Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/09

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2018

Undelete item Q36360792

I'm not sure if it was exactly that item ID, but that element it's about an event taken place in mid 20th century on Law and shouldn't be deleted due to be "empty", because even if there is not a linked Wikipedia article yet, it could have claims attached to it or fill it with claims, and there is also lots of books or sources on the matter. The item is about "Second South American Congress on Private International Law". If it isn't the right item ID, the right item ID can also be found in my deleted contributions list (there's a special page to access this information). --Zerabat (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Please add some claims and references. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose it in WD:RFD --ValterVB (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/We03311793 and Special:Contributions/We03311795

These two accounts are confirmed to be operated by one person. Both are active in Wikidata. Although their edits seems to be legitmate, I don't know how can we enforce Wikidata:Alternate accounts to these two accounts. Should one of them be blocked? (if yes, which one?) Or we can involuntarily disclose them in their user page? I have noticed them one month ago.--GZWDer (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any sign of illegitimate use? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Per Wikidata:Alternate accounts, if alternate accounts do not link to the main account, they are not considered legitimate alternate accounts.--GZWDer (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Blocked sock indef and master 3 days. --Rschen7754 20:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

190.183.202.91

Ip is vandalizing item Q45229. --Esteban16 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a semi-protect of Q3110177

IPs from Taiwan have been changing the Chinese name discription to another name that does not match the zhwiki article name.--205.185.118.236 04:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 1 month by Mahir256. Lakokat, could you have a look on this problem? Pamputt (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Finn Wolfhard (Q26308335)

It's currently under active vandalism atack and was frequently attacked in the past weeks. Please semi-block for a long time. --Denniss (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done; semi’ed for half a year. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

193.81.56.77

Vandalism, see Special:Contributions/193.81.56.77 2 times at Q392310 (LASK) --Wurgl (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done; blocked for a week —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Johan Archiles is back!

User:Johan678 see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2018/07/27#Q55768758 -- MovieFex (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuked created items and indef-blocked. Mahir256 (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/186.60.133.202 vandalizing descriptions. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done; blocked 31 hrs —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Request of protection

Hi,

Q2829953 is vandalized here, on French wiki and on de Wiki... (issue on the date of birth). A protection for a few days would be good. Thanks ! --Shev123 (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protégé par Mahir256 pour une semaine. Pamputt (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed sitelinks, mainly for korean actors

Continuation of Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2018/08#Removed_sitelinks_for_unknown_reason_(mainly_korean_actors).

Current addresses:

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wesko

Wesko keeps adding descriptions starting with a capital letter, despite being informed about our policy back in May and recently by me. It's hard to communicate because the user is using the Android app and I am not sure if he or she has an email address configured. Not sure how to continue with this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the capitalization, the descriptions seem to be useful and appropriate. In my opinion, we should rather let them continue than issue blocks or something as the “damage” to our project is really really small… —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a semi-protect of Q349375

Frequently under active vandalism atack, please for semi-block. Kirilloparma (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done; 6 months semi-protected —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages clean-up

Following a series of cleanup initiatives, the following report has gotten somewhat long: Wikidata:Database_reports/to_delete/empty_disambiguation_items.

There are currently some 11360 items that can be deleted: [1]. If you need help, please advise. --- Jura 18:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A large amount of these cases stems from a tidy procedure User:Matěj Suchánek ran on July 10 where he removed ~14.7k redirects from dab items. In many cases empty dab items remained which are now populating that deletion list.
Right now, there is a substantial amount of backlinks to these items, see this query. Many of them are different from (P1889) (can probably be removed if dabItem is empty), said to be the same as (P460) (merge if backlink comes from another dab item, otherwise remove), or mistakenly linked dab items (need to be replaced manually). It would be good if you could help repairing them. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I removed most of the backlinks. There should be just some 130 left to 70 distinct items.
If it's thought to be useful, attempts to merge some of the items could be done, but the items had linked to pages that weren't disambiguation pages. I'd just go ahead and delete them.
BTW, there is a risk that some steps eventually re-add the backlinks, so maybe the deletion needs to be re-done if one waits too long. There are also redirects on the list of backlinks. These should probably be deleted first. --- Jura 04:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Great. Thanks for your help. --- Jura 18:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please semi Q292723

Thanks. --- Jura 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done; 3 months —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please semi-protect

As the edits don't seem to go anywhere and we had made several attempts to discuss P1483 with the IP, this now spread to P3284 I unfortunately mentioned. If there are useful edits, they can be suggested on the talk page.

It's a bit odd that we get all those deletion attempts of historic information around the website of an organization that is here to preserve history .. --- Jura 07:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done - Protected for 1 month. User doesn't seem to understand the concept behind Wikidata. Mbch331 (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mbch331 (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Surtkfkfkname31

user:Surtkfkfkname31 is a only vandalizing, please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Surtkfkfkname31 Dan Koehl (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done - Blocked indefinitely. Mbch331 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mbch331 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 94.254.165.230

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.254.165.230 vandalizing translations of Wikidata:Database download. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Block of IP 73.108.140.237

73.108.140.237 should be blocked. So far as I've seen his edits are vandalism e.g. [2], [3], [4] and again 3 weeks later [5] and so on. The same in enwiki, were he was blocked and warned before. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_of_IP_73.108.140.237 -- MovieFex (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Also done for six months. Mahir256 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hilarious descriptions in Spanish?

I don't know enough Spanish, but this user seems inserting hilarious or "original" descriptions. Please review. --Marcok (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 2.153.221.175

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.153.221.175 vandalizing Q3323486. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done 31hrs blocked —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:64

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:64 vandalizing. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a day. @Dan Koehl: Please check that everything is okay, edits in translation namespace confused me a bit. Bencemac (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, @Bencemac: I will do that. But those edits has to be edited manually in translation mode I think, seems I cant just rollback them... Dan Koehl (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 72.70.45.54

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.70.45.54 vandalizing. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

See also Stalktoy for 72.70.45.54, blocked on en and simple for vandalism Dan Koehl (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 176.200.45.0

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.200.45.0 vandalizing translations of Wikidata:Database download. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done without taking action (no activity for two days). Nevertheless, thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ttwqs985

Sockpuppet of Johan Archiles, see also Special:CentralAuth/Ttwqs985. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ttwqs985 -- MovieFex (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256 —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

He does not waste any time see User:Iopladas. ;) -- MovieFex (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 79.43.57.181

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.43.57.181 vandalizing. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

They made lots of edits—most of them seem fine—but I can’t find the vandalism. Can you please list critical difflinks here? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree @MisterSynergy: that it appears an unclear case on first glance, I decided to react when I read about the block on two other projects. Either it is different persons sitting behind identical IP, or someone with a plan; making seemingly very clever edits, which doesn't appear obvious vandalism when patrolling. First fine edits, then mixed correct edits and then vandalism, which pass unnoticed under the radar, ending with good edits again? Removing French alias on Line Renaud, removing French alias on Sorriso Maroto, worse edits are Carlo Castellaneta died "because of Alzheimer" (correct death reason was of pneumonia), and the sensational "Death because of aggression": Rhesus of Thrace, Rhamnes, Sisera ("dead by aggression" was inserted yesterday some three times on different items by different IP:s, which probably was the same vandal, if you CU that IP). I do notice that some edits may have been fine, and maybe it was wrong to revert all edits, but as you see, it takes long time to go through them... Dan Koehl (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Removal of the aliases is okay, since work names are not valid aliases for their creators. I would also not classify the other diffs as clear vandalism, although I acknowledge that they appear suspicious. If you don’t agree with them undo them and ask for a reference. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
A similar pattern may be noticed on the edits of 202.134.9.158? Slowly, step by step removing content from an item? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC) + 190.115.183.157 also, maybe those IPs should be checked? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The first one IP202 is a totally different IP, now blocked; the second one IP190 is probably also unrelated, and revert are enough a this point. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Request of protection

Q16943273 seems to be a target for vandalization, since yesterday. A protection for a few days would be good. Thanks ! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This item is part of Wikidata:Tours, see Talk:Q16943273. I don’t think protection would be appropriate here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

songs on albums - should we use part of or published in?

It seems like published in would be the wiser choice. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This does not require admin attention. Please ask the community at Wikidata:Project chat. Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 181.58.145.152

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/181.58.145.152 vandalizing. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandal User

Hello.Please act with Aradiz.Tnank you --David (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/만드는사람

Please check the above. I asked for an explanation for one of the deletions, but instead of an explanation, the user re-deleted the sitelink. We had a similar edit pattern by some ips before. ----- Jura 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Left a note. I doubt if they will respond: they didn't do so in the past @ kowiki and was blocked. — regards, Revi 08:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like that didn't help either. --- Jura 09:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Silenced for next 3 months. — regards, Revi 09:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Special:Contributions/85.182.61.12

Usual ip. Please block. --- Jura 14:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/愛新覺羅家族

user:愛新覺羅家族 is a only vandal, plese block it--Shizhao (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 79.20.94.210

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.20.94.210 vandalizing. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.70.45.54 has similair pattern. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done, both blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

merhaba benim hakkımda wikidata sayfam için koruma istiyorum!

benim hakkımda wikidata sayfam için koruma istiyorum! https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56167674  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.234.172.68 (talk • contribs) at 12. 9. 2018, 11:07‎ (UTC).

  Not done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed

This page needs to be semi-protected. Most new editors who edit the page do so solely to vandalize.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal

Please see the contributions:

vandalizing.--Jerre Jiang 　Talk　 06:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 190.184.205.124

Please see the this edit and other contributions from contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.184.205.124 vandalizing, please block, or ptotect Q24451685. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected for 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandal accounts

See Special:Contributions/I'mFakeNews and Special:Contributions/Mikeypro321. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Aaaand they're banned. Thanks! --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Kam Solusar (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

IP spammer

64.71.74.109 has been editing items about porn actresses to add links to waxtube.com pages as their "official website," going so far to replace actual official sites. I undid their initial batch of spam, but they have reverted the changes. The Honorable (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandals

Both blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets talk about a hairy yellow curved fruit...

The only thread on User talk:Hårig banan is about a single subject. Maybe it can be moved to Talk:Q927096? -- Hårig banan (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the discussion is now moved to Talk:Q927096. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 83.53.68.37

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.53.68.37 vandalizing. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 year, Thomas Robert Malthus (Q13526) semiprotected for a week. Lymantria (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal 68.177.114.194

Please see the contributions of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.177.114.194 vandalizing Q742504. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 year. Lymantria (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Arevalo Andres vandalizing

Please see edits by https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arevalo_Andres. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous edits are made by ip 190.30.120.72, but with similair edit pattern, plese see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.30.120.72

A CU will probably show this is the same person. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Account blocked indef, IP blocked 6 months. No necessity for CU. Lymantria (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Please, protect Eiffel Tower (Q243). Most edits are vandalism. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Semiprotected for 6 months. Lymantria (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I want to separate [ptwiki]: Wikipédia:Pedidos/Páginas protegidas, [jawiki]: Wikipedia:管理者伝言板/保護ページ編集, [frwiki]: Wikipédia:Demande d'intervention sur une page protégée from Q16021032 and make new item, because these 3 pages are request pages while others are information pages.

I could remove these 3 pages from Q16021032 and create Q56676728 with [frwiki] article. But I could not add [ptwiki] page and [jawiki] page to Q56676728. So please add those pages to Q56676728. Thank you.--106.181.215.207 13:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ghost bot?

