Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2015/05

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Item and user

Somebody clueful should take a look at Q16943273. I honesty don't even know what I'm looking at. I got to it by looking at past edits by Chessgammon, who'd recently made an obviously vandalistic edit to climate change (Q125928) (and a second edit that probably is vandalistic too, but somebody can look at that while they're at it). --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Q16943273 is part of the items tour --Pasleim (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I stumble upon this one every now and then, too, as well as Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189). If we need to have such items with data that is not meant to be used productively here (rather than on test.wikidata.org or somewhere the like), can't we have a separate namespace for them at least? --YMS (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have warned Chessgammon‎ with a lvl 3, since no one else did. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: Why so harsh? That wasn't an obvious vandalism, perhaps only a new user trying out how Wikidata works. Of course the edit was not helpful but instead of leaving a not helpful and unfriendly notice you could rather explain him/her what they did wrong and how they can do better. I hope that Wikidata stays a place where newbies are welcome. -- Bene* talk 21:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bene*: I forgot that the one item was the tour item, I apologize. IMO, test items should be kept outside of mainspace, but that's probably not possible, when you have sandboxes in the mainspace, it would be easy for users to get mixed up about where they can and cannot test things, and it's easy for users like me to get mixed up like I just did. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my inquiry has caused some confusion... though I feel a bit vindicated in not knowing what I was looking at.
The edits to climate change (Q125928) still look to me a bit on the far side of entirely well-meant. (One inherent problem with Wikidata is that, to the extent it's meant to instantly generate stuff on many different projects, it's basically a vandalism-multiplier, and as such a destabilizer of the entire sisterhood; but while newbies may magnify the problem, I don't see how the problem has any reciprocal effect on how newbies should be treated.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Bloomberg News (Q14270642)

Please undelete Bloomberg News (Q14270642), as it is still used by some items. For some reason, items that have references that use Bloomberg News (Q14270642) is not listed on Special:WhatLinksHere/Q14270642. —Wylve (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: Which items have this one as a reference and don't appear in Special:WhatLinksHere? It would be good to know as that indicates a bug in the software. -- Bene* talk 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bene*: Xi Jinping (Q15031) did not appear in Special:WhatLinksHere until I did this edit and merged Bloomberg News (Q14270642) with Bloomberg News (Q18384937), I think. —Wylve (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bossanoven

Could someone please take a look at the contributions of Bossanoven (talk • contribs • logs)? There seems to be a lot of cross-namespace linking going on, Commons category links being moved from category namespace items to article namespace items, etc. If I understand things correctly, there could be a lot of reversions needed here. - EurekaLott (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. These links were originally added by a bot. I think that the bot is dumb when it comes to some things. Shouldn't article namespaces link with the respective Commons category, and not the category namespaces? Regards, - Bossanoven (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bossanoven: I don't think that's how it works. Please, stop messing with Commons links until this discussion is over. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Will do for the time being. Apologies, I didn't mean to interfere with any process. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious to know your explanation for why you guys think differently. Article namespaces provide the maximum amount of interlanguage links, whereas there are relatively few languages available for most category namespaces. Isn't the main idea to be able to get to the respective language wikipedia with a single click from the Commons category so that one can easily add an image to the subject's page? - Bossanoven (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to know why @EurekaLott: did not try to contact me on my talk page before bringing this to an administrative level. - Bossanoven (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if I offended. That was not the intent. I wasn't sure of the right answer and couldn't find the appropriate guidelines. I thought it would be good to get some expert eyes on the situation. - EurekaLott (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not policy that one must notify someone on their talk page before bringing them up at AN, at least I don't think it is. Eureka did ping you. BTW, the reason I haven't been saying very much about the actual problem is because I'm not very sure myself about how the Commons links work. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We have "Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons/Development", and "c:Commons:Wikidata". I think the latter is quite clear @ sitelinks: article—gallery and category—category. However, there are a number of other users who constantly add commons category links to Wikidata items which aren't about categories. Even if there isn't a better solution at present, I don't think this should be done. Jared Preston (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out those guidance pages. What do you suggest for next steps? (Also, I think I found out why User:Bossanoven was unhappy about being mentioned here: his/her account was blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry.) - EurekaLott (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, how are we going to proceed? There are several Commons category links which I would like to link through Wikidata (these are not changes of links between category and article namespaces and the Commons category). - Bossanoven (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism from 99.44.65.255

