Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidataconnect
Translate this header box!
Start a new discussion
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/07.

Requests for deletions

high

~122 open requests for deletions.

Are PII (Personally Identifiable Information) allowed in Wikidata?

If someone creates an entry that contains PII (my name, birthdate, social security number, address) will it be blocked from being published?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popsof3d (talk • contribs) at 14:24, 1 March 2016‎ (UTC).[reply]

If that ever happens, contact oversight at wikidata dot org and it will be removed. --Rschen7754 04:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abusefilter 18

I have a tool to clean up format violations for YouTube channel ID (P2397). This tool should run logged in, but somehow during the first run today I got logged out. These edits triggered abusefilter 18: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=10.68.23.222 (IP is toollabs). The edits were valid edits (information comes directly from Google YouTube API). When I re-ran the tool I was logged in, so no error was triggered. Mbch331 (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that filter catching YouTube links before. But I don't really see what to do to avoid this. We could increase the length of suspected gibberish the filter requires, but this would decrease its actual detection rate while probably not completely avoiding false positives. We could extend the summary check to exclude certain properties, but that could get complex, and wouldn't work for the added_lines case. --YMS (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template

Hello.This Template has been replaced by Wikidata.So please delete the item, and try to delete the pages locally.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata admins can't delete local pages unless they're a local admin. Requesting deletion on wikis is something anybody can do. You don't have to be a Wikidata admin for that. Deleting the item isn't an option as long as the local pages haven't been deleted. Mbch331 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Property creation procedure

May I remind admins who create properties to follow the procedure at Steps when creating properties? Several have been created recently, with no template on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you to the same? After step 1, proceed to step 2. Thanks.
--- Jura 17:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example where I did not do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Allman Brothers Band

es:The Allman Brothers Band now is good article on es:wiki. Thanks! Graph+sas (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added already 18 hours ago from now. --Stryn (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Memorialising dead Wikidata editors

Please note WD:RIP, consensus for which was recently reached at WD:Project chat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of User:Filceolaire

Further to the section above, please permanently protect User:Filceolaire (but not its talk page).

It may also be worth deleting (or protecting) User:Filceolaire/Sandbox2 and User:Filceolaire/taxonomy, and protecting User:Filceolaire/Sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Q20983703

Could someone please protect Hailey Bieber (Q20983703) for a while? Thanks, -- T.seppelt (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Protected for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Succu/Brya

The meatpuppet pair of Succu and Brya still does not bother to give any relevant arguments. I have restored sourced information in accordance with Help:Ranking "Marking erroneous statements as deprecated instead of simply deleting such statements". But they only keeps edit warring. I have no desire to start any discussion as all prior attemts have only lead to personal attacs by the two. Both have prior discussions here due to their behaviour. --Averater (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