Please block MicrobeBot (talk • contribs • logs). There was some malfunction on a series of items and it's unclear if it persists and who will be fixing it. See User_talk:MicrobeBot#Alias and Topic:Uk5nbnlwi9cwcwu1. The bot continues to edit without the point being addressed. It's unclear if the mentioned operator is even still active on the project. Special:Contributions/Putmantime (hardly any edits in the last 12 months, last edit in July). --- Jura 06:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1:, I have blocked the Bot User:MicrobeBot temporarily for 6 hours so the work by this Bot can be examined and analyzed, and if needed have a permanent block, if the mentioned operator cannot be reached. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Normally, Bots are approved by Bureaucrats, why I copy those comments to Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1, Dan Koehl: Thanks for the note. I've updated the bot owner information as we have had some recent transitions in responsibilities. I believe we have identified the error and proposed a plan of action in my reply at User_talk:MicrobeBot#Alias. To test our fix next week, it would be useful if the block could be lifted. Happy to answer any other questions... Best, Andrew Su (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Andrew Su:, good to hear, the block was only 6 hours. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/2018 administrator policy update

A RFC has been proposed on changes to various administrator and user conduct policies including edit warring, page protection, involved administrators, and interface administrators. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

69.178.192.41 vandalism

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.178.192.41 is currently vandalizing numerous items. Trivialist (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done, blocked by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Please protect Ser Piero da Vinci (Q371916). Heavy vandalism. --ZebaX2010 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also protect Caterina di Meo Lippi (Q56229514). Same vandalism. --ZebaX2010 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done --Rschen7754 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Good grief. That is the most number of /16s I've blocked on any wiki, ever. What is going on? --Rschen7754 03:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I don't know. Mahir256 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We are being hit with a high level of IP vandalism. Any admins around please help. --Rschen7754 03:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kindly excuse me

I have made certain translations just now.I wanted to translate the items in Marathi(mr) language.Unfortunately,I did not pay any heed to the language displayed above and change the same. It was ba. At the end, when certain other language translations were seen in the box, I went to the top of the page and seen the language was ba.

Thus, I have reverted all my translations made in that language and put the English version there. This is the confession of my grave mistake. Please ignore it with a broad mind. It is requested to check the same and make them good if needed. Thanks in advance.--V.narsikar (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection of Q9296662

Vandalisms made from IPs (Polish descriptions). Thanks, Wostr (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done, for three months. --Okkn (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging

Attack on Mers-el-Kébir and Operation Catapult are less or more same event. I couldn't merge this two pages. --BokicaK (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@BokicaK: Merge the pages on their respective wikis and then come back with this request. Mahir256 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I came here because I don't know how to merge above-mentioned pages. Usually, I don't have problem with merging, this is first case in which I do have problem. --BokicaK (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@BokicaK: I had meant that you should go to every wiki on which there are distinct pages for the items you mentioned (in this case enwiki, eswiki, fiwiki, frwiki, ruwiki, and ukwiki) and make your case on each of those wikis to merge the pages on those wikis first. Then, once those pages are all merged, the two items on Wikidata can be merged if in fact they describe the same event. Someone else might come to this noticeboard and claim that the two items should be kept separate, so be prepared to make your case to them as well. (I am making no judgments here as to whether they should be merged or not, but am simply stating my concern as an administrator that the pairs of pages are making merging the two items technically impossible and also disallowed per the first point of WD:N.) Mahir256 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Annuler une fusion

Bonjour, pourriez-vous annuler la fusion de [6] vers [7], car je me suis trompé sur les contenus. Désolé et merci d'avance, Méphisto38 (talk) 25 septembre 2018 à 18:00 (UTC)

I reversed the merge (you have to restore the second one first, so the sitelink is free to be linked to the other item). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Old Alton Bridge

I assume the temporary protection on Old Alton Bridge (Q7083385) just expired, since it was vandalized again today. I’ve rolled it back, but can we protect this some more? - PKM (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Block request

Hi,

Could someone stop 152.174.165.160 vandalizing Leonardo DiCaprio (Q38111) ? Many thanks in advance. --Do not follow (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done 31 hrs blocked —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q142

Please semi-protect France (Q142) - frequent IP vandalism, popular theme, widely used label.--Jklamo (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done 3rd protection of this item, half a year semi’ed this time —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

IPs Block request

The following IPs have been making vandalic edits:

Esta wea na' que ver (en: This is bullshit!) [[8]]
Luis jara caca 2012 (en: Luis jara shit 2012): [[9]]
chupa pico (en: Cock sucker): [[10]]

Changes sex declaration from "male" to "female male": [[11]]

Modifying name to a nickname (en: Luis to Lucho): [[12]]

TU MAMA ES WEONA (en: Your mom is an asshole): [[13]]

Several statements modifications: Name modification, writer disapearance date removed, Male to Female, Human to Martian, etc.: [[14]]

@3BRBS: Blocked the /16 subranges for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I am reluctant to block such big ranges for longer than 6 hours since there is the possibility for a lot of collateral damage. If you got a steward to check the ranges we could look into longer-term blocks. --Rschen7754 18:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: and @Rschen7754:, due to the characteristics of the vandalism, I consider that a week is short, but I really thank Mahir256 for taking action. If people other than the vandals are accesing through this IPs, they should know that someone is misusing this site through this adressses, and I think no collateral damage can arise from this fact, on the contrary, if someone wants them to be unblocked, they can request so, get informed and actually learn something about how Wikidata and the wiki environment works. Cheers! 3BRBS (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem with blocking a /16 range is that you are literally blocking 65,536 IP addresses. I made 15 of those blocks the other night. That is 983,040 IP addresses, and more than I have blocked in my 10+ years as an administrator on the English Wikipedia (the site that gets the most vandalism). It is really concerning if you one cannot see a potential problem with that. If we had a steward check the ranges for collateral, it might be a different story. We could also try using the AbuseFilter, which to me is the next logical step.
Or we might need to have some harder conversations. We removed the ability of global sysops to combat vandalism, but maybe we would need to ask for their help again. Maybe we need to come up with anti-vandal bots. Maybe we do need to go to pending changes like dewiki and other places have. Or maybe we do decide to ban all anonymous editing on the grounds that there's too much vandalism that's being distributed to a lot of wikis. Which WMF might not like though. Personally I would be okay with that, but we don't bring that about by blocking a few million IP addresses at a time. --Rschen7754 05:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754:, I see that the scale was bigger than I thought, nevertheless the magnitude of the vadalism, I believe, requires measures like this, even if not extremely effective. I wouldn't be as dramatic to propose "to ban all anonymous editing", which seems way off, but I'm still with @Rschen7754: here, even if 983,040 IP addresses have been blocked in total, again, vandalism here is much more serious and damaging that vandalism in a local Wikipedia, the imapct is larger and deeper as well, and the intention to vandalize much more conscious. If more effective or better actions are needed, they are more than welcome as well. 3BRBS (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Is important to know that the vandalism on Wikidata in the past days has been exacerbated because some newspapers have published about a change on Piero da Vinci that affected the Knowledge Graphs on Google. One of the leading newspapers even hailed the vandalism as part of the Chilean spirit. That has led an increase in the vandalism from Chilean IPs, trying to emulate the situation. Some vandalism has been just joke entries and swear words, but others have been more damaging, including support for former dictator Augusto Pinochet.
I know it is a hard measure, but considering the situation, I think there must be a harder ban for at least a week. I'm not sure if it is possible to ban all Chilean IPs, but that would be the optimal situation. I agree that probably Wikidata should discuss this issue further, considering the impact on all Wikiprojects and even outside our movement, but for the moment, there must be more immediate actions. --B1mbo (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging request

Hi,

could you please merge Antoine-Florentin Bourdon (Q20083901) and Antoine-Florentin Bourdon (Q56738619)? This is the same person. Apologies for having created a duplicate... 92.184.112.131 16:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please merge Georges Gizolme (Q41711463) and Georges Gizolme (Q50888208) too. 92.184.112.131 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  Merged You can use Special:MergeItems. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Egermundson

Egermundson is showing some strange edit behavior. Lots of their reverts seem to be correcting vandalism, but quite often they remove substantial data from items that is clearly not vandalism. Revert comments are not helpful in these cases either, and the user is not answering on their talk page. Some suspicious difflinks: [15][16][17][18][19][20], and possibly more. They are also adding inappropriate descriptions [21], which they overwrite immediately [22].

The account might be hacked, thus I recommend an indef block in order to wait for a reply by the account owner. As this affects one of my own edits in one case, I do not act as admin here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

SUL shows this user has only edited on Wikidata, since December 2015, and older edits looks OK, as well as some of the latest, as far as I can see, while some other edits definitely looks like plain vandalism, removing text, sometimes blanking, or adding inappropriate descriptions. User doesnt respond to comments and questions on their user page. Because of the potential risk of further vandalism (hacked account?), I support your suggestion of indef block in order to wait for a reply by the account owner. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q320

Please semi-protect Michelle Bachelet (Q320) - new wave of frequent IP vandalism, popular theme, living person.--Jklamo (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done, for three month. --Okkn (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Items to be merged

Please merge Anthinéa (Q16303786) and Anthinéa (Q56753303) 80.12.63.96 14:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Csigabi (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi protection request for Steve Irwin (Q126513)

Hi,

Please recent history on item Steve Irwin (Q126513) : vandalism from different IP user.

Best regards --Do not follow (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done 1 week —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection or block request

Hi,

Please see history of modifications on Arturo Vidal (Q192671)

Maybe this item could be protected for a while.

Or user 190.161.150.30 blocked, who continues on other items.

Best regards, --Do not follow (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Do not follow: Blocked the /16 subrange for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence. --Do not follow (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256:: Why did you block the range and not just the IP? There is a complaint from a user within that range, but with another IP he can't edit. Mbch331 (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mbch331: This is related to the section "IPs Block request" above--note the message from the former Wikimedia Chile president there. Where is the complaint that you are mentioning? Mahir256 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: the complaint is in OTRS (via mail). I understand that you're blocking, but why the range and not just the IP? It's 1 IP that's causing problems, so usually you only block that IP and not the range. Mbch331 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Simon Villeneuve

Please block this user, he keeps importing a blank picture as mass import although he was aleady told to stop it. Steak (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody here??? Steak (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking into this @Steak:. Can you give any certain diffs? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked his contributions and can see he's importing them via reCH (which is the OAuth interface Pasleim's tools use, so he probably is using Harvest Templates). It's the user that's importing the data to make sure it's going correct. Since he said earlier today he fixed P18 so it couldn't be imported anymore and I can see it's still importing long time after that, blocking is the only option to prevent any further imports of blank images by this user. Mbch331 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably the entire group should be undone. --Epìdosis 19:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
He was planning to do that soon. But soon is delayed for at least 31 hours. Mbch331 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
File:Cricket no pic.png is no longer in use with image (P18) [23]. Did he import other blank images as well? —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of his "Language of websites" is also wrong User talk:Simon Villeneuve#Language of websites. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: As far as I can tell from his talk page, that image was the only problematic one so far. Mbch331 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I can assure you Simon Villeneuve is not a vandal. He can make some mistakes but nothing that justifies a block. Pamputt (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Not reacting to messages while making wrong mass import justifies a block. Steak (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The user showed up on his talk page, indicating that the import has been stopped. He has also identified the problem which led to this malicious import. I granted his unblock request. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Unblock

Hi,
I think that a link to this template should appear on this noticeboard, near (or in ?) the template:UnblockRequestCount box. I've clarified the doc in French about how to use it and I think that someone should clarify it in English too. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

moved from Wikidata talk:Administrators' noticeboard —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion there should be some concensus in favor of this template first. As its doc tells us, “consensus in favor of the use of this template has not yet been achieved”, and it does indeed not appear at Wikidata:Blocking policy. The whole unblocking procedure is not well-defined, but it is subject of the current RfC at Wikidata:Requests for comment/2018 administrator policy update. However, Template:Unblock is occasionally used by blocked editors and does its job. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The RFC does not generally define the procedure that well either for the event that the blocked user wishes to make the appeal. IMHO we don't necessarily need consensus since it's mainly just a tool. --Rschen7754 18:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we should define how to use this “tool” as an admin who decides to grant or decline the request. In many situations one can indeed act according to common sense and nobody will question the outcome (like I did this morning), but occasionally there are more complicated cases where it is not clear how to deal with the request as this template is somewhat unofficial. Once an unblock procedure is defined, we can make the template more visible; if we don’t want to define this, we should make clear in the template documentation that the request could be found to be too complicated for a single-admin decision, which in turn likely means that the unblock request will be discussed here at WD:AN in front of a larger audience. Whether the template should be mentioned in the policy or not is not so relevant here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I have suggested this because in my case, I was only able to modify my talk page and I had no possibility to contact the admins here. My choices where :
1- Ask another user to copy-past my comment on the dedicated section here. This don't seems ok because you must find someone who have time to judge if you are correct or not and if it is ok or not to post your comment here,
2- Notif the admin who blocked me, or another admin, that I want to be unblocked for X,Y reasons. This lead to the problem of (personalisation/single admin decision) you talk about,
It take's me a certain time to find the template and to learn how to use it. Let the blocked user without any instructions on how to fix the situation don't seems to me to be a correct manner to deal with block. On frwiki, the unblock template open automatically a new section on the Request to the admin board (example), so all admins who follow this board can be informed of the situation. I think you should think of that kind of template here. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
In cases like yours (unattended malicious batch, run by an established user), we just want to have confirmation that the batch has been canceled. The block is not a punishment, is is solely meant to protect the project from further bad data. (This also makes it easier for your to repair the damage later on.) The unblock procedure is then not formally defined, but you basically have some options to request unblock:
  • Add {{Unblock}} on your talk page, giving a short reason why you should be unblocked. Hint for other admins: add Category:Requests for unblock to your watchlist and deactivate the checkbox “Hide categorization of pages” at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. You’ll see additions and removals of user talk pages in this category whenever someone requests unblock or a request is closed.
  • If there’s no immediate reaction but you’re eager to continue/tidy up, try to spot an active admin and ping them. Be aware that not all admins might be happy about this.
  • You can also try to convince another (trusted) users to raise attention for your request, here on WD:AN, or try to spot someone in the IRC channels.
It is worth to mention that the block tool is not used that much at Wikidata (~3 times a day on average this year, including IP users), and the unblock tool is used only once every 10 days on average. It’s really not a big business, so we don’t constantly have an eye on it like some Wikipedias have to. Nevertheless, I think we should improve doc for the unblock template. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Ortega (Q57402)

