Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2016/07

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.

Featured article status of lordi (fi-wiki)

Can someone remove featured article status of lordi Q23471 @fi-wiki, article lost its status in vote. --Seegge (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

need help

please add cdo:Google in Q95.--122.90.99.95 04:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

GA status in jawp

Could you add GA status to these articles in jawp? Q705548 (vote), Q4903185 (vote), Q24859640 (vote), Q24899988 (vote), Q163 (vote), Q76606 (vote)--Karasunoko (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Stryn (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for block of HakanIST

user inserting idiotic nonsense [1] in item pages. 91.9.109.137 11:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User going mad, and removing block request [2] 91.9.109.137 11:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is the info HakanIST added idiotic nonsense? It looks like a valid edit to me. Mbch331 (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, those IDs actually don't match the subject, so their removal by the IP was valid and User:HakanIST's revert was a mistake, though no reson to block anybody. --YMS (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The first step the IP use should have taken was talk to HakanIST on his talk page. Everyone can make mistakes. And removing the block request wasn't smart, but HakanIST merely did that because of the foul language and I already advised him on not doing that again. So this request is  Not done. Mbch331 (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on Q15924626

Was protected before for this, resumed. An IP is changing the page from reflecting data on "Alejandro Coello Calvo" to overwriting it with data on a "Alejandro Cuello" a non-notable person, likely the name of the IP. This IP and his related socks is trying to insert this in various wiki projects. Overwriting this article is one of his ways of doing this. Would it be possible to protect Q15924626 from edits by IPs and new users to stop this. The IP and named accounts are sock puppets of 1 chisper who has been blocked on Commons, enwiki, and eswiki for this. This has been going on since April 1, 2016. Last protect was a short one and didn't really do much to stop this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

protected the item. --Pasleim (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/to delete

The new lists are available there, one for categories and one for templates. Happy [delete] !
--- Jura 15:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiLovesESBot

@Discasto: It's an unapproved bot. You should request for bot permission before continue editing it.--GZWDer (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per above. --Rschen7754 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, already done. --Discasto (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@GZWDer:, @Rschen7754:, how long shall we have to wait? I sincerely apologize for not having registered the bot. I started the procedure but had to switch to commons and sincerely forgot the process hadn't been completed. Since then it has carried out, in a fully supervised way, thousands of editions on behalf of the WM-ES campaigns (contributions). We're waiting for the bot to be unblocked to go on with the generation of statistics. Would it be possible to agile this? Many thanks in advance --Discasto (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What happens when a bot causes damage and the bot operator doesn't clean it up?

Wikidata:Bots quite clearly says "The bot operator is responsible for cleaning up any damage caused by the bot.", but what happens if the bot operator doesn't clean it up? Do we block it? The user? Do we remove the bot flag? What about when the bot is being run by an administrator?

I am having this problem with User:Edoderoobot, operated by fellow admin User:Edoderoo. I commented on User_talk:Edoderoobot#Hundreds_.28if_not_thousands.29_of_incorrect_P31_statements four months ago and several times since then. As far as I can tell, Edoderoo is still active and the bot is still active but no work has been done to fix the many incorrect statements the bot has added. Even most of the examples I linked to have not been cleaned up (and the ones which have were cleaned up by other people not Edoderoo).

After waiting two months, I also asked on Wikidata:Bot_requests#Undo_edits_by_Edoderoobot to see if someone else can help undo the edits but there's been no progress on that either. Succu apparently removed a lot of statements with AutoList back in April, I've since removed hundreds by hand but there are still many (probably thousands of) incorrect statements. Edoderoo's lack of action after the problem was pointed out has meant that many of the items have been edited since and working out which edits to undo is now very complicated. In fact, Edoderoo's bot has made the problem even worse, by adding lots of incorrect descriptions based on the incorrect P31 statements (e.g. Special:Diff/326795323 based on Special:Diff/312028908 was done six weeks after I first reported the problem).

I'm really frustrated with this situation and I think that, at the very least, the bot should not be allowed to operate because its operator is not taking responsibility for the bot's actions. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to block it though because I'm not looking at this from a neutral position, so I would really appreciate some input from other admins here.

