Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/04

wikilink error

please connect fa:الگو:Taxonomy/Meta with en:template:Taxonomy/Meta Yamaha5 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done, by creating Template:Taxonomy/Meta (Q51254211). --Okkn (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

per Wikidata:Notability, items should not be created for /meta subpages. --Pasleim (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pasleim: I think this is not a usual /meta subpage, but about Meta (Q140566). --Okkn (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --Pasleim (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Hi, I would like some administrator to keep an eye on user 79.51.135.102. He's been doing a lot of unsourced editings that --to me-- look like cross wiki spam/advertising. Let me point that Q51338244 is linked to French and Ukranian Wikis, BUT if you look at the history (https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernocchi&action=history) (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernocchi_(entreprise)&action=history) you'll find the same 79.51.135.102 user. -- Wikidelo (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

He's still creating articles in several Wikis, although the Spanish and the French ones had been deleted: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Vandalisme_en_cours#Demande_de_blocage_de_79.51.135.102_%28d_%C2%B7_c_%C2%B7_b%29 --Wikidelo (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already deleted many items created by this IP. The problem is that the IP is changing and thus I can not lock them permanently out. --Pasleim (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Pasleim --Wikidelo (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again: Special:Contributions/95.237.26.253, and https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernocchi&type=revision&diff=22381705&oldid=22381671. -- Wikidelo (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

JarBot

Can someone stop this bot? It seems to re-import Commons categories people previously cleaned-up and that are already present on other items ([1]). Its operator (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87 ) doesn't respond to requests on their talk page and I can't find the activity on the permission requests.
--- Jura 13:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: What is the problem?.--جار الله (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you re-add links like the one Cycn removed from Q6128664 ?
--- Jura 15:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@جار الله: Mahir256 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I stopped the task for now, i need list of what should i fix to continue the task, thank you.--جار الله (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's at Special:Contributions/JarBot.
--- Jura 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 23:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm presently holding a Wikidata intro course - Could someone remove the throttle for new edits by newbies?

IP Address: 193.5.216.82

Thanks! --Beat Estermann (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

→meta:Mass account creation#Requesting temporary lift of IP cap. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Another IP spamming about Bernocchi

This one: 79.54.150.232. Again with the cross-wiki spam. I.e. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernocchi&action=history --Wikidelo (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC) https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=79.54.150.232 --Wikidelo (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q16864

Please semi-protect Horacio Quiroga (Q16864) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism.--Jklamo (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done, for one year. --Okkn (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

repeating vandalism in Q7189270

Please block User:89.139.200.183 or protect Goel Ratzon (Q7189270). thanks. Eran (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Item semi-protected for three months. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Q8072

Stop this guy 163.6.1.190 quick, he is repeatedly vandalizing Volcano Q8072 right now and I have reverted him a few times Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

163.6.1.190 blocked for 31 hours. Thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

dog (Q144)

Ongoing vandalism. Please semiprotect this item for a longer while. Thx. --Succu (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 1 year. Pamputt (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism report

The user Miaow is deleting referenced content without apparent reason in various pages. The vandalism is: [2] (deletes content with references and adds unreferenced content), [3] (adds unreferenced content), [4] (adds unreferenced content), [5] (adds unreferenced content), [6] (restores the unreferenced content after I delete it), [7] (adds content unreferenced / with invalid references). All of these changes have something in common: it's information regarding those persons' genders. The user is trying to put content not only without references, but with information that is offensive to the dignity of those living persons. Greetings, --Linca K9 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The user seems to have good intentions, I don't see any discussion with them. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If I call this vandalism is because I have already had problems before with this user, that has persistently deleted this kind of referenced content without any justified reason in the Spanish Wikipedia. I will restore the previous content in these pages since I think the changes that I notify here are against the sourcing policies. If this user continues to undo the editions without any references to justify it, I will report it again here. --Linca K9 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Two questions related to IP addresses

• On other wikis, a link to an IP address's contributions brings up a nice box with links to global contributions, geolocation, and relevant Whois services at the bottom of the page. Why is this box not present on Wikidata?
• Is there anything to warrant Wikidata not having local CheckUsers? Mahir256 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For your first question, if you can figure out how to set it up in the MediaWiki: namespace, go ahead. For your second, the problem is finding 2 candidates willing to run and who would pass. --Rschen7754 04:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Rschen7754: So MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon, the appropriate footer, does exist locally; I am uncertain, however, why it is not showing up anyways. Pardon my idiocy; as my interface language is in Bengali, per this discussion the template has to be translated for it to show up. Now to do that...
    • I was merely curious about the issue of local CUs; there are most likely better candidates than I active around here, but I am sure there will be a need for some as Wikidata continues to expand. Mahir256 (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, check Special:Contributions/81.45.65.145 and block if necessary. Thanks. --Wikidelo (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Pasleim (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

access control list

good afternoon! help me in access schema,entities,module,property,copyrith,reserche file in archive in database. consumer protection,other information.please info key,code ,visualization infographics,control license . international language publication,registration data  –  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vulcano24 (talk • contribs) at 12:13, 3 April 2018‎ (UTC).

@Vulcano24: It's not clear what you're asking for here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam by sockpuppet of en:w:User:Alec Smithson

Unsourced spam from this IP: Special:Contributions/87.9.154.174 --Wikidelo (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Again: Special:Contributions/95.237.38.15 --Wikidelo (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Today: Special:Contributions/82.60.94.178 --Wikidelo (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Now: Special:Contributions/95.237.26.20 Wikidelo (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

repeating vandalism in Q39444

Please block Special:Contributions/Marciano91--NewDataB (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Warned. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

continuing, block please--NewDataB (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Alaa :)..! 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q2908

Please semi-protect Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (Q2908) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism.--Jklamo (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jklamo:  Done for a month. Mahir256 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Link from my item to my user page on en.wiki

Someone created a item about here (possibly based on my OrcID info?). I'd like to link it to my en.wiki user page. It says I'm prohibiited from doing that and should ask an admin, so here I am, asking. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WD:N sitelinks to user pages are not allowed but you can add the statement Wikimedia username (P4174) to the item about you. --Pasleim (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Pasleim, I believe that's the info I need. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 18:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

87.41.92.204

Please block 87.41.92.204 (talk • contribs • logs). Despite being warned he continues to remove valid sitelinks.--Jklamo (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jklamo:  Done for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, block

Please, block Special:Contributions/95.237.26.20 for continuous unsourced spam/vandalism and wrong use of properties. It's the Bernocchi guy again. Wikidelo (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikidelo:  Done for 31 hours, but this person is IP-hopping a lot, so I'm not sure how effective this will be. Mahir256 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mahir256:. This person never gets tired. Obviously he/she needs a hug, or a pet :) Wikidelo (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Succu & Q15136093

User:Succu has taken to attacking Andy Mabbett (Q15136093), changing the German label to show an incorrect value and removing the German description, for no apparent reason (unless one counts "you are not 'Andrew Mabbett'" when changing the label to "Andrew Mabbett" as a reason).

Given our recent interactions, it's hard to see this as anything other than an act of harassment, and the blanking of the description as an act of vandalism.

Intervention to prevent such abuse from continuing would be appropriate and appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it has escalated to the level that warranted his previous block (maybe @Rschen7754: has a better idea than I), but the confrontational behavior getting this personal is clearly unacceptable. Should this continue he should definitely be blocked for at least the same amount of time as before. Mahir256 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I see edit warring, and User:Succu, User:Pigsonthewing, you should consider yourselves both warned. If it hadn't been a few hours ago, I would have blocked already. --Rschen7754 04:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I see a persistent pattern of Andy Mabbett pushing things, well beyond anything that can be considered reasonable. I also note Andy Mabbett in a case like Xantus's Murrelet refusing to give a reason for his actions (beyond that there is a source somewhere on the web) and refusing to engage in a meaningful discussion. There is also Andy Mabbett's persistent campaign with "named after", based on his misunderstanding of the nature of an item dealing with taxa. And of course there was Andy Mabbett persistent campaign of foisting his idiosyncratic beliefs about contributions on talk-pages on other users (namely me), in a pattern of harassment so bad that even an attempt to describe it was designated a personal attack.

        On the other hand, Andy Mabbett is very proficient in posting to this noticeboard, complaining about other users, and presenting his version of things. - Brya (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

For how long was your block - sorry, blocks - for those personal attacks, Brya? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Warned, for reverting BLP violations? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes it more complicated is that the item is about you. If these "BLP violations" really are so bad, let someone else make that determination and revert. --Rschen7754 18:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The revert was done by an british IP with the comment POTW is a wikipedian & author when described in German, as much as when described in any other language. For shame, Succu. a minute before Mahir256 added his comment here. --Succu (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not at all complicated; BLP violations are BLP violations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP = Wikidata:Living people created by Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No, BLP = Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm „attacking” the item about you? WD has no Conflict of Interest policy, but you are involved in one. Xantus's Murrelet is a prominent example what you are doing here and what not. Remember this is a comunity project. There are other examples too, e.g. your usage of named after (P138). --Succu (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC) PS: Please not this IP revert at 02:52, 4. Apr. 2018. PPS: In Taxonomic etymology - in search of inspiration (Q21090291) he removes correct statements and readds statements that cause constrain violations. Corrections are reverted. --Succu (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@User:Rschen7754: Any recommendations how to proceed in the mentioned cases? Or the removal of a reference in Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384) with the comment "as before". This would be very helpful. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Succu neglects to mention that there is prior discussion at Wikidata:Project chat#Xantus's Murrelet and at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/07#Editwar at Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384) (and his claim that a reference was removed from the latter is bogus); but none of that has anything to do with, much less justifies, his behaviour at Q15136093; it's just an attempt at deflection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I linked Xantus's Murrelet as prominent example what you are doing here and what not above. Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/07#Editwar at Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384) has nothing to do with your current actions (=removal of a reference in Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384)). --Succu (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the restored removal at Taxonomic etymology - in search of inspiration (Q21090291), @User:Rschen7754. --Succu (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, since you and Pigsonthewing can't stop edit warring, I've blocked both of you for 31 hours for a slow-moving edit war. --Rschen7754 00:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Undo edit

Can you help me with this? --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The spam filter is blocking restoration of that page's content, because it includes a link beginning [https://twitter.com/search. Whether such a useful site should be blocked by the spam filter is another matter... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So there is no way to restore it? --Jobu0101 (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Restored with wrapping all problematic links by <nowiki>. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

After a bit of digging I found meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2018-02#twitter.com/search where this was discussed and added it. @Beetstra, Billinghurst: this is causing false positives. Are you sure this is the best solution? Multichill (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is an appropriate solution. There is in content NO reason to ever link to this, and it is/can be used to circumvent blacklisted material (and that is practically true for any search result). Moreover, it is unstable. You either link to a whole feed, or to a specific tweet. The only place where this would be of some, limited 'use' is in the talk-spaces, but there a working link is not really needed (they can be added non-linking by leaving off http://, causing maybe a minor inconvenience, at least less inconvenience than having to cleanup behind a large number of spambots).

