Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2019/07

Duplicate

It appears that Gaston Goirand de La Baume (Q60332527) and Gaston Goirand de La Baume (Q55672003) should be merged. Thanks, 86.227.91.237 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Pamputt (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Looperz

Can someone look into the edits by this contributor? They seem to use incorrectly a qualifier and despite concerns raised on their talk page, they keep running a script adding more of the same. I think the batches by this user should be stopped until this is resolved. --- Jura 08:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

While Ahoerstemeier and Jura published their opinion on my user talk page. I am still not sure what is better concerning the Claim of consecrator (P1598) the discussed arguments are: Either the Page itself is the Subject and the claimed consecrators must be objects in this case (claim). Or you look at it from the other perspective. That means in case of a consecration there is a passive and a active role. The receiver (passive) of the consecration is the bishop mentioned as page while the consecrator takes the active part. From this perspective the consecrator is the subject and the consecrated is the object. We discussed that and in this process and i offered programming a botscript that will change this if anybody would decide it for us. (Request pending). And as mentioned: As I started adding consecrators manually the only one of this 2 possible qualifiers offered was subject has role (P2868). And meanwhile Jura and Ahoerstemeier appeared thinking object of statement has role (P3831) is better. Nice proposal, worth discussing it. And as soon as we have a final decision i will change the scripts and with the help of the botscript i am also willing to change this widely.

But addressed very specially to you, Jura: For me, this is just two colliding opinions worth being discussed both. Please stop pretending this would be vandalism. It isn't. Thank you. --Looperz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't spoken of vandalism. It's just a script not being used correctly. --- Jura 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Looperz please stop all batches and don't start new ones until this is resolved.

I think you're using the wrong qualifier. I always mix these two up too. On James Patrick Keleher (Q1680953) you have consecrator (P1598) -> Joseph Bernardin (Q744108). Rdf is subject-predicate-object so:

• Subject is James Patrick Keleher (Q1680953)
• Predicate is consecrator (P1598)
• Object is Joseph Bernardin (Q744108)

You added as qualifier subject has role (P2868) -> principal consecrator (Q18442817). So you're saying that James Patrick Keleher (Q1680953) is the principal consecrator (Q18442817). But looking at the infobox you want to say Joseph Bernardin (Q744108) is the principal consecrator (Q18442817). For that you need the qualifier object of statement has role (P3831). Correct? Multichill (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Quickstatements stop doesn't work. Applied a one minute block to prevent more incorrect edits, that didn't work so now it's a 6 hour block. Multichill (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Q64143997

On the English Wikipedia, the article Castle Placement is now back in mainspace. Please undelete Q64143997 and then restore back the site link. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism from 117.225.66.202 (I think this IP must be blocked globally)

Moved from my talk page - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm writing you because I don't know who are the administrators here in Wikidata, but I supposed that you at least might know some of them. Anyway, I've noticed that someone using the IP adress 117.225.66.202 did a lot of cross-wiki vandalisms, erasing, for example, the links to the page "List of Presidents of Senegal" (Q845245) (I've restablished some of them) and also to the page "Lista de presidentes da Moldávia (Q312271)" (I've also riestablished some of the links). He reverted some articles in multiple Wikipedias to old versions. As I'm an administrator in Ido Wikipedia, I've blocked him/her there, but I think that this person must be blocked globally, otherwise he may continue vandalizing other articles.

Best regards from São Paulo, Brazil, Joao Xavier (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This IP vandalized only on 2nd July and stopped then. I do not think it is useful to block him/her now. Let us see if he/she comes back. Pamputt (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Socks of ISECHIKA need blocking

• 闇営業の黒幕・水谷真悟 (talk • contribs • logs)
• 岡本憲吉と西中行雄と水谷真悟 (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism by socks of banned user. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. 🖉←} 14:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

[1] Engaged in vandalism, please take action.--Юрий Владимирович Л. (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please block 89.12.151.242

Vandalism. --Catherine Laurence 00:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Long term vandal

Please block Special:Contributions/77.183.0.0/16. Vandalizing from a long time (1), previously blocked range. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

pinging @Mahir256: as you blocked the other range. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done for six months. Mahir256 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Can you semi-protect User_talk:Kresspahl and Property talk:P6878, it seems to be used by the globally blocked user. --- Jura 04:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

   Done Semi-protected for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A request to see deleted edits of files

I need to see "Deleted version and deleted content" of two files,see below,

1. User:Advogato2
2. User talk:Lzhwp

Can some admin help me?--MCC214 (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@MCC214: I helped you and you already know it. Stop this. Bencemac (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bencemac (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Q729 (animal) to Breton Wikiquote

Hello, I would like to link Q729 to the Breton Wikiquote page Loened (https://br.wikiquote.org/wiki/Loened). Apparently I don’t have the rights to do it. Can you please help? Huñvreüs (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Salud dit Huñvreüs.  Done graet eo, n'e oa ket d'ezhomm bezhan merour pe netra. A galon, VIGNERON (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Komprenet am eus : gwarezet eo ar pennad, diret eo bezañ merour met ret eo bezañ emgadarnaet war Wikidata, pezh ne oan ket. Ne oa ket sklaer din tamm ebet ar gemenadenn war ar Wikiarroud. Trugarez dit. / Understood: the item was semi-protected on Wikidata and my account was not autoconfirmed there. The error message on Wikiquote was not clear to me at all. Thanks. Huñvreüs (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Huñvreüs (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Block request

Ip 181.170.227.153 is vandalising Montesquieu (Q15975). Thanks in advance. --—d—n—f (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done blocked the /24 for a week and protected Montesquieu (Q15975). Multichill (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 06:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Lele Pons (Q12297196) =

Please semi-prtect this item--Di^Mon₂₇₁₁ 20:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done for a year. Mahir256 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 06:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

VacaMUUpeludaMUU

VacaMUUpeludaMUU
Looking at the username and contribs, this account seems nothing but vandalism-only. — Mike Novikoff 05:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done indef'd Mahir256 (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 06:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

is there page protection for wikidata as for en wikipedia?