- Nikki (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nikki: Thanks for the report. Very bad. I fixed the one you linked. Also weird, it had as reference imported from svwiki [3]. 91.9.109.137 11:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I support blocking the bot and the user. User is responsible for the bot. So the user (via bot) inserted nonsense and does not fix. 91.9.109.137 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
About a month ago there was a similar discussion elsewhere (maybe on the bot-request page), and one user said he was going to revert the requested edits with a standard script. For some reason that was not done, or maybe not completely, for me there was some progress on the issue, and I hoped those reverts would solve enough of the issue. I have stopped my bot for almost two months, last week I have restarted it with a different script to create descriptions, a script that is for sure not creating issues like before. I was also frustrated by then that several users only came there to shout what a shame without having a proper solution, different from "if we block him, he will be punished". If there was a simple solution, I would have used that straight away. If someone else would help me, I would cooperate. Unfortunately the culture is different here, and not cooperative at all, and people now even want to block me as a user. Amazing how things can run down here! I know I am responsible for what my bot does, and I feel responsible for what my bot does, but I do not feel responsible for the show that some others are creating around it, that does not help for a solution, nor for an environment where users can learn from each other. I hope this new discussion here will not become a new pillory like last time, and if someone is going to do a clean up task before I will, please let me know, to avoid double work. I can be contacted on IRC, or on my talk page. Edoderoo (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about Alphos's bot. That wasn't feasible because you were running multiple scripts at the same time (the bot is designed to revert all edits between two points in time) and many of the items had been edited since the incorrect statements were added (the bot is designed to restore items to a previous state, not undo specific edits). Regarding other people not having a proper solution, it's not other people's responsibility to come to you with a solution, it's your responsibility to find one. If you need help doing that, it's your responsibility to ask for it yourself, not our responsibility to offer it to you. In my experience, people here are usually willing to help if you ask (they may even already have something they can run for you) but we're not mindreaders and don't know that you need help nor what sort of help you need unless you tell us. Also, if someone else agrees to fix it for you, it's still your responsibility to check that it does actually get cleaned up (e.g. ask the person fixing it to let you know when they're done, check that the items people originally reported have been fixed, let the people who reported the problem know that some clean up has been done and to ask them to tell you if they find any more). - Nikki (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Mistakes are made. Botruns make mistakes, the most relevant question is: have lessons been learned and do we as a community work together to get a clean set of data. When you ask for people's head, there is after that hardly room for cooperation. It sours our community and that is worse than a thousand errors. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Edoderoo if your bot makes an mistake and creates a mess, do you feel responsible for getting this mess cleaned up? Multichill (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
What a question, REALLY.. Amir has functionality to remove all specific changes in a specific timeframe for a specific user. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
ALL MAD. If revert functionality exists as GerardM claims, then DOCUMENT it at Wikidata:Bots. Could SAVE sooo much TIME! 91.9.100.159 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
GerardM, I asked Edo an honest question, not you. Please let him respond. You're not helping him now. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I started yesterday on creating a script that can find all mountains, and strip the instance of (P31)=mountain (Q8502) under certain conditions. Right now I can see if my bot did an edit ever on such an item (the others can be skipped), but checking what the bot edit was, and/or undoing such an edit, is new functionality for me. Edoderoo (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear that Edo! Could you also answer my question? (if your bot makes an mistake and creates a mess, do you feel responsible for getting this mess cleaned up?) Multichill (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do feel responsible. But as said above, a month ago someone said that my edits were going to be reverted, unfortunately that wasn't done. One remark was that I was running more then one script at a time, so I stopped doing that right now, I have on script on WikiData, and even though that's a rather safe one, I will wait all other scripts until this one is finished. For a repair script I have to figure out how to recognise the addition of a property in the items history. If I can see where my bot added P31/Q8502, I know what to revert. Then I need to find out how to revert, but that is probably rather straightforward. Edoderoo (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Good to hear that. I asked because I think you gave some people the impression of not feeling responsible.
You understand the damage you have done and you're willing to resolve it. I don't think any admin intervention is needed here at the moment. Would you agree with that conclusion Nikki?
Judging from the comment still quite a few items need to be fixed up. I think it's better you put your bot runs on pause and focus your effort on getting this cleaned up, either by doing it yourself or by encouraging other people to help out. Once Nikki and the other people who complained are satisfied, you can resume your bot. Multichill (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If he means it this time, I guess he should be allowed a bit more time to clean it up. As long as it actually does get cleaned up (I really don't want to be posting here again in another four months because the mess is still not cleaned up). - Nikki (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep talking about Q8502 but please remember that it's not just Q8502. I pointed out three different values for P31 (see the original discussion on your bot's talk page) and there may be more that I haven't come across yet. Also remember that your bot (and other bots, particularly where you incorrectly marked something as a list) have added bad descriptions based on the bad P31 statements, those also need removing. - Nikki (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I made some progress in the meantime, see here for the first result. I start to believe myself that I can create a script that will repair something, without the risk of creating a bigger mess, as that was biggest concern until now. Edoderoo (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
For P31=Q8502 it just finished a huge clean up. For every item it was checked if it was edited by Edoderoobot in 2016, and if the source was sv-wiki. If there was no linked Swedish article, the P31/Q8502 was stripped straight away (sv-wiki couldn't be source), if there was a Swedish article, it was checked if the article was a mountain as defined in the infobox. Edoderoo (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

E3 2016

Hello.Are these pages useful?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  • You asked an identical question in June, again linking to search results rather than pages so I cannot tell if they are the same ones or not. user:-revi marked the section as "done" but with no indication of what action was taken so I don't know if they were deleted or not. The one current search result I checked did not have any entry in the deletion log though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, I did not do anything. He just linked the page and indicated he did so by using {{Done}}. — Revi 12:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Confusing stuff happens with RTL languages. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I think actually confusing stuff happens when RTL text is embedded in an LTR surrounding (and I presume vice versa) - it certainly confused me! Sorry -revi. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe my (genuine) comment and ping can be easily distinguished as my signature has a bit of design and that ping just has user:-revi.editconflict, everything seem to be fine now. Anyway, back to topic, I deleted all queries. I feel kind of suspicious when it comes to the page creators as the contents are too similar and creators of the page are sometimes matching. Special:DeletedContributions/2600:1017:B404:6234:94FE:430E:EBE8:A796 and Special:DeletedContributions/47.17.68.78 smells bad, isn't it? — Revi 12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Spam

Special:Contributions/Projectfreetvonline
--- Jura 04:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted the pages they created. - Nikki (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal attacks in discussion

I request admin intervention, regarding the tone used by User:Stefan64 in this edit and those by the same editor preceding it in the same section. It is not conducive to collegial discussion on matters where the community has differing opinions. In the interest of de-escalating tensions, I suggest a warning, not a block, in the first instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Q25511721

Please delete Q25511721, which I created by an accidental mis-click. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

merge request Q167298 & Khajuraho (Q178948)

