Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/05

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

KrBot

user:KrBot — war of bots. For example. WBR, BattlePeasant (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message at Multichill's talk page. BTW, some pointers: you could be more informative in your communication. The example you provided above lists an item where BotMultichill edited before your message at its talkpage. So this left me wondering why you needed an administrator's attention. (But apparently BotMultichill did similar edits after this message without answering it, e.g. here). Secondly, your example on Multichill's talk page was very informative (thanks!), but did not provide an alternative where to put those chemical structure diagrams (they should be placed in chemical structure (P117)). As these diagrams are obviously very relevant information for chemical compounds, people will be trying to put them in image (P18) if they have found no alternative. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Always hilarious to be in an edit war without knowing it (@Ivan A. Krestinin:)
I did this edit so that articles which use chemical structure (P117) (like nl:Bifenyl) drop out of the category to work on. That should prevent the bot from adding it again.
Multichill (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
To BattlePeasant: It is better discuss with botmaster first. To Multichill: bot is at war with humans too: [1]. We need some mechanism to prevent such wars in general case. But creating such mechanism is not simple task... — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Such actions must first stop, then discuss. You started the war, not a discussion with the owner of the BotMultichillT. WBR, BattlePeasant (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Add 2 localisations to gadget QuickEditCounter

Please I need a sysop to add two new localisations to this gadget, italian and japanese. To do this, paste the following code: 

			it: {
				thismaleusermade: 'Questo utente ha fatto',
				thisfemaleusermade: 'Questa utente ha fatto',
				total: 'un totale di',
				edits: 'edizioni'
			},
			ja: {
				thismaleusermade: 'この利用者は',
				thisfemaleusermade: 'この利用者は',
				total: '&nbsp',
				edits: '編集回数持ってます。'
			},

inmediately below of bahasa indonesia translation (id: code), in MediaWiki:Gadget-quickeditcounter.js. --Zerabat (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. IW 14:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Q14000940 and Q15615513 are the same.

Hello, Q14000940 trimer and Q15615513 Trimeer essentially describe the same substance. Please combine them. -- Mountainninja (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mountainninja: ✓ Done. You can enable the merge gadget to merge duplicate items and then add a request at WD:RfD. That's much easier. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

artificial object (Q16686448)

Please restore the item. It is not equal to artificial physical object (Q15222213) but supersedes it. Some discussion about reasons of the deletion is at User talk:Jdforrester but for some reason have not ended. Infovarius (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Flooding of Special:RecentChanges

Special:RecentChanges is now completely unusable because user:Andrew Gray, user:Magnus Manske and user:GerardM are flooding the it with unauthorized bots. These bots should either be throttled or it should be using a flood flag. What do you think? Multichill (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I notified the users. If this is still happening in 30 minutes I either start handing out some blocks or revoke permission of Widar. Multichill (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do. Vogone (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
And regarding the flood flag, this is only for temporary cases. For separated accounts like in Gerard's case a bot flag should probably be preferred. Vogone (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
user:GerardM switched to user:RobotGMwikt and that account just stopped editing.
user:Magnus Manske didn't respond. Blocked for 10 minutes to stop the bot.
I don't care what automated programs people are using. The same rules apply to all: If you want to edit fast, use a bot flag, otherwise throttle your edits so the recent changes don't get flooded. Multichill (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Or you should realised that Wikidata is not Wikipedia. It's unrealistic to use Special:RecentChanges on logged users. Pyb (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to propose changes to our bot policy Pyb, but until that is changed, that's leading. Multichill (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
And you're welcome to resign as a sysop as you are not taking clever decisions. Pyb (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from such snappy comments. If you are serious and you indeed think Multichill is harmful for this project WD:Requests for permissions/Removal is the place to discuss. Thank you. Vogone (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally have enabled "Hide patrolled edits in recent changes" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc which makes Special:RecentChanges a lot more usable. I also think it is rather hard to keep the recent changes feed "slow" but it's worth a try at least. Unthrottled widar edits do not help in this regard. Greetings, Vogone (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Widar is not a tool, it is an authentication method. Revoking authentication to it will have much wider impact that only the large number of edits. That is NOT the way forward. In the past there has been discussion on the use of the bot flag. When people object on principal grounds there will not be a practical solution.