We have an actor who's recently died, Cameron Boyce Q553704 and his data entry here is being vandalized to an insane degree. I'm not super-familiar with Wikidata—is there any way to do extended confirmed protection or something like pending changes? —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The item is protected for a month now. Thanks for reporting, --MisterSynergy (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

0lesson

Please block 0lesson. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for a week. Esteban16 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Taib Šarić

Please move the article to the main page.Бајеццобола (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Бајеццобола:  Not done. You may be confused. There is no such page on Wikidata. There are no articles on Wikidata, but items. Esteban16 (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 09:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

voice (Q17172850)

Please semiprotect due to ongoing vandalism by multiple IPs. -LiberatorG (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

 Protected by Mahir256. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

convulsion (Q852376)

Please semiprotect due to repeated vandalism. It seems that since Cameron Boyce (Q553704) was protected, the labels of unprotected items linked from that item are being vandalized instead, including convulsion (Q852376) which is his cause of death (P509). -LiberatorG (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done and added to my watchlist. Bencemac (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 09:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate

Please merge Former bishop's palace (Q22953648) with Vieux Nîmes museum (Q3330402). Thanks, 86.227.91.237 12:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories on Wikimedia Commons have to merged first. Pamputt (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The first item is about the palace and the second one about the museum currently in it. I made the distinction a bit clearer. Multichill (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Good idea! Cheers, 86.227.91.237 23:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 08:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate

Please merge Lucien Monteil (Q61426379) with Lucien Monteil (Q56284354): this is the same person (source: Pierre Mazier (Q60172380), Quand le Gard se libérait, Lacour, 1992, p. 123). Thanks, 86.227.91.237 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Esteban16 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 08:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please semi

It seems to be popular again since it expired on July 1: Q11330972 --- Jura 23:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Bovlb (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 08:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please block 60.153.111.160

Vandalism only ip user --Afaz (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked for 3 months. Afaz: Keep in mind that cases like this (long term abuse) are better to be reported a little earlier. Esteban16 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please semi (2)

Q3971976 has gotten popular .. --- Jura 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate

Hello! Please merge Q65334222 (기완) with Q313984 (Guiuan): the former is just a Korean Wikipedia version/translation for the latter. Thanks! —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

 Done. - yona b (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

yona b, Thanks! —Nairb.Idi9 (talk)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nairb.Idi9 (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe check some modifications about kumquats

Hi,

Could somebody have a look at the changes of 196.245.151.52 ? It seem's he's unlinking some articles that are corresponding to each others. The result is that the french article Citrus japonica is now linked to the english Kumquat, and french Kumquat is now linked to others pages. Many thanks in advance. --—d—n—f (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate

Please Émile Ladam (Q65472646) with Émile Ladam (Q62076697). Cheers, 86.227.91.237 20:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Pamputt (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Protect User:JJBullet

Can you please protect User:JJBullet with an exception of IPBE & sysop's so that they can edit my user page--JJBullet ❪✉❫ 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why so? None of the reasons for page protection listed on Wikidata:Page protection policy apply to your user page, IMO. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per MisterSynergy, "I just feel like it" is not a valid reason to protect your userpage. There also is no technical means by which we could allow a local group other than admins to edit a fully protected page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw that JJBullet was blocked for sock puppetry. Can I suggest that UsernameReviewerBot, AutomaticWelcomerBot, and BulletBot also be blocked? See account creation log. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

All blocked. The bot accounts were not approved so no need for unauthorized tasks occurring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

141.31.128.104

Pure vandalism on 5 articles in 2 days. --Wurgl (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

School ip ?

Special:Contributions/153.107.193.206 seems just nonsense, but not really recent. Not sure what to suggest. --- Jura 10:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a school IP. --- Jura 11:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Noa Kirel (Q43139030)

Please semi-protect this item--Di^Mon₂₇₁₁ 16:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto (Q12382)

Please semi-protect this item--Di^Mon₂₇₁₁ 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Pi bot

should be blocked to write into date of birth (P569) and date of death (P570) (birth- and deathdate) from information gathered from the German Wikipedia.

He/she/it alwas uses the year only, despite that the full date is available there. There is a special "Personendaten" on the pages. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What response did you get when you raised the matter with the bot's operator? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to look into upgrading the code to support full dates, but it's not necessarily trivial. The bot's winding down this task for now, and should stop it in 10 mins or so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Revoke

Please revoke my rollbacker rights--Di^Mon₂₇₁₁ 10:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Dimon2711:  Done. Esteban16 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Pérez Mohedano

He is vandalizing Wikidata since June, although he has already been warned. Vercelas _talk 15:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely. Esteban16 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, please see 23.17.218.89, they are vandalising after warnings. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work 1997kB. I blocked the IP for 24h in case he/she comes back soon. Pamputt (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Severe vandalism at w:pl:Specjalna:Wkład/Rypinianin w:commons:Special:Contribs/Rypinianin, already blocked, reverted by me, should be blocked too here.