In principle, WikiData could choose to whitelist links, but as they can then also be used in WikiData content, that would mean that all those links can be transcluded on all wikis, and would result in a massive number of problems on each wiki (as the local wikipage that transcludes the links on WikiData would then be impossible to edit since there is a blacklisted external link). Moroever, that would give a wide open loophole for spam (hence, IMHO, the WikiData whitelist should NEVER override links that are globally blacklisted). --Beetstra (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that a discussion involving just two editors, on another project, should stop us from using a link in a discussion on this project; and I'd be surprised if many Wikidata editors do Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do think that spam of a link on multiple projects should result in global blacklisting of said link. Those just two editors have community consensus of many editors to apply such actions if they in that protect many editors of the communty against the actions of many spammers. And I certainly hope that many Wikidata editors do respect the effect they can possibly have on overriding global decisions (of which the current link is not one, but a situation that has already occured in the past). --Beetstra (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Search links have been abused in the past, and are part of current spam activity. Some are added as direct spam akin to url redirects, where others are added as indirect means to defeat greylists (not that WMF has that as part of our operating environment). These spam links have been including twitter search, and also including other sites that are reputable, though the searches are abusable and usually of no, or little, value.

  It is up to the broad community to decide whether a link is in the global blacklist, there are public conversations, and all are welcome to participate, and I understand that it is one of the less glamorous places to be. I do take an issue with what looks like an attempt at the disparaging commentary is quite unnecessary of two competent and knowledgeable crosswiki administrators. Also to note that meta is not "another" project it is the coordinating site for all WMF public projects, and such inaccurate commentary is unhelpful.

  We can of course revisit the global conversation and review the addition of the link; or this community can determine whether they wish to whitelist and manage the risks of abuse by other means. I mind not, all additions to the blacklist are attempted to be undertaken in good faith, with diligence, open conversation with the community, and with the goal of protection from abuse of vandals, spambots, and those with a conflict of interest whilst preserving useful and needed linking.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment At this point of time, there would be value in locally and temporarily whitelisting https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%2334C3%20Wikidata&src=typd to get over the temporary hurdle of HazardBot not being able to archive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Billinghurst: I certainly am not against whitelisting this specific link for use in mainspace only. My problem is with the following possible scenario:
  • We are currently globally blacklisting domains which look legit, but which in the background are fake domains redirecting to the official domain (as in that the official domain is e.g. wikidata.com, and the spammers use wikidata.net). The redirect goes through a referral scheme or a pay-per-click-scheme, resulting in someone making money every time a Wikipedia reader is following the (fake) official website link. In principle, WikiData could override the global blacklist by whitelisting the false domain, and adding it to the WD item of the subject, which would result in it being linked on all local wikis. That also would result in all those local pages to be uneditable - for the software the next edit appears to be 'adding the link', which is not possible because it is on the global blacklist.
    That effect is even bigger in the case of search results or url shorteners. The whitelist is just as blunt a tool as the blacklist (and therefore the system needs a massive overhaul - there is no need to blacklist search-result link for use in talkspace, they are perfectly fine there), I know that that is a major inconvenience in the talk namespace, but I am not sure whether that inconvenience overrides the inconvenience that could be cause by the spam (which needs to be dealt with, in that case, on this project, possibly after a significant backlash from the global community). I would therefore urge WikiData to be very careful with the use of the whitelist, especially for use in mainspace. A possible solution could be that the WikiData whitelist does not override the global blacklist on WikiData content.
    You can, of course, (temporarily) whitelist the very specific link, but then the question becomes whether it is more convenient to whitelist and be allowed to directly link, or use the link unlinked, and have to copy-paste. --Beetstra (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC) (fix ping: --Beetstra (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC))
    • Aside from the fact that neither twitter.com/ nor twitter.com/search are "fake domains"; the solution to your hypothetical scenario is surely for individual wikis to pass URLs transcluded from Wikidata through their local blacklist (or compare with the global blacklist) before using them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Beetstra: my comment is not about allowing it in the main namespace, far simpler. It is solely based on my viewing the local special:log/spamblacklist and seeing the bot caught in trying to archive user talk pages and failing due to the initial links being added prior to blacklisting. They need to have the url whitelisted for a week to allow HazardBot to do its work. I am not entering the specific battle of how and what this wiki should do, they are welcome to my experience with spambots, and like knowledge.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: No, local wikis should not whitelist domains that are on the global blacklist, it would directly negate the meta spam blacklist, and allow for the spam on that wiki to continue. There is a reason why they are blacklisted. No, the solution is to override the use of WikiData on that item on that wiki, or simply not use WikiData. And it is not hypothetical - WikiData has links whitelisted that are on the global blacklist, and that hence can be transcluded onto local wikis where they will lock the page because that link is blacklisted (or where the WikiData supplied official website cannot be added: If you want to try, try to add an external links section with '{{Official website}}' to en:Bitcointalk on en.wikipedia). And if you think that I am going to whitelist 'bitcointalk.org' on en.wikipedia then you are wrong, because then it can be spammed to every wikipedia page, basically negating the meta blacklisting (even if I would make it '^bitcointalk\.org$'), exactly what the meta blacklisting was to stop. And for your information: WikiData is at the moment one of the main targets of a set of very sneaky VPN spammers of which I blacklist links on sight - they know that if their links are here, they will be transcluded on possibly hundreds of wikis. And what is more disturbing is that one of those domains stayed on WikiData for over 2 months, and another one is still there after 3 1/2 months. Do local wikis now have to override the meta spam blacklist because they cannot add the WikiData-supplied official website? I will nuance my earlier statement: "WikiData should NEVER whitelist material that is globally blacklisted for use in their content namespace'. That list should be nearly empty, and certainly not contain the two rules that are currently there (though for one I could entertain the idea that the meta rule could be removed).

Or do you mean that every template on en.wikipedia (and on every other wiki in the set) that transcludes the official website of a subject should have a piece of code in place that checks whether what it tries to transclude is blacklisted locally and/or on meta, and not locally whitelisted, and if it is blacklisted that it then should fall back to the local value or <void>? --Beetstra (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I know, your suggestion was on the single edit. For the rest, WikiData can do whatever they want. --Beetstra (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC) (rto doesn't work here, ping .. --Beetstra (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protection for Q21207398

I request semi-protection for Bernocchi (Q21207398) against constantly-changing-IP anonymous vandal/spammer. Thanks. Wikidelo (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 DoneSemi-protected for 1 month because it seems that the vandalism is recent. Pamputt (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Block User:ZAHOOR AHMED

User:ZAHOOR AHMED removed a range of links here and here and vandalised a label here and probably on other places as well, but as I am not able to read Urdu, someone else needs to check that. BoH (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I warned him on his talk page. I do not know any sysop that speaks Urdu. Pamputt (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. BoH (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: I believe has some familiarity with Urdu. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: I do not speak Urdu; folks like @BukhariSaeed: could have helped us judge better. He has already recanted on his talk page. Mahir256 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not know why Zahoor Ahmed doing these things, he is one of the good user of Urdu Wikipedia. — Bukhari (Talk!) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@BukhariSaeed: It appears that aside from the bad English label edit and the two instances of link removal, all of his other edits are fine; can you confirm this? Mahir256 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit is fine except link removal. — Bukhari (Talk!) 15:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Zahoor Ahmed do this type of edit by mistake see, but i am not sure. — Bukhari (Talk!) 15:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@BukhariSaeed: Okay, if you think his other edits (such as the Urdu labels for physics concepts) are okay, then we are done here. Mahir256 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mahir256 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

please protect Q4333767

Obviously did something during a match tonight... angered more than 1 supporter ... --Hsarrazin (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for one week. --Okkn (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 09:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Cannot understand why on earth I'm on Wikidata ?

Hi ! It appeared to me recently that someone created a page about me on Wikidata last year : Clément Salviani (Q33084328)

The problem is that :

1. I do not reach any requirement to be on any kind of Wiki, I'm totally unknown, only a PHD student with twitter and two blogs, a Flickr gallery and I'm not famous in any possible way. Wikidata does not need me, at all, I can ensure you ^^
2. It appears that the creator and main contributor of my page LOVES to add a LOT LOT LOT too much - private - informations on Wikidata pages he creates (birthdates without sources, former husbands or wives, etc.), very often about persons he is in "conflict" with (or on French wikipédia, or intellectually in general, considering he loves to contribute on far right matters etc.). This kind of way to record my life and digital identity on wikidata is... Creepy and scary, and looks like some forme of soft harassment potential for trolls, also.

I would like to ask if it was possible to delete this page, that, I promise, is not of any interest for human knowledge.

Cordially, best regards, "bien à vous" et respectueusement as we say in French. --C.Salviani (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc: who created the item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The first post here is duplicated at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q33084328; since this is not an admin issue (the accusations of harassment are unsubstantiated)), it's probably best to centralise discussion there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I think there is something for admin consideration here, it's not the first time that a living person complains about their item being created by Nomen ad hoc. My point of view is that NAH actions are borderline, technically within the normal scope of Wikidata but focused on BLP, on sensitive matters and more-or-less conflictual (or at least not smoothly constructive). Since there is still no specific rules for BLP, I'm not sure what we can and should do ; at the very least, I think we should suggest to NAH (and other peoples working on BLP) to proceed with extra cautions (for instance, adding two sources instead of one, only extra good quality sources, etc.). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: for the records, NAH just left a message (in French) on my talk page that « he take note of my suggestion » and that he is « open to discussions and remarks ».  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by VIGNERON (talk • contribs) at 10:17, 4 April 2018‎ (UTC).

