Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/09

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

cyber harassment?

for Dung beetles. - Brya (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, removed talkpage and warned the user. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:GerardM

Hello folks. At GerardM's talk page, there are tons of sections complaining about numerous errors in his semi-automated edits. Discussions on the talk page appear to not have gone anywhere, and there are concerns that he refuses to discuss there, instead preferring to discuss on IRC (which, of course, cannot make binding decisions or show a consensus that is recognizable onwiki).

I am significantly concerned about the situation, as introducing errors that people have to keep checking for significantly degrades the quality of our data. Short blocks of 6 hours [1] have not resolved the situation. Unfortunately, I believe that stronger sanctions are needed, and thus I am starting this discussion. --Rschen7754 02:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that GerardM's attitude towards people who point out his mistakes is not ideal. He often argues that he can't be bothered to precisely identify the source of the mistakes and that the onus is on those who find them to provide better info (which is often impossible since we have no way of knowing what Autolist2 query he used to add this or that claim). I'm also puzzled by the fact that GerardM's current mass edits appear to be based on the same problematic ideas as those used for his bot whose permission was removed a few months ago largely because of the error rate.[2] For a safer, patient but ultimately better way of doing the same sort of work, the template should be Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/HaxpettBot. Pichpich (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, at this time I have over 2 million edits in total. It is to be expected that some of the edits are problematic. There has been research on such things and, it is in the order of multiple percents. So yes, the amount of issues is significant. When you consider the queries that I do, to some extend the addition of statements to categories that produce a query are part of me documenting what I work on. There are literally hundreds of those. It is an effort to indicate what I work on, show the results and document the results at the same time.

Do appreciate that one category has anything from 10 to several 1000 of items. Typically the information is straight forward. Yes I make mistakes, that is to be expected. By concentrating on categories I have more actions that what a typical bot has. Because of the methodology there is no structure to be found in what I do. It is all based on whoever became known to have died on a given day. I do check the results and sometimes I am blind sighted.

I am quite happy to work with people on issues that exist. However, I need multiple examples of something that went wrong in order to be able to pinpoint problems and deal with them. This is not always straightforward. GerardM (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

When I say that we fail in our communication, it is not only that I want people to communicate with me on IRC to work on issues, it is quick, easy and obvious. It does not need documentation that I care about communication and imho the proof is in the pudding ie fixes to issues. When people think that the indicator should tell me that there is a message for me, for them I have a "surprise" there is a bug that I filed because it is broken for me. In the end it is all about the quantity and quality of communication that directly affects the outcome.

When the argument is used that there are many issues, it is obvious that there are. What is not obvious is not I have worked with Amir to work on bot functionality that can remove targeted edits from the past. It is not obvious that I have worked with him on finding a way to improve on the confidence we may have in the data. Given percentages, it should be obvious that I have contributed significantly to the number of statements on items. I also blog frequently on my observations about Wikidata, I presented at Wikimania about it. I hope the video will be available soon.

I am happy to discuss Wikidata, I am happy to work with people on any issue. But the appearance of the issues introduced by me is not a reliable indicator that the number of genuine errors is significant statistically. So in my opinion, I understand the concern but it is not as bad as it may seem. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, in your opinion, it may not be a problem, but what about all the people complaining on your talk page? --Rschen7754 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You have around 1,600,000 global edits, dear GerardM. Most of them, around 1,500,000, (presumably) done by unwatched WIDAR tasks (GerardM@work). I notified you about this special case, you responded, but did nothing to fix the problem. You claim about missing communication, but I don't see a lot of communications between you and other users on wikidata. Most are prevaricates to me. Unfortunately the history between Wikidata and you seems to start here. Regards --Succu (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a long, personal, and rather detailed discussion in person with Gerard at Wikimania. One conclusion we did come to was that error rate must increase with edit rate. He also reaffirmed to me his commitment to communication with others.

However, I have to say I'm rather disappointed. IRC is not quick, easy, and obvious for the entire community - in fact, nearly all complaints I've seen about his edits were from users who did not use IRC. Also, whether the error rate is statistically significant or not is not relevant. I was rather adamant that Gerard fix his errors, and he implied to me that he would. But the above comments imply otherwise and that is an issue. The reason why the community perceives it as a problem is because others doing mass editing, whether with WIDAR or some other script, do so without causing problems.