Both refer to Khajuraho group of monuments02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot

Is anyone attending that board? --Discasto (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should administrators do, in particular? If you want an approval, you should find a bureaucrat's attention. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, you're completely right. I miss the point that in this projects administrators are not bureaucrats as well. --Discasto (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

GZWDer (flood) not respecting API etiquette

I've contacted GZWDer (talk • contribs • logs) about his bot GZWDer (flood) (talk • contribs • logs). He is doing 300-400 edits per minute creating a bunch of server stability issues (nothing too serious, but he is creating more database errors than all other users of all wikis toghether). The recommended limit is to edit serially). Please block his bot unless he stops running it any time soon (he already received a warning from another user yesterday). --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have paused the bot.--GZWDer (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. No problem from me to start it again, once the above recommendations are followed. Thank you again! --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@JCrespo (WMF): I'm going to restart the bot, running it only in one process. Please report to my talk page if anything wrong occurs.--GZWDer (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/190.232.21.10

Items this user created are likely non-notable.--GZWDer (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I can nuke them, but isn't it better to ask the user to add statements to them? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I am a rollbacker in Arabic Wikipedia.and follow this page.Please make me a rollbacker.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Please make a request at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights. I don't think you have sufficient vandalism reverts here to have this right, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng:The request was rejected.Although I am a local rollbacker and my contributions here --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
So, you're asking your dad because your mom said no? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Any new requests should go there as well. Again I don't think you're quite ready yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Empty unlinked items

Hi, I've found a lot of empty items which aren't linked by any page (over one milion). I've published a list of empty and unlinked items at https://tools.wmflabs.org/urbanecmbot/test/emptyItemsUnlinked.txt. There also is a lot of items (over two milions) which are only empty (they may be linked but they doesn't need to). I've published a list of empty items at https://tools.wmflabs.org/urbanecmbot/test/emptyItems.txt. I think this items (at least items in the first list) doesn't meet the notability rule and they should be deleted. Am I right? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Empty items = items without any sitelink --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Items with no sitelinks are not problem, provided they are linked from another item. If an item doesn't have any sitelink and is not linked to (from an item or a property), it can still be notable if it has enough statements and sources. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Matěj. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this. :) I guess this was produced by a SQL query? (If so, maybe you could share the query you used) I had a look at a few and there seems to be a number of failed merges and some items where people had moved sitelinks instead of merging (both of which need redirecting to the right item), a lot of streets in the Netherlands (I don't see how the ones I looked at meet our notability policy...) and lots of items with external IDs created by ProteinBoxBot and MicrobeBot (which seem notable due to the IDs). - Nikki (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
At Wikidata:Database reports/to delete/empty category items, there were some of the empty category items. Your query found more of them. As theses items don't have any use beyond providing interwikis, they can be deleted.
--- Jura 03:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In recent time, a large set of articles on sv/cebwiki has been merged (in local clean up projects after our friend Lsjbot), without the needed clean up here. Some of these items should be merged here too, while others could be kept. Of those who can be kept, the information in the clients has partly been lost before information has been moved here, since you now have to search into the edit history of the redirect to learn about each page. It is a total mess! This leaves us with a large set of items with links only to redirects, with very little information if they are notable or not. Unfortunatly, the main source itself, GeoNames, is also a complete mess! Even the supplementary sources (NASA?) have large problems, telling that there is savanna (Q42320) in Finland, Canada and other arctic areas. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure Geonames appreciates that svwiki is helping them sort it out :)
If we can identify groups of items without much of a useful statement, maybe we could throw them out directly. In any case, I don't think we should delete items merely because they don't have any sitelinks. Sitelinks limited to redirects are another problem.
--- Jura 04:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
GeoNames works differently to us and has its own preferences. For example, they have a separate ID for each level of administration and for actual settlements (so Berlin deliberately has 4 IDs) and they can only link an ID to one country, which explains why the river that was mentioned on project chat has two IDs, one for each country. The main problem, from what I've seen, is the bot assuming that every GeoNames ID would refer to a distinct object in Wikipedia. - Nikki (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
All the empty categories I saw are items where someone moved the sitelink to another item. Those should be merged, not deleted. Also, this isn't my query. - Nikki (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Given that this current list is problematic in the first place. Given that Wikidata is immature, I think it would be best not to delete these items because someone took the trouble of adding them. Destruction comes easy, building not so much. Let us take our time. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

GZWDer (flood) again

Despite trying hard to talk to the user operating the bot: User_talk:GZWDer#GZWDer_.28flood.29 [4] due to the huge number of infrastructure issues it creates.

Despite multiple promises, the issue is still existing. I would like to bring to attention the quality of the edits (but as a non-active member of this project, it is not for me to judge), although I am not the only one complaining about that: [5] . I can block him on infrastructure side, but I would prefer if it was done on Mediawiki side (blocking the bot, not the human user) to increase transparency and hopefully its behaviour can be corrected. Note: This does not relates to any policy regarding editing speed -this user and only this user is causing issue (probably due to the specific method he uses to edit) and I am invoking the Mediawiki API Etiquette for this request. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@GZWDer: it looks like the issue that you linked to is fixed? ·addshore· talk to me! 07:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Addshore: To me it does not look like the issue is "fixed" as such, but at least the involved have agreed about what the problem is and are working together to fix it. It then is "resolved" from a WD:AN point of view. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: I'm refering to the bitbucket issue which is marked as resolved with the code change @ https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/petscan/commits/dbefbbd3dab0 . @GZWDer: says that this issue is tracked on that issue, but it is resolved. To me this sounds like if @GZWDer: pulls the new code the issue of concurrency will also be resolved in regards to the flooding? ·addshore· talk to me! 09:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User doing vandalism

