, I'd call the ongoing creation of items spamming or vandalism, so a block could be justified. Sure it must clearly be documented with examples of deleted items and reasons for deletion which have continuously been ignored. -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: As JakobVoss said the question is whether you judge the existing behavior of Fractaler as being a pattern of local abuse (per definition that includes spamming/vandalism, but isn't limitd to it). I think repeatedly engaging in a pattern of creating a lot of work for other people through bad edits qualifies and was the reason we banned PokestarFan who also wasn't acting with bad intentions but created a lot of bad edits.
Do you think low quality contributions that lead to hundreds of items that have to be deleted or rescued aren't but that intended to be bad, shouldn't classify as "local abuse"? Do you think we banned PokestarFan for another reason? Do you think the PokestarFan ban was inline with our policy? ChristianKl (✉) 13:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all I would like to mention that I do not like (or fully understand) Fractaler’s items and modeling as well, and I also consider substantial parts of his output as problematic:
  • I have serious doubts about the applicability of mathematical concepts (particularly sets) in the sense Fractaler tries to establish here
  • It is unclear whether there is original research on his side involved, or whether he is just unable to provide references (should be doable in a field such as mathematics with very precise definitions)
  • I am not sure whether the data model he tries to establish is actually valuable to serve any relevant purpose
  • I saw too many items with poor definition and cryptic labels/descriptions which barely any Wikidatian is able to understand or use
  • I also saw constraint-violating use of properties too often
So it is not surprising that I have already been involved in discussing and deleting some of his items in the past, although I cannot provide links immediately. There are ~1000 items of him still alive and I am not convinced that they are all fine, so yes we do have a problem here and it should better be solved soon. However, he seems to have kind of a plan, he edits with good faith (to my opinion), and his tone is very direct, but not yet unacceptable (to my knowledge), he does not use batch editing. I clearly do not see “spamming”, and I have difficulties to consider Fractaler’s behavior as “vandalism”. Nevertheless, I expect him to edit in line with the community will, which particularly means that he provides serious references for his classes/concepts, or refrains from creating them.
PokestarFan’s case was much simpler, since he repeatedly ran obviously malicious large-scale batches and was then unable to repair the damage. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think PokestarFan was malicious in the sense of him wanting to cause harm. I also don't see how whether or not an edit was done in a batch is of significance for the ban criteria. The ban criteria says that "local abuse" is not limited to “spamming” and “vandalism”. ChristianKl (✉) 14:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

213.60.135.94

213.60.135.94 (talk • contribs • logs) - All edits appear to be vandalism. This IP address 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done, blocked for 31h, edits reverted--Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on Q29388200

Some IPs are vandalizing Q29388200 due to the subject's recent death. I'd recommend blocking and/or protecting. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done; thanks for reporting. 1 week semi-protected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:AIDANSC

... has been disrupting PewDiePie recently. Worth keeping an eye on their contribs. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a clear vandalism only account. Blocked. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sedr1k

Please block this vandal--MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
He continues --MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks--MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Edoardo88

I ask for the block of this user, who has been adding false information in a lot of items putting as a reference the Italian Wikipedia. Warko (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Warko: have you talked with the user? I don't see any topic opened by you at User talk:Edoardo88. That would be the first thing to do. Also, when you start a topic here accusing someone of bad behaviour, you should provide at least a couple of examples. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
One example: The user added the date of death of an Italian actor who is still alive. [3]. --Warko (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
At the time of edit made by Edoardo88 the itwiki said he's dead. So not a problem with Edoardo88 here. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Birth date of an Geisha - delete or not?

Hi, since I'm not sure about the exact rules for Wikidata, I'll leave the question from my talkpage here. A user (Lilly 1985) want's the birth date of a Geisha to be deleted. I reverted this deletion two times in the last week as "vandalism". Today I was asked if it is possible to delete it, since the person fears damages for her real life (some Geisha tradition thing, where they are not allowed (?) to declare their birth date). Se my talk page for the complete request and my first answer (I mentioned that it might be possible as protection for the living person not for the rules of any group(s). Maybe the person herself has to ask for via support?).

Until this is decided by those who are more firm on the exact rules here (and how we handle them), I will reset the date to the year (since the age of an person is an important biographical information I won't delete it completely). Feel free to revert me, if this is not OK.