High levels of vandalism, probably needs some sort of protection applying please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Rschen7754 01:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalismus

Special:Contributions/LUISA_HENNING Danke! --Wurgl (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done for one week. Csigabi (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Danke! Ich häng mich gleich hier ran. In Q1121964 haben zwei durchgedreht, Die IP 177.251.114.36 und User:Gsdraxtep. Ich hoffe, ich hab das wieder sauber rückgängig gemacht. Mag da jemand nochmals gucken? --Wurgl (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Die haben nicht aufgehört. Ich hab das Objekt jetzt auf eine frühere Version zurückgesetzt und für einen Monat geschützt. - Nikki (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Cesar133 vandalism

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cesar133 is currently vandalizing numerous items.--Raderich (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Blocked indef (vandalism only account). Lymantria (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Recurring vandalisme on birth date and place

Hello,

Could you please semi-protect Q15973592 which is often vandalised regarding the birth date and birth place?

Thank you in advance

Br,

--AntonierCH (d) 06:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for three months. Thank you for reporting it. --Okkn (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism User:Влад кащенко

3 of 4 edits were vandalism. Please block user, thanks. --KurtR (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

12 days vandalism

Hi,

Could item Ghostemane (Q45898094) be protected for a while? False informations and vandalism through several IP users since the 12th of september. Thanks.

  Done for 1 month. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q83460

For the past few days, general (Q83460) has been a target of frequent vandalism from multiple different ip addresses. Could you please semi-protect it? --Shinnin (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shinnin:   Done for 1 week. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Troll from Hebrew Wikipedia

Please revert all the edits and block this troll: Special:Contributions/185.27.105.171. Thanks, Dolev • talk 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@דולב:   Done for 31 hours. Mahir256 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The troll has registered: Special:Contributions/Eli1889. Thanks again, Dolev • talk 19:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for block of Fioletowazebra

I'm requesting a block for Fioletowazebra; the only actions of this user are reverts of correct edits made by one particular user. Account created probably only for vandalisms. Wostr (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr:   Not done, The user had a serious warning. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Hans Ruff

Vandalism only account. Already blocked in fiwiki for that reason (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Hans_Ruff). --Shinnin (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shinnin:   Done. Rzuwig► 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected page

Please revert this statement deletion, Wikipedias' local “problem” cannot overwrite that how Wikidata works. Bencemac (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an admin protected it, but the current state is incorrect from a Wikidata perspective. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done, though Bencemac and Csigabi are both administrators and thus could have done it themselves. Mahir256 (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Arguably not, since it could have been considered an involved admin action. --Rschen7754 18:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is protected for one week, so editing by any administrator is in breach of our policies. Please discuss rather than revert. Thx. Csigabi (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the point of waiting a week to revert an obviously wrong and destructive edit. There is nothing to discuss here, the current state (deleting correct statements) is clearly incorrect and should be reverted. This whole situation is nonsense and Mahir256 did the right thing when reverted the edit. Do we really need to wait till 26th to fix it? Bencemac (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Q57641 is still red and unused right now, and I cannot see anything related on User talk:Pallerti either. Please get in touch with Pallerti and explain them what the problem is, as I am not sure whether they understand how things are done here properly. Reaching consensus via edit summary “discussions” only is quite difficult. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I explained it in the edit summary and he seems to be understand that the “problem” is with the huwiki infobox, not with our item (see the translation). The current Wikidata consensus is marking former citizenships, so I do not understand what kind of consensus you would like to see; shall I ask the community' permission every time when I want to add a correct statement? Or in other words, we have to delete every citizenships like this because there were not any former discussions on their talk page; will we do it? Obviously not. Bencemac (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You can't use the admin tools to win a content dispute, which is in essence what this request was asking to make happen. --Rschen7754 05:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I have protected the article for another week due to a developing new edit war topped by @Bencemac:'s reluctance to discuss the case. Though Bencemac had been advised more than once to discuss, he apparently did not, however waited for the expiry of the page protection then reverted the article. This approach is not accepted from any user let alone an administrator. Csigabi (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's clarify the situation. Per country of citizenship (P27)'d documentation and Help:Ranking, we have to use

The current state is incorrect from Wikidata's perspective; as I mentioned before, Adolf Hitler (Q352) is a perfect example why. So, Pallerti should explain why he is deleting a correct statement. He had enough time to read about how country of citizenship (P27) should be used because deleting statements without any reason is not acceptable. Bencemac (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact him? Listen to his point of view? You can't just bury your head in the sand and go into edit war. Csigabi (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is disappointing. Admins are certainly not immune from blocks for edit warring. --Rschen7754 06:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The disappointing is that I have to watch that others have started delete correct statements too and I cannot do anything because I am an administrator. This discussion has not finished yet but deleting has started already. Why do we need discussion when others delete them anyway? Bencemac (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes me smile when Bencemac complains about the lack of discussions. The whole issue began with him not discussing the topic as requested above. The behaviour reminds me of the occasional naughty child who runs to the kindergarten teacher for help when his toy is taken by another child.

Anyway: I opened a discussion on one of the huwiki forums on the issue yesterday. The problem is more complicated than simply calling it a Wikidata problem to be solved, it relates other Wikipedias as well. I ask everyone for more patience now. I promise I will summarize the discussion on huwiki. I know currently it does not favour Bencemac's point of view, but perhaps he eventually tries to communicate it to his fellow editors. I particularly ask him to refrain editing the articles in question (and for that matter, asking to do it from other editors/administrators) as Rs mentioned: Admins are certainly not immune from blocks for edit warring. Csigabi (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Csigabi, this comment is at least partially inappropriate, particularly since you act in admin role in this case; you better retract the last sentence of your first paragraph.
    Apart from that, you seem to be biased in the conflict, and I disagree with your description of the problem. It actually started with the removal of a legitimate statement by User:Pallerti [24]. I assume good faith on their side regarding that edit, but the initial revert of User:Bencemac [25] was indeed not wrong. It would have been Pallerti’s job to ask what’s wrong, rather than to remove it again [26].
    Meanwhile I consider them informed about the reason why we do keep historical data here at Wikidata (see my post at the WD:PC topic by User:Bencemac, where I pinged Pallerti), so I expect them not to remove the claim again unless they argues that it is not historical data, but plain wrong; I can’t imagine that this is the case.
    It is correct that User:Bencemac would have better started a direct discussion with User:Pallerti, in I can’t see why you issue one-sided warnings here. Clearly both users are involved, and honestly I am not sure about your role here. Is there a huwiki conflict behind this? —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
    • MisterSynergy agreed, I've crossed the sentence.
      The statement was removed by User:Pallerti because he and a large number of other editors think is is not legitimate. This is exactly what the discussion on the linked huwiki page goes about (I do not want to go into details now, but the basic question is: would changing the form of government change your citizenship?) Let the discussion decide whether it is historical data or not (currently it looks that these data are not considered different citizenships, though they are certainly pieces of historical information).
      I did not intend my message be taken as warning, it was a simple statement. On the other hand User:Pallerti is not able to edit the article due to its protection, and it was not him who tried to bypass the protection.
      What do you mean by any huwiki conflict? Between whom? I personally do not hold a grudge against him, in fact we have very seldom, if ever, crossed one another's ways. Csigabi (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Regarding a potential huwiki conflict: this entire episode looks strange from an external point of view. You are all huwiki users with elevated rights, thus I assume that you are aware of how to behave in controversial situations. However, this has derailed much more than it should have, which strongly reminds me of similar situations in other wikis where larger disputes have taken place before something like this happened.
        I have now tried to get an idea of the huwiki discussion you’ve linked above, using a translation software. This is of course somewhat dangerous, but it appears to work out okay-ish. What follows bases on the assumption that the translation provided by the software is fairly correct: my impression is that you are confusing "country of citizenship" and "nationality", and so do most (or all) of the participants in that discussion. You want to have "nationality" in the infobox, but request "country of citizenship" from Wikidata. For different reasons we do not have a "nationality" property here, but there were plenty of discussions regarding it, and as far as I remember also one or several property proposals which have been declined. It might be possible to infer "nationality" information to some extent from "country of citizenship" claims, but this would be prone to be erroneous as the concept of "nationality" is much more controversial and clearly not as easy to define as "country of citizenship" (i.e. "has passport of that country"). I do not see that other Wikipedias would be affected by this as well, but I suggest to develop code that displays the "nationality" information you’d like to see in the infobox, rather than to attack Wikidata’s long-established content model. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
    • MisterSynergy as far as I can see the software translation might have mislead you. Actually the participants of the debate want to make a clear difference between "country of citizenship" and "nationality". I would like to help sort out how the dispute on huwiki would fit into Wikidata’s long-established content model, or vice versa.
      Before I continue, let me make something clear. Until yesterday evening I had acted as administrator of WD. Since then I have been quite a bit involved in the contents dispute, so from now on I would not take any administrator role in the dispute. I would like to ask you to take care of this debate.
      Where do you think we should continue the duscussion? As I have pointed out on the huwiki forum I hate to see when someone spreads their problems all over the talk pages, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. We should find the right page where our arguments can be discussed. Csigabi (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I do already watch the Orban item, and I will reach out to Pallerti regarding the issue once again on their talk page (I hope they understand English). Bencemac is reading here anyways, I think.
        From Wikidata’s point of view the situation is pretty clear and there is not much to discuss (historical data belongs to items, and the currently valid value is preferred with ranks). Question is what exactly the huwiki community expects to see in their infoboxes, and whether Wikidata is able to deliver this or not. Right now I am not fully aware what the community wants to see, but I am open to give advice in English about what’s roughly possible by using Wikidata. I prefer not to edit the huwiki template in question, and I explicitly note that Wikidatans including myself do not make decisions or even only recommendations what the huwiki community should do (I explicitly want to avoid the impression of “Wikidata imperialism”; it is completely up to the local community to decide whether and how to use data from Wikidata). As all of this is a local huwiki issue, I suggest to discuss it there, and ask for input on WD:PC when Wikidata experts are required. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for following the discussion. Pallerti prefers German, as I see it would be no problem for you to switch to German.
      According to the discussion on huwiki the situation on Wikidata is not supposed to be clear at all. Currently 15 users out of the 17 who have expressed their opinion (1 neutral + Bencemac with some weird tech stuff) clearly say that country of citizenship has nothing to do with the form of government so using these latter values in Wikidata P27 is definitely wrong and misleading. Let me explain this with a few examples.
      A. Like Orbán, I am old enough, alas not so notable, to have been born in the Hungarian People's Republic (Q16410) which country in 1989 changed its form of government to democracy. (Indeed, there is no article on this form of government, so using Hungary (Q28) in Viktor Orbán (Q57641) together with Hungarian People's Republic (Q16410) was definitely wrong.) Anyhow, my citizenship, along with Orban's, has always been Hungarian (Hungary (Q28)).
      B. Arguably the most famous Hungarian footballer is Ferenc Puskás (Q482931). After the 1956 revolution he left Hungary and settled in Spain. He had been deprived of his Hungarian citizenship, because at that time he was considered a defector. (After 1989 his Hungarian citizenship was returned to him.) In his WD data sheet his citizenships, Hungary and Spain, are corretly noted.
      C. Angela Merkel (Q567) was born in the DDR, after the unification she became the citizen of Germany. This is correctly noted in her WD article.
      D. Luka Modrić (Q483837) was born in Yugoslavia, then, after Croatia turned into an independent country he became the citizen of Croatia. P27 in his WD article is missing the information on his former citizenship. The same is true for Vitali Klitschko (Q31919) except with Soviet Union and Ukraine.
      E. The president of today's Iran, Hassan Rouhani (Q348144) is actually the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was born in a monarchy which was overthrown in 1979. P27 in his article shows country of citizenship: Iran. This situation is an exact match of the Orban dispute.
      F. Pick anyone old enough, e.g. Prokopis Pavlopoulos (Q3407316), in Greece, a country where monarchy changed to republic quite recently. Would you not call them citizens of Greece (Q41)?
      You say above: historical data belongs to items, and the currently valid value is preferred with ranks. I agree, historical data must not be left out. However they should be used in the right place. The changing form of governments in a country is historical data, but they should be distinguished from countries of citizenships. Also, you cannot differentiate by ranks in this case. If Orban (and myself :)) was a citizen of the People Republic of Hungary from his birth till 1989, then a citizen of Hungary till today, then none of these two values is "more correct" than the other (see: Help:Ranking), therefore normal ranks must be used.
      I agree, the local infobox issues must be solved locally, and I don't think they would create insoluble problems to our tech guys. Nevertheless as long as there is no consensus on the questions above, it makes no sense to work on the local issues. Csigabi (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This topics a very sensitive topic in eastern Europe which you and the most western people do not understand. This part of Europe have been changed the borders and the staatsform (ger) (typical! that the English has not this notion) very often. Because the last 25 years in Hungary the stastsform (not only the government, but the Constitution and the oficcial name the country also, has been changed 4 time. This has you seen in the Orban article, but all this time Hungary was the same country. This fully not understandable for the western peoples (remember: the English has no notion staatsform). The changing form of official name a country is historical data, but they should be distinguished from countries of citizenship. There should be used the common name of the country! This is more than 2000 years Hungary independently of staatsform of Hungary.