I have send a mail to benestar with what could be a solution for this in AutoList. What it will do is have a tick box that will set it as "bot=1". Hope that helps. GerardM (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been using manually-checked lists generated through autolist with editing done via widar - I ran batch edits using this before a month or two ago without problems, and I'd been under the impression it was considered acceptable. If it's causing problems, I'll certainly stop.
I'm not sure of the best way to do this, though. a) have edits made through widar or similar labs-based tools be given a bot/flood flag (probably undesirable, since potentially this could be one edit); b) get widar to automatically throttle edits to a lower rate (what would be reasonable - edit every 2s? 5s? 10s?); c) make these edits through a separate bot account (but this still has the throttling problem). Andrew Gray (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
user:Magnus Manske started flooding the recent changes right after the 10 minutes block. I guess the tool doesn't check for blocks. Added an indefinite block now. Can be lifted by anyone once the tool has been stopped. Multichill (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: apparently admins didn't enforce the bot policy, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply. What the tool should do (what most frameworks do):
Do I have a botflag or not?
  1. I have a botflag. Go edit fast!
  2. I don't have a botflag. Throttle the edits (say 2 per minute)
The bot should also take in account the replication lag and blocks.
The bot could of course offer it as an option to the user to use the botflag or not maybe with a threshold (10 edits?). If you have 9 edits it would just take it easy and do the 9 edits without the botflag. If you would have to do 11 edits and you have a botflag that can be enabled, the bot can edit fast with the flag.
In the end this is the responsibility of the person operating the tool. Multichill (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been reading through the bot policy and I'm a bit confused. The first requirement listed is "Be able to set a limit for maximum edits per minute", but your comments above suggest that a bot-flag means it can go as fast as it wants. I'm happy to set up a bot and then run it in supervised batches using this tool, if that's the right way forward, but I'm not sure if it would actually comply with the policy as written. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick check - it looks like Magnus has now throttled widar to 6 edits/minute. Is it okay to run batches of updates at this rate without a bot flag? (FWIW, what I'm adding is basic information and "instance of human" from categories on dewiki, enwiki, frwiki; lists are manually scanned before sending to avoid glaring errors) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
[flag now requested]. Thanks for your patience... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This approach does not take into consideration what Widar is used for. Widar can be used truly interactive for for instance adding images or labels. It can be used for larger number of edits in for instance AutoList. Hiding behind a definition of "bot" that makes this a bot edit only demonstrates no familiarity with the tools. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that the autolist-widar galaxies allows to make useful edits at a fast rate, with a flexibility that usual bots do not allow, and that it can be done much more easily by non-techies who usually don't operate bots. And they are massively used. It means that limiting such tools may have a real impact on the growth-rate on Wikidata, and we should avoid that. So basically we have two issues:

  • recent changes
  • Special:Dispatchstats. I do not think we had issues with it recently, apart from a one-time technical glitch, but obviosly, if many people use powerful tools, that may change.

I think the simplest solution I see would be a fast-track bot approval request. Autoconfirmed users would be automatically approved if they can show their edits are correct, and if they commit to use the account for autolis-like tools only, and to check the dispatch stats. That means trusting editors, but after all that's the Wiki mentality. --Zolo (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