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Inactive property creators

I would like to propose to revoke property creators upon Inactive property creators. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose why? Just clicking through them I see a lot of users who edited this month so are not inactive. What is the point of this exercise? These kind of discussion usually only lead to being the last push for someone to completely abandon a project. Multichill (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• They're not performing as property creators, there is no point to keep property creators rights if their not creating property. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose What are the risks to let the property creator rights to these users? Because I do not see any, I do not think it would be useful to change something. Pamputt (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done; we do not have an inactivity policy for Wikidata:Property creators, thus there is no rationale to revoke the right due to inactivity. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Isn't your "decision" too early? To me this should better discuss one-per-one, IMHO I would  Support discharge MichaelSchoenitzer due to moved focus. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Without an inactivity policy there is no way an administrator or anyone else could eventually revoke "property creator" user rights. Thus we should not pretend that we could "discuss" individual rights here. The actual path to remove such rights would be a (successful) RfC that adds an inactivity policy to Wikidata:Property creators. --MisterSynergy (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment It seems like he's somewhat unhappy about the 120 property proposals waiting. --Trade (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• What is next? Should we revoke rollback from users who don't use that too? --Rschen7754 22:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd suggest that there is one very clear case: User:Nightwish62 has not edited anywhere on this project since 2013. --99of9 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Property creator isn't a particularly powerful right. I would support enacting an inactivity policy that removes this right from any property creator who hasn't made any edit or logged action on Wikidata at all for 12 months, but would oppose the batch proposal here. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• I also think we could WD:RFC to update Wikidata:Property creators. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Little Konstantin (talk • contribs • logs)

This user is not here for help. Just vandalizing Special:Diff/974825683 and insult in Persian Special:Diff/966973430. Hanooz (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have warned the user. That's not enough vandalism to block the account. Esteban16 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for sanction against ZI Jony for abuse of Flooder permissions

On the 28th of June, ZI Jony was granted flooder permissions by Ymblanter to "use Quickstatements to add bnwiki links or information in Bangla". This task took a few hours, after which he neglected to relinquish the user right as he had promised in his request, holding it for 10 days and only removing it after I brought it up in my oppose of his request for adminship, the page of which he made using the flooder right. He made a few hundred edits with the flooder right that were outside of the scope of his request, and considering one of the other opposes in his RfA stated that they had, in the past, "reverted a few of Zi Jony's decisions regarding properties being ready for creation", there is a legitimate possibility that many of those hundreds of edits could be controversial. In his reply to me on the RfA page, he stated, "Regarding flood flag, my tasks still not complete yet." This proves he purposefully retained the right, possibly (or possibly not) intending to continue working, making changes that may have been controversial. To me, at least, this looks like admitted violation of flooder policy, and as per that policy, "Users who abuse the flood flag should be sanctioned." Vermont (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The flooder flag was indeed abused here. @ZI Jony: While I will stop short of a block here, know that you are asked to refrain from requesting the flooder flag here without the express permission of an admin, and that the next time you abuse the flooder flag you will be blocked for a lengthy period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Q43723

Please hide this content in Benjamin Netanyahu (Q43723). Vandalism. Geagea (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deror avi, יונה בנדלאק: what do you think? Pamputt (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I hide it. - yona b (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I also hide the summary. Pamputt (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Please semi-protect Q15925869 which is under persistent vandalism that changes official website (P856) to some sort of phishing websites. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done for six months. The domains were also blacklisted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate

Hello,

please merge Auguste Fabre (Q61639759) with Auguste Fabre (Q2871180) (same position of president of the tribunal civil d'Alès (Q61664334), at the same time). Thanks! 86.227.91.237 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Pamputt (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Q256916

Moved from Wikidata:Project chat

Can we lock down Fiona Graham (Q256916), again Geishas don't reveal their ages is the argument, so an anonymous user keeps deleting the birth date of Fiona Graham (Q256916). I think it is important since different ages are used in interviews she gave, to appear younger. The canonical date of birth came from the Library of Congress who appear to have gotten it from the documentary on her or from her autobiography, the note is ambiguous as to which of the two was the source. According to the LOC note: "... a film documentary for NHK form the basis for the fieldwork in the book) data sh. (b. Sep. 16, 1961)". --RAN (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have protected it, not on the merits of the dispute but because you all need to go use the talk page instead of edit warring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange translations

The contributions of Netherounet seems kind of weird. I don’t know if this will become a real problem but the cancellation of translated content is a pain, so if anyone can do this efficiently … author  TomT0m / talk page 14:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:HELLOHI007

User:HELLOHI007 is a vandalism-only account ([2]) which has already been blocked at de:wp. You might want to consider to hide the gross insult by this account at Q60772. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Kantarama Gahigiri (Q56043399)

Please semi-protect this item; IP users with no other recent edits have repeatedly removed information without explanation. --Jamie7687 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Jamie7687:  Not done. The only vandal IP was 203.82.99.126, which made 3 edits and has stopped. If an user/IP is constatly vandalizing a single page, they should be blocked, but the page shouldn't be protected. Since the IP already stopped, I didn't block it either. Esteban16 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Esteban16: Thanks for the feedback. If you look at the page's entire edit history, there are actually 3 IPs that have done this over the past 6 months (not just one), the IP you mentioned made 4 such edits (not 3) over the course of a week, and I just reverted the last one this morning (so declaring "has stopped" seems premature). I understand the reservation about either (semi-)protecting the item or blocking the IP, so I'll wait to see if something changes. Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Jamie7687: You're right, the IP made 4 edits, not 3 (sorry for that). But, you reverted the last edit 3 days after it was made, so this is not on-going vandalism. The same goes to the other IPs, they vandalized it months ago, and there's no need to protect the item now, unless it starts to get vandalized deliberately. Anyways, I'll watch the item for precaution. Esteban16 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request to review

See User talk:JJBullet. As the blocking admin I am unable to review the requests so I'm looking for someone else to review them. Note though that I strongly oppose unblocking them in light of the circumstances.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MisterSynergy (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/ActiveStats‎

Note for other admins reviewing it as inactivity check for monthly desysops: It is broken.

Probably part of the "actor migration" or that stuff, I dunno. Maybe Cyberpower678? — regards, Revi 01:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(BTW CP678, redirection to other wiki does not work. You may want to use {{Soft redirect}}. — regards, Revi 01:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC))

Was there some sort of update to the activity standards here?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It is still same(minimum 5 logged action over 6 months), but the bot doesn't seem to be grabbing the stuff here.