Oversight needed? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

repeating vandalism in Q465189

Please protect María de los Angeles Felix Güereña (Q465189), differts ip repeating vandalism--NewDataB (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@NewDataB:  Done for one week. Mahir256 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

vandalism in Q121688

Vandalism in Q121688 by 190.237.183.90. 2 editions. Thanks. Tiberius1701 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Stopped now, we can block if they come back. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living People

Additional proposals have been made on the RFC, and your comments are welcome. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

repeating vandalism in Q452158

Please block Special:Contributions/88.10.10.53--NewDataB (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Warned. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Move request - Wikidata Query Service

I would like either social support on how to make a move request, or admin support to execute a move. I made a move proposal at Wikidata_talk:SPARQL_query_service#SPARQL_query_service_versus_Wikidata_Query which would require an admin to do the move. I do not think it is controversial but if there is a Wikidata community discussion process for moves of this sort then I would be willing to coordinate it, if someone could point me to the process. I do not see move discussion templates here of the sort which appear on other Wikimedia projects, so I am a bit lost. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Why would admins act without the community consensus? You can seek that on that talk page or WD:PC. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: It seems like every move requires an admin. Is it correct that all moves on Wikidata require community consensus before an admin can take action? I made a comment request at Wikidata:Project_chat#Move_request_-_Wikidata_Query_Service. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WD:Use common sense applied here. Did you think it would be appropriate if a user asked for an interal page to be moved and an administrator just did it? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

promotional-only account

Please block Sagartax as a promotional-only account (with promotional username as well) --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

vandalism

Please block 176.130.179.205 for excessive vandalism. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done for a week. Csigabi (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

promotional-only account

Please block Khojinindia as promotional-only account. --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142:  Done Mahir256 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Add good article star

Hi there, the article Steins;Gate at vi.wiki has just been rated as good article. However, I cannot update this information to wikidata. Can you support me with this? Thanks in advanced! Nguyễn Hoài Phương (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. --Okkn (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please protect 200.54.223.138 (talk • contribs • logs). Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

blocked --Pasleim (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pasleim: "Vandalism-only account" should not be used for IP's, which are not accounts. Also, I feel like vandalism blocks should be significantly longer than 6 hours. My preference is 24-36.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally, I block 24-36h if a hot topic was vandalized because it is possible that the vandal tries to make a second attempt. Vandalizing other topics however is a less emotional act and already a very brief block will result that the vandal loses its interest in our project. --Pasleim (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment

BrillLyle (talk • contribs • logs) has been stalking and harassing me across several wikis, making ad-hominem attacks on me and on Art+Feminism that have no basis in fact. As the most current incident involves Wikidata at its core, I am posting this here. I have previously posted about these related incidents at AN on Commons regarding this incident and at AN here on Wikidata about these incidents --Theredproject (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday I posted a small Rapid Grant proposal for further development of a tool that I have been working on, which I posted for feedback, and have received supportive comments from @Pigsonthewing, Multichill:. I posted the proposal around 6PM EST, sent notice to Grants, and gave community notice. ***9 minutes later*** she made posted this in the endorsements section. It has since been moved to the talk page, where it should have gone in the first place.

Afterwards, BrillLyle made uncivil edits on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikidata focus list. After 3 months of discussion, a property on Wikidata was created. The conversation was doubled in length by several uncivil posts by BrillLyle, which caused no one to touch the article for fear of being bitten in the process (see first paragraph above for diffs). After @Micru: created the proposal, BrillLyle made this long uncivil comment on the proposal discussion and then nominated the new property for deletion. Please note that BrillLyle has a history of using the deletion process as a tool of harassment (see here, here, and here) --Theredproject (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle's comments on meta have been removed by the Grants team under their Friendly Space policy. See the comment left on BrillLyle's userpage by a member of the Grants team which states "This is not your first violation of the friendly space expectations. Your comments demonstrate a sustained pattern of disrupting productive conversations in the grants name space and are not acceptable. If subsequent violations occur, we will consider further action, such as advocating for you to be banned from the grants namespace." Will Wikidata also issue such a warning or sanction? --Theredproject (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This user has quite a long history of abusive behaviour and has already been banned from attending any Wikimedia NYC events ([8]).

I removed the off-topic attacks on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikidata focus list and protected it for a week to prevent any other edits. Would be nice if another admin can have a look at what to do next. Multichill (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

An admin should also review, and close, Wikidata:Properties for deletion#Wikimedia project focus list (P5008). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

...and please remove the off-topic Wikidata:Properties for deletion#Shame on you from that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is off topic at that place, this may be a better venue.. Also, given that you so prominently involved yourself, it is a clear conflict of interest to ask for an admin to remove it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, Gerard - it would be improper for me to remove it, which is why I did not not do so, but asked here instead for someone uninvolved to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

All the more reason not to remove on your request. You have behaved in an improper way and then ask any admin to remove prove of your bullying? You do not see that you have transgressed a line (again), that is why you propose this in the first place. GerardM (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin now please review Gerard's wholly unfounded accusation in the preceding comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yes Andy, please delete someone's opinion that doesn't align with yours. Please censor free speech. How is that glass house you are living in?
• I objected to the grant. My comments were deleted by WMF. That is censorship. Flat out. Is that okay? I don't think so.
• This notice here is the actual ongoing harassment and personal slandering. I'm not doing it. Theredproject is. Please think about this.
• As far as this further online attack against me as an editor, it is a lynch mob that I can't fight. I have not documented or gone public with what A+F and Theredproject has done because I am not interested in focusing on negativity and unethical nasty behavior. But it's pretty clear from this effort that this is what this is. If everyone is okay with this happening then by all means be silent and/or endorse his attack on me. But it is not okay to go after someone who has a clear history of questioning methodology. Who has questioned the consistent anti-Wikipedia approaches of A+F. I will obviously be pilloried here. But is that an outcome people are happy with, and think is right? I appeal to basic human decency. Please. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• To be honest, I am inclined to block both of you for importing here an external conflict. Wikidata is not the place to solve it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As harassment is considered off topic elsewhere..

On this deletion request for a property, the responses provide a good example of how people turn viciously on another Wikidata editor. I am appalled and added the text below. This has been removed on the deletion request because "it is of topic". Maybe. The consequence is that as this is certainly the right venue for such a protest, I ask attention here for how we deal with people. I am sad to see this escalate even further. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Shame on you

This objection has turned into one nasty personal attack. This is an absolute disgrace.

• It starts with "This is a disruptive and bad-faith nomination"; why, it is the person who actually uses this proposal who objects that the proposal has morphed into something inherently different. Noticing that there is no consensus is acceptable, making a personal attack like this is disruptive and an indication how unsafe Wikidata has become.
• A statement that it is not what is wanted does not make it "bad faith"; it is an objection to the process that made this property a reality. Naming and shaming is disruptive and an indication of how unsafe Wikidata has become.
• Then there is this person who goes straight for the jugular; to the administrators notice board. This guy is part of an organisation that stated that they will boycott any project she is involved in. This is disruptive behaviour and an indication of how unsafe Wikidata has become.
• " yet another bad faith and pointy action by .." is shameful behaviour of someone who should know better. It diminishes my trust in the WMF but I know a fair number of people so I see it as an exception to the rule.

I would keep this property exactly because there are people who indicate they will use it. I will respond later on how we could deal with a no deletion policy for items that are in progress and part of this property. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

"This is a disruptive and bad-faith nomination" is not a "personal attack"; you're quite welcome to argue that it's not an accurate description, but I think you'll find there's plenty of evidence, and opinion, to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear how the sequence of events that have occurred could be anything but a bad faith nomination. It is retaliatory behavior based on the fact that a huge amount of current Wikipedia outreach that is heavily focused on Wikidata and integrates Wikidata front and center will be negatively impacted in service of the Art+Feminism initiative’s desire to use it for their own purposes. Without regard for how this negatively impacts on the existing work. Clear concerns and context to support that has been ignored. This ANI is a retaliation for having a critical view of the A+F’s leadership, Michael Mandiberg, to continue to use Wikimedia projects for his personal use. Without regard for the fact that GerardM and I, who are consistently productive and hard-working editors, have been in good faith working on new and positively impactful outreach. This amount of vitriol by Pigs is a continuation of unpleasant aggressive and uncollaborative behavior by him that is often focused on GerardM and myself. The distinguishing feature between the two of us and Pigs is that we are not financially tied to this outcome and our careers are not impacted like both Pigs and Mandiberg. It is worth examining and should be part of this discussion but I’m sure people are too afraid to be transparent about this. GerardM and I are volunteers. I wouldn’t say either of us is politic but our agendas are clean. Unlike the folx here rushing to condemn and mute questions concerns and dissension. — Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin now please review BrillLyle's wholly unfounded accusations in the preceding comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion but, how do you know it is unfounded.. What is your expertise, what are your sources? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"It"? I used the plural; "accusations". It is for the person making the accusations to substantiate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but it is you who says they are "wholly unfounded". That is an accusation in its own right. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

When you tell others that they behave in bad faith, it is personal. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with everything that has been said about BrillLyle’s behavior. I would also like to remind everyone that this is not Meta and while the context can be helpful, we generally cannot sanction anyone based on what happens on another project (neither the attacks nor the “censorship” of comments). Finally, while outreach for underrepresented subjects on Wikimedia can be helpful, it is not an automatic trump card that wins discussions and debates. However, it is clear that there is a battleground approach/mentality with BrillLyle that is not acceptable for a collaborative project. Accordingly, I will block BrillLyle for 3 days. I will also warn User:GerardM that their approach to this situation is not helping matters either. —Rschen7754 01:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect. First, my personal message is my own. What BrillLye has to say is her own. I protest to the way she has been maligned. The way she has been treated. In the reaction I find that our civility and approach is secondary. In your arguments you acknowledge this by agreeing to the points I made. However you then proceed by banning the victim for three days without providing arguments why this is needed. You warn me in a way that is wrong; it is not "our" approach. It is my approach that I call attention to the ongoing harassment. Noting that it is not helpful in this situation means that it is preferred that no attention is acceptable when people are called out for their bullying behaviour. This is the administrators noticeboard. You have been served notice that people, editors of Wikidata are harassed. This is my approach and it is up to you all to preserve a safe space for all people including BrillLye. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

GerardM, you are making serious accusations. Please provide diffs of this alleged harassment, or retract your accusations. --Rschen7754 07:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder this seems abundantly obvious. It is obvious to me where you find your answers. What I do not find is any answers to the questions that I posed to you. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no diffs in that section that you presented, nor any question marks in your comments to me. --Rschen7754 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

When you read the above, you will find a link where the quotes are from. This is the second time I refer to it. It is in the introductory part that I linked to before. In my reply I indicate where I find issue with your previous statements. I indicate a lack of arguments why the victim was banned. Blaming and punishing the victim is what I observe, I give you room to explain why you are not evenhanded. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In said discussion I see plenty of criticism, but not harassment. I think you are confusing the two concepts. And you are essentially asking me to accept that BrillLye was harassed just because they said they were harassed. --Rschen7754 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism is one thing but it is the language that makes it harassment. BrillLye is harassed; it starts with a salvo by a noted edit warrior and then progresses further down hill by a fiend from her past asking for a ban that is actually executed. What she has done is protest in a way that can be often enough be observed from others, with arguments against the creation of a property that has has no longer effective preventative tools from deletionists asked for in the proposal. I have seen and experienced how the work of BrillLye was sabotaged, I have witnessed how projects were bullied not to collaborate with her because otherwise there would be sanctions. I have worked with BrillLye on at least three projects that I will not name. One project I personally shelved (and I did report the reason why to persons "in authority").