Please block the user who did this edit as it is obviously vandalism. Best regards --Minihaa (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please leave a note on their talkpage first. It is also premature to block for just one edit, the sitelink interface of Wikidata could be confusing for people. Also, that edit is from three weeks ago. We only block to protect our project, not as punishment. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

179.192.65.231

This user keeps removing link from King Boo (Q1188412), please block him, thanks in advanced. --Stang 02:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done for a week. — Revi 14:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Rede Tupi de Televisão (Q3075408)

Different IPs coming removing interwikis of Q3075408 for several days. Gabriel (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Protected for two weeks. — Revi 17:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is going personal here

I hate to see stuffs escaladate so I signal this here : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q23958852#subclass_or_instance.2C_not_both This is going personal beetween me and Snipre there (in french). I'll try not to answer him without mediation from now on. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In short, there is a dispute on some (sourced) statement, and then this went out of contrl. This went from "why did you delete that sourced statement" to "you don't know what you are doing, you don't care about community, and you fails to explains stuffs" (at least I try). author  TomT0m / talk page 15:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why TomT0m needs a mediation: I didn't start an edit war (no multiple changes in some statements) and he is the last one who put a comment in the mentioned discussion. If the intention is to assess my edits as being hurtful, please be clear. Snipre (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: Because we're not discussing ontology issues, we're discussion the way I communicate, the fact that there is, your word "a proof that I don't understand what I'm saying", personal attack and wrong at the same time, that I'm supposedly holding informations about undecidability of OWL full (which is wrong and was discussed here, @Markus Krötzsch: can say more and knows about punning.) You're almost FUDing then because first, you admit to be aware of punning AND you allege problems that is not solved by it. You also almost accuse me of bypassing community concensus or not seeking it, and both say I explain stuffs very badly and ask me to present an exhaustive review about ontology at the same time. This is a lot, and yes, I take it personally and very badly. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I found some of Snipre's comments in French to be insulting, but I'm not a native speaker so maybe I misinterpreted something. In general this discussion shows the need for more consensus-building around the Ontology wikiproject - I think we need something concrete to work on together, maybe a "Best Practices" document as has been suggested before, or just to fix up Help:Modelling? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith Thanks to read carfully the first comment of TomT0m after my reply to his revert: "Do you have an idea of what we are talking of before beeing authoritative ?" What is your feeling when somebody at the start of a discussion before any argumentation just say you are an ignorant ? Or when somebody say about you that you are an authoritative guy ? Me, an authoritative guy, after asking to someone who says I was wrong to do the correction himself as it seems he knows better than me ? Please, don't joke. The minimal requirement of somebody reverting is to provide an explanation or to start a discussion to understand the point of view of the other contributor, so please show me where TomT0m acted like that at the begining of the discussion ? His first comment is simple: I'm ignorant, I don't deserve to know and I have to act to never come back on the problem. Snipre (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to play this game, then you were the one removing one of my statement with no discussion, actually. (or more accurately, you removed one of my statement justifying it by a POV of yours as I don't know where community has adopted such a rule.) author  TomT0m / talk page 12:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Ontology has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

When discussing ontological issues like this and having conflicts about it, how about starting by adding a specific description of the items in question so that we agree what the concept actually tries to represent? ChristianKl (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a cited paper, a description is a little short to resume this. But yes, whatever. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: It is not a concept definition, it's a classification choice. A good example is like wine classification: I can choose to classify wines according to their color or according to their taste. Both are correct, you just have to choose one classification. Here the problem is the same: do we agree to consider an item as a class and as an instance at the time ? Some books say yes, some others say no, all are correct, you just need to choose your classification rules at the begining and then you have to refer to these rules to stay coherent with your classification. My problem with TomT0m is his behaviour which consists to say "there is a paper or a book, just read it and no need of discussion". Perhaps he is right, but the question is not to know who is right or who has the best solution, the question is do we (we = the community) agree to use that solution ? Snipre (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No you don't have to choose. We're in a project where NPOV is a foundation, so what's expected is that we reflect all relevant classification, not that we push a specific classification, which would be POV pushing. Wikidata was created with no semantic built-in rules just to allow this. We don't have to choose OUR wine classification if several other relevant classification can be used. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
If what you are saying would be true and Wikidata would simply have all relevant classification we would have properties that copy concepts like SKOS's broader. Currently we don't simply add properties because the exist in other ontologies. I think basic ontology concepts like the one we are talking about is in the same reference class as properties and therefore we shouldn't simply add all possible ways people model basic ontology without discussion.
The class concept is a relatively very well accepted and defined one, and community have more or less accepted this over the young years of Wikidata. Less well defined properties like "broader than" have as far as I remember always been rejected to creation because of arguments like "they would not really encourage to use part of or instance of". (Even if this could be a step to refinment easier to use for less expert users - or it would just add confusion, I don't know). The case for metaclasses occurs in that class framework actually. Metaclasses have been adopted by some ontologies like w:en:Cyc, and are as far as I know the only way to model correctly concepts such as "chemical element" in chemistry in a consistent way. It's useful to be able to class classes themselves, really. As far as I can interpret community concensus, the idea of basing Wikidata classification on instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) has been relatively well accepted, and more specific classification properties have been deleted than created over the years. So ... we're basically adopting the same choices as Cyc. Cyc hence becomes a relevant example, and a relevant ... source to us, logically. On the community discussion about this, none of the one I'm aware of have been conclusive. The concensus has then to be inferred from what actually happens, since what Snipre seems to want just did not happen - and I personnaly several times try to make it happens. Then it seems to me that community does not seem competent to reach a concensus, after so many years, by just talking. Those sources then becomes very very relevant, as they just did the same work we want to do, just before us. This is then not original work, as community may have done. I should then challenge Snipre to find something as relevant as Cyc in our context ... author  TomT0m / talk page 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are doing wine classification and speak about red and dark red wine, I think you shouldn't just point to labels of red and dark red but actually define what you mean more specifically. There's a reason we require a definition when someone proposes a new property and aren't okay with just having a name for a property. I think the same should go for basic ontology that's not about properties. Especially when there are disagreements. ChristianKl (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
One definition = one item, indeed. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