meatpuppet pair? --Succu (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Averater: Please either provide diffs and other evidence to support these accusations or withdraw them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I wouldn't call them meatpuppets, but please take a look at the (unresolved) archive at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2016/02#Insults and the threads linked from therein (which may now be archived). --Izno (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: See the history of Wikidata talk:Database reports/Constraint violations/P225, Q15339238, Q22082805, Q22337968, Q22071276 etc. For their disruptive behaviour: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2016/02#Insults, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2014/11#Edit_war_with_User:Brya, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2013/07#User:Brya, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2015/06#Succu_in_Prunus_armeniaca_.28Q37453.29, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2014/01#Succu and probably more I can't find. Regarding their inability to give any arguments the most recent example is Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Fictional_taxa. You could also check the uninformative edit summaries. --Averater (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that most of contributions of Averater to this project are reverts. He got a lot of explanations, but did not exept them. Nobody is supporting his views (see eg Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Fictional_taxa). --Succu (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of "relevant arguments" needs the further explanation that to Averater everything that he did not produce himself is irrelevant. Also see here, where he is active denying reality; of special note is his refusal (second half of the page) to answer a direct, simple question (first asked 11:57, 11 February 2016). And Succu is right; Averater seems to be here mostly to disrupt the project, although he does make some constructive edits. - Brya (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Averater, above you listed Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/01#Succu as a „proof“ for my „disruptive behaviour“, dated from the pre Widar era. This short time block led to my todays bot activities. So how is this related to the current problem? --Succu (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: I did answer. 09:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Succu: If you think one of the links is irrelevant, focus on the others (there are a few).
This answer is not acceptable. --Succu (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Others: Both users are continuously and have been for a long time fulfilling several of the criteria at Wikidata:Blocking policy. Most notably Wikidata:No personal attacks and Edit warring. I do suggest that it has consequences or that the relevant guidelines are rewritten/deleted to reflect praxis. --Averater (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to call (paraphrasing) "Although I am not willing to admit it, I did not look into the case, but I just took a wild guess" an answer. - Brya (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Averater continues his edit war. --Succu (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Succu/Brya their... Still without any arguments. --Averater (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got all the relevant arguments. He blindly reverts corrected items. He claims that a species is not a species and he misuses descriptions to provide a certain kind of POV. He recreates the not notable item Primula cespitosa (Q22337968) a spelling error found in the literature. He insists on his version of a heading nobody supports. --Succu (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His reaction on discussions: Deleting post. --Succu (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sjoerddebruin for doing something. I would however be most grateful for some input as it gets very frustrating to just get personal attacks each time I have started a discussion. Both of them have a long history of edit warring and personal attacks here and at least Brya also elsewhere and if anyone able to give some input in the matter in a polite manner I would be grateful. Are their behaviour acceptable or not? --Averater (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give a diff for: „Both of them have a long history of edit warring and personal attacks here.”, requested by Jasper Deng. --Succu (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would not hurt to give diffs for "to just get personal attacks each time I have started a discussion", as this makes it sound as if Averater is often starting a discussion, while what he does is to blindly ignore all arguments and facts, and then to start over again with his original 'discussion'. - Brya (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again he is reverting [1], [2]. --Succu (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: I noticed that there, you were using rollback to edit war with Averater; even though it occurred several days ago, you should have known well that this is a gross misuse of that right. Therefore, I have removed your rollback privileges. @Averater, Brya: For all of you: can you all please stop throwing around accusations in this thread? I will have to do a deeper review of the situation before I can help you resolve it. You're not making it any easier for me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block 5.179.81.130

please block 5.179.81.130 for violating Ralf Hütter (Q372438). Thanks -- T.seppelt (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any warnings on the talk page. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I warned the IP. If it continues please come back to this page. --Pasleim (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Psst, Pasleim, you're posting on his user page... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until the Final Hour

I think it should be a good and featured article.

This is unfortunately not the correct place to request this. Please visit whichever local project you want to nominate it on, and follow their procedure. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Property creator rights of Pigsonthewing

Hello fellow admins,

I'm becoming quite concerned with how Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs • logs) is using his property creator rights. He has a tendency to create properties he proposed with little discussion, and use his PC rights to close discussions regardless of the support present (to give two examples within the last day that I have observed). He also cannot seem to accept criticism of his actions, and instead of responding to central arguments of those presenting different viewpoints, he argues over pedantic details of what was said. Ultimately, I don't think that any of these patterns of behaviour are good for someone with any sort of advanced permissions to be displaying.