+1 to automatic approval for autoconfirmed users. Autolists is just great for adding a big amount of claims easily, which is what is needed now. --Micru (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Zolo: Please bring this up at RfC, this is not the place to establish new policy. Because of the potential for bots to cause damage, I'm not okay with allowing any autoconfirmed user to get approval because they must be much more trustworthy than just that to not make errors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been using Widar to add gender claims to items. If some sort of permissions are necessary for this, may I have them please? Thanks Haplology (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's really sad that this discussion is taking place. Flooding the already-unusable rc should not be a reason to force anyone to do anything. That being said, a fast-tracked bot solution would seem to be a good one, even though it makes the process of improving data here more complicated than the status quo of not caring. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • Flooding the RC is very problematic. Changes really need to be monitorable, and the RC is the only way to effectively do that. Killing off the recent changes tool just so that users don't have to make flood flag requests is a bad idea, in my opinion. The bot policy needs to be more strictly enforced.
  • There needs to be a quick flood flag request system, preferably usually taking less than twenty minutes to finish. If, however, someone thinks that the edits are counterproductive, then the process should not be quick, and a reasonable-length discussion should precede the flag being given.
  • Widar should not allow users without the bot or flood flags to make so many edits so quickly.
  • We really need a bot or tool that can mass-revert all edits that were done by a user over a certain time period. The wiki system relies on changes being possible to undo, and when doing ten thousand edits is easy and undoing them is virtually impossible, then we can't allow any random user to be doing such changes without having someone making sure the edits make sense.

--Yair rand (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Rate limits are directly implementable via the abuse filter, which can exempt bots or any other user group as we wish. The rate limit is in the form of x edits in y seconds, so legitimate tools can be excluded by making both x and y sufficiently large but x/y still a reasonable number.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The RC is already unusable, regardless of flooding. At non-peak times, it only shows edits from the last 5 minutes. At peak times, the last 50 changes go back less than a minute. That is not practical to monitor, and other (better) tools exist such as the cvn IRC channel or various abusefilter logs. You can use the RC to see only anon edits or new user edits, but neither of these are affected by Widar, making this largely a non-issue. If anyone actually uses it to patrol edits (which I doubt), please step forward, so I can direct you to other venues where your efforts will be put to better use. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I do so. However, only with the option that hides the edits already flagged as patrolled, so any Widar activities don't show up for me. Even so, there are about 100 edits per hour on the list. --YMS (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Yair rand: A mass revert tool is available at m:User:Hoo man/smart rollback.js.--GZWDer (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng:. Do we really need to go through a lengthy RFC for that, I am just saying: for practical reasons, just speedily approve bots that are here only to use oauth through autolist rather than let the requests idle for weeks. This is a well tested and easy to use tool, and many users have used it without a bot flag, and these were overwhelmingly positive edits. This does not even need to be a permanent policy as bugzilla:64829 may solve the issue - except for potential dispatch lag if the tool proves too successful, but it seems that it can be managed without too much virtual redtape. Actually, I see that in practice, speedy approvals already take place, so I guess things are ok. --Zolo (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This has to be approved by a wide consensus of the community. The RfC need not take place at a dedicated subpage but it must be structured RfC-style (watchlist notice and everything).--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/Property inheritance/P21 not in P107

Can this page be deleted? As P107 is outdated, I guess this report has become obsolete. -- Pütz M. (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm:? --Pasleim (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Akkakk/issues/link without label/no-brackets

on the listed there is a sitelink but no label in the corresponding language. usually they couldn't be fixed by a bot due to a conflict with another item. in most cases the other item is empty and should be deleted. sometimes the label in the other item should be changed. you're welcome to help. just try to add the label with the autoedit-gadget. --Akkakk 13:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

RobotGMwikt

Hi, please block RobotGMwikt. It adds invalid properties again and again. I notified botmaster tree times: User talk:GerardM#Human groups, but there is no reaction. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary here now. Discussion is ongoing at the page you've linked, and according to his statements, Gerard already has changed the way he retrieves the items to edit. --YMS (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Gerard is responsible now. I hope he will tune used software and will not add invalid claims. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

John Vandenberg

The way John Vandenberg is acting towards me feels to me very much like stalking/harassing. I have asked him repeatedly to communicate with me, something that he has so far refused. I would like to believe that John means well but it no longer feels like that to me. In a similar way I have the impression that he thinks I am actively bringing the quality of Wikidata down. I am upset.

What I would like is for him to lay off. I would like to talk with him. I am quite prepared to explain what I am trying to achieve, I even wrote an RFC about quality that explains one aspect of what I am doing. I am quite happy to explain the rationale behind what I do. Things are not helped with the current noxious atmosphere.