Also at Wikimania, I talked with Magnus and a few others about WIDAR at our meetup. There, I reiterated my desire to not require technical measures to cope with this. However, if these issues continue (in the eyes of the community), I would not be unwilling to consider measures disabling the use of WIDAR mass editing (on a per-user basis) or otherwise rate-limiting non-bot and non-flood accounts. Magnus told me that non-flagged accounts indeed are already rate-limited; I was hoping that limit would be enough, but if necessary, we may need more than that. @GerardM: I strongly urge you to accept that even seemingly (statistically) random errors are still your responsibility to fix and avoid making. At Wikimania it was stressed that blocks to stop bad mass edits should not be taken badly, but only if they result in no more repetition of the same errors. If your job continually makes errors and you can't fix it, you shouldn't run the job, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

An error rate of zero isn't possible. We are all humans. But people who are doing large-scale editing using tools like WiDaR/Autolist2 need to take some responsibility for their errors. I run a bot on English Wikipedia periodically. Recently, I had to bulk undo a whole stack of mistakes that the bot made. I was switched on enough to spot the error and fix it. If other people had complained, I wouldn't have tried to make it their problem. If you are doing large scale automated or semi-automated editing, when your editing goes awry, it is your responsibility to take a step back, fix it and then carry on, not the responsibility of other people to tidy up after you. If Wikidata as a project is going to convince Wikipedians and others involved in sister projects, it needs to be slow, steady and accurate rather than hastily hacked-together with mistakes and unresponsive to reported errors. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Over the last few days, I've been reverting quite a few of GerardM's semi-automated edits. One of Gerard's semi-automated not-bot runs was to tag a bunch of people with the occupation of judge. This includes the Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (who is not a judge), the American journalist/economics writer Thomas Friedman, the American politician Henry L. Stimson, the U.S. Vice President James S. Sherman, the composer Peter Lieberson, the visual artist Dorothy Iannone, the American anti-feminist writer Christina Hoff Sommers, the TV producer David Crane, the activist Abbie Hoffman and plenty more that I haven't yet had a chance to review and revert. I raised the issue on GerardM's talk page and have had no response or acknowledgement that this is a problem. Not only is this adding inaccurate statements to Wikidata, but it's adding inaccurate statements to items that represent living people. Now, Wikidata does not have a policy on BLP like, say, English Wikipedia does, but the WMF have a resolution on biographies of living persons. We have a responsibility to ensure that bulk high-speed editing without any kind of bot approval doesn't threaten the integrity of data about living people.

One of the issues is easily seeable on the contributions page. WiDaR/Autolist limits users to a maximum of 10 edits a minute, but GerardM seems to be running numerous Autolist jobs at the same time. The claims added do not appear in any kind of order. Thus if the community are supposed to be responsible for fixing these issues, actually finding the issues in the mish-mash of unrelated automated edits (sometimes coming in at a speed of 40-50 a minute) is very hard.

And the edits are still going. Not quite at 50 a minute. The speed of editing imposes a cost on others to review these edits. It's all very well to churn out a million edits, but if they are junk and contain BLP issues, and cause other editors to have to spend a lot of time going through all those edits fixing issues... that's a big problem. If nothing gets done, admins will have to consider banning GerardM from high-speed semi-automated edits, and if necessary enforce it with a block. Unresponsive, unauthorised bot editors inserting BLP violations don't benefit the project. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• .. I had a look at User_talk:GerardM#invalid_ID_.28Q17485532.29 mentioned in this thread.

There we have two contributors with different opinions on one thing .. this is something that is bound to happen.

I don't understand why we'd try to make it into a point against GerardM who is actually contributing content. --- Jura 13:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jura1: But what about the other concerns that I and others have raised? --Rschen7754 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have set up a page in my user space to help with cleanup of the occupation=judge edits. See User:Tom Morris/GerardM judge cleanup. If you have some time to help out, it would be greatly appreciated. The underlying issue—high-speed semi-automated editing (beyond even the limits that WiDaR follows!)—still hasn't been adequately addressed. I've now spent quite a considerable amount of time this week poring through GerardM's semi-automated edits and reverting mistakes. I'm now up to 196 reverts. Frankly, any process that puts this amount of work on humans to cleanup after needs to be addressed by the community and by GerardM. There are potentially thousands of BLP violations, and as Wikidata's role in Wikipedia is expanded those will propagate out to all sorts of language versions of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, GerardM's edits are still going on. This is frankly not acceptable. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@GerardM: I have memo'd you on IRC about this, and once again, it is not acceptable that I have to use IRC to make you do something that should go without asking. Accordingly, to ensure that you do communicate about this, I have blocked your account for 1 hour: you may not do unattended mass edits except using an approved bot account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

When I get online I look at messages. I do not look at them all the time. I am not paranoid. I am no longer online all the time. I have a life. Once I am online I update the people who are dead. Whatever was running runs again. I add more dead people, I process more categories according to the workflow I described. When I have to do something else I will and Windows will time out.