As far as I can see "en" deleted the birth date (after some discussion), whereas in "de" it is still shown. --Mirer (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not know what to think about that. I would say that we should respect the will of living people but I would prefer to get more opinion. Thus, I posted a message on the beer parlour about this topic. Pamputt (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
A parallel discussion has been opened at Wikidata:Project chat#Birth date of a geisha. Since this is not a matter requiring administrative tools, I suggest we centralise discussion there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Nermin Aslanzade

Please block this vandal--MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Warned for now. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks--MaksOttoVonStirlitz (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:213.27.205.116

May i ask is there any template message in wikidata-wiki? Or how should i deal with some user that too smart to remove few middle name from Portuguese people, claiming their source is sole authority, just like User:213.27.205.116? (regarding the footballer full name, i would start a thread in the talk page in enwiki to prove) Matthew hk (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Seem the ip user was correct, but is there any template message in wikidata-wiki that auto-translate, just like commons-wiki? I saw vandalism in wikidata is increasing (such as changing a footballer height from 1.77 to 1.22) Matthew hk (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Michigan (Q1581) and 69.89.111.189

I undid a strange change at Q1581 and set them off on a vandalism spree there and on other items. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC) StarryGrandma (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Q43125726 and Q41451718

Self-promotion items created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). --jdx Re: 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the first one; for the second one, we need to wait until the sitelinks get deleted on the projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: OK, Q41451718 can be deleted now. Q33073452 also should be deleted. --jdx Re: 18:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Maucg and his disputed edit

Probably due to a local bug in the templates of es-wiki, the user keep on removing Property:P1532 from the footballers (many and haven't count). Since footballer such as Keita Baldé Diao Q14945895 have two value of the citizenship, it is totally legit to keep the property P1532 country for sport, to indicate despite the footballer have dual citizenship, he only play for one country Cameroon (and Catatonia did not count). Would someone able to inspect the code of alleged affect template, or resolve with the vandal? Matthew hk (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Vandal?, I told you there was no problem. I already reversed my edition. If someone speaks Spanish I can explain the problem in the tab. Maucg (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
You only reverted one edit, and you remove the property from many footballers. Matthew hk (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu speaks Spanish. So maybe he could help in this discussion. Pamputt (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Gracias Pamputt y Andreasmperu, espero puedas ayudarme, en Wikipedia en español junto con varios usuarios estamos modificando artículos de futbolistas siguiendo el Manual de Estilo de la misma para tener una uniformidad. En la ficha de futbolista la nacionalidad la manejamos de la siguiente forma, si el jugador es español, escribimos "Española"; si es de México escribimos "Mexicana", etc. Al rellenar el campo de nacionalidad deportiva en Wikidata, en la ficha de Wikipedia se agrega el campo pero con el nombre del país tal cual, no con el gentilicio y no se puede cambiar, es decir, en nacionalidad aparece "México" y no se puede cambiar a "Mexicana" por ejemplo (verifíquenlo en el artículo del futbolista por el que inicio esto). Al yo pensar que era un error en Wikidata borré ese campo en varios jugadores pero con la intención mencionada, jamás por vandalismo, si es problema de Wikipedia en español puedo revertir las ediciones y tratar el tema ahí. Al usuario que inició esta disputa se lo dije pero al parecer entiende pocas razones. Maucg (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Maucg: Las decisiones tomadas en Wikipedia en español solo tienen alcance para Wikipedia en español. Cualquier cambio en Wikidata debe ser discutido aquí primero, y este no ha sido el caso. Tus ediciones en Wikidata son indebidas porque han eliminado información válida. Por favor, revíertelas al estado anterior a tu intervención. Gracias, Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Freakymovie