The clarification of Bencemac "Per country of citizenship (P27) documentation and Help:Ranking, we have to use

Fails because that it is right that the name of Hungary has been changed with political invention, but the country all this time was the same Hungary.

The nationality is an another question. This make a problem and a whale of quarrel because the border changes this or that artist, musician may be lived in the same town all his/her live but more country likes that hi/her is his big artist musician. Texaner (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with the position of Csigabi. Citizenship has nothing to do with the form of state. Orban has lately also changed the opfficial name of our country from Republic of Hungary to simply Hungary. It does not mean that we all have changed our citizenship, too. The same is valid for all the previous changes of the regime in our country. The example of Hitler used by Bencemac is especially wrong, because he changed his nationality from Austrian to German in 1932, well before the Anschluss. This was not a change of the political system, but a change of the country.--Szilas (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • 1946: name changed from Kingdom of Hungary to Republic of Hungary, form of government changed
  • 1949: name changed from Republic of Hungary to People's Republic of Hungary, form of government changed
  • 1989: name changed from People's Republic of Hungary to Republic of Hungary again, form of government changed
  • not really important in this discussion, but since it was mentioned: in 2012 the official name changed from Republic of Hungary to simply Hungary, form of government (and the government itself) did not change, Hungary is still a republic and is still numbered as the 3rd republic

Despite the changes in name and/or form of government, since the end of World War II Hungary has existed within the same borders, has been called Hungary in everyday speech (even when it had a longer official name) and has been generally considered the same entity. Its situation is not similar to that of Germany or the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, since it was neither unified from separate states nor broke up into smaller successor states. In passports one's citizenship was always recorded as "Hungarian", not as "of the People's Republic of Hungary" or "of Hungary". When the Communist era ended, all citizens of the People's Republic became citizens of the Republic. People are usually the citizens of a country, not of a government. Alensha (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I weighed in earlier, I guess I should note that I agree with the above arguments - Hungary (Q28) has a stated inception date of 1000, so should be the only country used for "country of citizenship" for a person from that region. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Unpleasant interchange

I'm not an admin here, but Wikidata:Project chat#Two new principles introduced by Andy Mabbett seems to me to have started out as something close to a personal attack, focusing in the person rather than the substance, and only seems to have gotten more so as it has gone on. If this were on en-wiki or Commons, I'd have intervened by now, at least to suggest a more polite tone. Is the tone of this acceptable on Wikidata, or has this simply not been spotted? - Jmabel (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The 'taxonomical mafia' (as rendered by @Infovarius: a bit over a year ago) has an interesting history of being served blocks, as a direct result of their behavior towards other editors, by certain admins here (who aside from Nikki have not been as active around here recently). The same sorts of blocks had also been handed down to their target for roughly the same reasons. @Pasleim: is present in that discussion, so the interaction has certainly been spotted, and it has been made clear to all directly involved in that discussion time and time again that the specific behavior they have exhibited and are exhibiting is unacceptable. You're welcome to remind them of this fact at any time, but I would suggest you read up in both the Project chat and Administrators' noticeboard archives about all of their controversies first. Mahir256 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
WD:AN and WD:PC are two completely separate worlds and many who frequent one don't go to the other. I'm not defending that practice, but describing the unfortunate reality. --Rschen7754 01:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I've made precisely one post in that discussion, and I'm quite happy to stand by it. If you think it ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate, please explain precisely how it is so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
If any post that mentions a user is regarded as an ad hominem then I can only suggest reading up on what an ad hominem is. Two further points:
  • The pattern shown by the mentioned user of going to revert, after revert, after revert (etc) without giving a supporting argument, or without engaging in any meaningful discussion is surely unwanted. Many users have been blocked for less.
  • And, yes, in the past a series of pure ad hominems has been allowed here on this board (two, three times a week, for several weeks), constantly repeating the same demagoguery. Very worrying indeed.
- Brya (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
As so tone, I think we all agree that, all things being equal, politeness is preferable. But, clearly, the combination of politeness and nefariousness is not all that rare. Politeness by itself won't achieve anything. What matters is that edits are constructive, that is, they should address issues, and contribute towards better data and better data representation. - Brya (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Brya: Your comment here strikes me as cheap sniping. In terms of the content of this discussion: I don't have a dog in this fight. In terms of how people here talk to and about each other: this is the sort of thing that drives away contributors. - Jmabel (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I must say I am bewildered by this comment. Andy Mabbett's anonymous insertion is strongly deprecating; it mentions "fixing", implying something is broken and then explicitly stating "broken". Obviously, this indent is perfectly functional, doing just what it is supposed to do. If Andy Mabbett holds the belief an insert is desirable, he can do so without the derogatory tone (and he can sign his edits, showing whose beliefs are expressed there). My comment merely mirrors what he is doing and draws attention to his ongoing campaign. - Brya (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Indents

@Brya: If a style of indenting that does not cause problems for users of screen readers is somehow "alien" here, then it's about time that editors started thinking about changing their style. Every time you leave a blank line in an indented discussion, you force a visually impaired visitor to hear something like "end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item;". Yes, that's right: 10 pieces of nonsense for them to listen to, just because you can't be bothered to fill in a blank line with five colons. It's one thing to be ignorant of the problems that you cause those less fortunate than yourself, it's quite another to snidely attack an editor who fixes the problems you cause and shows you how to avoid causing them in future. If you need further reading, then there is a good explanation of the accessibility issue on the English Wikipedia at en:MOS:INDENTGAP. Your style of indenting is indeed "broken" and you owe Pigsonthewing an apology. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
RexxS - Let's start with a basic fact: this is not enwiki. Enwiki has decided to prescribe a style of indenting based on the mind-set and perceptions of a group of users with similar outlook, using similar devices, with screens of similar sizes and with similar screen-settings. A classic case of putting the horse behind the cart, making Talk-pages unreadable for many users: a monument of intolerance. Just the sort of thing that makes people describe enwiki as a creepy sect, communicating by secret, weird, behind-the-back conventions, designed to keep outsiders, well, outside.
        If the designers of "screen readers" have chosen to rely on this enwiki-style, or in other words, decided to build their "screen readers" exclusively for use at enwiki, that is their outlook. If they would be more inclusively-minded, they would have corrected the flaws in their design. That would be a lot more sensible than running around inserting odd little 'patches' accompanied by snide comments at randomly chosen places. It looks to me that both you and Pigsonthewing owe me an apology. --  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brya (talk • contribs) at 03:09, 24 September 2018‎ (UTC).
@Brya: Don't try to patronise me; I'm perfectly aware of the venue and I've been editing here longer than you have. The fact you're missing is that enwiki and Wikidata employ exactly the same style and mechanism for indenting talk page comments. I'm astonished that you don't know that, and it does rather make a nonsense of your derogatory argument about a "creepy sect, communicating by secret, weird, behind-the-back conventions" because those conventions are identical to those used here. That means that the problems caused to a user of a screen reader (Q1328864) are identical. You clearly know nothing about screen readers, so I suggest you read up on the topic before pontificating about their design. It makes not a jot of difference what size screen sighted readers use; a blind visitor using a screen reader makes no use of a screen, because the a client such as JAWS reads the rendered HTML – and reads it in the same way from any website, including this one.
I find your callous attitude to those readers who are less fortunate than ourselves abhorrent. You should be ashamed of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems advisable to read first, before responding. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You certainly should. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Bryas intending, but could you please link to a real experience a screen reader (Q1328864) is not aware of corrupted HTML or refined tags by CSS? --Succu (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: Please understand that a screen reader will read out each <dl>...</dl> and each <dd>...</dd> that it encounters. It's supposed to. Those are genuine description lists that serve a defined purpose in any website. See https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-markup-20121011/dl.html for the HTML5 definition.
Unfortunately, early web developers misused the <dd>...</dd> to produce indents, because most web browsers indented the description term. Wikipedia adopted that bad habit and uses colons (: - the wiki-markup for a description term) to indent talk page comments. Wikidata followed suit. Even more unfortunately, MediaWiki software uses a blank line to signify the end of a list. That means that if you leave a blank line between any two indented talk page comments (as I have deliberately done before this pseudo-paragraph), the parser closes all of the open description lists and then re-opens new ones up to the level of the indentation.
There is no corrupted HTML or CSS involved. The HTML produced between pseudo-paragraphs without a gap is </dd><dd>, but between pseudo-paragraphs with a gap is </dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>. You can verify that yourself by inspecting this page's source. A screen reader should speak the case without a gap at best as something like "end item; second item", and the case with a gap as something like "end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item". It has no option about that. Those HTML tags are genuine, valid tags, and the screen reader is expected announce them.
Now, surely, we should not be subjecting our visually impaired visitors to that for no good reason? Frankly, it makes my blood boil when someone insists on causing others problems even after it's been explained to them they are causing those problems. I'm sorry I'm find myself being so sharp with Brya, but I find his lack of empathy with those less fortunate simply rubs me up the wrong way. Just look at his deliberate obtuseness in his first comment in this thread starting "I must say I am bewildered by this comment" and check the HTML in the page source to see what he deliberately subjected blind visitors to. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You’re describing quite accurately the problem with our “commenting system”: it isn’t one at all. On talk pages we are forced by convention to abuse “definition lists” (or “description lists”) for the indentation, but we write comments, not “definition lists”. The reason why it was invented like that was mentioned by you as well: out of the box it produces indentation in a way one wants to have it, and nobody cared about semantics back then.
Thus, the root of the problem is much more complex than the reluctance of individual users to cope with the technical shortcomings of this “solution”. If the Wikimedia community really wanted to ease accessibility for visually impaired users, it would have requested and accepted a proper commenting system that takes responsibility for clean source code and thus accessibility by itself, rather than relying on users to get this done properly. But either WMF has not been able to deliver something useful here, or the community is unable to accept anything else than this ancient “commenting system” at all.
On a side-note: semantically you’re not using indentation correctly either if you split it to several <dd> sections (i.e. you should be indenting your entire comment only once in the beginning, not each of its paragraphs individually). You would have to create linebreaks with <br> or add paragraph tags <p></p> manually around individual paragraphs. That obviously adds technical complexity to performing a task as simple as “writing a comment”, and technical complexity is an accessibility burden for many users as well.
Another side note: equivalently to “definition lists”, one can produce indentation by using “unordered lists” (lines starting with one or multiple *). This is semantically much more correct than use of definition lists, but it produces those ugly bullet points in the beginning, and incorrect use with a blank line between comments is directly visible. Unfortunately, users are unable to use it properly, as one can see in the many examples with mixed “definition list” and “unordered list” indentation (e.g. *:: rather than ***). Direct use of indentation with “unordered lists” also makes it complicated to semantically correctly use actual unordered lists in a comment, so this is not a clean solution either…
We need a proper commenting system for accessibility in the first place. I hate the current “solution” as well and would love to see something which is actually designed to be accessible by screen readers as well. But as long as we don’t have it, I don’t think we should blame users for the shortcomings we have to deal with currently. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This is neither about "the reluctance of individual users to cope with the technical shortcomings", nor "[blaming] users for the shortcomings we have to deal with". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
...and we have a similar problem with wilful breaking of hierarchical, accessible, heading structure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I am indeed describing the problem with our commenting system, but I'm also describing the problem of uses who refuse to take a tiny step to alleviate some of the problems it causes.
"the root of the problem is much more complex than the reluctance of individual users to cope with the technical shortcomings of this “solution”." That may be so, but it's the reluctance of individual users to take a small measure to accommodate our visually impaired visitors that magnifies the effect of those shortcoming by an order of magnitude.
"If the Wikimedia community really wanted to ease accessibility for visually impaired users, it would have requested and accepted a proper commenting system that takes responsibility for clean source code and thus accessibility by itself". That's pie-in-the-sky while we have editors like Brya who refuse to accept that they cause any accessibility issues, and blame everybody else. You don't help the situation by making excuses for that sort of poor behaviour.
As for semantics, none of us are using indentation correctly. If you think that <dd> ... <br> ... </dd> is somehow better semantics than <dd> ... </dd><dd> ... </dd>, you're kidding yourself. Indentation is presentation and it belongs in the CSS, not in some mish-mash of HTML tags that coincidentally creates indentation in many browsers.
"We need a proper commenting system for accessibility in the first place". Indeed we do, but we'll never get there while editors are excused from poor behaviour by wringing our hands and complaining about poor technology. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Why are you discussing this here at length? Even en:Main_Page has accessibility (Q555097) issues: check. --Succu (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you really trying to argue that because a web page on a different project has accessibility issues, it's okay for web pages here to have accessibility issues? Seriously? Why are you so reluctant to face up to the issues I've made clear to you? --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The short answer is YES. And you are inflaming a discussion about a users habit to comment. Why? --Succu (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Fix the plank in your own eye before you complain about the mote in someone else's. There are genuine accessibility issues here that need to be addressed. Just explain to everyone reading this why you think it's okay to subject a blind visitor to "end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item" unnecessarily. If you don't have anything useful to say about fixing those issues, then why are you even posting? --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Citing Matthew 7:3 (Q6790058) helps? --Succu (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As I have pointed out above, but which you misread (being "obtuse"?), it is you who "lack[s] empathy" with people who are different or use different screens. - Brya (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't talk bollocks. I spend a lot of my time working to improve accessibility for all visitors to Wikimedia projects. You, on the other hand, deliberately cause problems for blind and visually impaired users and blame everybody else but yourself for your poor behaviour. Disgraceful. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you want to comment „Oh, the irony...“ RexxS? --Succu (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:RexxS - You are still not reading what is there. Perhaps this is symptomatic of your narrow focus. In the meantime, you are not so much "spend[ing] a lot of [...] time working to improve accessibility for all visitors to Wikimedia projects." Instead, you are spending a lot of time causing problems in accessibility for a lot of participants in discussions of Wikimedia projects, and blame everybody else but yourself for your poor behaviour. - Brya (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Are „as before“ or „as previously“ useful edit comments?