merge req

I just noticed that Q21170512 is a dupe of Q882586. Best, --Achim (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So, what is holding you from merging them (properly)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
WD is some kind of different wiki world. And being an old man I'm not shure if I'd like to learn performing such actions in a correct manner over here. Yours, --Achim (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Achim55: So they are. Thank you for taking the trouble to point that out. I have now merged them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

223.136.2.24

223.136.2.24 needs blocking. See their contribs and WD:PC#Can we have semi-protection for (Q714958) ?. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it is of much gain, based on the shifting ip-addresses. Better to get an explanation first. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Globally blocked by Tegel for a week. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I am curious if the person behind the IP addresses have some close connection to person. It would definitely explain the 10 year abuse on enwiki.MechQuester (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
10 years of abuse looks more like psychopathology than coi to me. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:J. Patrick Fixxer

  1. Username violates ban of stalking/insult
  2. useless contributions: [6]
  3. insulting: [7]

Would be worth to check all its contributions. The user is still banned in German Wikipedia. Should be global banned. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

4. [8] Nonsense --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

blocked --Pasleim (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic collapse

I have re-added the collapse box to the discussion in which I got drawn into, Here. I agree that it seems an inappropriate forum. However the conversation is still there. Maybe further action to mark the topic closed should be considered but as I am not an admin here I feel that would be beyond my user rights here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon GO Q20966579

There's several IPs that keep removing valid publication dates and adding invalid ones, which appears to me to be vandalism. Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with Wikidata policies on when to protect (Or even where to request, but I think its here...), but this item is getting extremely heavy traffic on enwiki. The IPs involved seem to come from multiple ranges with the last few being under 200.x. Edits include invalid 2017 dates, removing other place of publications, etc. -- ferret (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

For now, the reverts seem to have done the job. If it continues from multiple IPs, we can semi-protect it, or if the same IPs continue doing it, they can be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be ongoing still. -- ferret (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ferret: Now semi-protected for a week.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Garry Marshall (Q315087)

A bot MisterAnthony overwrite all properties of Garry Marshall (Q315087), removing valid references. Blanking its discussion page without anwers. Dacoucou (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have fully protected the item because of the edit warring over it. @MisterAnthony: You must respond to Dacoucou's attempts to communicate about this. This is a collaborative community and blanking others' comments does not make their substance go away. @Dacoucou: MisterAnthony seems to think "imported from: English Wikipedia" is a suitable substitute reference; he's definitely not a bot (please remember to assume good faith).--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Just tryin' to improve it. --MisterAnthony (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry. --MisterAnthony (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you please connect this item to huwiki article hu:Garry Marshall. I am not able to do because of the protection. Thank you. --Rlevente (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@MisterAnthony, Dacoucou: To be clear, I would like you two to resolve your disagreement at the item talk page, and for both of you to avoid edit warring in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add lb:Garry Marshall, ro:Garry Marshall, el:Γκάρυ Μάρσαλ. --Ghiutun 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User MisterAnthony also created pap:Garry Marshall, kaa:Garry Marshall, co:Garry Marshall, ceb:Garry Marshall - they all should be added to the item too. (P.S. Spamming is bad.) (P.S.S. Rest In Peace mr. Marshall.) --Ghiutun 23:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
+ tl:Garry Marshall. --Ghiutun 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
lb, el, pap, kaa, co, ceb and tl ✓ Done ro already there! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Promotional name