Looks like multiple instances of vandalism from this IP: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.44.65.255 Maybe somebody could take a look into it. --Laboramus (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 31 hours. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
31 hours? Weird. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Then I looked and saw that "31 hours" is one of the options on the drop-down list. Strange. --AmaryllisGardener talk 13:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like someone added that in 2013 without clear consensus, see here. Don't know why we would need such an option. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Most likely they (enwiki users) have used to it on en-wiki: en:MediaWiki:Ipboptions. --Stryn (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Why would we adapt that? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting (and very old) discussion at en:MediaWiki_talk:Ipboptions#31 hour block?. I'm fine either way. Multichill (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I hate it when people try to make every Wikimedia wiki like enwiki. I say get rid of the 31h option. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: I mean it would not change anything if the admin has a long-term habit of this. I personally would still choose 31 hours as a block duration. Also, we do adopt block durations from other wikis such as durations like 6 hours, so I don't think we're being exclusive here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I really like the justification to use 31 because it's a prime number. I'm in favour of keeping that as a default option. :-) -- Bene* talk 18:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Svwp has a 170 hour option. (a week +2 hours) It's for preventing some kinds of repeated behavior, which often can be found in some public networks. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect Konstantyn K. Kuzminsky (Q4245455)

Some unregistered user tries to add a country (P17)United States of America (Q30) qualifier to Konstantyn K. Kuzminsky (Q4245455)place of death (P20)New York (Q1384). That information is redundant (the statement New York (Q1384)country (P17)United States of America (Q30) exists), but he/she keeps trying to add it, and I’m growing tired of reverting those edits. Can the item please be semi-protected for a few weeks or so? —DSGalaktos (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 Withdrawn those qualifiers appear to be necessary for now, see Talk:Q4245455#place of death qualifier. —DSGalaktos (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Undelete and unmerge

Hi, The Wind in the Willows (Q15854278) was merged into The Wind in the Willows (Q936276) and subsequently deleted. Please undelete the former and unmerge the two items. The first is an version, edition or translation (Q3331189) and the second item is a book (Q571). Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done :D --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Anexo:Gobernadores coloniales de Chile (new GA)

Anexo:Gobernadores coloniales de Chile is a new good article in Wikipedia in spanish; I need someone update its status here, please, but I don't know if this article has an entry in Wikidata. Thanks. --5truenos (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not on Wikidata yet. Does the article exist on another Wikipedia? --Stryn (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Anexo-namespace in eswp is as far as I know a content-namespace, i.e. comparable with the Author-ns in Wikisource, who always should have items. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stryn: The article doesn't exist in other wikipedias, or at least, I don't think so. Thanks.--5truenos (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like it's already created by User:Vogone: Q19858065. --Stryn (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Mustang2020

Hello, this user, User:Mustang2020, recently vandalized Josh Hamilton in a blatant manner. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Because this violated en:WP:BLP, I have blocked the user indefinitely. Otherwise a warning could have been sufficient.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not the English Wikipedia, so please don't refer to policies that apply to some other project. These policies don't apply here, common sense does. Multichill (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: No, BLP is a Foundation-wide policy and principle, hence why I enforced it here. The enwiki page is more informative than what we have here right now, and what we have right now is still half-cooked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK it is a global policy proposal, located at meta:Biographies_of_living_people, not a global policy. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a resolution by the Wikimedia Foundation that basically says that every project that "describe[s] living people" should have a policy on that. --YMS (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a proposal, not a policy. Let's work on getting a BLP policy here. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Addshore: I interpret the resolution linked by YMS as binding on all projects. As such, I considered it when making the block. But do note that the primary blocking reason for this particular case was still vandalism, not BLP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, interpreting that as binding is interesting, perhaps you should start a local RFC to get a local BLP policy? ·addshore· talk to me! 09:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, I think we need one! But I would not prefer a 47k-version like the one at enwiki. The 1.5k-version on meta then looks much more balanced to start from. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (And is it possible to delete a page on wmf-wiki? The Swedish translation of the resolution is so poor, that it is directly misleading in some parts.)
There is a Template:Delete there, so you can propose pages for deletion, but to do so, you'd first have to request an account (can be done on meta:Request for an account on the Foundation wiki), and even if you get one foundation:Category:Deletion requests shows that such pages might keep on living for years. So mailing them at info@wikimedia.org might be the better way. --YMS (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @YMS, Innocent bystander, Addshore: For what it's worth, Wikidata:Living people was drafted almost exactly two years ago. But an important prerequisite to a BLP policy will have to be a verifiability policy because BLP rests on the notion of a reliable source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jasper Deng!
"The exact definition of "reliable" has not yet been decided" - Such things as "exact definition[s]" I hope we can avoid here. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: By this it was meant that we don't have a verifiability policy yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Q620197