I refuse to accept what has happened. There is no excuse and imho the harassment has only become worse because people do not reflect on what we have become and blindly express their rage for being confronted with our behaviour. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• As requested, an explicit statement:
  • "I will stop harassing Andy Mabbett."
  • "I will stop harassing Michael Mandiberg."
  • "I will stop ad hominem attacks on Art+Feminism."
  • "I will stop discussing my experience with Wikimedia NYC and its leadership."
  • "I will Assume Good Faith of other editors and groups of editors."

• This comes from the resolved Wiki ANI. I mean for these statements to also apply to any forward-moving activity on Wikidata. I would like to apologize and move on. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• For the admins; at this time there is an action against BrillLye because she stands accused of sockpuppetry. I doubt very much that this was her. It seems she has been threatened that she would lose all editing privileges. This is the only reasonable way for me to understand the above.

It does not change anything as far as I am concerned as far as the way she was treated here. That was beyond the pale. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• • @GerardM: "accused of sockpuppetry"? Huh? Point me to where she has been accused of sockpuppetry. If you can't, and continue in making these kinds of claims without concrete evidence, it will be difficult to find a reason to not block you from editing. Your participation in this thread has not been very helpful for that reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is it a coincidence that this drama is taking place while at the same time this drama unfolds? Is the tone whereby you ask if there is "evidence" aggressive or not? In this thread I have objected to the way we treat ourselves. It is hostile, it is even harassment. When you then consider how uneven this plays out, it has everything of ganging up on a woman a group of men do not like.

When it "will be difficult to find a reason to not block you from editing", you confirm that it is the boat that has been rocked and you feel uncomfortable. This is an unveiled threat not based on my edits but on my expressing an argued opinion you do not like.

Having said that, ask yourself why on earth there the opinion is that there is no good in a librarian, someone who was for year and a half the secretary of the NY chapter, who has done important work on both Wikidata and Wikipedia? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Since Gerard clearly has not been getting the memo that claims of "harassment" need serious evidence, and he has been warned, he is now blocked for one week. Another reason for the block is his continual assumption of bad faith on the part of many editors who raised concerns about BrillLyle's conduct. Since this is not a reason explicitly listed at WD:BLOCK, I am requesting community review of my action. As I stated on his talk page, my sole unblock condition would be for him to refrain from further commentary on this dispute. If the community's consensus is against this action, it should be reverted; however, I should be consulted and my reasoning taken into consideration before any such action. Also, while 1 week seems harsh, I also want to convey the message that I was not joking when I said he needed to refrain from this. By the way, while it is true that BrillLyle has an active sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia, that is irrelevant here and Rschen's block predated that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I endorse both that and the related block on en.wikipedia. I also think that we need to tighten our policies on casting aspersions. --Rschen7754 14:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • While I like listening to GerardM and trying to understand his point of view, I support admins taking action like this where they feel users are not responding calmly and rationally to things. A greater readiness for short-term blocks like this in wikidata would be good. Thanks for taking this action. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please block the IP 201.230.198.42 (talk • contribs • logs), who keeps indicating "genius" as occupation for the clown of physics Fritjof Capra (Q84258), and silly informations such as Honolulu instead of Vienna (Austri) as birth place. Totodu74 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Alaa :)..! 14:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 14:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

checkConstraints gadget

Since we’ve enabled constraint checks for all logged-in users (phabricator:T173695), as far as I can tell there’s no point to keeping the checkConstraints gadget anymore – gadgets are only available for logged-in users, and all logged-in users have constraint checks enabled, regardless of whether they have the gadget enabled or not. Can someone please remove it from MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I thought the gadget was to stay, to allow users that do not want it to disable it ? did I understand something wrong ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work. You can hide the constraint icons (instructions were given earlier), but the script will still load. I don't know why you would want to disable such a feature, though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, enabling or disabling the gadget doesn’t have any effect right now. If we add a way to disable constraint checks for a user (it’s still not clear whether that will be necessary), it probably won’t be in the “gadgets” section, I think. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Merci :) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): why didn't you just made it a default enabled gadget? That would have given users the option to disable it.

I think MediaWiki:Gadget-checkConstraints.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-checkConstraints can be deleted now or is there any reason to keep it? Multichill (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: Two reasons, I think: one the technical side, we wanted to roll out the feature in phases, to make sure we wouldn’t overload the servers, which wouldn’t have been possible with a gadget. And on the other hand, Lydia considers this feature to be a proper part of Wikidata now, so it doesn’t really belong in a gadget. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q1835

Please semi-protect Zinedine Zidane (Q1835) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism, living person.--Jklamo (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done, for three months. --Okkn (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Kostas20142 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

There are several requests on Wikidata:Requests for deletions that have been open for months, including biographies of living persons cases. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

promotional-only account

Please block Jgeneralow as promotional-only account. --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by Matěj Suchánek. Pamputt (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Вандализм

За подобные правки нужно блокировать. Kalendar (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Warned. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Blockage

Hello, I request the blockage of the user Rarh1992 which is not here to contribute serenely. Thanks Olivier LPB (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Warned. Block doesn't seem needed at this time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, any tip about this?

User_talk:Wikidelo#delete_Planeta_award_entry and this [[9]] Thanks. Wikidelo (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikidelo: Be careful not to cause a edit war.

By the way, Premio Planeta de Novela (Q1630979) is not a private information, so I think we don't have to delete the statement. All other writers received this award may have this statement, so removing this award received (P166) statement only from Carmen Posadas (Q2528674) spoils the data integrity. Instead, everyone can complete her list of award received (P166). Of course, her manager can do it too. --Okkn (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @Okkn:. I'll stay away from Carmen Posadas (Q2528674) for a while. Wikidelo (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the IP's declared CoI and bad reason for removing the data, Wikidelo has been acting correctly to restore it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Identifiers

Could someone create Wikidata:Property proposal/Norsk biografisk leksikon ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Norsk kunstnerleksikon ID, and Wikidata:Property proposal/Store medisinske leksikon ID? These have been posted for two weeks, and I would like to use them for a gadget at nowiki. Thanks! Jeblad (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeblad: property creators usually look for at least one supporting vote, and your proposals don't seem to have any. Is there a wikiproject or somebody else you are working with that would be interested in seeing these? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: I can post a few questions at nowiki, but I guess it would be difficult to convince people to vote for this. Ie "why should we vote for this, it isn't visible impact". Jeblad (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeblad: you placed them at the top. You probably missed the "Please add new items to the BOTTOM of this list". I moved them down. People generally look at the bottom of the quite long lists for new properties to comment on so if you place it at the top, it won't get noticed. Multichill (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Now created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Block

Please block 2A02:2F0E:170:141B:69C7:F4F2:5AA:623F--NewDataB (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Pamputt (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q5799863

Please, semi-protect David Broncano (Q5799863), it's being heavily vandalized lately. Thanks. Wikidelo (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
And this one, also: Amarilla Pérez (Q7121729). Thanks. Wikidelo (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you very much. Wikidelo (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Massive replication lag for which Wikidata is worst affected

I noticed that Wikiscan stopped updating its stats for Wikidata yesterday. Any idea what's going on with four of the eight Wikimedia shards, given that Wikidata's lag coincides exactly with the amount of time Wikiscan's been out of date? Mahir256 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Noticed the same with bytes of Wikidata items not updating in Petscan. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Вандализм

За подобные правки нужно блокировать. Kalendar (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Infovarius: could you have a look on this request and the other one below that is written in Russian? Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: -- Kalendar (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Block

Please block Алексей Коперфильд Анонимов (talk • contribs • logs) (vandal). Kalendar (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: -- Kalendar (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Вандализм

@Ymblanter: @Putnik: просьба заблокировать 37.113.178.187 (talk • contribs • logs). Kalendar (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: -- Kalendar (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q142

Please semi-protect France (Q142) - very popular theme, frequent IP vandalism, profanities.--Jklamo (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jklamo:  Done for 3 months. Mahir256 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 13:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Contributions/Dakhoaquocte

Someone should have a look at the last changes from this user. Very suspicious changes and uploads of images from the web. --Migebert (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that almost all edits are wrong. I warned him on his talk page. I let few days to reply us. After that, I think we can undo all edits. Pamputt (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q692

Please semi-protect William Shakespeare (Q692) - very popular theme, frequent IP vandalism. As it is 7th block, please consider indef protection.--Jklamo (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jklamo:  Done Mahir256 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q4200831

Please semi-protect Eduardo Inda (Q4200831) frequent IP vandalism. Triplecaña (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Lymantria (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 20:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Todd Howard" (Q2606967)

Semiprot, target of Tumblr meme campaign related to Todd Howard on enwiki leaving semi-protection today (Now extended to indef). Related vandalism on enwiki has resulted in at least 8 additional articles being semiprotected. -- ferret (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Most vandalism seems recent. Semiprotected for 6 months. Lymantria (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 20:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Rollback/Feedback round

A significant change to the rollback function has been proposed above. --Rschen7754 05:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please, block Special:Contributions/92.90.20.159. Thanks. Wikidelo (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. He stopped. Wikidelo (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Its Artix here

As you may have noticed, Rschen7754 thought it would be good, and perhaps appropriately, block me for sockpuppetry, and cross wiki in a freakout if I may add.