I do not like Admin riddles, Mahir256. If you have an opinion about my working here please plainly address it in a direct manner to me. A lot of admins are pinged here by you. I'm missing MisterSynergy, who tried to settle disputes with me. The general question is: Are „as before“ or „as previously“ useful edit comments? (#1 and #2)? If someone needs another example then please check species nova (Q27652812). Thanks. --Succu (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looks like the conflict at species nova (Q27652812) is settled for now. --Succu (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Reverted with the comment „as before“ - No explanation at all. What to do? --Succu (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What to do? Good question, but there is obviously no easy answer. This dispute is not making any progress for a while now, but we still have some options:

  • I’m still much in favor of a mediation process, involving all involved editors and some moderators (can be admins, but other users could also do this), to elaborate a solution. This however requires that involved editors are interested in such a process, and finally willing to somehow mutually approach positions of the other side to some extent. I’ve reached out to Succu and Pigsonthewing in the past, but they do not yet seem to be equally sufficiently convinced to try this. I wouldn’t mind if other admins or users wanted to help in such a process.
  • If a mediation is not accepted by all users, we need to use admin tools at some point (protection or blocks). One could argue that this was long overdue anyways, but let’s state the obvious: user blocks do not “educate” users to be more friendly to each other, or to refrain from edit wars, etc. …, and they also do not have a significant deterrent effect on other users. Blocks may effectively silence the problem for a while and appear to be a convenient measure from admin perspective for that reason, but they don’t solve anything (unless they are infinite).
  • The future feature of “partial blocks” could also be very useful in this situation. Not sure if and when this feature will be shipped here (metawiki). We could then block involved editors from editing the affected items (possibly indefinitely), and let uninvolved users then set the items up. (This requires some new policies on “partial blocks” before being implemented, of course.)

—MisterSynergy (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"This dispute is not making any progress for a while now" Indeed. The item in question has not changed from being about a subclass of species (nor has it commenced being about a "term"), since the dispute started. The items that use it as a value for "main subject" have likewise not changed from being about a subclass of species to being about a "term", as User:Pasleim has indicated. By all means start mediation, but no amount of it, nor blocks, will change that. Meanwhile, Brya's ad-hominem attacks continue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not about the modelling of single item, but your constantly unexplained edit pattern, that includes reverting neutral improvements like adding a description or refining a reference --Succu (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Please discuss it here or at Myrmoteras mcarthuri and Denny. --Succu (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
No Succu, it's about your and Brya's repeated attempts to re-define items as being about different concepts to those they are intended to describe, ignoring the given sources, of which the above is but one example. There is no "unexplained" edit pattern on my behalf, but for clarity I have replied on the talk pages of each of the items in your latest post, referring you to prior discussions where my edits are explained, each of which you are well aware of and involved in. Those posts will be exceptions, as I have told you more than once previously that - as a courtesy to our fellow editors - I will not keep repeating explanations when you ignore them or pretend they have not been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
it's about your and Brya's repeated attempts to re-define items as being about different concepts to those they are intended to describe [...] - Taken Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073) what's the redefinion in place? Brya has not edited there. --Succu (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I see that User:Pigsonthewing has decided to respond for once, although he at the same time announced that this is an exception and that otherwise he will continue to not respond to arguments.
        To start with "Brya's ad-hominem attacks continue", this is part of a pattern to present here on this noticeboard as a "personal attack" any comment that describes his behaviour. This is comparable to recurring discussions on Wikipedias concerning pages that describe gruesome events. Some users complain about these pages being "not neutral", to which the proper response is "it is not the text which is not neutral, it is the facts which ain't neutral". This pattern of reporting everything that is not convenient to him as a "personal attack" obviously works for him: no admin seems bothered by these false accusations and sometimes he lucks out and finds an admin gullible enough to fall for it.
        As to the "subclass of species", it already has been pointed out that this is an invention by Andy Mabbett (not existing in the outside world), so something that would be called a NOR-violation on Wikipedia. It also means the introduction of a new principle on Wikidata. Everything man-made is at some point "new" for a brief while, but Wikidata does not make a separate item for "new book", "new car", "new movie", etc. Nor for "one-year old book", "one-year old car", "one-year old movie", etc. Similar for two-year old, three-year old, etc.
        It has also been mentioned that the "given sources" don't support Andy Mabbett, but rather contradict him. The same goes for the sitelinks. That there are items that use this as a "main subject" is unfortunate, unless it is an ad-hoc measure to be able to find them and put in the actual main subject.
        Mediation pre-supposes that parties are willing to work it out (for the good of Wikidata) and recognize that there is a reality out there. Both these seem to be lacking on the side of Andy Mabbett.- Brya (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Two additional comments:
  • While what happens at Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073) is merely petty and disruptive, the edits by Andy Mabbett at species nova are extremely serious. This phrase "species nova" is part of international, world-wide agreements which have set its meaning unambigously. In essence, this is not different from Andy Mabbett putting in that a meter is 13cm long. Of course, there is a pragmatic difference in that Wikidata has hundreds of users (or more) that would revert "a meter is 13cm long" without a thought, branding it as vandalism, while there seem to have been only four users to point out that his ideas on "species nova" are nonsensical. There just are not many users here who have adequate knowledge of taxonomy.
  • Andy Mabbett tries to make it appear as if this is just between him, me and Succu. This is only because we two have taken action to counter him on this item. In reality, whenever Andy Mabbett is in discussion with anybody who knows anything on taxonomy, the same happens with regard to whoever is present. Whatever anybody who knows anything on taxonomy says is met with denial by Andy Mabbett, who keeps repeating what he once decided on and is determined not to let reality interfere.
- Brya (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I support this @Pigsonthewing! To cite Achim Raschka „ein anderer Benutzer, der keinerlei taxonomischen background hat (wie Andy ja auf der Wikimania auf meine Rückfrage zu seinen Wikispecies-Attacken zugab)“. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073)

Above, Myrmoteras mcarthuri is dragged in. Mostly, this is an unrelated matter, involving the placement of "named after". That is, when a scientific name honours a person should "named after" be a statement (as favoured by Succu, and used widely) or a qualifier to "taxon name" (as favoured by Andy Mabbett). In theory both are possible, although it is more sensible to have it as a statement, so as not to overload "taxon name" with more qualifiers (there are already too many).

Andy Mabbett has argued his point of view at Project chat at some length, with vehemence, and found no support. From time to time, he changes items to suit him in this regard. These seem to be pointless edit wars, merely creating confusion and trouble. If ever there should be a project-wide decision to have it one way or the other, a bot can be run.

The case is relevant only to the extent that it is yet another example of Andy Mabbett going to revert after revert, after revert, etc without giving additional arguments and without being willing to discuss. The difference is that in this case he clearly has already lost the argument, but is unwilling to quit. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I readded the qualifier named after (P138) to taxon name (P225) as an act of good will, but this was reverted to the version preferred by Mr. Mabbett as his own since 28 March 2018 with the edit comment „as before“. I fail to understand this. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Protected the page 1 month due to edit warring. --Rschen7754 05:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
You preserved the version from 28 March 2018. How do this help to solve the problem? --Succu (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
When I protect pages for edit warring, I protect as is. I don't favor one side or the other, it's the luck of timing. --Rschen7754 06:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
How does the item protection help to solve the problem? --Succu (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Is your concern that I protected the wrong version? --Rschen7754 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It's about to „pull the chestnuts out of the fire for someone“ (= „Die Kuh vom Eis holen“). --Succu (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: The same compromise was reached at Synalpheus pinkfloydi (Q29367343) and Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384), but reverted at Balaenoptera bertae (Q21368793). --Succu (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bogus accusations

Brya's egregious abusive behaviour has now dropped to the level of describing my edits as "vandalism" ([27], [28]). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing bogus about it. It seemed time to stop being diplomatic and just call a spade a spade. Vandalism may be variously defined, but enwiki says:
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
This applies here. Andy Mabbett has made the exact same edit, with the exact same edit summary some dozen times, as if he was a self-programmed bot, with nobody in charge. As deliberate as can be. He has done so "without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research," or whatever passes as the Wikidata equivalent. He has not presented any argument why the content he militates against would not be correct. He has not presented any argument that supports the material he put in, beyond giving three quotes which actually contradict what he added.
        The only objection he has raised in the very few times he commented at all are an objection against the format. Apparently, reality does not conform to a format he favours. All in all, he has declined most opportunities to discuss the matter in a meaningful manner, and the second time he did comment, he said that he would deliberately refuse to discuss this for the future.
        This constitutes a deliberate policy to damage and disrupt Wikidata. His edit does constitute vandalism. It is an accurate, descriptive edit summary. Telling it as it is may not seem very polite, but it is still a cut above Andy Mabbettt's conduct. - Brya (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: if you are interested in a de-escalation simply use the talk page of this item. Reverting again and again and again is not helpful. Cooperation and compromises can help to improve the quality of this project. --Succu (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
See my previous comment on that talk page, and the other discussions to on the matter, which I have already referred in this thread. As I have told you on more than one occasion previously: as a courtesy to our fellow editors, I do not intend to repeat my comments, in cases where you or Brya choose to pretend I have not already made them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Succu accuses me of 'trolling'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And again Andy Mabbett is reporting a "bogus" attack. It really works for him. But he is not solely to blame for this. The enwiki style of adminship of turning a blind eye to everything until the last straw is added and then lashing out blindly at whatever catches the eye ("Administrators should not favor one side over the other") is promoting aggression. Andy Mabbett has become a master at it. For myself I deeply regret that this enwiki aggression is being imported to Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked all 3 users for edit warring at Q27652812. I intend to write a longer statement shortly. --Rschen7754 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Solutions

I firmly believe that we need to resolve this situation. Civility and consensus are important Wikimedia principles, and by allowing this behavior to keep on going, we demonstrate to the rest of Wikidata and the entire Wikimedia community that we believe that it is acceptable for any editor. Not only have all three of these editors repeatedly edit warred, they have made numerous personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks towards each other.