We have some guideline about the promotional name? Example: User:Independent Human Rights --ValterVB (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss it, but note some wikis (e.g. dewiki) have no restrictions on usernames.---GZWDer (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thats not correct: de:Hilfe:Benutzerkonto_anlegen#Ungeeignet. --Succu (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
At the Wikimania session regarding paid editing policies it was made clear that some projects (e.g. en.wp) completely prohibit corporate usernames on other projects (I think Arabic wikipedia was one, but my notes are unclear) they are regarded as best practice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
We do need a policy defining acceptable, and unacceptable, usernames. At the moment, our username policy redirects to WD:UCS, which isn't of much help. Maybe we should create an RFC, or simply starting a discussion here, to get something drafted? --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. WD:UCS is just perfect for such cases. We are an international project and should allow all people to edit as long as they do not intentionally try to make harm with their choice of username. --Vogone (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have drafted Wikidata:Username policy. Other users may improve it.--GZWDer (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure it makes much sense. Edits done in other projects are visible here. If somebody have a username in another project that is allowed by its policy, should we ban their edits (like page moves) here if we think it abuses our policy? If we have a policy, it should probably be a version of a global policy and/or the greatest common divisor (Q131752) of all involved projects. We had a user on svwiki:"Nicke Lilltroll". That was against an enwiki-policy and he had to change it. They maybe have bad associations with "trolls" in enwp, but in Swedish we associates the name with a cute child book character. On the other hand, if somebody register a username on svwiki with the name Kuk Harrell (Q1653721), he would be blocked within seconds! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Users in good standing in any Wikimedia projects should not be blocked for username problems.--GZWDer (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Agree, but they sometimes are. A well known user on svwiki was blocked on a SE Asian version of WP. I do not know why, but maybe his name meant the same thing in the local language as Kuk does in Swedish. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think we need a local policy for names which insult or mimic other users because those should be eligible for a global lock. If you're using your account to promote a website/organisation/etc, you're likely to get blocked for spamming under the existing Wikidata:Blocking policy regardless of your username. There are also legitimate reasons (highlighting COI) to include website/organisation/etc names in usernames. - Nikki (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
However, in my opinion the current criteria for global lock is very unclear.--GZWDer (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Intentionally so. Better to have loose rules than create a bureaucracy for dealing with these things IMO. There are very few problems with locking accounts, and similarly few problems with blocking promotional accounts here. My own opinion is that if they are disruptively editing, get rid of them. Violating the ToU - same deal. If not, who cares :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: I don't think there are very few problems with locking accounts, as some are controversial - Reguyla for example.--GZWDer (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Then please provide some sort of actual evidence of a problem with locked accounts - specifically discussions or complaints regarding specific cases, and then compare that against the number of locked accounts to justify the problem in context. You can say whatever you want, but unless you have some evidence to back it up then that isn't very useful. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
As this is unrelated to the topic, I have replied on your talk page.--GZWDer (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

marge

Please marge the items গগণবেড় (Q11846678) and পেলিক্যান (Q19413) . Thanks. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Pelecanus (Q19413) is about a genus of the family Pelicans (Q11846678). So the two items are not about the same concept and shouldn't therefore be merged. --Pasleim (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Pasleim পেলিক্যান is pronunciation of English word palican and গগণবেড় is Bengali meaning of palican. But both items Wikipedia articles are same concept (about palican), please see wikipedia articles. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC closure

There have been no edits to Wikidata:Requests for comment/Verifiability and living persons since 12 July. Can an uninvolved admin close it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Buggy edits with ru:Википедия:WE-Framework

From the edits on Q7315, it seems that users from ruwiki set erroneous dates based on how things appear on ruwiki. Unless it's fixed or deactivated, we need a filter that blocks date edits with the framework. @Vlsergey: who seems to be maintaining it.
--- Jura 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is not we-framework, but with infobox field on ruwiki - for correctly display date users try edit wikidata. Vlsergey left wiki half year ago. --Vladis13 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What they are deleting is the Julian date, because Wikidata date fields are Gregorian-only, and the "Julian" tag means "render this Gregorian date using the Julian calendar". --AVRS (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC) At least that's what I found this April. --AVRS (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I may have found that through WEF. I think somebody told me (or another user looking to enter Julian dates) about it. --AVRS (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This tag named "calendarmodel". Help:Dates#Entry of exact dates say that it sets calendar for stored date. But mw:Wikibase/DataModel#Dates and times has strikeout string that this tag for to display date, which always stored as Gregorian. There is refer on phabricator:T88437 where is example like above Q7315. And there below say: "ISO 8601 requires that all dates be expressed in the Gregorian calendar. We have no format defined to store a Julian calendar date." But further there not clear which was decision. --Vladis13 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
A quick summary: valid ways to enter P569 for Q7315 are: 7 May 1840 Gregorian, 25 April 1840 Julian. Most Julian dates on Wikidata are incorrect. Given the current mess and the general lack of interest for the question, we mostly focus on dates after the 1920s.
--- Jura 09:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments on the problem created by the change: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=303713365#Due_to_changes_in_data_model...
--- Jura 09:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

David Simon, 3rd Viscount Simon (Q1176663)

At request of subject, both en and de articles have been renamed to Jan David Simon, 3rd Viscount Simon (OTRS 2016072510016171). Not sure if this page needs to be renamed - I don't edit here. Ronhjones (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

All ✓ Done: see here. --Epìdosis 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania talk and speaker items