Im honestly repentant of the sockpuppetry here on wikidata and across WMF sites. In the end, Im still working on a method to come back, specifically on enwiki where it originated, and edit out reservations whatsoever.

Serious matters the important thing.

I still have numerous edits I would like to make and contribute to. As you may have known, I have produced a ton of edits through translations for China, Indonesia, France, and Morocco. I think I've done a good job so far and I would like to honestly continue. There were honestly about 20% of the way done, as of now, and would like to continue. It is a work in progress and I would honestly like to finish sometime in the future, preferably in the near future. As I continue to work on it, the amount of edits will continue to grow as people continue to reply to my inquires.

The real meat, I, Artix Kreiger, am hoping for a shot of redemption on wikidata. None of the edits were vandalism, spam, but of sockpuppetry. Despite the deception, this is the internet after all, None were of malice as for good and beneficial edits. Thus, I am submitting to the admin corpus for a shot at redemption and one chance back to the community to finish the translation projects. My list of translations can be found at User_talk:66.128.150.14/Translations.

Thanks

66.128.150.14 12:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• This appeal comes way too soon, in my opinion, from someone who has been caught multiple times with sock accounts. I would be more inclined to support an appeal in at least six months with no socking and no evasion of the blocks. I'm voting decline. --Rschen7754 17:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Jeon Jung kook" (Q22338877)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Jungkook (Q22338877), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
It has already been semi-protected between 9 October 2017 and 9 April 2018.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@NicoScribe:  Done Mahir256 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 11:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q298

Please semi-protect Chile (Q298) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism.--Jklamo (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Pasleim (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 15:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Kim Tae Hyung" (Q18388296)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect V (Q18388296), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
It has already been semi-protected between 10 October 2017 and 10 April 2018.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@NicoScribe:  Done Mahir256 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 15:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Mary Shelley (Q47152)

Please, semi-protect Mary Shelley (Q47152). Lots of IP vandalism. Thanks. Wikidelo (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wikidelo (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Avreart (talk • contribs • logs)

Sorry to bother Wikidata with this nuisance. It's sock a serial sock-puppeteer named Krajoyn, who got himself community banned over at en-Wiki. Now he's gone on a killing spree on the Wikidata offshoots of my article renamings. Favonian (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: Take your request to m:SRG. In the meantime Avreart will be blocked here. Mahir256 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Now we have Blancyon (talk • contribs • logs), already reported to the stewards. Would it be possible to get rollback rights? Knowing Krajoyn, this will probably become a recurring event. Favonian (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: Request rollback here. Mahir256 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ovagner

Ovagner (talk • contribs • logs) keeps adding occupations and celebrity (Q211236) to instance of (P31), despite being asked not to do this since September 2017 (in both English and Russian). Not sure what to do anymore... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The user has made no response on their talk page. A block for a few days to try to get a response? Or maybe clarification/confirmation on this policy is needed (do we have a standard page on why humans should always be P31 Q5? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with ArthurPSmith. I have sent him a new message to support yours, Sjoerddebruin. Pamputt (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want a response, an indefinite block, with the promise that it may be lifted by an admin, as soon as a response (or the required undertaking) is made, would be appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

While Ovagner (talk • contribs • logs) still hasn't responded on the talk page, their recent edits look fine to me, in particular use of occupation (P106) rather than P31. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This vandalism

Feminism I edited the entry, but given the user seems to have been created specifically for this purpose, you mighat want to take further action. TMagen (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for cross-wiki vandalism, thanks for reporting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Block of IP 31.200.18.248

The IP 31.200.18.248 spammed several Heb Wiki users, requesting them different requests. In my opinion, it was harassment. Dgw (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For the moment, he has sent only one message on each discussion page. I do not think that can be considered harassment. Pamputt (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Block of IP 87.41.92.141

The IP 87.41.92.141 deletes a lot of links to the wikis. In my opinion this guy is not interested in improving of wikidata. -- MovieFex (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex:  Done for 31 hours. Mahir256 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: It was not the first time today, same procedure on 12. April 2018.[10][11] He will be back ... -- MovieFex (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex, Mahir256: by looking at Special:Contributions/87.41.92.0/24, you can see that:

1. the vandal is alone in this IP range
2. the contributions of 87.41.92.141 were already a comeback
3. there has been a second comeback, with the same IP, on 19 April 2018
4. there has been a third comeback, with another IP, on 20 April 2018

Perhaps 87.41.92.0/24 should be blocked? --NicoScribe (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex, NicoScribe:  Done for a week. Let me know if that helps. Mahir256 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Special:Contributions/88.17.20.0/20 is the same or another one, but he is active again. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@MovieFex, Mahir256: the fourth comeback has occurred today, cf. Special:Contributions/87.41.92.240, so the range 87.41.92.0/24 should be blocked again... --NicoScribe (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@NicoScribe, MovieFex:  Done for a month. Maybe that helps a bit more? Mahir256 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Gzen92Bot

The above appears to malfunction. I left a note on its talk page, but it continues to delete content from Wikidata. According to its description, it would stop on leaving a note on the talk page. A request to its operator User:Gzen92 hasn't helped either.
--- Jura 06:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It's stop. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

KIT Linked Open Numbers ID

Wikidata:Property proposal/KIT Linked Open Numbers ID has been marked as ready since 11 April. Can someone action it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there some reason, that I've overlooked, why this can't be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Succu

Ever since I blocked Succu [12] he has repeatedly been making negative comments about me in multiple venues: [13][14][15][16][17]. While I could simply ignore the pings in preferences, I do not think that this death by a thousand cuts sort of behavior should be tolerated on this wiki. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 20:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What did I wrong? I think admins should help to settle conficts. Maybe I'm wrong. But this is done at dewiki for ages. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We are all volunteers and should be treated with respect, and not have attacks made against their/our character. We are all volunteers and not required to do anything. If I chose to never make another edit again, there is nothing that Wikimedia could or should do about it, and that goes for any editor. Furthermore, Wikidata:Administrators does not say anything about dispute resolution. As a general statement, it is not our responsibility to teach editors how to communicate with others in a productive matter if they are ultimately unwilling or unable to do so.

I do not think our procedures for dispute resolution are sufficient for now or the future (all we have is Wikidata:Project chat which has too many threads), but that is not an excuse for edit warring, incivility, etc. --Rschen7754 20:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So pinging you is not respectful? A volunteer --Succu (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly, and asking me virtually the same questions over and over, and making some comment about my character? No. --Rschen7754 21:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As a neutral contributor, I would say that I support Rschen7754. He wrote better than me why Succu should change how he interacts with other users, and especially Rschen7754. I hope the previous message by Rschen7754 will be useful in order everybody contribute peacefully. Pamputt (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Succu's unblock request

Four days ago, Succu was blocked by User:Jasper Deng for one month due to the report filed by User:Rschen7754 in this section and the short conversation here as well; see User talk:Succu#Blocked 2 for details.