This all being said, the vast majority of the work that Pigsonthewing does is great, and I don't want to stop him from being able to do that. However, perhaps being able to create properties is not an appropriate role for him to be in right now. I propose that his property creator rights be removed, to be re-granted at a time when he can a) accept responsibility for his own mistakes rather then arguing them until others back off, and b) can demonstrate that he is not going to use them to inappropriately close proposals in which he is involved. I would like broader input in this than just myself, so please comment - and of course, Andy is free to defend himself here as well. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this user should have been granted property creator rights at all, given the problematic history on enwiki (w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2). I also have for a long time had concerns with their use of the right - take a look at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/30#P1824 - zero discussion, and no response to my inquiry about why they created that property out of process.
Given the very low admin scrutiny of the property creator process, I do not think the rights should be restored at all. --Rschen7754 00:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the linked discussions, I tend to agree with the proposal. --Vogone (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. While I would highly suggest that Andy be allowed to voice his opinion here before any action is taken, I believe the right should be removed shortly. @Jianhui67: As the original granter of the right, I highly encourage you to comment here as well. I do want to emphasize, though, that we do not need a formal request for removal of the right because this right is granted, and therefore removed, at administrator discretion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but I suspect that this could be a controversial case and that the documented consensus would be helpful. --Rschen7754 04:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the original granter of the request, I am fine with removing his property creator rights based on his behavioural problems. I read through the discussions. I granted him property creator rights because he seemed to be competent for it. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a total ban of creating properties that yourself has proposed would slow down the process too much in subjects that interest very few users. The lack of serious objections should in many such cases be enough. Its not like Properties are undeletable or unreviewable. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander: But one should not close property proposals when consensus is explicitly not supporting their opinion. Nor should that possibility be used to override the property creation process, which, however bureaucratic, does its job of screening. Deleting a property once it's been used is tough in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I have not reviewed any of the mentioned properties created by the mentioned user. I only say that the PP-process is a very frustrating place to be when your proposals gets very little attention. Nobody maybe opposes you, but the lack of explicit review maybe stall the process for months. Even the most well-reviewed property-proposal can show serious flaws when it is started to be used. That is not limited to poorly reviewed proposals. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that it's only actual use that shows if a property works out or not. Obviously, it doesn't help that this user creates properties he doesn't actually use and than lets other people sort them out when we need to do maintenance on them (as converting them to external identifiers).
Personally, what I found more concerning is that he currently may be a paid agent of some organization and creates properties for databases of this organization without any participation of the community beyond what may be another paid agent of the same organization. Any questions about the exact status are simply reverted on his talk page.
--- Jura 09:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Jura, I only remove posts from you on my talk page, and I do so whatever the subject. The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"one should not close property proposals when consensus is explicitly not supporting their opinion" Not even, as an uninvolved PC, when there is a duplicate, existing property? We'd have several such properties by now if I, or indeed other PCs. did not do so (here's one recent example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although Ajraddatz did end up removing it, I agree whole-heartedly with this. All you are doing here is arguing every pedantic point, when it is quite clear what I meant (i.e. that you should not make involved closures in general, without prejudice against that exception). If you can't understand why what you did was improper, then it is only more reason why you should not hold the property creator right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "arguing every pedantic point". Firstly, and generally, I was invited to "defend" myself against the accusations made here. Secondly, and specifically, if you accept that there are exceptions to your statement, which I quoted above, then this becomes a matter of where to draw the line, rather than a binary issue. And there is clearly now a difference of opinion as to where that line is drawn, in which some agree with you and some with me. I do not consider myself to have been "involved" when I made the closure in question - I had not participated in the earlier discussion, for example - and acted in good faith to prevent what I believed to be damage to the project by the creation of a duplicate property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a very pointed complaint, made after Ajraddatz was taken to task by me and another editor for improperly creating a property in matter in which he and I are in dispute, which he was subsequently obliged to delete. That I disagree with him in this matter is farthfar from me not taking responsibility for my actions; on the contrary, I have given an explanation for them because I was requested to do so. There is no instance of me abusing the PC right (in the example given, "formatterURL for Wikidata ID", there was support, and there were zero objections after the nomination ran for twice the required duration. There is no minimum amount of discussion required, only a time limit, so the "little discussion" point is a straw man. No other PC would have reached a different conclusion. In the case of P1824, which was not my own proposal, there were zero objections, the proposal was open for the required time, and the property now has thousands of uses). I stated in my request for the PC right that "I am particularly keen help reduce the significant backlog on Wikidata:Property proposal pages". I have done this diligently, probably as much as, if not more than, any other recently active PC, with minimum drama in most cases. AFAICR, none of my proposed properties has subsequently been deleted. The property creation guidelines say nothing about one not being able to close one's own, uncontroversial, proposals. Nonetheless, I only ever closed my own proposals after I asked on Project Chat whether I should, and received thanks, and no objections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the TED properties? Those were proposed by you, mentioning your connection with the organisation. After that they were supported by another user that has a connection with the organisation. After some time you've created the properties yourself... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I declared my interest. That's the right thing to do, isn't it? Each proposal then met all of the required criteria for creation (no objections, open 7 days) and two are already well used, with data in prep for the third. There was also a peremptory discussion on project chat. There was no breach of any policy or procedure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Assuming this correct, I don't think you clearly stated that you were a paid agent of that organization hired for this. In any case, I have trouble seeing at which point any non-paid agent of that organization agreed to the proposals.