GerardM (talk • contribs • logs) started creating items for every Wikimania talk and speaker. These do not meet our notability policy. Besides the notability issues, creating items for every Wikimania speaker (like me) creates privacy issues. Items form a web of data. The core of this web should clearly meet our notability policy and this web can have some supporting items for structural needs. I deleted all these items and informed Gerard on his talk page, but knowing him, he's probably going to make a bit of noise about this. Multichill (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to Multichill both his actions and his approach. Wikimania is relevant, the talks are relevant. Why does he think Wikimania and its talks are not relevant / notable. What does he base it on? When speakers of TED are relevant why are speakers at Wikimania not relevant.
The fact that he decides to delete all my work, work that I blogged about without any consideration, conversation is an abuse of the ability to delete. It is wrong and it should be undone urgently. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the items are notable or not, there really needs to be discussion before they are deleted. The items as described here (I'm not an admin so can't see what was deleted) were not spam and at the very least arguably notable. Additionally simply asserting that "creating items for every Wikimania speaker (like me) creates privacy issues" is not sufficient for speedy deletion - what privacy issues? Why? What supporting evidence is there of this? Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that these items most likely are notable according to our policy. But there is a BLP-issue to consider here. Even if we maybe do not have a fully working BLP-policy yet, we still have to be very careful. Most of these persons are probably not as well known as the TED-speakers. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleting an item because it mentions you or something you did, and you do not like that, is a clear conflict of interest, and thus an abuse of admin tools. The personal and prejudicial remark in your closing sentence is also unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Andy, you keep accusing me of abuse. I am feeling harassed by you. Either start a de-adminship procedure or stop harassing me. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You are overreacting. Moreover you are in the wrong. The problem is not that you go on a limb and delete a lot of stuff that you feel is not notable. The problem is that you forgo normal procedures and allow for discussion. You create a fait acompli and argue that it is not relevant that I may have a differing opinion. You are not harassed, you are just not used to be told that you are wrong. It would be good if you accept that. By the way, de-admin is not the way to deal with this. That would be plain silly given the sterling work you usually do. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
[ec] Perhaps Multichill refers to this or maybe this - AFAIR, our only recent interactions. In neither do I accuse him of "abuse", and nor does he provide any evidence of me doing so elsewhere, much less doing so repeatedly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@GerardM: The list of speaker was publicly available before that you added them in WIkidata, or blogged them? --ValterVB (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The list is on the Programme page and sub pages. All the videos are (or will be) on YouTube, and on Commons, and embedded on the individual programme pages. Those pages also include both real and Wikimedia user names, as supplied by the speakers, who also had to agree to videos being made avialable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
When a person is known by a nick on YouTube, it is the nick that is used for a label for the presenter. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Multichill: If your name is already posted in these pages I don't see the problem with the privacy in Wikidata. --ValterVB (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • According to WD:N#2, a "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" that "can be described using serious and publicly available references" meets our inclusion criteria here. It seems to me that Wikimania speakers and presentations could qualify under those grounds. I also agree that discussion and then action is preferable, especially when dealing with established editors and actions which are not done in bad faith. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

Hoi, a large number of items I created have been speedily deleted without cause. There is a lot ongoing discussion about this. Arguably it was not reasonable to delete them without any discussion. What I want is to have clear arguments why Wikimania talks are not considered notable when TED talks are. I want to know why notions of notability we use for people outside of our community do not apply for people within our community. A point I have made repeatedly is that we as a community are really bad at recognising what is valuable in what we do. We do not document our efforts and we know that researchers find them relevant. My request is to limit conversations to one week and require really strong and convincing arguments if they are to remain deleted. Arguments have to be not personal. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been a week. The arguments against the deletion have been made for me. Please undelete the items as per the request. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It has been two weeks. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I will not be undeleting these as I do not think they clearly meet the notability policy. Their only potential notability comes from their contributions to Wikimedia. I believe adding items for Wikimedia contributors against their will solely because of their Wikimedia contributions would set a dangerous precedent and be far more damaging to our community than deleting the items would be. - Nikki (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia contributors are people like anybody else. I have not outed anyone. They are known either by their nick or their name depending on how they have published themselves. The relevancy of a Wikimania speaker is not based on their Wikimedia contributions it is linked to their speech. I have not even linked them to their Wikimedia nick. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The privacy issue is a red herring. These are all people who have willingly put their names and/or usernames on a public website, to speak at a public event, and who have agreed for their talks there to be filmed and placed on both Wikimedia Commons and YouTube. As others have noted above, these items should be subject to the proper deletion process, if anyone wishes to argue about whether they meet our notability requirements. Note also that some of the items in question were apparently about talks given by people, for whom there is already a Wikidata item so privacy concerns - bogus though they are in this case - do not apply. As for "against their will ", will you be applying that new criteria - which is not part of our notability policy - to others for whom we have items? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

RfD page

Currently BeneBot* isn't running, which means the RfD page doesn't get automatically updated when you delete or merge items. I've notified Bene* earlier today, but don't know when he gets the bot running again. In the mean time, please mark the merged and deleted items yourself. Mbch331 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So, could someone possibly program a replacement bot? If the current bot's operator hasn't made an edit in months, I guess he's not going to get our message so quickly. We shouldn't be reliant on something which could be broken for a long time to come. Jared Preston (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Replacement bot should be ready. I will do test edits in a few hours. --Pasleim (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to get two bots that can run concurrently, since this is such a critical service? --Rschen7754 01:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI I have blacklisted PLbot from sending notifications as we did with BeneBot*. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pasleim: You're brilliant, thank you! Just one question though, do you think your bot is able to recognise "bulk deletion requests"? Because I deleted all 20 items of one single request a few hours ago, but it still hasn't been marked as "done". Jared Preston (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1.170.26.224 and 49.214.242.81

It was found that the IPs 1.170.26.224 and 49.214.242.81 repeatedly vandalized items (for example Q15981) so that the links to zhwiki were changed to redirect pages or deleted pages, and thus no interwiki links were shown on the corresponding zhwiki articles. The vandalism was probably due to his/her disagreement on article names in zhwiki. Please block the above IPs and semi-protect the affected wikidata items temporarily. --Mewaqua (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I cannot judge whether the edits were vandalism (I only see that many of them are not reverted), but I don't think it would make any sense to block them if it was so. They both were active in a short time frame about 24 hours ago only. It's likely that the user stopped their activities themselves, or that they got another IP now anyway. --YMS (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
"Many of them are not reverted" because, without protecting the items, any correction would be useless as they would be reverted quickly by the vandal, as shown by the revision history of the affected items. I request semi-protection for the following items: Q15981, Q193409, Q5100284 and Q10873325. They have been repeatedly vandalized by multiple IPs, which remove the correct zhwiki links in the above wikidata items. --Mewaqua (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Semi-Protected for a month. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but "Robert Schuman" (Q15981) haven't been protected yet. --Mewaqua (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. Q19581 and Q150851 are now semi-protected for two weeks. --Lakokat 15:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Properties ready for creation