• 10:40, 17 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block deleted page Q4390909 (Empty item) (view/restore)
• 08:33, 17 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block deleted page Q64796823 (Does not meet the notability policy) (view/restore)
• 08:18, 16 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block deleted page Q65581236 (Test page) (view/restore)
• 22:11, 15 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block deleted page Q65119471 (Empty item) (view/restore)
• 21:55, 15 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block deleted page Q65238495 (Does not meet the notability policy) (view/restore)
• 19:31, 2 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block deleted page Q21079208 (Empty item) (view/restore)
• 19:28, 2 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block changed visibility of a revision on page (Q60965363): username hidden (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP)
• 19:28, 2 July 2019 -revi (A/S) talk contribs block changed visibility of a revision on page (Q60965363): username hidden (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP)

But I am shown as 0 action. — regards, Revi 13:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It means all of us should be desysoped :P. Stryn (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: As noted by @Matěj Suchánek: on the talk page of that page a month ago, it has been broken since June 4th, possibly due to phab:T223406. Mahir256 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

And I thought I fixed that two weeks ago. At least on enwiki.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

-revi, it's fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I tried to mention that since 6 June 2019 --Alaa :)..! 12:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 07:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Block 24.135.111.175 and delete the created items

Hello,
The duck test is very clear: 24.135.111.175 is one IP used by the long-term cross-wiki abuser described in meta:Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2019-05#User making tests/comments since at least May 2017.
So, could you block this IP, and delete the 4 items created with this IP?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for a month, and Bencemac mass-deleted all new creations--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65515930

Could you restore Sortavalan kaupungin historiallis-kansatieteellinen museo (Q65515930), please? It was created by a new user, and it was probably missing a link to fi:Sortavalan kaupungin historiallis-kansatieteellinen museo. --Shinnin (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Shinnin:  Done. I have added the wikilink, too. Esteban16 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Long term vandal

Please semi-protect these items. repeat vandalism by sock of LTA:ISECHIKA.

• Nanami Yamashita (Q17223371),Kaoru Sakura (Q11383006),Yūki Wakai (Q17216081),Miyu Kubota (Q17129925),Yū Serizawa (Q11616039),Eri Suzuki (Q17160003),Ayane Sakura (Q871452),Azumi Waki (Q23948485),Yukiyo Fujii (Q11622668)

--Afaz (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange description addition of Innnzzz6

171.4.234.132 and 1.46.128.203 are inserting Innnzzz6 to descriptions of different items. Innnzzz6 is the username a global locked user. --94rain (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, both blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

See also 1.46.175.76 — Mike Novikoff 19:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed there was also 171.4.235.70 1.47.99.243. Can we insert the keyword to some edit filters so that we can better track their edits? --94rain (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

...and the latter IP still continues being active. I think a filter would be a good solution indeed. — Mike Novikoff 15:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked both.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

They are still quite active. Now please block Special:Contributions/1.46.143.142 and Special:Contributions/171.4.249.45. (Also found 1.46.99.14 171.4.234.87 171.4.235.22 when searching through IP ranges) --94rain (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Small question

Is there an administrator willing to help me with my questions here? I understand that I approached things the wrong way but I don't have a lot of experience dealing with the topic and therefor I want to improve my knowledge, so I can avoid creating extra work in the future. However, Bencemac and I seem to have some difficulties understanding each other, and he cut the discussion short. I have two questions. Is there a policy describing if we can mix Wikimedia list article entries with non list entries? That way I can do some reading and improve my knowledge. If there is no such policy and such a mix is indeed unwarranted, how do I create a new item for the Wikimedia list entries? Hopefully someone can help me :). 'm trying to learn the ins and outs but Wikidata has a strong learning curve :(. Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Natuur12, I'm not an expert her but seems that adding a list of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Hungary is not needed because it can be created using Wikidata Query Service. It is possible that it's mentioned in Wikidata:Notability. Anyway Category:Lists of government ministers of Hungary (Q6999313) still exist. And yes, the answer of the reverting admin should be better. Geagea (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Geagea! This gives me some clues about what to look into. Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Protection request

I'd like to request that Chaturbate (Q22080762) be semi-protected, as it's a tempting target for vandals and spammers. Trivialist (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not enough activity (just one IP recently) to justify it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge request

Q61136200 seems to be the same as Q2284447. --Achim (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Georgian articles seem to be different--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalisme and sins adiction.

This IP 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:ADF2:B4A8:B243:B970 seem to have fun adding « sins » like avarice (Q193543) and mortal sin (Q2321540) to unrelated items. --Fralambert (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

He seem to come back [3]. --Fralambert (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Andreasmperu: Blocked the /64 subrange for a month. Mahir256 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge Q29075451 and Q63060189

Don't know where and the process to ask a merge elements operation, so I ask help here. Can you merge this two elements please ? Trigedasleng (Q63060189) and Trigedasleng (Q29075451), I'll edit infos then, thanks. V!v£ l@ Rosière ^{/Murmurer…/} 09:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-admin comment) I've merged these two items. Next time you can do it yourself by enabling the first gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (Merge script). see also Help:Merge. --94rain (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Great thanks, gadget activated. ;-) V!v£ l@ Rosière ^{/Murmurer…/} 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge

Hello, Claire Lapeyronie (Q59139194) and Claire Lapeyronie (Q65587715) are clearly a duplicate (not my fault, for once =) and need to be merged. Thanks, 86.227.91.237 20:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Merged. You can do yourself next time. Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 12:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? I'm not a registered contributor. 86.227.91.237 12:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You can use merge tool anywhay. Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Didn't know that, many thanks! 86.227.91.237 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

obvious vandalism stayed unnoticed

See the first contribution of : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.53.95.145 The change is an obvious vandalism that could have been flagged automatically (fdp is french abbreviation of « son of a b… » . It’s been there for several months it seems, so it’s quite bad. I don’t know what can be done to fight this, so I put this here, hopefully some admin here will know better. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