--- Jura 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may safely assume that "There was no breach of any policy or procedure". Emphasis on "any". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to express that, while I have appreciated Andy's work, we seem to have a strong disagreement here about what the property creator guidelines actually say. According to the property creators page (is there another guidelines page I've missed, "Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists." To me that is much more than "no objections" - it has to be clear that "consensus exists". Since I was made a property creator I have interpreted that as a requirement for at least 3 supporting comments (or sometimes 2 with a good justification from the proposer) and no opposing comments, or a similarly strong level of sentiment where there are comments on both sides. A lack of any comments, either supporting or opposing, to me indicates a lack of community interest in the property, and therefore does NOT meet the requirement of showing that "consensus exists". Perhaps the guidelines need to be clarified, but in general this seems an indication of a problem with the concept of consensus on Andy's part, to my mind at least. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have made a similar point in the current RfC on the procedure; and I have already addressed it there, so shall not repeat myself here. However, your "at least 3 supporting comments" is indeed a personal interpretation, and does not match any definition of a requirement for consensus to exist that I have ever seen in any Wikimedia project (it's not in en:Wikipedia:Consensus, for example). Nor is it in the current (nor indeed currently proposed) property creation guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it was my interpretation - however that was based on watching the existing process for a large number of property proposals first and observing how things were done. I don't think "3 supporting comments" ought to be codified, but we do need some clarification on whether, in regards to property creation, silence = consensus, or is it mandatory to have at least some discussion. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, all actions I took in that case were intended to revert your inappropriate actions. I took it too far by creating the property while discussion was still happening; when this was pointed out, I did the appropriate thing and reverted the creation of the property, but also removed your closure of it as not done. You are still arguing every point, not taking responsibility for your actions, ignoring the core point of the concerns being raised, and demonstrating why you are unsuited to hold any sort of advanced permissions here. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the fallacious "arguing every point" and "not talking responsibility" canards elsewhere on this page; repeating the former appears to be an attempt to close down discussion, contrary to the "Andy is free to defend himself here as well" which you included in your original post here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I totally agree now with Andy on the TED properties, but it took me about a week before I understood what he meant. I am also paid by TED, but I can assure you that this has nothing to do with them, and is more a way to help us move forward in general with data donations that have complex data relations. In fact, I don't think TED understands what we are doing at all and is sort of patiently waiting until something happens on Wikipedia. Sigh. Though I agree that Andy tends to close discussions before all parties have been heard, it is also very true that parties who may be interested rarely zero in on these discussions. Let's please not make our lives more difficult by removing user permissions based on perceived behavior before understanding what the problem is exactly. Because if there are objections to any of his decisions on properties, we should discuss them on those talk pages and not here. --Jane023 (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question for Mr. Mabbett (Yes or No): Do you agree that the proposer of a property should not create this property by him/herself? --Succu (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't trivialise this by requesting "yes or no" answers to complex questions. I think that proposers of uncontroversial proposals should be able to close them, in accordance with the documented procedure, until and unless the community decides otherwise. As noted above, "I only ever closed my own proposals after I asked on Project Chat whether I should, and received thanks, and no objections"; there was thus no consensus against such action. (And again: AFAICR, no such property has subsequently been deleted.) If a new consensus emerges that this should no longer be done, then of course I will not, and neither should anyone else. Again: no such consensus existed at the time of the edits in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are stating „I only ever closed my own proposals after I asked on Project Chat whether I should, and received thanks, and no objections“. P1790 (P1790) is one of some examples I'm aware of that this not holds. So I'm supporting removal of your right. --Succu (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: You misunderstand, and thus your !vote is based in a false premise. I asked once, generally - and long before creating P1790. I provided the link the first time I made that point, above, but here it is again. In the case of P1790, the proposal received third-party support, and once again, zero objections in the almost four-month period for which it was open (which ended a year ago - and my creating it has not been an issue in the meantime). No one would have reached any other conclusion that there was consensus for its creation. Would you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ask a simple (principal) question. You refused to answer. My vote is based on my experience on how you are promoting your own proposals by creating them yourself. If you doubt this, I can give you more examples. --Succu (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not refuse to answer you. My answer is just above. I declined to answer so in a hamstrung format, where I could be damned for which ever answer I gave. You will not be able to provide a single example of me creating a proposal which did not meet the documented requirements for doing so. I made an inadvertent error over P1920 which I explained, and self-reported at the time. A deletion proposal subsequently failed.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes for you this is a „hamstrung format”, to be decieded (never heard hamstrung before). --Succu (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to P1790 (P1790), it is also noteworthy that the property was proposed in the wrong place (as if hiding it away), that a question was asked, and that the property was created while the question was still pending. - Brya (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It was not "in the wrong place"; and posting the proposal in Wikidata:Property proposal/Person is hardly "hiding" it. There were two, not one, questions asked. The first was:

"Please give more information about this identifier.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

to which I replied:

"What information would you like? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no reply to the latter in the three months that passed between me asking it and the property being created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/Person must be the most general and amorphous property proposal place, while BioStor has no meaning outside BHL and taxonomy. And stalling is not the same as replying. - Brya (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background info: When considering the small number of properties discussed above, please note that I have created over 250 extant properties in the last 13 months. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this does not in any way contradict Ajraddatz's original post, which included "the vast majority of the work that Pigsonthewing does is great". It does not excuse the poor behavior you displayed in the linked discussions, nor your combative behavior here. The only reason why I am not choosing to revoke your property creator right myself right now is that I have been quite distasteful of your behavior on this project in general, but since community consensus is leaning towards removing it, I may choose to do so in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very concerning, because it means that someone will need to review all 250 to make sure that they were created properly, and if not, if they need to be sent to WD:PFD. --Rschen7754 00:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to waste your time doing so, be my guest. As I have already indicated, you will not find a single instance of me creating a proposal which did not meet the documented requirements for doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the combative behavior in this thread, as well as the concerns brought up by other users and the evident consensus here that he is not suited to holding them, I have taken the liberty of removing Pigsonthewing's property creator rights. The bottom line is that this is a collaborative project: if you cannot work with others in a collegial fashion, you cannot work on such a project, let alone hold advanced permissions on it. Pigsonthewing is free to re-apply for the right, but I highly suggest that that not occur any sooner than three months from now. Do note that I will not answer queries about my action anywhere but in this thread, to keep the discussion centralized.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that about 1-2 hours before you took that action Pigsonthewing created a bunch of properties (see for two). It might be worth another property creator double checking these creations (I see nothing immediately wrong, but I've not looked in depth and I don't regard myself as sufficiently versed in the policy to be certain). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 21:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the usual problem that he deletes part of the proposals when creating the properties.
--- Jura 08:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As required by step 5 of the property creation procedure which - from your comment elsewhere on this page today - you appear to have recently read. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any mention of deleting users proposals there. What you were doing makes it impossible to see what people discussed and agreed with as the closed proposal discussion keeps getting updated by edits on the property pages. Good thing this wont happen any more in the future.
--- Jura 11:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's seems that you recently edited it to reflect your idea of deleting discussions. Obviously, this had to be undone.
--- Jura 11:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I edited it - on 12 March - to reflect current and best practice, and changes to the {{Property documentation}} template. Nonetheless, the type of edits you complain about above were required by the earlier version, also. Sadly, you're now edit-warring to restore an out-of-date and inaccurate version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note about it on the page's talk page, but you chose to ignore it. It's fairly common in wikis that closed and archived discussions should not be edited. Can you provide a quote that suggested the contrary? Did you mention the changes you made to the process anywhere? None of the translations seem to mention it either.
--- Jura 12:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters of {{Property documentation}} should be removed on the property talk page in favor of claims on the property page. In contrast, on the property proposal page and its archive nothing should be removed to know what users originally agreed on. --Pasleim (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Step 6 of the process, before my changes, said:

"Clean-up the use of Template:Property documentation and add it to the talk page of the new property. This will allow it to be edited/extended there. At "proposed by", you can add the number of the archive. This will link the proposal in the archive. Status, description, type and examples can be removed from the template; the template will pull the corresponding values from the property and its statements. If the proposal didn't use the template, it's worth filling it yourself. Sample: Property talk:P409..

after my changes, it said:

"Clean-up the use of Template:Property documentation, and add it to the talk page of the new property. This will allow it to be edited/extended there. Status, description, type, regex, source URL, formatter URL and example(s) should be removed from the template; it will pull the corresponding values from the property and its statements. If the proposal didn't use the template, fill it yourself. Sample: Property talk:P409..

In both cases, it starts:

"Clean-up the use of Template:Property documentation"

and in both cases, it includes:

"[specified properties] should be removed from the template; it will pull the corresponding values from the property and its statements.".

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you should already have removed the template at step 4 and archive the discussion at step 5, didn't you?
    The archive pages have a big sign on it stating "This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the actual page, even to continue an old discussion."
    Personally, I find it highly problematic that you delete part of the proposal when closing the discussion because <quote by Pigsonthewing>"It would also leave material which is different (and often contradictory; and often changed during the discussion) to what is actually in the properties of the created property, or its subsequent revisions by the community at large, leading to confusion"</quote>[3]. So you actually delete to ensure that the discrepancy between your action and the community discussion goes unnoticed.
    --- Jura 14:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, it has been common practice for well over a year - since before I became a PC - not to archive discussions as soon as they are closed. Because I do not archive discussions immediately, the changes I make (which may include, for example, changing the datatype to one agreed during the discussion, or fixing spelling or grammatical errors in the description, or moving am issuing body from the "represents" field) are left visible on the discussion page, so are clearly not "hidden". Furthermore, you falsely ascribe to me actions and motives which are not mine. I consider, given your behaviour in our past interactions, about which you have previously been warned, that you are doing so maliciously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your indentation is broken. Please fix it.

"Told not to do so"? By whom?

Here is the template, immediately before I closed the discussion: 

{{Property documentation
|status			= ready
|description		= {{TranslateThis
  | en = The number of a company as registered with Companies House in the United Kingdom
  }}
|subject item           = Q257303
|datatype		= external-id
|domain			= {{Q|4830453}}
|allowed values		= \d{8}
|source			= 
|example		= {{Q|301092}} → [https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02050843 02050843]
|formatter URL		= https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/$1
|filter			= 
|robot and gadget jobs	= 
}}

and here how it renders afterwards:

Documentation

The ID "Administrators&#39; noticeboard" is unknown to the system. Please use a valid entity ID.