I have blocked the 3 aforementioned users for 3 days as a stopgap measure, for edit warring at Q27652812. I do not believe that this is a viable long-term solution, for brave administrators to keep issuing short-term blocks and protections.

I think these are our options:

  • Do nothing, and watch editors leave from the negative effects of this dispute.
  • Some form of mediation, but as MisterSynegy wrote above, some of the participants may not wish to participate.
  • We come up with some partial bans (enforceable by block) to allow them to contribute, but restrict them from all areas where they have edited problematically. For example:
    • Banning them from all items related to taxonomy
    • Banning them from mentioning each other, except at AN
  • We indefinitely block all 3 editors for persistent disruption of Wikidata.

Thoughts? --Rschen7754 01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure. I have noticed this for some time. I have tried to stay out of it because I get the impression, which may be wrong, that there is some sort of history in this. In which case maybe some good mediation, preferably mediated by someone with authority in the situation. Find out the root of the issue and see if it can be resolved. My home wiki is Wikispecies and all these editors have edited there, without issues like the above. I consider them all valuable editors at wikispecies. Seems here they seem to step on each other for some reason. Since I have seen them elsewhere I do not fully understand why this happens here. I can see what happens but do not understand why. So my preference is to try some mediation first, I would not like to see an indefinite block if it can be avoided. I note your point on whether they will agree to this. But I think its worth trying. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
At least in my experiences, I've not seen mediation to be useful once things have reached a point like this. But I think successful mediation here would need the following, at a minimum:
  • An agreement by all parties to participate
  • An agreement by all parties to not continue the edit wars while mediation takes place
  • At least one mediator, if not more
  • An agreement by all parties to respect the outcome
  • An agreement by the mediator to report back on the outcome of the mediation, especially if it fails. --Rschen7754 02:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I've a feeling that the first, second (in the instance that there is a lack of participation from all parties), and fourth solutions are ultimately more detrimental than helpful to Wikidata. Either solution under the third main bullet point makes the most sense here (selective blocks), and the first of these could well be made possible in the near future. (@TBolliger (WMF): if he can enlighten us on whatever Wikidata-specific features are being planned related to selective blocks--I could see a block on editing items based on instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279) becoming very useful here.) Mahir256 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thank you for tapping me in and for your interest in our work. I don't want to distract from this discussion too much — I'm happy to discuss this more at length wherever works best for you. My team hopes to have page (item for Wikidata) blocking ready on test.wikidata.org in mid-October with namespace and file upload blocking code complete and releasable by the end of December. Adding support for blocking by instances and subclasses is not prioritized, but something that we are optimistic could be added if the base functionality proves useful. — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
A partial ban could also be implemented by coming to a consensus about what edits these editors cannot make, and then blocking them every time they violate the ban. --Rschen7754 18:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
A little late due to real life obligations, but I’d like to add my thoughts as well:
  • I still prefer to start/try some kind of a mediation process, but I am not convinced that this is really what the participants in this dispute are open for right now. As long as this does not change, I don’t see any possibility for it to succeed. We can’t really force someone to participate in such rather unconventional and formally undefined processes here, so it has to be requested to some extent. I’m still open to help, if someone wants me to do so.
  • Alternatives are administrative measures. “Do nothing” clearly does not help to settle the many edit wars of the involved editors as we’ve seen in the past. I hope that the new “partial block” feature would be useful here, and I think we should aim to apply it in items with edit wars, rather than in items which somehow belong to a particular topic (that’s difficult to define anyway). I would also favor it there was some defined way of reverting to a revision that does not favor any of the participants in such edit wars.
  • Indefinite blocks of established editors require community consensus to my opinion.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We can add another option to the "partial block/ban" category: an agreement that if they revert more than once on the same item over a set time period, that is automatic grounds for a block (and maybe a reversion of some sort). --Rschen7754 00:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to spend development time on this? --- Jura 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am afraid we need (i) interaction ban on these three users; (ii) one revert rule in all Wikidata pages (including items), with violations followed by escalating blocks; (iii) if problematic areas could be identified, possibly topic-bans from some of the items. They are just featured on this noticeboard too much, wasting the time of the community (I have blocked Pigsonthewing before, and I was immediately attacked a bunch of his friends - this has to stop in any case).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • From reading the comments it does not seem like there is much enthusiasm for mediation. Is that the case? Is there anyone who would be willing to take on that challenge? --Rschen7754 06:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Some of the users concerned are known for their being stubborn. When in disagreement, that is not beneficial for the project. Reverting series are a consequence of the stubborness. Topic bans will not solve the underlying discussions, neither do blocks. Those bans should be meant to force discussion and agreement. First of all, talk pages are made to have these discussions. If that doesn't lead to conclusion, mediation is a way to get out, but I think that may be difficult or undoable in cases. Then arbitration or an RfC should be the final way to sort disagreements out. We do not have an AC, but I can imagine a routine that both parties may propose two admins and that the four admins have to reach a majority decision, which is to be binding. Something like that? Lymantria (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Topic bans and blocks are primarily also meant to prevent further disruption to the project, which at some point we have to decide that we have to do. While we of course hope that every editor will get along and be able to work collaboratively, the sad reality is that some editors simply cannot or will not, and we need to prevent disruption to the editors who are actually able to. --Rschen7754 17:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • To add: my inclination right now is to propose various editing restrictions such as those described above, and then if they want to come to some mediation/agreement and show that they can edit collaboratively in the problematic areas, they can always do so and then appeal the restrictions. I personally think that added pressure might convince these editors to be more willing to come to the negotiating table. --Rschen7754 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Certainly, but there is some paradox in it, that pressure will also stimulate some users (especially the stubborn ones) to not stop and find a solution, anticipating on the other side to give up. That silences the trouble, but may lead to suboptimal outcomes (e.g. protecting a page in the "wrong version"). So IMHO a restriction should be accompanied by mediation or arbitration. For the latter it would be good if there were a known way to invoke that (without having an AC). Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If as I understand it, the intent of option 3 is to issue a topic ban for taxonomy, to the three users involved this surely means combining the worst of all worlds. Andy Mabbett's involvement with taxonomy is quite marginal (just check his edits), and mostly aimed at disrupting the Wikiproject. A topic ban will cost him little or nothing. As I read it, this is an open invitation to him (or any user who hates a particular Wikiproject) to go disrupt another Wikiproject; all it will cost is a topic ban, for a topic that holds no real interest.
        Slightly less unrealistic is an indefinite block for all three users. The effect on Wikidata will still be disastrous, but at least it has a minute upside: it will stop the disruptions. - Brya (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
"Andy Mabbett's involvement with taxonomy is [...] mostly aimed at disrupting the Wikiproject." Are admins prepared to allow this false allegation also to stand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your move?

Now that an admin has intervened, it seems to me that it is up to admins to make a plan. Being as easygoing as I am, I am pretty much up to try anything as long as it is in line with the general purpose of Wikidata and of the WMF, for example as laid down in the Terms of Use.

The repeated suggestion that the only proper response to unreasoned aggression is to roll over, play dead and quit the project is not in line with these, as far as I am concerned. - Brya (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion (a very simple one). Besides having some formal training in this area, I have relevant experience. When nlwiki started its ArbCom, its mandate suggested the ArbCom was there to resolve conflicts, and certainly some ArbCom-members took it to mean that. Interaction bans were a popular tool, and sometimes these actually worked, but that was the exception rather than the rule. Users can be quite different in their characters, backgrounds, knowledge and skills. The problems that happen can be very different, as well. Two users who fight over a point of style or formatting (not governed by a guideline) are quite different from users who vehemently put in that North America is a region in Europe and who won't stand being reverted (actual historical example).
        Anyway it proved that the ArbCom's looking at all problems as conflicts often made matters worse, not better. For example, relatively simple problems had first to be escalated into flaming conflicts before the ArbCom would look at them. Lots of grief, all round.
        At some point I took it upon myself to reword the mandate of the nlwiki ArbCom in the obvious way: I put in that the ArbCom should be making their decisions for the good of the encyclopedia, should base their decisions on existing guidelines (including WMF-guidelines and policies) and made explicit that the ArbCom was there as a last resort for problems of all kinds (not just conflicts, so not necessarily more than one-sided). I got this voted in and over time it made a big difference. The really bad problems went away and the real problem users got fitted in, more or less, by custom-designed restrictions or were banned.
        The WMF Terms of Use state "We encourage you ... to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project." My suggestion is that this is a good guideline for admins also, and that it should be taken literally. Not just when considering a block, to test it against the question "Does this block make Wikidata a better, more accurate database?" But if there is a problem, look at the individual edits in question and test each edit against the question "Does this edit make Wikidata a better, more accurate database?" Then take it from there.
        Just looking at a problem and crying "edit war", accompanied by lots of arm-waving is not going to serve Wikidata if no attention is paid to what is actually happening. - Brya (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Insults

I invited Mahir256, above, "If you think [my first post in this section] ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate, please explain precisely how it is so. I note that they made no reply. I similarly now invite Rschen7754 to offer evidence to substantiate their inclusion of me in the group of editors who "have made numerous personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks".

