Wikidata talk:Requests for permissions

• Archives at /archive.

Flag discrepancy on global counters - autopratoller flag

Hi. In 2013 I was made autopatrolled, but I have realized that on this edit counter this flag does not appear, although it does here.

Do you have any idea why this occurs?

I have understood that the flag is deprecated but in Wikidata:Autopatrolled users it is still described as a flag like all the others, although it does not appear on this Wikidata:Requests for permissions page or the Template:User groups

I think that he "history" of this flag on data should be better specified somewhere.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that removing a user group from the configuration makes it disappear from the database. Actually, you're not a member of the "autopatrolled" group anymore (even if you haven't been explicitly removed from it), and nobody else is:

MariaDB [wikidatawiki_p]> SELECT DISTINCT(ug_group) FROM user_groups ORDER BY ug_group;
+------------------+
| ug_group         |
+------------------+
| bot              |
| bureaucrat       |
| confirmed        |
| ipblock-exempt   |
| oversight        |
| propertycreator  |
| rollbacker       |
| sysop            |
| translationadmin |
| wikidata-staff   |
+------------------+
10 rows in set (0.00 sec)

While sulinfo shows information from the database (or from the API, I don't know), DEWKIN tries to recreate the entire history of your group membership based on log entries, which may not reflect the actual status. --Ricordisamoa 02:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What Ricordisamoa says there is correct, and your (and all others) "autopatrolled" group membership was deleted by WMF sysadmins upon bugzilla request, directly from the database. Vogone (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

page is broken

The table (for bot permission) is not being regenerated properly. When you edit source, you can see things like: {{‎Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/ProteinBoxBot 2}} That are not showing up in the table.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by I9606 (talk • contribs) at 21:25, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC).

"Comments"

{{int:Abusefilter-history-comments}} is currently used to title the "Comments" section of each request for sysop permission. I think that's the wrong title - {{int:Abusefilter-history-comments}} means "comments" as in "program comments" in the sense of "instructions". I think what you want is "comments" in the sense of "add discussion here". Can we change the template back to "Comments" or "Discussion" without automatic translation until we can find a better int: message? Deryck Chan (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate bot username?

Q23679 is apparently a bot run by U+1F360. Not to be confused with Abbott and Costello (Q23679). The username looks odd to me - for starters being a Q-number, but also for being an unmarked bot. Do others agree / can it be renamed? I brought this up at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Q23679, but I don't know if that's being watched. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind raising this at the talk page of the bot owner? They seem to be active.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic:V82k8nowv7wiaenx - notified. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no username policy on Wikidata, am I mistaken? U+1F360 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@U+1F360: From Wikidata:Bots, "Bot accounts are generally named after either their operator or their function, combined with the word "bot" (see list of bots on the right side of this page)." For me, the inclusion of "bot" or similar is the important part of that, as otherwise it looks like a regular user account when viewing page histories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@U+1F360: @Mike Peel: Q23679 is clearly misleading and confusing username, especially for a bot. Please consiser to change it.--Jklamo (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Without Costello but A bot", parhaps. —Eihel (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Link to Administrators’ noticeboard

I briefly forgot the name of the Administrators’ noticeboard and thought that the shortcut WD:RFA would lead me to the page where I can leave a request for an administrator :) do you think it would make sense to add a link to that to Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Header? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Support It makes sense, yes. Small Precisions Lucas: There are already other links for WD:AN. When you were on the RfA page, there is a link to the {{Shortcut}}s page that leads to Wikipedia:Shortcut (Q620197), and from there, choose the Wikidata sitelink. There is also the link to the main Wikidata:Requests for permissions, as on enwiki or Meta (and maybe other wikis), where you find all the important links of WD. Rest assured, in French, WP:AN is translated Requêtes aux Administrateurs . For RfA, the A means Adminship. Bis bald. —Eihel (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Eligibility criterias for voters not mentioned anywhere?

I only found Wikidata:Requests for comment/RfP voting eligibility where it was decided that:

• "Users must have at least 100 local non-automated edits in order to vote in an RfP"
• "A user must meet the voting eligibility requirement before the RfP starts in order to vote in that RfP."