b:ru:Викиучебник:ВУ (list of abbr for pages in namespace wikibooks). Why my last edits twice canceled by IP-users? (I sysop in ru wikibooks). Thanks. Oleg3280 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it was vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Q15136093

User:Addshore thought it was time to restore this item. But given the controversy that has historically ensued over this particular item and the notability policy in general (Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/04#Undeletion redux), I believe this action was improper, or at least premature, because the community has not yet had a chance to re-evaluate whether it holds the same opinion as in the linked discussion. Thus, by opening this, I want to:

  • a.Re-assess community consensus on this particular item
  • b.Kindle discussion on how to make WD:N better-defined
  • c.Get third opinions after this talk page discussion.

--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I urge everyone that is going to comment to first read User_talk:Jasper_Deng#Q15136093_-_2 so we do not have to repeat what has already been said. ·addshore· talk to me! 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
a. I believe the existence of that item is proper and necessary.
b. What exactly is in your opinion not well enough defined?
c. In my opinion, the undeletion itself is fine, especially since circumstances (notability) changed and a notification with the request to initiate a new discussion in case of disagreement was sent.
Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Vogone: "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable." - this is pretty ill-defined, since "serious and publicly available references" is not codified by policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We could probably totally get rid of "If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable". This doesn't really mean anything, especially as it uses the word 'probably' ·addshore· talk to me! 17:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
This item is what the Dutch Wikipedia calls "zelfpromotie" (self-promotion). This vanity item should be deleted. Multichill (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: Well, this is not the Dutch Wikipedia! And the item contains data, which is verifiable and referenced and added by me (no vanity or self promotion there). We should be doing what is right for the dataset we are building, ignoring our personal opinions. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) It would help if the notability policy was expanded and clarified more. I think it should be kept, there's an article on enwiki about The Amazing Pudding (Q7713332) and that item links Andy as an editor, therefore Andy is notable under criteria 3. I think Addshore should have discussed this before restoring it, though. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
If I were to discuss every item that I restore before restoring it I would never get anything done! If I was less than 100% sure that policy was on my side I would of course discuss before. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Addshore: Seriously? No you don't need to discuss every item before restoring it but you do need to discuss those that have been deleted three times and have been subject to long project chat discussions. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The 3 deletions of the item could all be seen as a single deletion. The first deletion was reverted when User:Jakec believed the commonscat alone meant that the item could remain. He then re-deleted a few days later. (So that's 2 of them). The second restoration was simply to enable people to look at the item and discuss its deletion, after which it was then deleted again. As said on JD's talk page, there is no better way to try to show that an item should now be included in Wikidata than to create the item and then if people feel it should be deleted, delete it. It would have been hard to write in text the changes that I wanted to make / data that I wanted to add to the item, thus the logical solution is to just add it! ·addshore· talk to me! 18:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think quoting criteria 3 is a much better arugment than criteria 2, as that already excludes lots of cases. However, there are also a lot of people or other things out there which might be somehow connected to a notable item. Basically, the whole humanity is if we use father/mother/children properties, so we need also some limits for this criteria imo. -- Bene* talk 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on this special case, the guideline is indeed quite vague in points of what "serious and publicly available references" are. In theory, every person which was mentioned in any local newpaper is notable on Wikidata, as the newspaper is serious for sure and also publicly available. This issue also came up on RFD several times when items were listed for deletion which described some (on Wikipedia irrelevant) companies. However, as they were mentioned on some journals etc. there exist "serious and publicly available references" so the notability guideline was in favour of them. Perhaps, we should start thinking how we can limit the notability further on a reasonable level without a loss of information but to prevent Wikidata from being flooded with irrelevant data. -- Bene* talk 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point, Bene*. By that criteria in the notability policy, I personally know a few "notable" people IRL. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Are we trying to redefine Wikidata again? It become a different topic for this section, I suggest to carry this conversation elsewhere other than here, as it will not resolve this problem.AldNonUcallinme? 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You are right, this debate on principles does not belong into this particular section. Perhaps an RFC would be the right place (I know, people hate RFCs :-/) -- Bene* talk 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