That said, we would not be where we are now if admins - or, indeed, the Wikidata community at large - had responded when asked to intervene in the content disputes that led us here. In the last couple of weeks, I've reported here false accusations of "vandalism" and "trolling", yet nothing was done, or said, by admins in response. The vast majority of my edits in this matter have simply been to restore items to the status quo ante, after no consensus was shown for disputed changes. I've also indicated, above, that I am wiling to participate in mediation. Finally, for now, it must surely be seen that in any dispute with two people on one side and one on the other, that a "single revert" restriction (whether agreed or imposed) would hand an effective veto to the two who act in concert, over the edits of the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did a search on the AN archives and found quite a few examples: [29], [30], [31], [32]. There are probably many other examples that I didn't find within a 3 minute search. Please remember that civility is more than not making ad hominems; it is treating your fellow editors with respect. --Rschen7754 18:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
None of the links you provide - which are not diffs - support your allegation, which was to include me in " Not only have all three of these editors repeatedly edit warred, they have made numerous personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks towards each other". Absent evidence, perhaps you will now withdraw it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Please read the last sentence. --Rschen7754 18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I read your last sentence, as I read all of your post; and have read each of the discussions to which you linked. I am therefore not clear how you redundantly telling me to read it shows me respect. You still offer no evidence to support your allegation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
"I read all of your post" - which, I now see, you edited after I replied to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec)From that final discussion, some quotes: "I've also told, you many times, that your deliberately-broken indenting of comments is disruptive." "Why do the pair of you persist in such dishonesty?" --Rschen7754 18:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither of those comments, in the context from which you have removed them, is uncivil. In the latter quote for example, I am replying to the false allegation that I "didn't answered the questions raised" by providing a link to the post where I did do so. Further, in legitimately criticising the action of making a false allegation, or of breaking indenting, not the person making (or doing) it, my comments are not ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
They certainly look uncivil to me. How do you expect people to respond to such questions/comments? How would you respond if somebody asked you such a question? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, they need to be read in context. Have you done so? I would never put myself in a position where such things could reasonably be said to or about me. If people regularly lie about my actions (see, for example, earlier on this page, where the bold lie that I "announced ... that [I] will continue to not respond to arguments" went unchallenged by any admin), I'm entitled to call them out for it. I don't lie about other people's actions, so I can not reasonably be called out for doing so. How would you react, if you were regularly lied about? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Even if it's true that they were dishonest (and I'm not trying to make a statement about that), I can guarantee you that very few people would respond positively to those words put to them that way. Also, this nitpicking about indents and outdents is not very productive either (note [33]). I will also note the thread that started this discussion at [34] as another example. This is clear w:en:WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (on both sides, for what it's worth). --Rschen7754 00:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no "nitpicking" about indents; it's a crucial matter of accessibility; please see User:RexxS's explanation, above. It is past time you (or admins, collectively) did make a statement about the dishonesty, some of which I have evidenced, and more of which can be seen in the comment currently below this one (e.g. "without any arguments or evidence given"; "long-time campaign to disrupt Wikiproject Taxonomy."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
" It is past time you (or admins, collectively) did make a statement about the dishonesty..." Tumblewed passes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Two comments:
  1. Andy Mabbett claims that there is a content dispute. This presupposes that there is content that is being disputed. The situation here: on the one side there is international agreement (going back centuries) about a definition (well referenced by the users involved), on the other side there is unreasoned stubbornness by a lone user, without any arguments or evidence given. The idea that mediation is useful here is comparable to multiple users who state that a meter is defined as being 100 cm, while one user holds that a meter is 13 cm, without providing any evidence. Mediation is supposed to come to a compromise, like "a meter is 71cm"?
  2. There is not incivility from both sides. What there is on one side is continued misconduct by a user who feels secure that admins will back him no matter how badly he misbehaves. On the other there are users who describe this misconduct: a description of misconduct may look uncivil, but it is just a description. Starting a topic in Project Chat may look like a battle ground mentality, but it is just a desperate move, copying Andy Mabbett who has done this many times, in his long-time campaign to disrupt Wikiproject Taxonomy.
        Plain for everybody to see, on "species nova" there has been a mounting series of calculated insults. There have been (by my count) fifteen reverts with the edit summary "(as before)". Two, maybe three, times might be excused in somebody who was very, very drunk. Four times is a mortal insult that would have meant "pistols-at-dawn" in many a day and age. There has been remarkable restraint on my part (even on Succu's part), in the face of an unending stream of deliberate provocations and deliberate insults. - Brya (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Brya, are you saying that you will not participate in mediation? --Rschen7754 05:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
"long-time campaign to disrupt Wikiproject Taxonomy."; "might be excused in somebody who was very, very drunk" And again admins allow this to pass? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Rschen7754: Oh, no, I am not saying that at all. But any effort had better focus on what is really driving Andy Mabbett, which he is not being very explicit about, despite dropping hints. The subject matter is not involved here (the total absence of arguments, which seems to be such a regular feature of Andy Mabbett's "conflicts", speaks volumes by itself). - Brya (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Are admins prepared to allow this vague and unsubstantiated ad hominem attack to stand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing

It seems Succu's response to the recent blocks is to immediately revert, more than one, of my edits; on items where we have previously had a content dispute, and where (in the first case) I cite not one but two sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the history of American Journal of Science, and Arts (Q22305255) is pretty clear: created by me with the title American Journal of Science, and Arts you decided the comma (Q161736) is not inline with the title page. My edits were triggered by Chris.urs-o and not you. --Succu (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The versions with "The and ," seem to be gramatically correct. But most people do not use it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
„immediately revert” at Taxonomic etymology - in search of inspiration (Q21090291)? Your last edit dates from 7 April 2018. And you missed the items talk page entry dated before your Ongoing here. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just discovered yet another case where Succu reverted (in June) my use of valid, open-access, reliable citations (to a webpage of the Natural History Museum of France) on an item, replacing them with a paywalled alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The context is this property proposal. --Succu (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
As to this item,
  1. for any designation of a holotype the original publication/protologue is of very great importance, nearly essential. Why on earth remove this?
  2. on a Wikipedia, it makes no difference if a reference is on-line or off-line. Why should Wikidata be different?
  3. Andy Mabbbett makes the specimen a reference for something that is not even mentioned on the specimen label???
- Brya (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
My original edit removed nothing, except incorrect coordinates. At no time did I give "The specimen", much less "The specimen label" as a reference for anything. I'm tired of being misrepresented in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit the next day did remove the original publication/protologue. Why deny the obvious?
        If the specimen label was not intended as a reference, why provide a url to it, as a reference? How can a url serve as a reference other than by the content it leads to? - Brya (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

A no time did I give a URL "to the specimen label", as a reference or for any other purpose. I remain tired of being misrepresented in this manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

See above. Again, why the denial? - Brya (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing this proposal as not successful. --Rschen7754 06:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

For repeated edit warring and uncollaborative behavior, Brya, Pigsonthewing, and Succu are topic banned from all Wikidata items related to taxonomy, under all accounts (including authorized bot accounts). In the absence of a formal policy on topic bans, the following provisions shall apply:

  • These editors are not to make any edits or logged actions to Wikidata items related to taxonomy.
  • Discussion pages are explicitly not included at this time, in the hope that these editors will come to an agreement.
  • Violations of this should result in blocks. Blocks made under this restriction should be logged at a new page, Wikidata:Editing restrictions.
  • Subsequent violations should result in blocks of increasing length. After the fifth violation by an individual editor, the blocking admin must start a discussion at WD:AN to see if further sanctions are necessary.
  • Appeals of this restriction must be made at WD:AN.
  • All three editors are warned that further misbehavior on Wikidata, especially in (but not limited to) the taxonomy topic area, may lead to further sanctions, including an indefinite block from Wikidata.

Please leave this discussion open for at least 7 days, and until there is a clear consensus. I am hoping that an admin who has not participated in this discussion will close it. --Rschen7754 01:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  •   Support as proposer. I proposed 4 options above. But of those, we obviously need to do something (so there goes option 1), and nobody has volunteered to mediate (option 2). So, option 3 as a last resort to an indefinite block. --Rschen7754 01:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment. Two points: (1) for me personally, there is no distinction between this topic ban and an indefinite block. (2) It seems to me that admins should consider carefully before setting this precedent and declaring total victory for Andy Mabbett in his campaign to disrupt a Wikiproject he is not really involved in. - Brya (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Firstly this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and what happned to the proposal of mediation, which I accepted?). Secondly, "all Wikidata items related to taxonomy" is far too vague and all-encompassing: does it include people who are taxonomists? Journal articles? Journals? Artworks depicting species? If so, it means that if one of us throws a person's QID into a tool like SourceMD, or does a batch import of IDs through harvest templates, or runs through a set on Mix'n'Match, and the subject happen to have written on taxonomy, then we could breach the ban without even knowing we were about to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • After some thought about the proposal, I think a topic ban on taxonomy is not an appropriate solution for several reasons. At the same time I have to acknowledge that after reading the aggressive conversation of the past days here on this page, I don’t believe in a successful mediation any longer. Nevertheless, we have to do something to protect the project, and at this point I would support a “partial block”-like approach that excludes all three editors (Brya, Pigsonthewing, Succu) from editing items (and maybe pages) that have seen edit wars including two of the three editors. We could start listing the items on the proposed page, and use the actual “partial block” tool once it is going to be available later this year. The rest of Rschen7754’s proposal, particularly the proposed sanctions, could also be applied for such a “minimalist” edit ban. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The problem is that I fear the edit wars will just go on from item to item. Once one is removed in this manner, another will come up. --Rschen7754 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • In case of a taxonomy topic ban, which is difficult to define and supervise anyway, they could still do this in any other topic. We should at least try the minimalist edit ban as suggested for a while before we solve this problem with a “bazooka”. If it does not work, we can still extend the edit bans to topic bans or account blocks. It would be pretty much up to the three editors not to escalate this any further. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Isn't it enough if we just prohibit these three users from interfering with each other in the items or pages related to taxonomy? --Okkn (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • How would you define "interfering" in a way that won't cause arguments among admins as to whether to apply it? --Rschen7754 18:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • How about “reverting each other's edit without a community consensus”? --Okkn (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry but „The community“ in general has not much knowledge about nomenclature and taxonomy. If this would be the case we wouldn't have reached this point. Ironically Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy was not informed about this proposal by User:Rschen7754. I think it's easy the see which users give answers there. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Succu raises an important point. The whole WMF rests on the basic premise that users should make edits only when they know enough about the topic they write about. This is expressed in "Assume good faith": if one sees an editor making edits one does not understand, the basic assumption should be that this user knows more about the topic than oneself. The next step is checking if this assumption is likely, by sampling the literature.
        •   Rschen7754's approach would be admirable if Wikidata were a collaborative project to write a work of fiction, and if there were an argument about the direction the plot should take. However, Wikidata aims to be a database, with data that aims to represent reality. Checking facts (by sampling the literature) is a basic admin responsibility.
        •   There are not all that many users in the WMF who have knowledge in some depth about taxonomy, a field of science (or rather several related fields) where there can be a lot of (simultaneously valid) points-of-view. Everything is relative (but should be backed up by references). This is not universally popular, many people would like to have a single authoritative point of view ("keep it simple"), with themselves as the authority-in-charge.
        •   Within taxonomy, there is the entirely differently organized discipline of nomenclature, which is governed by international agreement. These are very extensive sets of agreements (kind of miniature international treaties), with different sets of agreements in place for different organisms. There are lots of absolutes in nomenclature. This is not a coincidence as this intended to keep independently-minded scientists all over the world (in Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, Spain, etc) exactly in line (it also has to deal with the works of those independently-minded scientists over the last few centuries). This too is unpopular with many users who love the freedom to just use whatever piece of literature is in front of them. Awareness of the existence of, let alone knowledge of nomenclatural rules among users tends to be very limited.
        •   Andy Mabbett is not fulfilling his part of making edits only on topics he has knowledge in depth of (see also this comment by Scott Thomson, who does know something about the topic). He should stick to what he knows (or be made to stick to it). - Brya (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
          • You misunderstand the role of an administrator. We are not given any sort of special editorial privileges. Once we express an opinion in terms of content, we have to refrain from using the administrator tools to enforce that position. --Rschen7754 04:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • The role of an admin is to help the project/Wikidata. Any user should make his edits with the aim of making Wikidata a better, more accurate database. This applies to admins as well; there is no special priviledge absolving admins from this basic obligation. If an admin does not pay attention to content (not express an opinion, but pay attention), he is essentially striking out blindly, and is working at cross-purposes to the general purpose of the project/Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
          • So in short, you are saying "I'm right, and nobody else, including admins, are allowed to comment or criticize my behavior because they don't know anything about taxonomy, and because admins don't agree with me, they don't care about content, and are anti-Wikidata" and I wouldn't be surprised if you then tried to undermine any administrator who criticizes your behavior that way. That is not how Wikimedia works. See m:Consensus. If you're right, then convince people of that. Don't edit war and don't make personal attacks or intimidate others to get your way. That could be said to all three of these editors, really. --Rschen7754 05:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I am not saying that at all. What I am pointing out that there is an international agreement, equivalent to "1 meter = 100 centimeter". There is an objective (or in this case normative) reality out there. Anybody who edits at Wikidata, including admins, should pay attention to the reality that their edits to Wikidata reflect and incorporate into Wikidata. Go look it up. Base your actions on fact, not on your likes or dislikes. - Brya (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Brya is toxic and should be blocked, indefinitely. Period. I have had multiple altercations where his only contributions have been sniping or deliberate obtuseness or patronizement. That he was banned from English Wikipedia for much the same behavior should decidedly be relevant.

    Regarding Pigs, I agree that a topic ban is warranted; though I happen to agree with his positions on how messed up our taxonomic modeling is, he clearly cannot contribute collaboratively to fixing the problems related.