Can you block this user. They keep making uncoordinated bot requests with QuickStatements despite being asked not to.
--- Jura 17:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We have a problem: it's impossible block a batch of QuickStatementsBot. I tried click "STOP THIS BATCH RUN NOW!" but after few second restart, I tried to block the user but the bot continue to edit. @Magnus Manske: can you explain how to block a batch? --ValterVB (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
ValterVB: Since the edits are made by the bot (as opposed to the user who started the task), you'd generally need to block the bot itself. However, there are some preferable instructions for only stopping a single batch on User:QuickStatementsBot.  Hazard SJ  09:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ:, I know, but I have tried, but not worked. I don't like block the bot because QuickStatementsBot elaborate a lot of batch at the same time, and if I block the bot I block all the batch, isn't a good solution. --ValterVB (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done see blocked to prevent more damage. How are we going to clean this mess up? @Magnus Manske: can you confirm that blocked users are not able to start up any new jobs? Multichill (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: I think that a blocked user can use QuickStatements. Yesterday I tried to block user (see my second block) but QuickStatementsBot has continued to do edit of the batch of the user. --ValterVB (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Unfortunately the QSbot kept running for quite some time. I already fixed some of the recent stuff, but the website seems slow today. According to Magnus, a blocked user shouldn't be able to start additional batches. I left a note about the broken batch stopping feature at Topic:U20bnbgvk56kah0f.
--- Jura 19:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried and work, if user is blocked can't start new batches, but if the batch is started, the block of the user don't block the batch. So, for now to block a batch we must block QuickStatementsBot. I don't see other solution. --ValterVB (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If that's the only option, I don't see why we can't block the bot. It's not our fault that the bot is broken. --Rschen7754 06:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Vigaten = suspected all-vandalism account

On yesterday's date (22 November 2017) the account for User:Vigaten made 49 edits, all in Wikidata. One appeared as "bad word" possible vandalism, on a patrol by the PLbot. Examining that and interrelated edits by that user - they all appear bogus and part of a hoax. None have a WP link. My only action is posting it here for Admin review. Thank you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism by this account. The first edit series seriously and, as far as I can tell, correctly extended an existing item. Then three items have been created to (again: correctly, I'd say) describe a source used in these edits. If those are not to be considered notable for by Wikidata:Notability criterion 3 (though I'd say this does make them notable already), two of them have an IMDB identifier, which should fulfil criterion 2. In the worst case, these three items could be deleted for missing notability, but are not to be considered vandalism in any case. --YMS (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Stela Popescu (Q14500720)

Please semiprotect Stela Popescu (Q14500720). This person is recently deceased; the item was properly updated, but there is a wave of both vandalism and well-intended but inept editing. Andrei Stroe (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done: semiprotected for one week. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Kareyac (talk • contribs • logs)

I have blocked this user for 3 days following his unresponsiveness. He has added inception (P571) to thousands of items about people using reCh. Anybody volunteering to fix the mess? And a related question: is there any way we can catch this kind of stuff earlier? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 03:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like an unattended batch import that somehow went wrong. Maybe they mistakenly confused inception (P571) and date of birth (P569)?! The batch started yesterday evening before comments on their talk page showed up, and the user has not edited manually since then.
  • There were ~3500 items affected in total. I’m already removing P571 from P31:Q5 items if the exact value is already set as P569 (~3000 items). Let’s see what remains when finished.
  • inception (P571) is not in good shape in my opinion. There was no type constraint until today (scope was only indicated in the {{Property documentation}} box at Property talk:P571), which I tried to improve. There will be some improvements necessary in the next days when the covi page received updates. Help is welcomed for that task.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
All edits by Kareyac’s batch are going to be repaired very soon (mostly removed). Jura1 added another conflicts-with constraint to inception (P571) which will still yield some results—from other users than Kareyac. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront II (Q29154231)

Q29154231 may need a short term protection, disruptive editing stemming from controversies around the game's usage of loot boxes and real money payments for them. The enwiki article is now under its third protection for the same, which I've extended for a few months. -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done: 1 month semi-protected, and watching for a while; thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Alvarciu (talk • contribs • logs)

Nothing but vandalism from this user, who has already been blocked on es-Wiki. I'd appreciate if the same happened here. Thanks in advance. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for the report, Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass page creation for low/no-notability item

Please see the Talk page for Q376627. On behalf of the Small WPs involved (e.g. ZU WP and others having no admin), I request review of this activity and, if appropriate, mass deletion of these pages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been happening over the years now, not a Wikidata issue. It's just getting more exposed. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably worth bringing that up on Meta. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Though, it's impossible to stop those really, at least I don't know a good solution. Stryn (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

OP update: I understand the phenomenon is most easily noted here in Wikidata once a page of this sort appears, but that the follow-up activity would be elsewhere. Accordingly, I've sought advice from the Small Wiki Monitoring Team on Meta. Thanks again for your helpful input. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection of Q9353

Please semi-protect John Locke (Q9353). Persistent vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done; three months semi-protected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IP vandals

95.123.99.112 and 95.123.99.40 --Papuass (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done, 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remove

You should use merge function for Crowe (Q43856249) to Crowe (Q404004) Matthew hk (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't Adding Language to show Wikidata

Hello,

I want to Add Local Languages in All Data, but i can't add or giving Error to Adding Extra Language. please give Solution.