I again ask John to communicate and not try to force a point. I would like John to explain what it is he tries to achieve / tries to protect, what is important to him and why. I am happy to do likewise. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For reference, Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal#RobotGMwikt. Before I look deeper into your dispute, I'll have to say that it's common courtesy to notify User:John Vandenberg of this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And what do you want us to do now? We can't force anyone to discuss either. Maybe you should try contacting John Vandenberg directly on his talk page? As far as I see you haven't even tried that. At least, this is the wrong venue to discuss privately with other contributors. Thank you. Vogone (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Mind to react GerardM? --Succu (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Nobody notified me on my talk.
I want the user:RobotGMwikt bot to be in accordance with the bot policy. According to the bot policy, the bot should be blocked. See also WD:BN#RobotGMwikt. Gerard insists the bot policy doesnt apply to his bot.
I am actively participating in the discussion at that page. I asked GerardM which RFC he is referring to.[2] No response from GerardM.
I have listed bot errors on that page, clearly stating that they are not fixed and should be fixed by GerardM. He has not fixed them. e.g. wedding of Nora Robinson and Alexander Kirkman Finlay (Q15634446). He just wants to talk about how much he is improving Wikidata; no recognition that he needs to fix the errors introduced by his bot and not repeat them.
I do not want to talk privately with GerardM via gtalk or similar; this isnt a personal dispute - I am only focused on the bot account.
I intend to continue to document his misuse of the bot user:RobotGMwikt, as the bot continues to operate even during the request to have the bot flag removed. It's edits are hidden from Recentchanges (because he does it with a bot) so there is no other way for people to see how many errors he is injecting into Wikidata by slurping up brand new Wikipedia articles, including BLP violations, spam, duplicates, articles renamed several times, etc. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. You seem to be focused on the bot, not on Gerard. And the bot should be blocked. Adding info from categories (regardless of whether or not the information is correct) is not what the bot was approved to do. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Q13109889

Can any one of you please remove this entry? Q13109889, this one is already linked in Q4682935. Thanks --Manuspanicker (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

done. please go to WD:RFD next time. or use the 'request deletion' option of the merge-gadget. --Akkakk 09:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Help on RfD

I think you know what to do... we are currently having a large backlog. But please there occur many request where the items were not merged because of a bug in API interface. In this case please merge the items using Merge.js. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

warning: some requests seem to be automatically added without being actually merged --Akkakk 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
And some of them have backlinks and should presumably not merged. --Succu (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI: A great deal of these deletion request comes from Magnus Manske's new Wikidata Game, which combines some really powerful tools (especially a one-click merge proposal tool) with the attitude of a game. This is great, as it actually allows to perform such tasks more efficiently while even having more fun doing it. However, there are some drawbacks like the user usually does not check the item himself/herself (e.g. to see if there are links), and admins don't automatically delete what they're merging (and they probably shouldn't, as they also don't check the item directly). Note that the tool also fails to put a deletion request in many cases of a successful merge, so there will be a lot of new un-RfD'ed empty items, too. I guess some of the technical issues may be fixed, but with or without such fixes, we should expect some serious amount of RfD workload at least in the next days. --YMS (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I just talked to Marius about this. He tested it on the current codebase and there the bug is fixed. Unfortunately the fix is too big to backport easily. So it will go live with the next deployment. That is on 27th. Sorry for the pain until then :( --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I played the "game" and when I merged a couple items (after looking at the WP articles to ensure they're the same, of course) it listed the dup at RfD. Apparently administrators aren't meant to play the merge game. :( I'll help out at RfD to manage to backlog until then. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The situation is now becoming very serious, even BeneBot* can't edit the page (last touch 22. 5. 2014, 17:54 UTC). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like RFD is manageable again - only 104 open requests. --Jakob (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk page being created for blocked user by IP