More people need to watch the items they create; if someone saw this on their watchlist, it would've been caught.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This particular item was created by a bot. --Njardarlogar (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Don’t expect this at the Wikidata scale. I don’t know how many items I got in my watchlist but … there is many many one. It’s really easy to miss something. My point here is that this specific vandalism should have been flagged here, i’d expect this kind of stuffs to have been caught by a bot like Salebot on frwiki I’m almost sure. And it works with regexps or bad word lists … Nothing as fancy as what is supposed to exists as mw:ORES … if it did not there is probably something really wrong or immature in the way we handle those on Wikidata. But maybe I’m jumping to conclusions and most obvious vandalisms are caught. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

DMA026

Continues adding wrong descriptions after two blocks, although I warned him before. What comes? —Vercelas _talk 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 45 days. Insistence on inserting descriptions disrespecting Wikidata:D. Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 11:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Gimbalpapuaalbert

Spammer/Troll that needs to be blocked and his edits reverted/deleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

70.27.77.276

Please block this user, vandal. --Catherine Laurence 00:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Jasper Deng. Thank you both! --abián 10:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Odd editing pattern from 73.202.12.249

This ip seems to be quite an experienced editor, and yet it has been creating some items of questionable notability (such as difficulty (Q65581480) or linguistic example sentence (Q65581468)), as well as adding more than a few strange connections between items. Any ideas? Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 02:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I paged through their contributions, looks like almost 3000 edits, mostly since mid-June. Topic areas include electronics, chemistry, a bit of mathematics. I spot-checked some edits which were marked red by ORES, they seemed fine. There are probably other questionable ones though as Andreasm points out. But that's a lot of edits... This IP range doesn't seem to have come up before as a problem? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Block request

Please block 173.184.198.101 (talk • contribs • logs). I think this is another IP used by a user I mentioned here. They keep creating duplicate items even after being warned not to do so. --Shinnin (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletion of duplicates

Can someone also delete the items created by Special:Contributions/173.184.198.101 and Special:Contributions/98.16.51.55. Redirecting all of them to main item doesn't make sense as these are not actually duplicates but disruption. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Pasleim (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Spamming on Q6259144

Hello there. I've detected https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6259144&action=history. It looks like spammers like that Item. Can it be reverted to a previous state and the accounts blocked, if really spam? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Everything cleaned up; accounts blocked. If this happens again elsewhere I'll blacklist those domains.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Thank you. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Atomsalebpizza

User:Atomsalebpizza's edits are all vandalism and the user should be blocked. Trivialist (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Jasper Deng--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hijacked

Q57440164 has been hijacked by a sockpuppeteer I'm just dealing with on Commons. Latest correct entries seem to be of 6 May 2019 by User:VIGNERON. --Achim (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Reverted, semi'd, blocked two accounts, and nom'd four files on Commons for deletion @Achim55:. Mahir256 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC?

Does this really need an RfC. Looks like IP is changing stuff all over (musicbrainz, wd) without really explaining why. But they've also filed a request over RFD, so this RfC can be deleted? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 fixed by Jasper Deng. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Kyjevtroleje

Please block this user. Vandal.Catherine Laurence 13:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done First edits look good. Maybe a beginner learning. Trusted vote, blocked for 24 hrs just to prevent further testing on items. He can use this time to learn a little more about how Wikidata works and re-edit items later. Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 14:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Historiadormundo

Hello there. Historiadormundo has been adding poorly translated descriptions and incorrect claims onto items, which I have reverted. Some of their additions (most of them, actually) include opinions such as "notable painter" (describing Eugenio Cruz). Also note this user has been recently blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia and Commons for sockpuppeeting, so I guess keeping an eye on them, at the very least, would suffice. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear, I have made correct contributions, there is no reason to reverse them. If I have any incorrect contribution, you can kindly tell me.

Pascual Ortega

Pedro Lira

Marcos Segundo Maturana

Eugenio Cruz Vargas

Enrique Swinburn Kirk

Rodolfo Opazo Bernales

Alvaro Casanova Zenteno

Cuatro Remos made today all reversals about chilean artists. Seven (7) Reverted edits today.

Francisco Vargas Fontecilla

Pedro Nolasco Vergara Albano

Cuatro Remos made today all reversals about chilean Goverment. Two (2) Reverted edits today

Total Reverted edits for Cuatro Remos is nine (9) Reverted edits today

He is locked in English forever, because the same attitude here and multiple sock puppets

Please; I ask for you, cancel Reverted edits for Cuatro Remos

Best regard --Historiadormundo (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I have warned the user. If they continue with such actions they will be blocked. Esteban16 (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Arolsen Archives (Q64617359) & ITS-International Tracing Service (Q466025)

These two items are not different and are actually the same item.

Note also the split between the different languages without overlap.

יאיר צפורי (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I merged the data into International Tracing Service (Q466025)

Can you delete Arolsen Archives (Q64617359)? יאיר צפורי (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, this cannot be deleted. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Offensive behaviour by Tagishsimon

I would like an independent admin to review this comment by Tagishsimon and take appropriate action if necessary. − Pintoch (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Warned the user that this is not acceptable language on Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Asiabet4d

Please block Asiabet4d for vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Offends

Hello. Could you see this ? Shouldn't he be blocked since his vandalism on Q984162 ? Thank you. Sammyday (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sammyday: je lui ai bloqué indéfiniment. Je pense que c'est un "LTA" avec plusieurs faux-nez (e.g. Lomivandâle (talk • contribs • logs)); il ne faut pas un avertissement avant de blocage pour ces comptes faux-nez.