Succu has requested {{Unblock}}, and I ask other admins to evaluate their request. It has a somewhat unusal form, since Succu refers to a discussion (in German language) which I started on their talk page after the block was issued. During that conversation Succu clearly described for which reasons the block shall be reconsidered to their opinion. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I, for one, oppose the unblock request because (based on Google Translate of the German conversation) Succu does not seem to understand that my issue is comments like the ones he made at WD:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/02#Deleted items, WD:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/02#Personal attacks by Brya (including the section where he attacks Rschen for the block), WD:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/09#sigh. This aggressive tone is not a good way to present his opinion even if those opinions are valid ones and creates a rather toxic environment. Especially in the latter example, they really give the impression of assuming bad faith on the part of others. The discussion above crossed the line. Succu should refrain from addressing other contributors by "Mr.", or calling their contributions "damage" or any of the like; this is not an exhaustive list by any means.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jasper Deng, MisterSynergy: Succu promised not to make personal attacks or edit wars anymore. If it is true, we don't have to keep him blocked, and we can be lenient with him. Also, he has greatly contributed in the taxonomy, so I hope him to continue to make useful contributions. Shall I unblock him? Of course, if he violated this promises, I would block him again. --Okkn (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I would support unblock, after I discussed with Succu for a week now. From my point of view there is some larger conflict with Succu's involvement to solve for which I want to write something here at the Administrators' noticeboard, but that does not make sense while Succu is blocked. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Okkn, MisterSynergy: No, that is not the reason I blocked him, please re-read my comment above. His behavior does not constitute making personal attacks sensu stricto.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Frankly, it is not that clear what your reasons for this block were. The red block box on Succu's talk page says: “You have been blocked for a period of 1 month for persistently taunting, pinging, and otherwise berating Rschen7754 far beyond what is reasonable.” (which refers to the issue reported in the beginning of this section), followed by a comment outside of that red box in which you mainly refer to unspecified other incidents in the past.
          I agree with you that Succu’s discussion style in disputes clearly was below par in a couple of situations, but particularly in this one I don’t understand the harsh block. Succu is in trouble (dispute with User:Pigsonthewing for months now, including several edit wars [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]), understands that and asks for help; it does indeed appear to be somewhat clumsy that they ping Rschen7754 several times after Rschen7754 was involved in the dispute as an admin (thus the complaint here was okay), but I don’t think we should sanction Succu’s clumsiness in their search of a solution. Even from an outside position it is not that clear how Succu’s dispute with User:Pigsonthewing could be solved and who could help them. We do not have an arbcom, although it seems to be needed here (based on my experience with the dewiki arbcom).
          Anyway, as long as Succu is blocked, there will be no progress in that dispute, and very likely edit wars like the ones linked above will continue. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
          • The block was emphatically not for this single incident but also the others I referred to above. I would not make a one month block for just an isolated instance of this. In this particular incident, however, Succu's way of confronting Rschen after the latter refused to get involved was not acceptable. Given how much assistance you are of to him, I question why he had to berate Rschen rather than just contact you. I understand that German is his native language, however, he was given multiple warnings about how his behavior played out in English and he chose to continue to conduct himself this way in English, so language is no excuse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
            • No matter how long time we spent to point out his past bad points, the benefit of that isn't big for the future Wikidata. The most important thing is not that he should undergo punishment as a result of bad deed, but that he never make troubles with others anymore. I believe he has reflected on his actions. --Okkn (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
              • I support the unblock. Pamputt (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
              • @Okkn: This block is not a punishment. Again, I am not comfortable releasing the block unless Succu demonstrates explicitly that he understands the reason for the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
                • @Jasper Deng: While I understand e great part of the complains you made about Succu's rude behaviour in discussions, now I think you are exaggerating. Succu's promises are quite explicit in response to Okkn's quite explicit questions. Succu has been blocked for 10 days now, and IMHO that is quite enough after these promises. I support unblock. Lymantria (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • @Lymantria: His promises seem to be only made because I wanted them to be made, not because he actually understands what he was blocked for. I know I'm being arcane but I want 120% assurance that he will not resume this behavior in the future, which would result in a longer block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • @Jasper Deng: I'm missing the "assume good faith" here. Apart from that, a long block may well be counterproductive to understand what you are blocked for. Lymantria (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
                      • @Lymantria: This comment contained a lot of the same behavior that I blocked him for, meaning the block is serving its purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk)
                        • @Jasper Deng: You get the reaction of a frustrated man there, who tells you that he has reasons to be frustrated. What you answer is that you understand why the other side of the discussion was frustrated. (Your point on the number of edits is of course right). You are talking mixed language there, not at all beneficial to understanding the block reason. Lymantria (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Lymantria: And there are better ways to express his frustration than that sort of comment. If he is correct then he doesn't need to resort to ad hominem remarks like talking about my own editing. Ad hominem remarks, even if not personal attacks perse, are a logical fallacy. The block is doing its job by not letting him post such comments elsewhere on the project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: Well, I don't weigh the value of pure absence of his discussions perse as positive. The content of Succu's contributions seen in completeness, even in discussions where he may go way beyond politeness, I see as positive. Also, where Succu acts, other users act as well. Stubborness of users may be taken into account as to where the toxic environment is concerned. If one is never in for an agreement, agreement won't come and the counterpart in discussion will be frustrated. Not everyone can keep themself together in frustration, and showing frustration in a polite way is a cultural thing. And that brings me to the cultural part here. Wikidatat is an international, multicultural project. That is difficult, and we should have sensibility for different ways of acting by people from different backgrounds. To give some perspective: Succu in his wording is not going far beyond what presidents of countries like the United States or Turkey allow themselves in public. You and I may have different cultural backgrounds, as I don't agree on your judgement. I see your 3 month block as over the top and counterproductive. What we miss is an Arbcom. Lymantria (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lymantria: This block is for one month, not three. I already said that I do not excuse language issues because he is not obliged to communicate in English, has the ability to reach out to other users for assistance in communication, and is obligated to maintain his cool in a discussion as part of being in our collaborative editing community. I am all for multiculturalism, but unlike other users of his own culture, he does not seem to observe the effects of his words on others. It does not matter what background you come from if you attempt communication in a language you are not proficient in and miss the message that a change in behavior is needed. I have long been fully aware that this style of discussion can be seen as normal in German or Dutch. However, that is emphatically not an excuse when I have previously warned him on this page about the toxic environment I observed. Waving hands about cultural considerations ignores the case in hand, namely the case of Succu's own behavior. I respect that you believe otherwise, but the bottom line is that the fact that other users from his culture can conduct themselves collegially without the need for warnings or blocks shows that there is no need to excuse this on cultural grounds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jasper Deng: My apologies for my typing mistake on the block length. Now I dislike your suggestion that I propagate waving hands about cultural considerations. What I propagate is that moving towards each other has two sides. If you ignore differences, you can't bridge them. Lymantria (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one else has commented that Succu is still editing: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SuccuBot Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not surprised that it must be you to comment on this. For your information I find the way we treat ourselves off-putting. Given that you are a principal party in the block of Succu and have been more than annoying in the past I should not be surprised but find it characteristic. GerardM (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I have unblocked the SuccuBot. Your block does not meet the criteria of WD:SOCK, because this bot only conducted automated approved tasks, so it is not "circumventing sanctions or blocks". --Okkn (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No. He is responsible for edits made by his bot and therefore, is effectively editing around the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Okkn: I must agree with @Jasper Deng: here: unless we are claiming that bot accounts do not fall under "legitimate alternate accounts" per the "Circumventing sanctions or blocks" bullet point, and unless we are throwing out the assumption that we're not blocking the person behind the Succu account when we block the Succu account, the block of SuccuBot is completely justified by that bullet point. Mahir256 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, one more opinion: I find the block of the bot account highly inappropriate. The bot account has no connection to the current case and is not used to escape the block (e.g. by using it for discussions). There is a script written by Succu that makes automated edits, and I think we all agree that there is no concern about its quality. Neither the blocking policy nor the alternate account “policy” explicitly cover this situation, so we shouldn’t interpret those policies to the blocked user’s disadvantage. Finally I need to say that this meanwhile looks like an attempt to squeeze Succu out of this project; I’m really disappointed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Alternate accounts, even legitimate alternate accounts, may not be used to circumvent a block or editing restriction. Unless otherwise stated by the admin placing the block or restriction, a block or editing restriction placed on the main account applies to the person behind the account, regardless of which account they use." What is not clear about this? I don't want Succu to leave; if I did I would have blocked him indefinitely. But I do want him to know very well what I want him to change about his behavior. So far I do not see that. By the way, saying "Finally I need to say that this meanwhile looks like an attempt to squeeze Succu out of this project" seems to be an implicit assumption of bad faith -- some of the exact behavior I want Succu to refrain from in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Decision

Now, four admins (Lymantria, Pamputt, MisterSynergy, and me) support the unblock of Succu, and one (Jasper Deng) opposes it. Before unblocking Succu and SuccuBot, I will wait for 24 hours so that other admins have a chance to comment. --Okkn (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Succu's last English comments (not sure about the German comments—please correct me if I am wrong) did not actually address his continued annoyance of Rschen, the very behavior that brought about the block in the first place, directly; instead his last English comment sounds like an instance of tu quoque (Q911275) directed at Rschen and Jasper Deng. It is in part due to this lack of direct response and recantation (even something in the realm of "I'm sorry that I pissed off Rschen with my pings and I promise that I won't ping him en masse ever again" would count) that I am hesitant to support an unblock. Mahir256 (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You made less than 60 contribution this year to this project. (Diff)

• This sounds like ad hominem (ad hominem (Q189183)) and not an improvement of behavior. — regards, Revi 06:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @-revi: I don't think it is a pure ad hominem, but Succu is questioning if Jasper Deng, who apparently had made not so many contributions in the past year, can judge the role Succu has played in intoxicating the environment. I don't think it is a correct argument, but we should take into mind that this project demands a minimum number of contributions for each admin. We don't see that as an ad hominem. But I agree it is not the nicest way for Succu to keep the promises he made earlier. Lymantria (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Lymantria: To directly rebut Succu's argument, even if I don't speak much, I read this page (AN) on a daily basis and most of my work on this project is administrative in nature. In any case, it is a fallicious argument from authority (or appeal to authority), or rather lack thereof, because it has no bearing on his own behavior (hence why I said it is irrelevant). Ad hominem does not necessarily mean personal attacks; it is another label for his fallicious reasoning. Actually, Succu's tendency to make this sort of argument (by linking unrelated edits in heated discussions; such examples can be easily found in the archives of this noticeboard) is another reason for the block, but I didn't know how to phrase it to him when I first made the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • As long as minimum activity criteria as an admin is satisfied, commenting on user's activity as a contributor is ad hominem, in my opinion. Also, Jasper's activity this year is none of everyone's interest for this discussion, so it constitutes NPA - Comment on content, not on the contributor. The focus is on Succu's behavior, not Jasper's activity. — regards, Revi 11:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @-revi: You seem to miss the point that I was making. In court this kind of questions is normal. It is not nice, I agree on that, repeatedly stated now. Lymantria (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry; I'm on a vacation - we ain't be a court, so that's not a good point to make, at least for me. — regards, Revi 16:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jasper Deng: Our opinions on this are not widely different. Still, blocks don't solve anything, just take away the user (and create this sort of lengthy discussions, of which I start to wonder what use it has). What we need, I think, is a statement with do's and don'ts, subscribed by Succu. Normally a thing the Arbcom would come forward with. Would you be willing to start writinng such a statement and might we find agreement on something like that? Waiting until Succu understands, without doing something about it, won't help. Lymantria (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
        • @Lymantria: Is it okay if I unblock Succu and SuccuBot in the present situation? Or could you please unblock them? Currently, four admins support the unblock, one admin clearly opposes it, and two admins express concerns about it. --Okkn (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • @Okkn: The two admins (Mahir256 and -revi) whom you say "express concerns" support the block, and Rschen7754, the original poster of the whole thread, is an administrator as well. There is clearly no consensus to act.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @Jasper Deng: I also support your judgement to block Succu at the very beginning. But now we are discussing about whether it is time to unblock him or not. Three admins you named don't declare themselves against the unblock of Succu explicitly. --Okkn (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
              • I thought context implies that I do not support the unblock. That comment was meant to say nay, but situation is now different, it seems. — regards, Revi 16:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
        • @Lymantria: I have said everything I wanted to say about my conditions for supporting an unblock for Succu. I am unwilling to lighten those conditions, except for the following: Succu can be unblocked subject to the condition that if he engages in the same behavior again, I reserve the right to reinstate the block without any warning, and for its full duration of a month. There is no need for an arbcom here anyways. That would demonstrate an incapability of us administrators to effectively run this project. It is also up to him, and him only, to not:
          • Taunt other editors by linking diffs or other pages about said editors (such as their contributions pages) unless said links are strictly and directly related to the discussion at hand -- this is an ad hominem type of behavior and is a logical fallacy;
          • Aggravate other editors by engaging in en:WP:BAIT-like behavior, especially after being told to stop;
          • Assert bad faith on the part of others when no such bad faith exists; he should not even do this implicitly.
        • I think it is very fair to wait for @Succu: to express on his talk page his acceptance of this unblock condition.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • @Jasper Deng: Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • @Jasper Deng: That makes sense to me. He should accept the condition. --Okkn (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • I assume the conditions should apply until the regular end of Succu’s block on May 21 only, right? Anything else, particularly indefinite or even infinite conditions would be impossible to accept for Succu.
            On arbcom: we do not need one for this block, but I don’t think we get the Succu v Pigsonthewing dispute satisfactorily solved with administrative measures only. The current 30 days block of Succu is just a collateral damage of that larger dispute, because you found Succu’s effort to seek for help and advice inappropriate. Blocks and page protection do not help here, as long as we don’t want to put the infinite block option for both parties on the table (which we don’t want to, of course). —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Sorry for the delay, I just weathered my final exams and paper. This condition should continue indefinitely because Succu has no business making these sort of comments at all; being after the expiration date of the block does not mean he is any less obligated to do so. As another concrete example, I point to Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2017/05#Editor_edit_warring_with_me where at first, his discussion with Til was pretty constructive, but after the "User:Brya still at it" subsection, his comments had an increasingly inflammatory effect on the discussion (though to be fair, not as much as Brya in that situation). I am satisfied if and only if Succu agrees to make a very earnest effort to obey the conditions I stated above. If he does so, then the provision that he be reblocked will never be triggered and everyone will be satisfied. Note that WD:UCS still applies; if an isolated incident occurs and it was quite accidental, then of course a reminder is more appropriate than blocking. When I say that I reserve the right to reblock, it is for a resumption of the pattern of behavior I blocked him for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
              • I find it inacceptable for Succu and explicitly also for other administrators to subject Succu to your personal jurisdiction for an infinite period. This is not covered by a community decision or a policy. Also I fail to see why Succu should be the only user subjected to such a condition, as they are definitely not the only user who shows this discussion style in disputes. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
                • Any other admin is also welcome to block if they so desire, and Succu is not the only user subject to this. However, given his long-term pattern here, I defend my decision to in particular use a one month block with him. Other users who engage in this conduct at the level he did are just as likely to be blocked, though not as long.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • Consider another admin made a decision in a similar case and you feel that Succu should be treated harsher than the other admin did, would you overrule them? Would this also be done “without any warning”? —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • I have no right to bind what other admins decide on this matter after the current block expires or is released early, but I do ask (politely) that they explain clearly why their action is in proportion to the behavior at hand, and give due consideration if I decide to dispute it on their talk page. Whether a warning is appropriate or not is similarly their discretion; however, unless they specifically stated they decided against blocking, I may choose to add a block on top of that if I feel the case was highly egregrious, though in the vast majority of cases I would still aim to discuss with the acting admin first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Another heading