Regards, Nacks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎ Nacks008 (talk • contribs) at 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

@Nacks008: pls specify what you wanted to add and to which item.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Protect from description-vandals

Please semi-protect the following items. Various IPs vandalize their description in Japanese.

--本日晴天 (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Added 1 item. --本日晴天 (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

add one more target TV Asahi (Q908436), テレビ朝日. turned to 日本の悪質テレビ局 by vandal. Matthew hk (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, TV Asahi (Q908436) still unprotect and look at page history, it seem attacked by the same sockmaster. Matthew hk (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Strange, I was sure I protected it. Now protected anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Luis Carrero Blanco (Q313117)

Consider enforcing a 4th (longer?) protection of Luis Carrero Blanco (Q313117). Inserting jokes all over the wikimedia projects about the likes of the subject being an astronaut (Q11631) has become a meme of the internet.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for the report, Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

IPs

Should we do something with the recent IP contributions on the project chat? It's starting to be a little annoying (but still funny). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as we are unable to block Tobias for good, this will just keep happening. Mahir256 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
And we are not able to block him, because this would block the major German internet provider. Reverting on sight might help.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To get an overview, I’ve looked at his contributions and listed IP ranges he has apparently used this year (needs contribsrange gadget activated from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets; note that not all edits listed here were made by TC):

Extended content

Feel free to add/remove/correct ranges. IMO it helps to quickly identify his contributions, although his peculiar editing style typically does not leave much doubt anyway. Each /16 range consists of ~65k IPv4 addresses, so we cannot just block all of them. Even reverting might only work for highly visible edits at WD:PC and harassing comments, since he still participates a lot in this project in spite of the global ban. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

AbridgedPause, redux

It appears that User:AbridgedPause, who was blocked indefinitely here, is back as User:AbridgePause, and has recreated their autobiographical item, Q43611141. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone intend to deal with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

193.219.54.101

Please block 193.219.54.101 (talk • contribs • logs), crosswiki vandal.--Jklamo (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done 31h, vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
New vandalism after end of the block. I think that a longer block would be appropriate.--Jklamo (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Since this has happened a couple of times since February, I have now blocked this Lithuania-based static IP for half a year (anon only). —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism pages

Hello.

  1. Translation pages do not appear in Category:Wikidata:Deletion like:
    1. Translations:Wikidata:Database download/29/ar
    2. Translations:Wikidata:Translation administrators/Page display title/af
  2. This page is Out of project scope but the user deletes the request

Please delete them.Thanks David (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted them. next time ask for delete in Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions. - yona b (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

El Bienamado (Q28091176)

Protection needed in this query. Several IPs have been removing the original broadcaster (P449) property with no apparent reason. Gabriel (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 3 months. Try to communicate with IP in order to know theur reason if any. Pamputt (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like an ongoing war between User:Suik 2000, User:Edoardo88 and maybe others. --Succu (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Suik 2000 (talk • contribs • logs)

I could only give a quick look to his edits, but this user seems to have removed a huge amount of statements. In that case, all his edits would need to be undone. @Mbch331: Blocked him a few months ago for, apparently, the same reason. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 06:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

request to updates MediaWiki:Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T182494

Please consider the last 2 requests in MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js (add pl messages, and fix bug) --Ans (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jonas Kress (WMDE), Matěj Suchánek, Bene*: as significant editors of that script. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I did the localization but cannot vouch for the second request. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: The second request has been proved in User:Ans/Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js, you can test it at testwikidata: by adding the following line,
mw.loader.load("//www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ans/common.js\u0026action=raw\u0026ctype=text/javascript");
--Ans (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Seem @Fomafix: can do this. --Ans (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2017/11&oldid=657460374"