On a somewhat bureaucratic note, items a and b are outside the scope of this noticeboard (RFC/PC is the correct place). Not sure about item c. Given how broadly the questions were phrased I'm not sure there's any scope for this noticeboard. --Izno (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Currently, AN is treated as a place to go if you have a problem and want other users to see and comment on it. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"This is a noticeboard for all matters requiring administrator attention." The very darn top of the page. The only thing I might see as requiring administrator attention in the context of this thread is actually deleting/restoring the item (or not wheel warring with someone who did so), neither of which were the questions asked. Asking the community is in an altogether different place. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I think there are two issues here: 1) Should this item and items like it exist? (which probably could be discussed on Project chat) 2) Were Addshore's actions as an administrator improper and if so, what do we do about that?
On 1) I don't think it should, but as I have had significant disputes with Pigsonthewing elsehwere, I'd rather keep out of that. On 2) I am a bit disappointed to see Addshore, in essence, supervote the community by making this decision on his own initiative, based on his own interpretation of the policy and overriding how the consensus interpreted it. --Rschen7754 05:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
.. I am not "overriding how the consensus interpreted" policy, the item itself changed massively.
What I have done could be compared to the same actions on enwiki. An article being deleted maybe 3 times, perhaps for the exact same reasons as this item has been deleted. And then an edit coming and recreating the page after all of the deletion which meets the policies that were previously broken. If Wikidata had sandboxes, then I would have moved the item to a sandbox, added the information there and shown JD, but wikidata does not have such a feature.
Anyway, I just seem to be saying the same thing over and over again to different people. By restoring the item I am not saying THE ITEM MUST STAY, if you believe it should be deleted then take it to RFD or start a discussion on its deletion, or if you believe parts of the item should be removed, start a discussion about that on the talk page perhaps? To avoid more claims being added that could be seen as self promotion perhaps have a discussion on full protection of the item and editing only through edit requests? or stopping pigsonthewing from editing it? Deletion of the item however isn't the solution... ·addshore· talk to me! 09:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@Addshore: ...but it appears that the consensus here is undecided, so you can't use the claim of "the item's good now". Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself by defending your actions over and over again. @Everyone else: Can we start a !vote or something now? --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes start a vote please --Rippitippi (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: as said above (heh more repeating here), start an RFD if you believe it should be deleted, or start a discussion about specific claims on the item which should be removed! As for digging a hole, I am only responding to people. ·addshore· talk to me! 23:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Today, I as a person fulfill the notability-criterias on svwp as a person. I have sports results notable enough to be written about in a newspaper. I have been mentioned in several peer-reviewed papers. My picture has been on the cover of a newspaper. You know very little about me, but you do not know if I have an item here or not. (I am not aware of that.) You know very little about my POV and almost nothing about my COIs. You therefor do not know if I have made any zelfpromotie of myself or not. (I haven't) You also do not know if I have edited in any items about my employers. (I admit, I have, I work for the local administration on municipal and regional level.) You also do not know if I have edited based on my POV. (I am not aware of that.) Or if I in any other way have edited based on my COI. (At least, not here at WD, I think.) The difference here is that you know the username of Q15136093, while you do not know my IRL-name.
My advice, leave Q15136093 alone. I cannot see that it hurts the reputation of WD. That the item has been edited by the person himself is not a larger problem than that I have edited about my employers. And I do not think that you will delete the items about my employers because of what I just told you. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Wikidata:Notability overhaul

@Addshore, Jasper Deng: I have open this RfC to find a way to resolve the issue above.--GZWDer (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Q2181577 & Q140898

Can someone merge Q2181577 and Q140898?? --Yoreri (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not possible. There are two articles on nlwiki. --Stryn (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yoreri: Cephalotus (Q2181577) is about a genus of plants, Cephalotus follicularis (Q140898) is about a species of plants. Different concepts so we have different items. This is the case for all monotypic taxon (Q310890). Multichill (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please merge Q17678883 and Q1570657

Seems to be the same object. We should be careful not to invite too many such duplicates. --Denny (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Utfört -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


User:ProteinBoxBot

Please block this bot until it's clear what it's meant to be doing and who is currently taking responsibility for it. It seems to be leaving cleanup to the community.