I think they should be mentioned on this page. I'm not sure does it affect all RfP's or only the high trusted permissions. Opinions? Stryn (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As it is right now I would say that it only affects the "high trusted permissions". Totally agree with you that it should be visible on the main page too. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stryn, Nadzik: See also Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/06#Applicablity_of_RfP_voting_eligibility. —Eihel (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned requests

Hi all. I hope it's OK that I've marked old requests as abandoned. I pinged each proposal when I closed them. I have no objections to any of them being re-opened, but it doesn't make sense for old proposals to hang around here indefinitely without any sort of closure. I'll try to contribute more to new proposals in the future, as it seems sad that we've lost the edits that these editors and bots would have made. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Typically requests are closed by bureaucrats. @Lymantria, Vogone, Ymblanter: thoughts?--GZWDer (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. Lymantria (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not have any issues with the close --Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know it was OK. I've just seen that this is the general 'requests for pemisisons' page, so let me just note that this was only for bot requests. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge

I have requested merging several articles in their discussion. Seems not to work. So I request merging here:

Q97220232 ‎ and Q1874534;

Q1100956 ‎and Q97216858;

Q784868 ‎and Q65264430.

Thank you. Avjoska (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done You can make this kind of request on Wikidata:Project chat, Avjoska —Eihel (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for merging and for a good tip, Eihel! Avjoska (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome Avjoska —Eihel (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Adminship query

Hello everyone, I'm mostly present on Commons as copyright vandalism is excessive. I would like to be an admin. I'm not having admin tools on any wiki, but I would like to present my candidacy here on wikidata. I know English, Hindi, Bhojpuri languages. I have less edit count in patrolling edits/rfd. But I do take in patrolling items, remove vandalism edits. But I'm unable to find items which are intended vandalism, blank, which I should be directly request for deletion. If you can provide some links which can help. Do guide me, share your views please that would really help me. Thank you --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello C1K98V , On the next page you have the main page of the project: WD:CVN. It contains useful links to the patrol. On the next page, you have information on how to deal with vandalism: WD:VAND. The following link is about the patrol: WD:PATROL. All non-patrolled pages are susceptible to vandalism. The tool to request deletion (Items or Lexemes only, not Properties), RequestDeletion, is accessible in your preferences. Be careful, the notoriety criteria are different from other projects. You can read the local Notoriety policy on this page: WD:N. WD:AN is where you can call an admin (page protection, ...). Wikidata:Project chat is WD's global discussion area. There are various discussion projects in several languages. You can ask your questions there or on various social networks:

• Join Wikimedia Discord server] (en)
• IRC channel: #wikidata^connect (en)

When you are a regular at WD in a few months, the community will be happy to welcome a new administrator. All of this information can be found in Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents. —Eihel (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

patroller

hi will you please promote me to patroller HamzhaSaleem (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no patroller group in wikidata and the patroller permission is included in the autoconfirmed user group, in which you already are. --Zabe (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think he means rollbacker group. -- Norval771 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What to do if a bot is operating or has, but isn't listed here?

Are all bots required to be listed here? Is OrcBot missing from the list? I'm not sure that bot is active, but it has made incomplete edits in the past (appears to have resolved for recent edits, but I hope repairs are ongoing.) I think it should be registered as a bot if it is indeed a genuine bot. Trilotat (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think User:OrcBot is registered on Wikidata, but to give an answer: former interwiki bots (those which only add sitelinks) typically do not need to get a flag on Wikidata and are not listed. Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

help on a bot i wrote, please

Hi Guys,

I developed a bot using pywikibot i would use to insert items about patents. I have not a csv file but a database in SQL Server with all the data to be inserted. I have already a bot-user i created few months ago.

For the sake of truth, my bot is not "fully automatic" this because i have the property "Owned_by" that it is mandatory for me. So, first I verify if wikidata has already an item for this property and I not find it then i not import the item (so the patent)

I have already as a try loaded some items like for example this Q117349404 (but you can find many other items i added)

Now, since I am a newbie on wikidata i have the following question:

1) Do a limit of number of item that can i import each day exists? this becuase I received while i was adding an item a warning message from the API

2) Must i do somethink with my user bot? Must my user-bot be approved?

Thank you for your help that is very important for me!

LucaDrBiondi (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Share the Knowledge! Knowledge must be free for everyone!

Requesting a new Primary Task

I recently submitted a proposal for a new bot, CarbonBot, which did not gain consensus, and was withdrawn.

However, it does not appear like we have the ability to request a new primary task, and re-submitting the primary task includes the full discussion of the previously withdrawn task.

Is there any way to submit a new primary bot task with a new discussion, when the bot is not yet approved? Iamcarbon (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)