When people want to communicate with me, they can.

You have to take care about your talkpage, especially when you're running (semi)automated tools. — by Revi_complaint? at 09:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that GerardM made about 1% of all edits in Wikidata. Frequently, when looking at items, I notice that most information was added by him. Is there a way we can help administrators develop a similar level of productivity? It seems that some hardly know the tools at hand (and potential pitfalls), limiting their contributions to talk pages. This should be beneficial to the overall community and could raise to overall level of contributions. --- Jura 05:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not impressed Jura. And I don't know how this is related to the edit activity of our admins. --Succu (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

+1. ??? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

+1. — by Revi_complaint? at 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

+1, and for the record I've made over 40,000 edits here. --Rschen7754 02:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but... @anybody looking for false judges including @Tom Morris: you might be interested in User:Haplology/kaizen/judges. It's pretty accurate with regard to English Wikipedia, but maybe in some cases other Wikipedias claim that somebody's a judge and English Wikipedia is just incomplete. I can combine this list with a scan of another Wikipedia in that case if somebody tells me what terms to scan for. --Haplology (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the user of a new error, with a strange behavior to recycle a list item into a person item, then use this person item as a even item. Cost of the error: 2000 edits. --Dereckson (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears this is not an error, but the result of an opinion of GerardM about the content of Wikidata. As such, this case doesn't seem pertinent here, and I've so asked the community to express opinion on the content matter. --Dereckson (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits in Wikidata will have errors. In some cases the relative numbers of errors will be quite large as the source will be difficult to interpret, the source can have an other understanding of the data than the reuser, or the source can be in error about the data. In addition, when you reuse data you will steadily add your own errors to the data, slowly increasing the amount of errors to a level where the data is more or less useless. To avoid this you need methods and systems to break the influx of errors, but virtually nothing like this is in existence on Wikidata. Once upon a time, like all god stories, it was discussed whether references should be enforced. I thought that was a good idea, but unfortunately not everybody was of the same opinion. The situation now is that the majority of the statements have no reference at all. In my opinion this is not a good situation, but it is definitely not vise to go after productive editors when the real problem is a structural problem. I would say fix the references and make it possible to verify whether the data itself is valid, or perhaps see if there is any way to automate this process. Jeblad (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Invalid token when connecting interlinks

I got this error many times yesterday when I tried to link interwiki links from languages each other. Pls solve this problem. Sorry if I posted wrong place. Alphama (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed wrong place. It has already been reported here. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Here is like a matrix and users don't know where to post. Alphama (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to close a discussion

I suspect this discussion appears to have reached a consensus, please consider closing it. --Gryllida 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators do not have any special authority closing content discussions. Any uninvolved user can close it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No consensus, people just tired and moving on. Multichill (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Blowing other opinions away is different from having consensus. Lymantria (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge Q11136271 and Q3381316

The items Q3381316 and Q11136271 refer to the same individual and subject matter Johnny Albino based on the articles on the English and Spanish Wikipedias. Item Q3381316 is associated with the articles from the English, Galician, and Bokmål Norwegian Wikipedias while Item Q11136271 has the Spanish and Quechua Wikipedia articles associated with it. Both items should be merged into one so all associated Wikipedia articles can be linked together. --Harvzsf (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Merged. Johnny Albino (Q11136271) is now a redirect to Johnny Albino (Q3381316). See Help:Merge for how to do so yourself next time. --YMS (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AyackBot and coordinates of movable objects

Hello, User:AyackBot adds many coordinates to movable objects. I revert ~50 items, but bot makes edits again (example). Botmaster was notified, but there is no reaction. Please block the bot until User:Ayack respond. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, please see this request and the last comment of Multichill. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Linked update only avoid adding coordinates to items, that already have coordinates as qualifier; it is not preventing importing coors to inappropriate itmes (persons, disambiguations, companies). --Jklamo (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So move them to the right statement as a qualifier instead of just reverting it. Multichill (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I already done this in many items. But often there is no information about concrete meaning of the coordinates. Or this information is too unstructured and need to many time for processing. Some usage of coordinates is very controversial, for example presenting orbital position as geocoordinates. Our goal is structured low error rate database, not jumble of data. So please add to bot`s code simple check for instance of (P31)=human (Q5) and for COSPAR ID (P247) as described on Property talk:P625 in {{Constraint:Conflicts with}}. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Now statistics is ready. Yesterday the bot adds ~600 invalid claims. Many peoples spent his time to decrease Wikidata error rate. Bot reverts his efforts. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback needed for (my own) bot edits

Hi all - I just screwed up. I've been running a bot to update certain properties (in this case, migrating the generic "member of parliament" to "member of X parliament"). I just ran a large batch to delete the more generic property without noticing that a small number of these had qualifiers added, and the bot will have unintentionally deleted those. Almost all the edits are fine, but manually finding the problems will be hard.