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

The ID "Administrators&#39; noticeboard" is unknown to the system. Please use a valid entity ID.

Notes: |subject item=Q257303 is rendered in the property using the more correct issued by (P2378)). As required, I have changed |status=ready to {Para|status|2622}}.

Please explain what nefarious change is hidden there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, it's not an issue of being "nefarious", but a lack of transparency. You changed the property description from the original proposed description. You improved it in this case, but the fact that the description is different could in some circumstances be important and concealing the change by removing it from the proposal is not good. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing lacking in transparency about my edit, and nothing is concealed. The new wording is on the proposal page for all to see (Jura argues for immediate archiving, which would hide the change), and the diff is in the page history, just like any other. The property proposal process including your proposed new redraft says (emboldening added): "Create the property with Special:NewProperty including the label and description from the proposal. Polish it if needed.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once the proposal is archived your edit is hidden in the page history of a completely different page from the archived location of the proposal. That's the problem ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish vandal

See:

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P1477&diff=prev&oldid=313351315

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P1477&diff=next&oldid=313351315

I fixed the vandalism already. Do I send the editor a warning? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is vandalism. It is quite common for beginners that they try to change or create statements or items by changing the properties. Often they find out themselves, often they give up and are never seen again. Rather than warning him, you'd probably better give him some advices. --YMS (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the word "donkey" in Spanish probably qualifies as vandalism, so I have warned the user. @Checkingfax: Thanks for the heads up! Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that even though I know the word. I even googled the name, and the results (which I only checked very quickly, as the edit was reverted anyway) seemed to be about an actual person. Now I see that this is a mock upon a famous politician. So sorry for my misleading answer. --YMS (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Q968229

Please protect Q968229 for a while. -- T.seppelt (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done for two weeks Amir (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Q20437094 and Q212431?

Hi, items installation art (Q212431) and installation artwork (Q20437094) have different meanings but they are regularly merged, despite having the mutual property different from (P1889). Is it possible to just protect two items from being merged at all? Spinster (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really possible. In this case the items were clearly marked, but a user removed it and merged the items. I asked the user to explain the reasoning. Not sure if MediaWiki:Gadget-Merge.js takes into account these links. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

‎P1887

I'm requesting the instatement of ‎P1887, which was recently deleted by User:Multichill, despite there being a 2:2 split (and thus no consensus) in the deletion discussion. The property relates to en:Vice-county, which is a key issue for biological recording in the UK. I have asked Multichill to reconsider, but he has declined. As I pointed out in this deletion discussion, a prior discussion in December 2015 resulted in "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind to give a reference for a „key issue for biological recording in the UK“, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did: en:Vice-county. That article itself has ample references and external links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase it with your own words: is a key issue for biological recording in the UK. Why and and how should we reflect biological records here? --Succu (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in the deletion discussion was not whether, or how, we should reflect biological records in Wikidata, The issue now is whether there was consensus to delete. There was not. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so key, then why was it only used in one place? Sounds to me like the reasons to delete were more compelling. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikidata is not yet complete. en:WP:NODEADLINE is also relevant. Do you see consensus for deletion in that discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming the property creation process

See the above RFC for some proposals to reform the property creation process. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC) (on behalf of Rschen7754)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Thanks for starting this discussion. I had a desire to start something of this sort based on the recent goings-on. I will see about adding some proposals. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter log

Hello.What is the benefit of this?Jasper DengHazard-SJ, You are in its history --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It lets admins see when a page is marked for deletion. In fact, it is no longer need as long as you watch Category:Wikidata:Deletion and have categorization shown. It doesn't cause any harm though. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding badge

I'm having difficulties in adding featured article badge on Sekolah Menengah Sains Muzaffar Syah Bahasa Melayu page.-Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the QID of the page and which badge needs to be added? Mbch331 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done by HakanIST to Sekolah Menengah Sains Muzaffar Syah (Q12708580) --Pasleim (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=314987210"