As the operator has changed and the code changed as well, it should probably be deflagged and undergo a new approval process. --- Jura 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andrawaag: care to comment? What I see is a big mess caused by a bot and an operator who doesn't respond to queries. Probably best to disable (block) the bot. Multichill (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: I am currently maintaining the bot. I am sorry to hear that I have left the impression that I leave the "mess" for the community to clean. Unless I am mistaken, you are referring to a bot action om may 5th, where we are adding references to items added by our bot. This has indeed caused quite some duplicates being added, for which I take full responsibility. For most of those, I have requested deletions, but since i have been travelling since I have missed responses to those requests, which unfortunately has been interpreted as me being unresponsive. The ProteinBoxBot is a bot developed in an exciting project, where we are adding human genes, diseases, drugs and interactions between the three. The work we are doing here is gaining quite some momentum. Our work has recently been presented at the biocuration conference in Beijing and the reason that I have been traveling is that I am going to present our work to an audience of biologists. It would be quite unfortunate if our bot account would be blocked. Andrawaag (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: If you are indeed referring to the bot action done on may 5th. I have just fixed all the duplicated by creating redirects. Andrawaag (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1:@Multichill: Dear all, Andrawaag has already addressed the specific bot edits on May 5 and the steps to clean things up. I just wanted to chime in more generally about the ProteinBoxBot, which has always been developed in the context of my biomedical research lab. (I've added a note to the bot user page to underscore this element of continuity, even if the specific bot operator changes.) Engagement and consensus with the community is always something I've valued since we first started the Gene Wiki project back in 2007-ish. And in retrospect, I realize now that we haven't kept up engagement here as well as we should have. We try to do our planning of coding sprints at User:ProteinBoxBot, but admittedly the majority of our communication on bot activities currently happens via our private group chat. I've asked my team (currently Andrawaag, Sebotic, and Genewiki123) to direct more of the discussion to WD:MB. If there are other concrete steps that people would like us to take, we are very receptive to the feedback. Best, Andrew Su (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I won't block the bot Andrawaag, but you're prohibited from doing any edits with this bot until you've successfully got your tasks (re)approved at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. You can file this request at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/ProteinBoxBot 2 and refer to the original request. Multichill (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

El Marino (Q18445392)

Can another admin have a look at that item? In my opinion, it should be split into two items, but I will no longer edit it. --Pasleim (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I guess it also could be split in three items: "El Marino (paper)", "El Marino (online)" and "El Marino (paper and online)" depending on how the wp-articles looks like.
-- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The articles seem to be about the 1910s newspaper only. Spanish doesn't even have one. --- Jura 08:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The sco-article looks like a two-paper-article to me, see the categories. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It does mention both. Seems a bit of a mix-up. Interesting comments on sco:Talk:El_Marino. --- Jura 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Some user tried to get articles on El Marino deleted on all wikis on COI grounds, not taking local policies on COI into consideration. I must say that Diego Grez's threats to block Sfs (or him saying that I would block him) were inappropriate, but he had a rough day, he retired on enwiki after people accused him of nonsense. Anyway, I'm not really sure myself on how to divide these items. --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
My proposal: Connect the sco-article to a "Bonnie and Clyde"-item about both and the 1910-articles to a Bonnie-item, while the Clyde-item (online) will stand alone without sitelinks (for now), but with statement-connections to the B&C-item. Interwiki can be solved by the old-style links until there is other solutions. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I read the whole discussion at en:Talk:El Marino, and it became clear to me that there is no source attesting that the online newspaper is a continuation of the historic newspaper. As long as there is no such a source, it would be wrong to put both newspapers together. Also, the director of the online newspaper Diego Grez Cañete (Q15304738) (there was also a discussion about the notability of his item) seems to have a history of self-promotion in several wikis. For instance, it only took me a moment to find Q19388017, which has a single link to enwikisource; however, by being a self-publication it does not meet Wikisource notability criteria. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 20:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu: As long as an article/page exists in one of the connected projects, we have to keep the items here. Related items (like authors of texts on enwikisource or editors of newspapers on scowiki) are within our notability here until the articles/pages are deleted in those projects. Leave the problems of scowiki and enwikisource to their Administrators' noticeboard, it's not our problem until they have resolved theirs. Personally I do not see "self-promotion" or "COI" as a big issue here. The gain of the persons involved is very limited. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, I have not suggested to delete any item. I was only illustrating how I came to realise about this user transwiki behaviour. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the point made by Innocent bystander, it is very little the gain I will get from adding "COI" articles on the newspaper we run, to Wikipedia. I am a long-time editor of Wikipedia, and know how things work around. I was very careful not to put too much of "publicity" stuff on the articles, and just relegated myself to write an objetive article, and make up an objective WD item. Somewhat, I agree with those who think the item should be splitted into two: one for the print newspaper, and one for the online newspaper. I will make that later today. By the way, I am sorry if this has annoyed others, it has not been my purpose, nor my intention, to make publicity here. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Andrea Shan (talk • contribs • logs)