Category:Properties ready for creation requires attention, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Q4168161

Seems to be popular .. can you semi?
--- Jura 05:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for two weeks. Thanks for the report.--Lakokat 05:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/RfP voting eligibility closure

This seems to have wound down - could an uninvolved admin close it? --Rschen7754 17:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Likewise my request, above, posted one week ago today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Similarly Wikidata:Requests for comment/Standards for property proposal discussions has had no edits since 21 July and should be closed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rschen7754, Pigsonthewing, Thryduulf: Regarding "RfP voting eligibility" I look "uninvolved" enough since I have not edited that page at all. One problem here is that I have not a single clue about how a RFC is closed. Could one of you do it, and then I review your closure and add my signature to confirm it, if I find your closure reasonable? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: I have no experience of closing RfCs on Wikidata, and have participated in the Voting eligibility request, but I will close it in a couple of days if nobody more qualified steps forward first. I initiated the "Standards for property proposal discussions" discussion so really should not be the one to close it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: as your "b" is lowercase I need to write this so the ping will work. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete topic

Could some admin delete this topic? --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy around the item "Wikimania talk"

Hoi, all items that are a Wikidata talk have been deleted without any discussion by an admin. There has been an extended period of discussion and no valid arguments were presented why these items were deleted. Arguments have been posted by others why these items are valid, a request was made to undelete these items. This was not done.

The current situation is that it can be observed that an abusive of power is not rectified by any of the administrators. Consequently the regard that should be given to the office and the value of being an administrator has suffered. Given the quality of the arguments I find that there is every reason to manually recreate these items. There are no arguments available to counter this. The time for arguments is largely over. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@GerardM: You are not in the position to order anybody of us to do anything! We are all volunteers, and each of us may have reasons of our own to not comply with your request. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You do as you see fit. I do not order, I have opinions that I voice. You all volunteer to be admin and after that it is an office that you hold. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is above at #Wikimania talk and speaker items. Arguments were presented to support deletion, but each of them has been demonstrated invalid, and the arguments to (re)create have not been refuted. If any administrator has reasons not to undelete then they have not expressed them here or in the above discussion, leading to the impression (and it's not the only time this has been the case on this project) that admin actions can not be reverted other than by the original admin, regardless of merit or consensus. If there are reasons why these items should not be undeleted or recreated then you need to express them otherwise GerardM will have absolutely no reason not to recreate them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
My reason is the "principle of caution" when it comes to BLP's. Such a principle is maybe not written into any policy here yet, but my opinion is that is should be such an principle. Some of the persons behind those item has expressed an inconvenience regarding these items. I fully understand that feeling. I would feel the same about any article or item about myself. Into the respect of that feeling, I choose to not comply with GerardM's request. If (s)he create new items or if somebody else restore the old ones, it is their responsibility. But my action is to let my hands rest in this case. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You sat on your hands and so did all other admins. To what extend do you all take responsibility for what happens or is it fate what happens and how people are treated? I am one of the most prolific contributors of Wikidata and I feel the brunt of this nonsense. I am not at all convinced of the quality of the administrative processes of our project. Properties are created out of process and for others it is hard to get traction for what they propose. This incident is another perfect example of what is wrong. It basically tells me that there is little of sense of Wikidata community because of the arbitrary way in which our processes function. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite apart from anything else, more than half of these items were not about people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
There is indeed no obligation on any individual admin to act. If none are willing we either need more admins, or we need the 'crats or devs (some of whom are paid and can be instructed by their managers) to step in and act. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to review w:en:Pocket veto. --Rschen7754 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that will become highly relevant - as soon as we grant admins the equivalent of a U.S. Presidential veto. Until then, we'll still work by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that we need another venue of sorts, to 1) determine whether items should be deleted on the grounds of notability in controversial cases, and 2) serve as a final course of appeal in the deletion process. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts are that
  1. If anyone objects in good faith to an item that was deleted without discussion it should be restored and taken to WD:RFD.
  2. There should be a venue equivalent to en.wp's w:Wikipedia:Deletion review that should (like on en) look to see whether (a) process was correctly followed, (b) whether the closer correctly interpreted consensus, and (c) whether anything has changed since the discussion that either definitely or plausibly could change the outcome. This should handle all pages (properties, items, user pages, Wikidata: pages, etc)
If anyone's decisions are more than occasionally overturned then they should have their adminship reviewed. I do not mean an automatic desysopping, but an open-minded look to see if they are still up to the job. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem with RFD is that it is designed to handle speedy deletions (which over 95% of the requests are), not requests that need significant discussion. --Rschen7754 21:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
An RfC would be better, considering we are dealing with personal data I'd advice to undelete those items if the RfC will show a clear consensus, not before. I, for one, would never speak at a Wikimania being at risk to be itemized. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
As I noted above, "more than half of these items were not about people". Would you talk at Wikimania, knowing your talk would be videoed and made available online? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
"more than half of these items were not about people" I'm dealing with the other half. Personally I don't find the whole cluster to be notable at all but entries about people are "even worse" because of privacy concerns. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You said "those items", without qualification. And you didn't answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting the one of the subjects at least has described the deletion of the item about themselves without discussion as "insulting" (friends only comment on Facebook, so I'm not linking it here). That doesn't strike me as evidence that the deletion was the obviously good thing claimed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2016/07&oldid=2133530123"