@Sammyday: I blocked them indefinitely. I think it's an LTA with multiple socks (e.g. Lomivandâle (talk • contribs • logs)); warnings aren't needed for blocking these sock accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

P7082 (P7082)

Please delete Property:P7082, moved to end grade (P7095). Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MisterSynergy (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

201.215.192.162

Vandal. And was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Catherine Laurence 14:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have warned them. No such edits after the warning. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request

Obsolete gene/protein items my bot created, please delete:

Q19043886, Q19041313, Q19041212, Q18974310, Q18974307, Q18974303, Q18974300, Q18974295, Q18974288, Q18974279, Q18974274, Q18974268, Q18974260, Q18974253, Q18974244, Q18974236, Q18974228, Q18974221, Q18974213, Q18974205, Q18974195, Q18974184, Q18974177, Q18974168, Q18974161, Q18974154, Q18974147, Q18974139, Q18974132, Q18974122, Q18974117, Q18974110, Q18974102, Q18973221, Q18970186, Q18970035, Q18969932, Q18969887, Q18969067

Thanks, Magnus Manske (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am still concerned about how we treat "obsolete gene/protein" items. There are valid identifiers in those items, and they link to external databases which actually provide content about these genes/proteins. The databases sometimes even link back to the Wikidata items. Can't we establish a way how to mark gene/protein items as "obsolete" without deleting them? --MisterSynergy (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be interesting to get some details on the "temporary item" concept used by gene bots. --- Jura 22:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad edits from User:Not you loser

User:Not you loser has a username that is unduly combative, and is making edits to match. Can they be warned/blocked, please? -- The Anome (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I warned this user earlier today, and they have not edited since. No comment on username, except to note that we seem to be less strict about usernames here than on some other projects. Bovlb (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove some elements from the text returned to AbuseFilters

Hello all,

This is an important message for AbuseFilters maintainers.

Before saving an edit, AbuseFilters are run to check the content of the edit against various rules defined by the community, in order to prevent errors or vandalism. This action performed on every edit is causing a little delay before the edit is actually saved.

If many filters are applied and take a long time to check, the time between the user clicking on “save” in the page and the change actually being saved gets long, resulting in a bad user experience. For some API queries, it can take over 30 seconds. We would like to reduce this delay by reducing the amount of raw text that is sent to the filters to be analyzed.

Therefore, we plan to remove three things from "added_lines" and "removed_lines" rules:

• hash of statements (eg 6e35fc556c8974ed864e5e0db2439948995621b9),
• GUID of the statements (eg Q7251$9EAE20B1-6186-43E5-90AC-F740A43CED52)
• and title of the entity (eg P27, Q42)

Before removing them, we would like to check with you if you are using these parts of the text in some of your rules, or if there is any reason that we should not remove them.

If you have any comments or questions, feel free to ping me or to leave a comment under this task. If nothing is blocking, we plan to merge the patches on August 6th.

Pinging @Pintoch, Matěj Suchánek, Bovlb, Mahir256, Abián, Okkn: who seem to regularly maintain filters :)

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! No particular problem on my side, the change makes intuitive sense to me but I am not a seasoned user of these filters. − Pintoch (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Lea Lacroix (WMDE), Matěj Suchánek: Do we have a filter that uses page_title? I couldn't find one, but I'm not entirely sure if it's something would would never want to have. --- Jura 15:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I found Special:AbuseFilter/76, but I suppose we could drop it there. --- Jura 15:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • page_title is built-in and this doesn't concern it. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
      • ah, yes, it's only in "added_lines". If it works for Matěj Suchánek, it works for me ;) --- Jura 16:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Filters likely to be updated:

• Special:AbuseFilter/15
• Special:AbuseFilter/17
• Special:AbuseFilter/49
• Special:AbuseFilter/53
• Special:AbuseFilter/56
• Special:AbuseFilter/64
• Special:AbuseFilter/82
• Special:AbuseFilter/83
• Special:AbuseFilter/84
• Special:AbuseFilter/85
• Special:AbuseFilter/88
• Special:AbuseFilter/89
• Special:AbuseFilter/96
• Special:AbuseFilter/107
• Special:AbuseFilter/120

Some them may no longer work and can be disabled. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for consulting us. Do we have profile information on how much each filter is costing us? Bovlb (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think instead of relying of added lines or removed lines and regular expression matching, we should make variables and functions, for example, "property_added(P141)" that remove this unnecessary reliance on regular expressions, which are very expensive compared to equality or boolean condition checks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Such functions would have to added in the software by the developers but I don't expect it to be high priority. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  They should make it a higher priority if we want to get better at controlling vandalism, which is a difficult problem at this time. They shouldn't be reducing our functionality instead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  If we can get a clear definition of what's needed into phabricator I promise we'll look into it and see if we can make it happen because I do want to give you the tools needed to combat vandaism. (No promise we can make it happen as I don't know how much of a beast it is.) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Matěj Suchánek: I took a look at the mentioned abuse filters and I couldn't find anything that needs updating (I might be missing something though). The three things that will be dropped are: 1- Page title, 2- Statement hashes 3- Statement GUIDs. These two files give you a good an example of what are going to be kept and what are going to be dropped. [4] [5]. So statements changed, the properties and the values will stay untouched. The only thing that might be problematic is basically when you use hashes and GUIDs as separator or depend on page title in the common_lines (which I couldn't find in the given filters). I would encourage double checking though. Amir Sarabadani (WMDE) (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In some of the filters, you will see \w+\n. This matches the hashes. Some other filters match the newline character \n whereas it needs to be ^ or \b etc. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Matěj Suchánek: Thanks for pointing out. I think for now we can just make it backward compatible (replacing \w+\n with (\w+\n)?) and remove it fully after it's deployed and stabilized. Does it sound good to you? Amir Sarabadani (WMDE) (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fine by me. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Matěj Suchánek: Everything got updated except Special:AbuseFilter/120 which doesn't let me save the filter for an existing syntax error. Can you take a look? Amir Sarabadani (WMDE) (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What the... I could save it few weeks ago but not now. I will wait for today's version and then eventually report the bug and disable it. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• To be sure we all have the same in mind, maybe a sample for "title of the entity" string that is to be removed should be included in the summary of the phab task. --- Jura 10:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lea Lacroix (WMDE): as it's unclear even to devs, would you add that? Thanks. --- Jura 23:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jura1:An example has been added in phab:T226216, is that what you needed? Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bovlb: This changes will increase the speed on saving large items. i.e. It reduces the p95 and p99 save time, the last time we improved performance in that regard was December 2018 which dropped p95 of save time from 2 seconds to 1. Some graphs. We expect a similar drop (but not the same value) but we can't say exactly how much because it depends on too many factors making it impossible to measure unless it's in production. Does it answer your question Amir Sarabadani (WMDE) (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amir Sarabadani (WMDE):: Thanks for the link, but I was looking for a breakdown by filter more like the current Of the last 3,611 actions, this filter has matched 0 (0.00%). On average, its run time is 0.48 ms, and it consumes 2 conditions of the condition limit.. As an abuse filter maintainer, I feel that I lack information about how much filters cost relative to their benefit, which makes it hard for me to make good decisions. For example, what are the p95 and p99 costs of a specific filter? Which is the most expensive filter and is it still useful? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Bovlb: Abusefilter is not in our team's scope so I can't tell you what can be done to improve its metrics but from far, it seems gathering all of CPU time for all filters and then finding its distribution look like lots of work and require significant amount of resources to keep and use the data. One thing you can do is to test the filter on edits on large items (or cases that you know it'll be complex) and see the result value of the timer (I think abuse filter tests have timer. If not, it should not be hard to add that). Amir Sarabadani (WMDE) (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, here's a quick update: since no major blocker was reported, the change will go live with our next deployment train, on Wednesday 7th around 15:00 UTC. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up on RFC