Please indef block this user which is a sockpuppet of Tamawashi.--GZWDer (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jasper Deng Pamputt (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe John B. Sullivan (talk • contribs • logs), Vladimir Gribochev (talk • contribs • logs), Tajistan (talk • contribs • logs) and Derianus (talk • contribs • logs) are related too [1]). Multichill (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As well as Lingufil (talk • contribs • logs).--GZWDer (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked these four accounts. Is there any evidence for Lingufil?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: See enwp -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, blocked this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

S/S Savonlinna

Q11891675 created by mistake. It is already an item on Wikidata (S/S Savonlinna). Boberger (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you know where that item is? I'd like to redirect this one to it. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Q19921328, now merged. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/ActiveStats

Hey guys. Per the update in policy here I have updated the bot accordingly. I also squished a zillion bugs in the process. Should be stable and accurate now.Cyberpower678 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Ajraddatz (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


User:Superwarr

Please block. --- Jura 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Warned, please come back if they continue. --Rschen7754 05:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for sitenotice about the Menu Challenge

I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but I cannot find any other process for it. We are starting the Wikidata:Menu Challenge tonight and think it might be appropriate with a sitenotice. Running time would preferably be the entire contest since it is quite short, from this midnight (CEST) just until May 27. If that seem to much perhaps a few days to launch the challenge?. Proposed translateble message to be transcluded available at Wikidata:Menu Challenge/sitenotice. Proposed transclusion code: 

{{Wikidata:Menu Challenge/sitenotice/{{#ifexist:Wikidata:Menu Challenge/sitenotice/{{int:lang}}|{{int:lang}}|en}}}}

Which would render as:

Make the information about food a bit more appealing through the Menu Challenge, May 8 - May 27. Let's make #tastydata Translate

Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Help would really be much appreciated! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I put it on Template:Watchlist summary. @all sysops: feel free to revert it if you think it's not appropriate. --Pasleim (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you kindly! John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism from 178.215.81.48

Vandalism Special:Contributions/178.215.81.48Maqivi (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User has only been reverted, hasn't had a warning yet. Just placed a warning. If user continues, give the user a final warning and if that doesn't help, come back here. Mbch331 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Blocked that ip to prevent further damage to the project. -- Bene* talk 14:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

search for template: mixed content

I'm searching for a template to mark items containing different content like [2]. Thank you, Conny (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

Special:WhatLinksHere

I found a mistake at the WhatLinksHere special page. The template transclusion count link https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/?lang=commons&name=$1&namespace=10 suggests Wikimedia Commons as wiki project, not Wikidata. As far as I know is Jarry1250's tool not able to retrieve information from Wikidata. Regards, --T.seppelt (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried to fix this and removed the link to the external tool. However, the translation extension seems to be a bit upset right now so I hope there are no issues in other languages. -- Bene* talk 20:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

help needed

please add cdo:Justin Bieber in Q34086, thank you.--122.90.95.94 10:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Q250901