    Succu's behavior in general does not rise to either of those two's. I don't think I would support any sanction (in other words, provide Succu some en:WP:ROPE to see if the area clears up without Brya and Pigs). --Izno (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

    „how messed up our taxonomic modeling is“? Izno, try out Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for comments. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I would be willing to consider supporting an indefinite block of Brya, considering the severity of the personal attacks they have made (including one in February for which they were blocked 1 month and arguably could have been indefinitely blocked then), and factoring in their indefinite block on enwiki. --Rschen7754 01:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm confident that the many editors with whom I collaborate successfully on taxonomic matters would disagree with your portrayal of me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: Rs. I get the feeling that people get paid to harass Wikipedia projects contributors. I do not like that. Brya contributed a lot to taxonomy in the animal kingdom. Succu build up the taxonomy in the plant kingdom. A databank has rules, otherwise it gets destroyed. The super wealthy want to destroy Wikipedia. If we are in the dress rehearsal of the last book of the Bible, more than 2/3 will die after Trump's administration. User:Rschen7754 should stop making edits to Wikidata taxonomy. There is no plant taxonomy on Wikidata without Succu and Rschen7754 is incompatible with Succu. Or you love Wikipedia and leave systematic at Wikidata alone or you are Wikidata's enemy. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I will not dignify this unnecessary use of political and religions rhetoric, combined with an accusation of paid editing, with a response. --Rschen7754 18:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: The comment by Chris.urs-o looks like intimidating behavior to me. I have thus blocked Chris.urs-o for 31 hours. Mahir256 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
„looks like intimidating behavior to me“ - Maybe before blocking you should consult your fellow admins first. Unbelievable. --Succu (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  Oppose ok I see this is stil ongoing. I have been away a week. Ok I do not think that a total topic ban is appropriate or probably even practical. I agree something needs to be done and I am not sure what can be done. But I want to make a few comments. First up I consider (from my perspective as a taxonomist) that both Brya and Succu are very capable of making decisions on content that is correct with regards to the respective nomenclatural codes. This is based on many edits over many years, most of which have been uncontested by anyone. The impression I get of Andy is that his strengths lay in areas of technical wiki markup issues and administrative issues as they pertain to Wikimedia. However from a taxonomic perspective it seems he is more attempting to understand taxonomy from the perspective of this other strength. These knowledge sets may not always be in agreement with each other. The codes have rules, we are like any zoologist or botanist bound by those respective codes first and our needs to make that work in Wikimedia second. I think this is apparent in many of Andy's edits. I personally think all three of them have great use to Wikidata. My conclusion on this is that when its taxonomic issue I think on balance Brya and Succu are more likely to have the correct response. For administrative and markup issues I would suspect that Andy would usually be the one with the knowledge. I think the three of tem need to acknowledge this and work within their strengths. I noticed a comment by me was linked above in a diff. Yes I did say this but please remember it was in the context of that situation only. It is not necessarily relevant to the current debate. In summary I think banning Succu in particular and also Brya from editing taxonomic pages is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. Their contributions are vast. Andy also has his strength and can have a good supportive role on the taxonomy pages. I think these three need to appreciate their strengths. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

By and large, I think this is a good analysis of the situation. - Brya (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This sort of sniping needs to stop: [35][36] @Faendalimas: did you see this? --Rschen7754 18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
There is, again, no "sniping" in my comment (your second diff). In fact neither is there in your first diff; its false ad hominem attack against me is far more than "sniping". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: yes I noticed. I am not too concerned about some indenting corrections, I get you point. @Pigsonthewing: Andy I get what you did and it had no intent, but the comment was unnecessary, this is what is being referred to. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support proposal as written; although if they want to give advice on their own talkpages in case other editors ask them about taxonomy questions, that should be allowed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am quite aware of too many edit problems in the taxonomy topic among the three users. But not all three of them are equally involved into this subject. Succu and Brya are focussing mainly on taxonomy, while Pigsonthewing edits in many subjects. That means thata topic ban would not "harm" them equally. In addition I must say that Succu and Brya are to be credited to be the main factors in improving and remaining quality of the very numerous taxon and taxonomy items. Many users misunderstand the issues at hand and they tirelessly correct that. Pigsonthewing is very skilled in data structure. The problems arise when he "attacks" some common uses and changes it. All three of the users feel a need to maintain or improve quality and get heated before they have explained the issues to each other. It would make sense if Pigsonthewing would discuss his improvements first, recognizing that Succu and Brya have more knowledge on taxonomy. While it wouls also make sense if Brya and Succu would consider his improvement ideas with open mind and see them as possible improvements. It asks for a cooperitive mind, willingness to give in when the other idea is better, trying to understand what issue the othe user sees and not feeling attacked too soon. In an ideal world that is. I have not given up thinking it to be possible. But also, concluding, in my opinion a topic ban would really harm quality of the taxonomy topic and not help sove the underlying issues. Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • This is a significant representation of the issues at hand. For example, in the case of SP. Nova, I created the item and have not introduced any changes to it, much less "attacked" anything. The disputed and unjustified changes (most recently making it an instance of a "phrase", instead of a concept) were made by Brya and Succu. In the case of taxa named after people or places, for example Desmopachria barackobamai and Synalpheus pinkfloydi, each of which I also created, and Myrmoteras mcarthuri, it was me who first added the honourees, and Succu who then applied disputed - and unexplained - changes. I subsequently explained my edits at length (also here; and here); my reasoning (especially regarding the multiply-named 'Kentish Plover' example in the former discussion) has never been cogently refuted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      1. Does this mention of creating an item constitute a claim of ownership?
      2. The item "species nova", "as created" had "instance of: Latin phrase" in it, as is correct. Apparently, the creator is not so much at war with other users, as he is with different versions of himself?
      3. As to the Kentish Plover example, this seems very simple. Kentish Plover is an English common name, one of many common names in different languages that can be applied. There may be lots of common names in one language. On the other hand one common name may easily apply to four or more different items as an alias. Often enough each common name has its own derivation, so perforce "named after" must be used as a qualifier to that common name. In an item Synalpheus pinkfloydi "named after" can be used unambiguously if it applies to the "taxon name". It need not be a qualifier, so it is sensible not to overload "taxon name" more than it already is. Labels of items dealing with taxa don't really come into it, they change far too often. Also, species of birds are not handy for this kind of discussion, since they are an exception. - Brya (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not consider Topic ban to be the solution, of the described problems, while we may demand from anyone, a high motivation for cooperation, as well as respect for other users. In any case, I do not presently support any long term block with any of these three users, and hope that admins will only use block as a short-time "cooling" limitation, but not a way of closing any of the three users out for a longer period, or indefinitely. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Alternative proposal

The above proposal does not take into account the realities of the situation, or take the best interest of Wikidata to heart.

Wikiproject Taxonomy is a fairly big project, with millions of items, attracting attention from many users.

  • In many ways, including number of edits, Succu is the mainstay of the Wikiproject, I don't have numbers, but would not be surprised if he was responsible for more than half of the total number of edits. Succu's conduct in the matters in question may not be exemplary (he tends to be fairly angular in the way he expresses himself), but he clearly made many efforts to get Andy Mabbett to produce even one argument, or take part in a discussion.
  • Although it would be an overstatement to say that Andy Mabbett has contributed nothing at all to the project, he is barely involved. As far as he is involved, this is all too often disruptive in intent. Besides the items where he conducted these edit wars (notably without presenting any arguments), he has tried several times to disrupt the project by posting in Project Chat (no doubt examples can be provided, if this is of interest). To put it mildly, his conduct is far from exemplary, and in a Wikipedia he would have violated multiple policies, starting with VER and NOR. Even on this page, in this discussion he has made no positive contributions, but just acts insulted, and is looking to stoke up the fire.
  • My own conduct looks closer to exemplary, at least to me (I don't see how anybody can expect me to leave in the equivalent of "1 meter = 13cm"). Although I have made a decent number of edits, my involvement with Wikiproject Taxonomy is mostly elsewhere, but quite constructive.

The pragmatic solution is for Andy Mabbett to stop editing any items concerning taxonomy, and not comment on it (except for brief comments on technical matters, not related to taxonomy). Preferably voluntary, but by a topic ban if necessary. As far as I am concerned he is welcome to propose properties (after all, this is how he earns his money). This will allow everybody to get on with most of what they were doing, with a minimum of restrictions. It would probably be wise for Succu to avoid him outside of taxonomy.

This is not to say that Wikiproject Taxonomy will then run smoothly, given the pressure it is under, and it still being "under construction", but it will at least have a chance. - Brya (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose "My own conduct looks closer to exemplary" what about all those blocks for personal attacks? --Rschen7754 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • They were blocks for describing abject behaviour. A description of something really bad will not look nice if it is at all accurate. The first block was for using the word "spamming", which caused an overwrought admin who had let things slide for far too long (repeat after repeat after repeat of the same emotional but baseless appeal) and who seized on that as being a "personal attack". But from a technical perspective "spamming" = "Unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet." is a correct word for what was actually happening, that is, mass-produced contentless pages, created to draw attention, for a purpose that has nothing to do with the WMF-mission. And as you know, you blocked me for describing Andy Mabbett's campaign of harassment. - Brya (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hatting unhelpful sarcasm. --Rschen7754 00:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit it: I am Schroediggers Wikidata editor. I simultaneously refuse to discuss; yet at the same time disrupt [sic] the project by posting in Project Chat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Really: you are a Wikidata incarnation of Schrödinger's cat (Q8588), Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not "unhelpful sarcasm"; it's the legitimate use of sarcasm (I'm English; it's part of my culture) to highlight the hypocrisy of false allegations made against me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It is not only sarcasm, but obviously flawed sarcasm. As Andy Mabbett has amply demonstrated, it is quite possible to revert many times on an item, all the while refusing to discuss, and from time to time post in Project Chat trying to stir up sentiment. - Brya (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

And now Brya is hiding my comments. I have of course reverted him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposals

I do not think these proposals will resolve the matter at hand, but I think they at least move in the right direction by stopping some of the current fights. --Rschen7754 18:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

For me this proposal looks like as a sanction (Rechtfertigung) issued by you as „including an indefinite block from Wikidata” (see below) you threatened earlier in your blocks. --Succu (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Okkn, MisterSynergy, Ymblanter, Mahir256: as you have commented on previous sections. --Rschen7754 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal commentary ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus obtained to apply edit restriction --Pasleim (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Brya, Pigsonthewing, and Succu are not to make any comments about each other, including but not limited to their (perceived) competence, skills, goals, or motivations. They may link to diffs and express concerns about the diffs in appropriate venues so long as they do not include personal commentary on the editor making those edits.
  • Violations of this should result in blocks. Blocks made under this restriction should be logged at a new page, Wikidata:Editing restrictions.
  • Subsequent violations should result in blocks of increasing length. After the fifth violation by an individual editor, the blocking admin must start a discussion at WD:AN to see if further sanctions are necessary.
  • Appeals of this restriction must be made at WD:AN.
  • All three editors are warned that further misbehavior on Wikidata, especially in (but not limited to) the taxonomy topic area, may lead to further sanctions, including an indefinite block from Wikidata. --Rschen7754 18:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Commenting ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

consensus obtained to apply edit restriction --Pasleim (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Brya, Pigsonthewing, and Succu are not permitted to use any HTML comments on discussion pages, or in messages directed at each other or to modify each other's comments, including, but not limited to: indentations, and hiding them their comments.
  • Violations of this should result in blocks. Blocks made under this restriction should be logged at a new page, Wikidata:Editing restrictions.
  • Subsequent violations should result in blocks of increasing length. After the fifth violation by an individual editor, the blocking admin must start a discussion at WD:AN to see if further sanctions are necessary.
  • Appeals of this restriction must be made at WD:AN.
  • All three editors are warned that further misbehavior on Wikidata, especially in (but not limited to) the taxonomy topic area, may lead to further sanctions, including an indefinite block from Wikidata. --Rschen7754 18:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Rschen7754: Could you please give some examples where I used „HTML comments [...]”. Thank you. --Succu (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for closure

Could an admin who has not taken part in the discussion determine if a consensus for the two restrictions has been obtained in the discussion above? --Rschen7754 06:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting... --Rschen7754 17:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Closed by Pasleim. --Rschen7754 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Still ongoing

Even while this discussion is taking place, Succu has again reverted me at Species Nova. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have fully protected the item. --Rschen7754 05:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Which is odd, that there is no edit war there (you'll note that i did not revert the edit I reported here), and so you have now handed Succu a free pass for his continued reverting and - 'wrong version' essay not withstanding - an effective month-long veto over my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Context: da ist nichts "provisorisch" and newly name(d) is Ersatzname (Q749462) led to to avoid confusion. BTW The talk page is open... --Succu (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2018/09&oldid=2116575604"