The page User talk:MarianoGaddy was created earlier by 198.178.127.17. The user which the talk page corresponds with has been blocked as a spam bot. An admin may wish to salt the talk page and decide whether CheckUsering the IP to see if it is the same person is a sensible idea. The IP has only made one edit. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Deleted as a test page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Property:P76

This property is unused [3]. Please delete it.--GZWDer (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --AmaryllisGardener talk 13:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mohsin99. Sealle (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sealle: Warned, if he continues, we will do more. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re-erecting

Q15655650 was a victim of the merge game (a species of insect merged with a differently named species of plant). - Brya (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, Brya, for mentioning here Lymantria (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. - Brya (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:BeweisDurchWiderspruch introduced a picture of dog's feces in Q513994. Other contributions of same user seem to be correct German translations. --78.51.85.158 22:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

According to my translator, the other contribs are good - perhaps it was an error by him? Ajraddatz (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I admit it, it wasn't an error, but an experiment, whether/how long this kind of vandalism is possible. My edit caused the image to appear in several German articles (e.g. de:Springfield (Vermont)) in the flagged version (i.e. in a version that is explicitely said to be free of vandalism). Due to caching the image is still visible in one of them, even though it isn't listed as file usage. I conclude that it is quite easy to vandalize Wikipedia via Wikidata:
  • Even obvious vandalism can persist 1.5 days on Wikidata.
  • The vandalism is visible immididately on Wikipedia, even when FlaggedRevs are used.
  • Tracking this kind of vandalism is difficult (it didn't appear on the watchlist if you only watched the articles that actually showed the image, image usage table not updated, ...)
  • Reverting this kind of vandalism is difficult (cache).
  • Vandals that hide their vandalism between good edits aren't identified as vandals ([5]).
--BeweisDurchWiderspruch (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice to know, though in the future it would be advisable to let someone know beforehand (even if a single admin in private). Obviously more though must be put into vandalism via Wikidata. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Is a bit that I think about it, but wikidata can be used to bypass protection on wikipedia pages. There is some solution? --ValterVB (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the watchlist should be configured so that if one is watching a given page, they will also see changes made to the corresponding Wikidata item. I believe this is already done as an opt-in thing, but it could become automatic or opt-out. --Jakob (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The watchlist does show changes to the Wikidata item (unless you use the enhanced watchlist, see bugzilla:44874). But this wouldn't help anyway, I changed the item for Windsor County, but the vandalism appeared in the articles about towns in that county. --BeweisDurchWiderspruch (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Widar unattended makes men female

When you look at this you will find an AutoList on autopilot. Sadly the sex is wrong both for humans and for the rank of "Bath" orders. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The user stopped the tool and he is fixing the error right now (based on User talk:Jdforrester) Amir (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, this was fixed yesterday when it was brought to my attention, as I told you when we spoke just now. Unless you actually have a link to an item that was not fixed up (which I believe I caught all of), I'm not sure what you're getting at. Clearly we should all be careful when making edits, semi-automated or otherwise! James F. (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

User:Ws227 recently split up Q7408 into two items, I had to merge it back again. According to his talk page, he has done more such controversial moves.--Kohelet (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't recently, but 2 months ago; this incident was discussed in zhwiki, and successfully resolved. By the way, @Kohelet: You should use "she".--GZWDer (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"Recently" is relative, 2 months ago is recently. And since she doesn't have an user page, there's no way I could know she's female.--Kohelet (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SINSofDallas

I am not sure if we block users for having promotional usernames or not, but if we do, SINSofDallas should be blocked. See Special:DeletedContributions/SINSofDallas. --Jakob (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Promotion-only account. ✓ Blocked John F. Lewis (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There's Zetaespacial too. It's the name of a company, see es:Zeta Espacial. --Jakob (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hm. I'm going to leave that one. It doesn't seem to be an account made to 'promote an entity' exactly. Just creating an item with links is hardly against policy though the username is something to watch. John F. Lewis (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Thanks - noticed my bot left out Ban Wa (Q16658592) (and some others), so it was empty, but now it runs to fill them. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2014/05&oldid=138045181"