• • • • • • • It is striking that it always all seems to go back to this, and the lasting effects of that by itself suggests that it was not well handled. It seems to me that WD:UCS should be interpreted as that it is the purpose of this project to build the best quality database possible, and that admins should strive to serve that purpose. In other words, admins should spend less time supporting users who treat acting insulted as an art form to be indulged in as often as possible, and more time supporting users who are working to build the best quality database possible. - Brya (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
              • @Brya: If I did not think Succu was here with that in mind, I would have blocked him indefinitely instead. The dispute I cited was the outcome of an attempt to build the "best quality database" possible. If other users who want to contribute to that are hindered by the behavior of other users, then it is the responsibility of administrators to deal with that accordingly. I fail to see what is not "common sense" about this approach. I would not be spending my time on this if I did not believe the project would run more smoothly as a result. The tricky case is the intersection of the two sets of user you mention. Unfortunately, material contributions to the database are no justification for behavior that hinders others from contributing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
          • No, the dispute you cited was one caused by a user who wanted to change the status of his (non-Wikidata) project, at the cost of other projects and at the cost of the internal consistency of Wikidata. As to admin behaviour, I am not saying admins should not pay attention to politeness, and should not take action to promote that, but to keep a sense of perspective. If only politeness is enforced, and the bigger issues are ignored, Wikidata is likely to end up populated by users who, oh so politely, demolish the content and fill Wikidata with nonsense. The bigger issues do deserve attention also, and even more so. The "tricky thing" is that being an admin, besides some formal training, requires spending time to find out what is really going on. - Brya (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Note that it is not necessarily wise to look at trouble as "conflicts between users". Take a "conflict" between User A and User B. User A wants "a"; User B wants "b"; while if looked at objectively it proves that what is correct is actually "c".
                The best result of an intervention is that User A and User B (and perhaps User E and User F) end up working together to achieve "c". The worst result possible is that User A is blocked, because User B needled him so badly that one, or more, of his comments was deemed a personal attack and he was blocked: User B wins and the wrong "b" is what Wikidata ends up with. Only slightly less bad is that User B is blocked, because he needled User A so badly: User A wins and the wrong "a" is what Wikidata ends up with.
                Wikidata does not exist in a vacuum, and it must try and get it right; it is not as if its contents should be the result of a compromise between personal opinions of users. - Brya (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
        • • • • • • @Brya: It is not my responsibility to find "c" for editors if their discussion consists just of bickering between the two. Notice that my approach has been to warn all parties in such situations, so the playing field remains level. If you come to this page reporting a user's behavior, then it can be presumed that you consent to administrative actions like blocks. Editors must be both polite and constructive with their edits. Those who do only one or the other do not belong on this project. Those who are only polite usually don't even read discussions on this project. Those who are only constructive, but impolite, are asked to leave.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
              • Clearly, I did not even hint that it was an admin's responsibility to find "c": that would just about require omniscience on the part of an admin. However, "a", "b", or "c" is what Wikidata is going to end up with, and what Wikidata's endusers are going to end up with: it represents the heart of the matter, and an admin should do his best to contribute to the best possible outcome. An admin who does not keep an eye out on "a", "b", or "c" and who blocks a user is pretty much just lashing out blindly, like a police force which is just bashing heads (sometimes just before a popular uprising because of arbitrary police violence).
                        The "level playing field" is an unfortunate phrase here. Wikidata is not a game, a commercial competition or any other kind of competition. Wikidata needs (and has) many different kinds of users, each with different limitations, skills, knowledge etc, who (hopefully) will take up different tasks and responsibilities. Wikidata consists of a collection of niches and is not served by creating a (probably two-dimensional?) "level playing field".
                        The "Editors must be both polite and constructive with their edits." is fine as a general principle, and few will disagree with it, just like "we need world peace" or "companies should be open about the products they sell and should disclose everything concerning performance". As a basis for blocks, in practice, it lacks several layers of details. It is not as if it is reasonably possible to divide used users into "good faith users" and "bad faith users": there is wealth of complexities to be taken into account. Blocking a user should ideally have a clear purpose; and not be an all-or-nothing decision.
                        As to in- and outdentation, Wikidata has no rules on that. Both in- and outdentation are supposed to serve readability, and the first test which I apply, and one which it must absolutely pass, is that I can read my own comments. With your indentation I can't read them at all. You appear to be basing yourself on a rule on enwiki (which obviously does not apply here), which the to be a form of acting out. It has the look of a bunch of nerds getting together: "We are creating a bright new world, and are throwing out everything that is known about readability, and instead introduce a clever encoding". That might work for like-minded people, who have the same size screens, with the same screen settings, but for the general population it does not work. I rarely hear anybody who is unhappy with my style of indentation, with the noted exception of a few users who by some coincidence frequently seem to be involved in controversy. - Brya (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:, your assertion that it is "just bickering" between two people is off. When you look at the issues between multiple people there is typically a common person doing the bickering, someone who even asks for people to be blocked, who uses inflammatory language that drives people away or move away because he takes a position. I have seen the excuses of several admins asserting how little can be asked because of their lack of time, I have seen them go to war on this perceived privilege. At the same time I see you hand out harsh punishment, punishment that you acknowledge is not in line with the rules. You persist in blocking people for an excessive period of time in the face of opposition of fellow admins and when people have to say they will not do whatever it is you want, they have to grovel because you assert that it is not enough in your opinion. You insist on punishment, it is the only thing you can do as you assert that you do not have the time to talk with people. I acknowledge that there is a need to balance things but there is no balance when punishment is not meted out even handed.

Let me be clear, I do want no bans for no-one. But I want acknowledgement that our communications are hostile, acknowledgement that we do not collaborate. I am perfectly busy asking attention for the Ottoman Empire, African politicians, human rights violations, killed journalists and awards. But ask yourself why I cancelled a well developed project dealing with taxonomy, ask yourself why I stopped showing my interest in retracted papers. It is not as if these subjects have no relevance; it is because I have no appetite for the continuous nastiness. It is easier to ask attention for less than 1% of the humans representing Africa than argue how we can improve the quality of Wikidata. In both instances there is no response, no idea how to move on, no notion and particularly for the latter accusations that this is not what people want to hear about. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

• • • • On the matter of an ArbCom, the question if Wikidata needs one depends on the question of effectiveness of admins. Looking at "the Succu v Pigsonthewing dispute", on the surface both Succu and Pigsonthewing seem similar, in that they both express themselves in a tone which is well short of what should be the standard for this project and both are extremely persistent. If admins are to be considered as effective, they should not restrict themselves to looking at the surface only; when looking at what actually happens (when it comes down to substance), there are huge differences between these two users. Admin action should be based on substance. - Brya (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, the problem is as follows: administrative measures in such disputes are (1) user blocks, (2) page protections, and (3) warnings to avoid using the first two options. I’m afraid none of those helps here in a way that satisfactorily solves the dispute. Moreover, administrators should not make editorial decisions. I discussed this problem already with Succu in German and told them that I, as a taxonomy layman, have by far not enough knowledge about “the substance” to decide who’s position was to be supported here, even if I wanted to do that. There are often contrary opinions even in scientific communities, thus I would not rule out the possibility that positions of both parties of the dispute are legit in some sense.
          In general, the toxic atmosphere in such cases is not appealing to other users to engage in the dispute, neither in an administrative role nor as a user who wants to support either of the positions. Way too quickly one becomes embroiled as well there, as for instance it happened to Rschen7754 who felt to be attacked by Succu. If things are already escalated that far, there is little one can do as an admin. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The issue is not the instruments available, but how they are used. It is better to try and cure the disease rather than to chase symptoms. Looking at problems around Andy Mabbett, I notice a repeated pattern (unfortunately there is an adequate sample of cases available). When asked questions, he will often refuse to answer at all, or only flippantly ("there is a source", "not what source says"), sometimes he may come up with one answer (in one not content-related case even two answers), but will otherwise just repeat himself, or just revert. When he is in above his head (as happens often in taxonomy-related matters), he does not re-examine his sources and position but falls into a pattern of blunt stubbornness. Indeed it very much appears as if he aims to convert a discussion into a conflict ("please prove that allegation" seems to be a stock phrase), which he will then report on this noticeboard.
              This is unwanted behaviour, and an admin could require him to limit himself to just one blunt repeat/revert, after which he is required to let matters drop, or to come up with an actual content-related argument. That is simple enough (anybody should engage in genuine discussion) and would probably help greatly. - Brya (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Another load of unsubstantiated personal abuse, Brya? Weren't you recently blocked - more than once - for that, and told "The next one may be indefinite"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing, Brya:, I just noticed this now, but please limit discussion in this section to Succu's behavior. Your comments immediately above (by both parties) are examples of exactly the type of comments I want Succu to refrain from, and if I see any more of them, consider yourself warned that you, too, may end up blocked as Succu did. It is only fair this way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
          • So if someone makes unsubstantiated accusations about me, I shouldn't point that out? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