Would it be possible for someone to mass-rollback all the following edits? [3] (1013 of them from here to here). I was going to use the smart rollback script bu unfortunately that only works if I have rollback enabled (which I don't on wikidata - if someone is able to give me that right temporarily I'll run it just now and save you the bother). I'll try a more sophisticated method to look out for these complex properties in future...

Apologies again - really embarrassed about this! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've granted you rollback. Thanks for taking care! Vogone (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're awesome. enwiki would probably have shot me by now :-). I'll go run the rollback script... Andrew Gray (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Terry3367

Could you block Special:Contributions/Terry3367? The account has been created for SEO spam. --Dereckson (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done John F. Lewis (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dereckson (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

undelete

Q11181802 merged with a heterotypic name, for who knows what reason? - Brya (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Q10945821 and Q15251615, the same. - Brya (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Undeleted. Thanks for your work to correct wrongly merged items. --Stryn (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. - Brya (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Editprotected reqiest

Hello. I would be much obliged someone fulfill the request at MediaWiki talk:Wikibase-datatype-label/mk. Thanks a lot! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, pls ping me if smth went wrong--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Антон патріот

POV-pushing and edit warring (see, for example, this cycle: POV edit > my revert to NPOV > his reverting of my revert) in Crimea-related elements (see also this for example). Seryo93 (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Warned them at their talk page. Please next time (i) warn the user first; (ii) notify them of AN discussion related to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: thanks, but he resumed edit war... Seryo93 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Seryo93: Since he continued after Ymblanter's warning, I have blocked him for 24 hours for POV-pushing. If he continues after it expires, let us know. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener, Ymblanter: POV pushing and edit warring resumed and it went beyond Crimea topic. I guess, Антон патріот is progressing quickly towards infinite block, because he can't restrain from performing POV-pushing and edit wars at all. Seryo93 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I blocked him for a year and reverted all POV contributions. He is clearly here for pushing his political agenda.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: One year is excessive in my opinion. I think one month is the maximum. Do you have any particular reasons for that?--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I can reduce it to a month, no problem. My concern was that he was just reverting and did not discuss anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reduced to one month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: „He is clearly here for pushing his political agenda” - Is he? What's yours regarding the political status of Crimea (Q7835) ? --Succu (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a political agenda, but if you want to have my opinion - Crimea is a disputed territory between Ukraine and Russia, controlled de facto by Russia but belonging de jure to Ukraine. In the English Wikipedia, I suggested this formulation which was accepted by the community and can be now found in all articles of Crimean localities.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: „I [...] reverted all POV contributions [of him]”. Why is „reduced to one month” better than a week? --Succu (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Jasper said he would be fine with a month, and I can live with a month as well. If the user gives any sign at his talk page, I could consider reducing the duration of the block - but so far he was not interested in discussions, only in reverting, even after the first block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Mind to have a look at user Seryo93 contributions? A little bit of an agenda? --Succu (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see anything criminal. Would you please give an example of an unacceptable edit?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, it took you less then two minutes to find out „I do not see anything criminal”. Spooky. What do you regarding as a crime? --Succu (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, adding false info or removing correct info would not be acceptable. In his contribution, I mostly see addition of P17=Russia to Crimean localities, which seems fine with me given that P17=Ukraine has been already there.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To make it clear Ymblanter: what did User:Антон патріот wrong? --Succu (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know "what did Антон патріот wrong?", but keep in mind Succu that I, (an American) was the first blocker. It is quite obvious "what he did wrong", that is POV-pushing and failure to communicate. While I would say 6 months would have been better than 1 year, IMO Ymblanter has done nothing wrong. Also, Succu never gave an example of an inappropriate edit from Seryo93. (BTW, Ymblanter, I hope you don't mind my reply, I just feel like some people don't think Ukrainians/Russians can say anything about the Crimean dispute.) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure I do not mind, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

He made a lot of useful contribution, but things like this are not tolerable of course. --Succu (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Regerding Succu's accusations of "A little bit of an agenda?" - no, just no. I didn't removed or deactivated Ukrainian properties in Crimea-related items; I've just maintained that both positions shall be equally included (and added ones that weren't included, not replaced previous options). Антон патріот, on the contrary, maintained that Ukrainian position shall be always preferred over Russian (and this was clearly presented in diffs). That's the difference. Moreover I'd like to present

this diff, where I changed Russian description to "город в Крыму" ("city in Crimea"), instead of reverting to POVish "город в России" ("city in Russia")

this diff on enwiki, where I've removed POVish "Russia" from "About" template

these two diffs on ruwiki, where I reverted removal of Crimea and Sevastopol from list of Ukrainian subdivisions.