Please semi-protect for some time. --- Jura 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done --Pasleim (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Please undelete the following items, as they are still in use on Good Times (Q1248045), hence satisfying criterion 3 of WD:N:

Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Were all undeleted. @Saehrimnir: in the future please check if an item is used before you delete it. In this case it was better to just remove the sitelinks to the redirects. I did that. Multichill (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I still think it is not structurally necessary and it would have been better to remove the claims in Good Times (Q1248045).--Saehrimnir (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That will be destruction of data. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Some of the previous discussion disappeared at:
It's hard to discuss anything on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. --- Jura 08:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree I should have undeleted the items to prevent the discussions from being archived but did not think of that. I apologise. I agree with some of the points in that discussions and that the system does not allow for an elegant solution but still think that there is a need to list the characters of that show only the actors.--Saehrimnir (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There was an RFC about this not too long ago that didn't really come to any conclusion, other than that RFD doesn't let people really discuss things. ·addshore· talk to me! 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot assign the featured article status to the interwikilinks for the german version of Battle of Dien Bien Phu. I get the message that my action was denied because it was considered harmful. Nasiruddin (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Added. --Stryn (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Q399129

Please semi-protect for some time. --- Jura 08:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done, one month since it only started this month. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

193.144.37.214

Please block the IP 193.144.37.214 due continued vandalism. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for now. However, this IP has a long history of vandalism (Special:Contributions/193.144.37.214) and so this short block probably won't help much. However, I don't think we should block IPs for longer periods, as they might be used by multiple persons which we would all block for the vandalism of one of them (this specific IP seems to belong to the en:CESGA and might potentially be used by an unknown number of employees, students and facilities). --YMS (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sea-light

User:Sea-light seems to do nothing but add nonsense. I've rolled-back the edits, but a block would seem to be in order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User doesn't seem to be interested in adding correct data and user had been warned. So user has been blocked. Mbch331 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10
35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Another question regarding User:Sea-light. What does the log User account Sea-light (talk • contribs • logs) was created by Commonwealthlight (talk • contribs • logs) (data) mean? How can one user account create another user account? --Pasleim (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather easy. While logged in go to Special:UserLogin/signup and register a new account. Everyone can do that, as long as you're not blocked. No need to be logged out. Mbch331 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That means, User:Commonwealthlight and User:Sea-light are the same person, right? Maybe then User:Commonwealthlight should be blocked as well. --Pasleim (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Might be a friend that created an account for one of his friends. To make sure they are the same, you would need a CU. I created accounts for people that had problem creating accounts (based on their request through OTRS). I let the system generate a password and have it send to the users. So I can't use the accounts. In this case based upon the names, it is likely they are the same, but there is no certainty. Mbch331 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
True, although in this case the editing pattern is similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is, are they similar enough to pass a ducktest? Mbch331 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Blocked, see w:WP:BROTHER and note the unproductive edits of the other account. Also, they are blocked on Commons. --Rschen7754 02:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Montehurd

Please block User:Montehurd until such a time as he responds on his talk page. Obviously a well-intentioned user, but one who has not at all understood the idea of a "description": he just copy-and-pastes stuff from enwiki into the description field, no matter how inappropriate it is. - Brya (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's just wait. Maybe the user will respond to his talkpage first, when coming back to Wikidata. User hasn't edited since you left a message. Mbch331 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, he has made some two dozen edits since then, including two edits on the page in question. - Brya (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've already talked to him on IRC, by asking him to respond on his talk page. You can find the logs here. Hope I didn't say something wrong. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, if he does indeed respond. - Brya (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: - You were right. I missed that you placed the message yesterday and not today. Mbch331 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Talked with @Montehurd: on irc and pointed out Help:Description to him. Asked him to respond on his talk page. He's traveling so might not respond too quickly. I don't think any admin attention is needed here. Multichill (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge Q6118516 and Q7413503

Merge Q6118516 and Q7413503. Signed 186.6.214.41 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've merged them. - Nikki (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ethanol

I tried to add a "Good article" badge to the German Ethanol article. I am not sure why, but this action has been identified as harmful(?) So please go ahead and add it yourself. Thank you. --Ampholyte (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 08:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2015/05&oldid=2113159021"