This thread was moved to the project chat. --abián 09:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's mainly to be implemented or repaired by admins. Thus the discussion here. If you want to discuss another problem on Project Chat, please open a new thread.--- Jura 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not true, there's nothing to be "repaired" here but only improved, there's no applicable administrative action to resolve this thread, it's not just admins' responsibility to decide on new features and you started this thread by pinging users who aren't admins for them to participate in the discussion, which is, of course, open to them and to the entire community. The fact that some users were pinged from the administrators' noticeboard isn't a valid reason for this thread to be removed from the project chat because there's a relocation notice. Please consider the relocation to the project chat the final administrative action for this thread on the administrators' noticeboard. --abián 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me quote the discussion previously held here about the unprotection:

<start quote>

• @Ivanhercaz, Nicereddy, MarioFinale, Kristbaum, -jem-, Abián: As you protected or supported protecting a large number of items, what's your plan for edit requests like on Talk:Q987? Will you monitor these or just hope someone will eventually find them? It seems to be me that implementation of your approach needs some work. Can you share how you plan to go about it? If nothing is done, I suppose we just have to unprotect the pages. --- Jura 09:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• The fact that those users have supported semi-protecting, or have semi-protected, some Items doesn't make them responsible, or at least not more responsible than any other user or the development team, for implementing unrelated measures such as an improved interface or new mechanisms for tracking requests for change of semi-protected Items, in fact it's a matter of opinion whether or not such new mechanisms should be introduced. Having said that, personally I do think new features in the interface, such as a new link for "feedback", would be useful. I was hoping more users would participate in this thread but, since it was already archived, I think I'll open some Phabricator tasks about these possible new features anyway and I'll link them from here. Thanks for the reminder! --abián 10:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Well, it's for us to ensure that WMF's goal of openness is upheld. It's clear that you feel that you aren't bound by protection policy, but I suppose you understand that edits need to be possible. If one approach doesn't work, we need to implement an alternative. One thing is sure: developers wont be doing the edits, even if you open a phab task. --- Jura 10:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• A solution would be placing instructions on talk page of protected items in which user can add a category in edit request so that those request can be tracked and dealt. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• That would be similar as {{Edit request}} for fully protected pages. However, as far as I know we are not even able to determine which items should be protected according to the policy, and where protection needs to be removed again because the criteria are not met any longer. It seems very premature to me that we already apply this policy at this stage. --MisterSynergy (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• It only took a day for the page to be edited, no? That seems fine to me. Nicereddy (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Nicereddy: It was not only one protected I guess. And looks like it got handled because it was brought on noticeboard. Without a proper system to handle such requests, there's chances some will go unnoticed. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• This is the task I opened on Phabricator. What do you think? We can redirect those links to a new page Wikidata:Edit requests or similar, which may be edited by preloading (?action=edit&preload=...) a template. Any auto-confirmed user should be able to participate in resolving requests. --abián 09:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Having a edit request page sounds like a good idea. At best the page should make it clear that the edit requests should include a link to the source for a claim and not just "change x to y". Do we want to have a different page for the requests for each language or a common page? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

<end quote>

• From the discussion, given that we still have no other solution for the issue created by Abians indiscriminate page protection, the administrative action that is required is:

unprotection of all items protected by Abian. --- Jura 16:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I can see Abián simply did the actions that the RFC implied which needed admin rights (and it's okay that the RFC implies policy that goes beyond the previous protection policy). The RFC didn't have a provision that this should only happen if a new system for requesting edits exists and I don't think it's Abián's responsibilty to create one. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It needs to be a workable solution. Until finalized, I don't think we should start implementing it (i.e. revert pages already protected). Apparently one of the supporters assumed the present systems worked and none of the supporters seem to want to work on solving this. --- Jura 10:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• You are free to have the opinion that it shouldn't be implemented now but that's simply your opinion that you voiced after the RFC has been over. It doesn't change the fact that the actions that happened are backed by the RfC consensus. You also haven't shown that there's a bunch of unresolved issues that are left open with the status quo for longer amounts of time. Please take the discussion about what should be done to the project chat. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The impossibility for people to contribute is an unresolved issue. What needs to be done is stated above. --- Jura 11:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Full protection