and this diff on ruwiki, where I added Ukrainian category to Russian template "Country data Sevastopol". Seryo93 (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Seryo93: I do not care what you are doing outside of wikidata, but adding selective information like this is a kind of POV. I doubt it is usefull to readd all information present in Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Q756294) to every town and village. --Succu (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Succu: I understand your position, but let me clarify. If you look deeper, then you will find, that I've added KOATUU as well. so you can't claim that I add "selective information". Moreover, if some disputed town has Ukraine-only (or Russia-only - it won't matter, you may report to me if some POV-pusher removes Ukraine params - and I will revert that as well) property in, for example, "country" param - then adding opposite information is necessary to maintain NPOV. Leaving "Ukraine-only" fields is POV, adding opposite fields is NPOV - even if addition itself was "selective" (or I should have added a duplicate Ukrainian parameters then? Ukrainian params were already present, colleague!). Bests and sorry for misunderstanding we had, Seryo93 (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Succu: and either way, I'd like to thank you for this comment. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Succu: and one last note: when you presented your diff about "selective addition", you didn't noticed this edit, which was addition of Ukrainian information ("Красноперекопська міська рада", or "Krasnoperekopsk City Council" in English is a Ukrainian subdivision). So, you can't claim that I'm doing selective additions - even with that diff. Seryo93 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by Multichill on Quintus Curtius Rufus (Q5959)

Even after warning on his talk page user Multichill adds incorrect date "0 year" as date of birth (P569) to Quintus Curtius Rufus (Q5959). Vandalism and edit war (returning the already canceled edit). -- Vlsergey (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You should look more closely before reverting and accusing another user of vandalism. I'll give you a hint: 7. Multichill (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion at least, let's continue on your talk page then. -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Please move Wikidata:Roads task force and all subpages to Wikidata:WikiProject Roads.--GZWDer (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You realize this is well over 100 pages, right? --Rschen7754 05:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of adminship

In the light of Requests for comment/Privacy violation by TBloemink and JurgenNL, I would like to see TBloemink's adminship locally reconfirmed in order to ensure the trust of this community is still present. The ideal solution would be if TBloemink voluntarily agreed to this, otherwise I'd proceed with a request for removal of adminship on WD:RFP/R where this could be discussed further. Regards, Vogone (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I personally would support removal based on that RfC, I'd say give him 24 hours to respond here, and if that doesn't go through, RFP/R.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what's the issue here. For one thing, nothing was done on-wiki, therefore on-wiki action should not be taken against anyone. Secondly, as far as I am aware, the two users only hold admin rights on this wiki. Admin rights are far less powerful than steward or oversighter rights and admins don't generally handle non-public information. --Jakob (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

But holding administrator is a position of trust. Whether they misuse it or not is irrelevant in theory. It is whether the community trust them to maintain administrator rights. Just because they can't see oversighted content or what ever does not mean anyone can hold the rights, violate privacy and yet still be trusted. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record; I would support a RfP/R although I won't comment on the matter until said request opens. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should drop him a note on his talk page? --Rschen7754 05:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am not that active anymore so I can agree with any reconfirmation if that is what the community wants. Regards, TBloemink _talk 07:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC) (ps a note on my talk page of this message would have been cool)

I was just about leaving the note at your talk page; sorry that nobody has done it before. I hope now it is not necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My initial intention was to make use of the ping feature, which I apparently missed. Sorry for that. Vogone (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly 50 percent

Since it looks like this request for removal will be a close one, it might be a good idea to discuss this now. What would happen if the request resulted in exactly 50 percent supporting keeping and exactly 50 percent opposing? Would it result in keep, removal, or would it be up to bureaucrat discretion? --Jakob (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal, as per WD:A. Vogone (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is it a disscussion (RfC) or voting? If it's a discussion, counts doesn't matter -- even single "oppose" with valid and uncontested argument should be enough to decline proposal. If it's a vote, I would like to see formal requirements for voters. -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vlsergey: We have a policy on this and I guess Jakob asked for help with the interpretation of it. Vogone (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone: i'm sorry, i missed the link to Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal in the discussion. -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone: So the strength of the arguments doesn't matter? It's just a pure vote? --Jakob (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think so, at least that is what our "rules" imply. Anyway, bureaucrats are free to discount obviously canvassed or sockpuppet account votes. Vogone (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)