GerardM's comments on Succu's talk page

Things like this are exactly why I blocked him last month (see Topic:Ub25iw8bbxqo1gkn). I request an uninvolved admin like @Mahir256: to block him again, preferably for longer than a week, because he clearly did not get the point and his comments are really unhelpful and unnecessary. They are quite tangential to the subject of Succu's behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, GerardM is making a good point there that some other user, using polite wordings, hairsplitting on language mistakes by nonnative speakers of English and very stubborn, certainly plays a role in the negative environment of some discussions. Lymantria (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lymantria: What he is not allowed to do is make accusations of "harassment" without evidence, especially after he got blocked for that. I have spoken with Gerard in person and while I do agree that he does not have a native understanding of English, I am far from the only one who takes issue with what he says.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Lymantria (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What I have not done is accuse anybody of harassment. What I have done is indicate that in my opinion, based on the definition as used on the English Wikipedia harassment is happening. People have left as contributor exactly per the definition. Given that I am not allowed to express an opinion and am threatened with a block, it can be argued that my human right is curtailed in addition to this the argument is not addressed. In this way this is imho also a diversion.

In this case I am seeking for us to discuss our behaviour. A behaviour that is militarised and all too easy people are blocked. As indicated by Brya, at the same time some people are deemed to be "more equal than others" as well. As I expressed earlier, in the previous altercation I was told that when I would not discuss harassment any further, my block would end. In the same way as with Succu, I said as much and that is not enough / was not enough. I was not unblocked, Succu is not unblocked.

Again, I want us to consider how we treat each other. We have lost good people. It is important that we are allowed to discuss our issues. Personally I have lost my appetite on working on retracted papers because I have no interest in another edit war with the one who is "more equal". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM: "So harassment is ok..." appears to be a pretty clear assertion that my block of Succu is "harassment". Also, I did not unblock you because your promise to not talk about that dispute in particular fell short of what I really meant, which is to not make unsubstantiated allegations of "harassment". In any case, stop trying to import your dispute here. It is not relevant to Succu's behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I must agree with Jasper that your comment hinted very strongly that the block of Succu constituted harassment. That said, you and Brya do have a point about how whatever arbitration process we have has failed some people and how admins can sometimes become eager to apply actions to both sides of a dispute rather than rule in favor of one or the other party. At issue has frequently remained the unwillingness to provide, either among petitioners or among respondents, substantiation for any of the accusations while those same people demand likewise from others. I have found it unfortunate, seeing disputes on sitelink placement, on species statements, on lexeme licensing (in two separate instances), and between two New Yorkers who simply won't talk to each other, that not as many people appear to readily provide evidence to support their statements or actions, instead exhorting others to do the same (or instead finding evidence to discredit whatever arguments their opponents may provide). There exists in as equally severe a proportion an aversion to directness, by which I mean recognizing the specific wording of a given complaint and responding only to this wording in as specific a fashion as the original complaint, or repeating conclusions and statements and evidence in writing even when it tires the writer to make the person the writer is responding to get the point, or heeding the warnings and requests of admins and users alike in precisely the manner worded by said admins and users. Please do not construe any of what I have said as jabs at any particular person or group of people; I may well have done such a thing myself and you may present evidence of this to me on my talk page if you wish, but this should not invalidate the entirety of what I write.

What we may need now more than anything, in order to ensure the consistent and fair application of whatever policies we may call upon, in addition to an expansion and elaboration of those policies to provide a course of action for dispute resolution to which admins should in large part conform, and instead of banking on the idea that "nothing really needs to be said aside from" a single sentence about a policy when such brevity appears clearly insufficient on another significant project that involves people from diverse cultures, appears to be a thorough examination of the lessons we have learned from attempting to resolve and defuse, however successfully and with however much collateral damage in the process, such prolonged conflicts as the ones I mentioned above. We must at the same time take care to always, always, always, always provide evidence, either in links to specific diffs or quotes alongside those same links to specific diffs, for anything that has occurred in the past if it is not blatantly obvious to someone who does not frequently contribute to or is otherwise unfamiliar with Wikidata at all what subject is being referred to, and to always ensure that we individually get the points of others, through whatever exhaustive clarification may be needed of what is meant between any two given parties, before proceeding to determine any further course of action in such disputes. Mahir256 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"hairsplitting on language mistakes by nonnative speakers of English" Can you substantiate that allegation with evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think my wording "hairsplitting" was not correct. What I meant is that words are taken different from intended and quoted, thrown at ones feet. Lymantria (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that allegation with evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I probably can. Bottom line is that you have hurt me, and I probably have hurt you. My intention was not to repeat that, so I will not be digging. Lymantria (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

When I mentioned stalking in the instance where I got banned, I particularly mentioned that the stalking was alive and well prior to what transpired at that time. I indicated egregious behaviour; the language that starts with accusations of abusive behaviour, a person from a chapter only popping up to ask for a ban. Consequently what I referred to, bad as it was, was part of a pattern. It was not something only local to Wikidata.. but that does not mean that it is acceptable here. People, admins ARE aware of this pattern! I am not willing nor able to provide links to all other instances anywhere that makes this pattern. What I was willing to do was provide testimony for a friend. I did and was blocked as a thank you. I was blocked while I am a long time contributor to the project, I provide a lot of thought on what we do and how we can do better, the only thing asked of me was "provide easy to consume links that prove without a doubt harassment" and Mahir256, what you do is enshrine such behaviour. What you describe is convenient for admins and it is a certain route that will drive people away because this kind of lawyering takes practice and some are more equal to the task than others. It will drive me away and it has driven me away from certain subjects. I do not care to engage in protracted duels with PigsOnTheWing, the one inviting you to talk but who never replies. Yesterday I was appalled that he told the DBpedia people that their project was inferior because "we can do that in Wikidata".. something we are, in the here and now, particularly bad at. I was upset for the whole day and was really pleased with the answer he got from a DBpedia person. I will now not reply. The evidence for that IS on our mailing list, you must have seen it. When you consider the definition of stalking on English Wikipedia (policy), it mentions keeping people from editing. There are many ways this is caused. When this notion becomes uncomfortable as the shoe fits.. seek other shoes. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Yesterday [...] he told the DBpedia people that their project was inferior " No I did not; and as that is an entirely false allegation, not only unsubstantiated, but incapable of being substantiated, I ask an admin to act accordingly, noting that Gerard was only recently blocked for, among other things, "(Making repeated claims of "harassment" at WD:AN#Discussion without sufficient (concrete) evidence, trying to import external conflicts to this project". I'm sick of being falsely accused like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would note that I have no idea what GerardM is referring to (if it's important enough to bring it up, then it is important enough for you to provide a direct link to what you are talking about so the uninformed like myself can read further and decide for ourselves), but I also see that Andy Mabbett similarly has quoted things just now without linking to their source. Please, both of you, and everybody else, at least attempt to provide sources for your allegations/claims/whatever that may be relevant for those reading. This is a wiki, links are easy to add to text, please just do it, read what Mahir256 wrote just above (18:42, 7 May 2018). I'm not an admin, and right now I'm awfully glad I'm not, so I don't have to deal with this sort of thing directly. But it's painful to read about it like this too, please don't make it more painful by not linking to sources to back up what you claim. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Of the two verbatim quotes I gave, one is in this comment to which replied; the other - obviously, I thought - in Gerard's block log. Neither, unlike the one I complained about is an egregious invention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 02:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Videoconference meeting proposal

I find a bit sad that we have to reach the point of blocking people, because it creates resentment and it doesn't solve anything. In my experience, with textual communication a lot is lost and it is not a good way to address issues like this. I would like to propose to have a videochat with the people involved and try to reach a common understanding about civility and collaboration. I think in the end everyone here wants to collaborate to have a nice community environment, so that should be the goal of the meeting. It would be even better to meet in person, but since everyone is so far away, maybe a videochat can also help. I can offer myself to moderate it if necessary. --Micru (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it will be a logistical impossibility for me to video conference with people in Europe due to time zone differences.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: On which time zone are you based?--Micru (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

While such meetings may be helpful, due to privacy concerns we can't require people to do this. Due to some past off-wiki harassment I would have to decline (besides my being mostly inactive on Wikimedia projects for the next few months due to outside commitments - so I might not see any replies to this post right away). Personally, I would suggest coming up with a RFC that does not have usernames in it that comes up with some general principles regarding civility.

As far as the concern about blocking people, I find it unfortunate, however when the user has shown that they are unable to work effectively with other users, blocking is necessary to protect the project. For all of the concerns about "us" "importing" "enwiki-style blocks" to Wikidata, one of the failures of the English Wikipedia is that it often lets editors who have made thousands or millions of edits to the site get away with whatever they want, whereas newer editors who did the same would be given way fewer chances.

As far as unblocking Succu, I will confess that I have only skimmed the above discussion, but I am not convinced they understand what they did wrong. --Rschen7754 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Nobody is forced to participate in a videoconference, it was just a suggestion based on the feeling that it is easier to find common ground through in-person communication. In general textual conversations are slower and not so effective.

I generally oppose the act of "blocking" anyone, I think it is more civilized to just ask them to refrain from editing from a certain period of time to cool down and to reflect/dialogue, and only if this request is not acknowledged, then yes, I find ok to use a hard ban.--Micru (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)