Please fully protect

1. Wikidata:互助客棧
2. Wikidata talk:互助客棧
3. Wikidata:互助客栈
4. Wikidata talk:互助客栈

Both forums have been merged to Wikidata:Project chat/zh.--Roy17 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed unless we see many users erroneously posting on the old pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That just seems unpratical? Why transclude Wikidata:Project chat/zh into both Wikidata:互助客棧 and Wikidata:互助客栈 instead of just using linking it directly from Project Chat? --- Jura 23:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: it's very easy to write on the wrong page, for example by clicking the add topic button.--Roy17 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The usual solution is just to redirect the old page to the new one and put a notice on top of the old one.—Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important that it's linked on Template:ProjectChatLanguages and Q66050061. Otherwise it might just be getting users who are looking for a speaker of a language by language code to the wrong page. --- Jura 07:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: sure. Then please modify {{Chat header}} etc. to make it show zh-hans/hant based on users' UI. After that could there be a header on the unified page. Or follow Commons' design and protect the pages.--Roy17 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That is simply an issue of the correct translations being made, and since I don't know how to write Chinese I won't take part in that. Either way, full protection is declined as a valid need has not been demonstrated.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, @Jasper Deng: {{Chat header}} does not support switching languages based on users' preferences. No suitable chat header exists for Wikidata:Project chat/zh. My proposal uses the current chat headers but it is best operated with full protection of the pages requested.--Roy17 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Then that is a problem with the template (maybe use a custom version of it?); to be clear, full protection is not possible because this is not a valid use case in the protection policy. Our policy is not the same as Commons'.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So that's your choice. When you are unwilling to fully protect, it's your job to come up with the customised template.--Roy17 (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I absolutely do not mean to be impolite, but the fact is, if you want to change my decision you will have to make a proposal to change the protection policy to allow this sort of protection; any consequences of the current policy are not my problem to solve. Why not adopt Jura1 (talk • contribs • logs)'s solution?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I will copy my previous statement once again.

For the record, @Jasper Deng: {{Chat header}} does not support switching languages based on users' preferences. No suitable chat header exists for Wikidata:Project chat/zh. My proposal uses the current chat headers but it is best operated with full protection of the pages requested.--Roy17 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

::::@Jasper Deng: sure. Then please modify {{Chat header}} etc. to make it show zh-hans/hant based on users' UI. After that could there be a header on the unified page. Or follow Commons' design and protect the pages.--Roy17 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope you get the answer finally after this third reply.

For the record, the policy Jasper Deng cites says Admins will protect pages for short amounts of time to prevent vandalism or spam which repeatedly occurs on them. This action should generally be done after a pattern of vandalism or spam can already be seen in the page's history, but for high-use pages (such as the main page and the community portal) it can be done without such history. Actual examples in use: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=&type=edit&level=sysop&wpfilters%5B%5D=indefonly&size-mode=min&size= . One particular example: User:Jasper Deng, how does this page qualify for indef full protection without a pattern of vandalism or spam, and it is not even a high-use page?--Roy17 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: As a long-time established user here, my userpage is a high-traffic page and I get occasionally targeted by long-term abusers, so the protection of my userpage is compliant with policy. In your case, there is not only no vandalism or spam, there is no reason (such as my history of being targeted by long-term abusers) to believe that will be the case, there is no edit war over it, and these pages are not items. In any case, my userpage is a red herring (Q572959) with respect to this case.

"I hope you get the answer finally after this third reply" – I am really trying to be polite here, but I will say it a bit more clearly: your protection request is declined, since your use case is not valid, and my decision is final unless you can demonstrate that consensus of the broad community is in favor of changing the poilcy. If consensus here deems my interpretation of the policy to be incorrect, then similarly I will not oppose that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: sorry to say but you either did not pay attention all along, or you might wanna brush up your reading skills. My comment at 08:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC) (starting with the words For the record, @Jasper Deng:) was already clear, that I was laying out the facts: 1. community consensus had been fulfilled except full protection of the pages; 2. full protection was beyond my ability; 3. full protection was part of the changes agreed upon by the community; 4. it is not done because of Jasper Deng's decision; 5. Jasper Deng's decision contradicts with what he cited and what is exemplified by currently indef fully protected pages; 6. other changes have not receive community consensus. In short, I have as far as I could fulfilled the merger agreed upon by the community. Things beyond my control shall be held accountable to other users. These comments are going into page histories and the archives for the record.--Roy17 (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not misread your comments: I know you said that the headers are having an issue after the merge, and took that into consideration in my decision to not protect. Considering that I am a native English speaker, please do not make insinuations that I can’t read. Your only option is to get consensus against my decision here.—Jasper Deng (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: my message was you either did not pay attention, or cant read. If you take the latter as an insult, then I take it that you admit you did not fulfil an admin's responsibility by reading requests carefully. Consensus had been clear and then could I merge the forums. And if my comments above had been read carefully, it should be quite obvious that I have never challenged any decision but merely reiterated for clarification (because Jasper Deng could not understand and asked the same question three times in spite of my answers) that the actual reason the merger has not been properly implemented was beyond my control and shall be blamed for other users, not as Jasper Deng claimed that I did not have consensus or my suggestion is against policy.--Roy17 (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

But it is true that you don’t have consensus to change the policy itself, which takes precedence over any particular local discussion, and the discussion has no provision stating I am wrong to cite the policy to decline the request. You have consensus to merge the forums, not fully protect the pages against policy. I am not going to continue replying to you since you are being quite rude and not assuming good faith.—Jasper Deng (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the least any user should expect from a sysop. First not reading other users' comments and asking an identical question three times in a row. Then taking advantage of the admin tool (for example protecting his own user page against policy before, but refuses similar requests). And finally finger pointing other users. Is asking the same question three times when answers have been clear an indication of a responsible sysop? In one of my earlier comments I have pointed out abundant examples of indef FP to prevent potential edits on wrong pages can be found in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages?namespace=&type=edit&level=sysop&wpfilters%5B%5D=indefonly&size-mode=min&size= , for example redirects, Wikidata namespace pages' component templates, and even Jasper Deng's own user page! A recent example for anyone lazy to check the list: special:diff/749611828, edit summary was High traffic page: No edits are expected.--Roy17 (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your request for protection has been denied and I agree with the arguments given by Jasper. Continuing the current discussion is just counterproductive. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sjoerddebruin and Jasper as well. I would add that telling an admin that they can't read is no good strategy if you want to get other admins to come to your help. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 12:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)