Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/08

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Special:Contributions/HujiBot

This is an unapproved bot and I don't think its task is uncontroversial. @Huji:--GZWDer (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Allow_the_creation_of_links_to_redirects_in_Wikidata#Removing_existing_links.--GZWDer (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Huji could you ask the permission to run your bot during this time? Pamputt (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I was not aware that this would require a flag; I made a request. Huji (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/120.17.210.107

Vandalism-only IP.--GZWDer (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Globally ✓ Done by Matiia Mahir256 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Could vagina (Q5880) be semi-protected for a while? There have only been three vandalism edits recently, but no one noticed it was vandalized for sixteen hours, so I think protection for a few months is warranted. Jc86035 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for six months. Mahir256 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

d:Q9368300

Again repeated IP vandalism since the last protection expired on 18 July 2018. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 6m semi —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Odd bot behaviour by DeltaBot

DeltaBot (talk • contribs • logs) seems to be making the same edit multiple times. Several people have mentioned this on the talk page of the bot, but it looks like @Pasleim: has been offline for the last few days. Could someone have a look and decide if anything needs to be done to stop the bot, or as it doesn't make that many edits whether things can just be tidied up later when Pasleim's back? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I applied a one-minute block. I suspect there were running multiple same concurrent jobs. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
... and one more short block. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That's an elegant solution, thank you for doing that! Mike Peel (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been some removals of sitelinks for unknown reason, especially for wikidata-objects for korean actors, e.g. from the addresses

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC) --M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange. Anyone aware what’s going on here, or who’s behind those “Korea Telecom” IPs?
User:M2k~dewiki, if you apply for rollback rights at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights#Rollbacker, you can automatically patrol reverted edits. That would help a lot to find vandalism that still needs someone’s attention. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Overview of ranges:

—MisterSynergy (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

change the visibility

Please hide this edit because i made it from mobile version although i am logged in so my ip appers. it seems that it need re-log in from mobile version.--مصعب (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done - Also deleted the edit summary of the next edit - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin, Ajraddatz: if you have not yet oversighted it. Mahir256 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Annuler une fusion

Bonjour, pourriez-vous annuler la fusion de [1] vers [2]. C'est à l'origine une page d'homonymie distincte de celle d'un scientifique australien, et qui n'aurait jamais dû être fusionnée ; et par la même occasion fusionner [3] vers [4]. Merci d'avance, Méphisto38 (talk) 4 août 2018 à 11:00 (UTC)

✓ Done Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 14:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Trey Sartorius

IP users repeatedly create items (and Wikipedia articles) about "Trey Sartorius", a would-be American actor:

Is it possible to create a filter that prevent unconfirmed users from creating an item with the label of "Trey Sartorius"? --Okkn (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek:, as the resident AbuseFilter guru. Only one of the five existing filters with "spam" in the name has been modified in the last year; perhaps we need to revamp them all? Mahir256 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
(Only four of them are enabled.) Those filter don't deal with this kind of spam. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
How should we deal with these inexhaustible new spam items; Q55992393, Q55992573 and Q55992580? --Okkn (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Okkn: Block the entire Detroit metro area, perhaps? Seems a lot easier than the entire state of Haryana. (In all seriousness, a long range block might be necessary, though I'm not sure how large of a range is needed for this block.) Mahir256 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: This user only creates items about "Trey Sartorius" (self?). Using filter may be much easier than the range block. Is there any reason why we cannot deal with this spam by creating a filter? --Okkn (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
New items: Q56010994 and Q56011046. --Okkn (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the user User:Maria Quezada for blanking this section, and for being a confirmed sock on enwiki with an interesting master. --Rschen7754 00:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --Okkn (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

demande de masquage

Hello Merci de masquer mon identité réelle publiée ici https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANomen_ad_hoc&type=revision&diff=722000309&oldid=709429279 Je précise que cette agression concerne une guerre d'édition qui dure depuis plusieurs mois, ayant pour objet la publication sur la fiche wikidata (et sur wikipédia:fr) de l'identité de l'ex-époux d'une scientifique. Publier cette information périmée ne me semble pas respecter la politique de la fondation sur la vie privée, c'est la raison pour laquelle je l'avais supprimée le 15 février 2018 (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3336600&type=revision&diff=631478027&oldid=629919791). Pour maintenir cette information erronée, plusieurs contributeurs francophones m'ont accusée de vandalisme. Aujourd'hui, un contributeur francophone qui pense que c'est important de publier le nom de l'ex-époux d'une scientifique (un homme sans aucune notoriété, information jamais mentionnée) est primordial pour une fiche de scientifique (plus que les étapes de sa carrière) ; il publie donc l'identité réelle d'une contributrice souhaitant respecter la vie privée des sujets des fiches. Son interlocuteur invente que la politique de la Foundation garantissant de respect de la vie privée est "récente". Bien à vous --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@AntonierCH, Nomen ad hoc: est-ce que vous pouvez donner vos arguments ici ? À première vue, si l'information est sourcée, il n'y a pas de problème à ce que ça se trouve sur Wikidata. Pamputt (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the request of Droit de retrait 03, I am mentioning a name in the conversation which is someone pressuring the user "Nomen ad hoc" on Twitter (one of many examples). I did not link it to any username and I do not know if Droit de retrait 03 is the person in question.
Regarding the entity Q3336600, I got a reply on User_talk:Nomen_ad_hoc#Q3336600 and decided not to try to get this information back, despite the sourcing. --AntonierCH (d) 08:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Je rappelle la règle : ce qui se passe hors wikipédia/wikidata n'a pas à être prise en compte sur wikipédia/wikidata. Donc ce qu'écrit sur twitter Eliane Daphy n'a rien à faire ici.
@ Pamputt : vous nommez cela une "information sourcée" ? Vous pensez qu'une mention dans un annuaire de 2010 est suffisante pour sourcer en 2018 un mariage, et pour publier l'information sur wikipédia_fr puis sur wikidata ? C'est moi qui ait été vérifier l'information sur W'W, et qui avait donné cette info. Quand Nomen ad hoc a publié sru wikidata l'information sur le nom de l'époux, il n'a pas précisé la date de l'édition du W'W (ni la page), il a donné un lien web vers la fiche numérique du W'W [ici https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3336600&type=revision&diff=629021465&oldid=629021380]. Or l'information sur le nom de l'époux ne figurait pas sur la fiche courante. L'information était donc sourcée … par une falsification de source.
Sur wikipédia:fr, Nomen ad hoc a publié l'information "divorcée de" le 9 février 2018 à 20:09 https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathalie_Heinich&type=revision&diff=145333876&oldid=145302971 ; sa note de référence est " a, b et c « Nathalie Heinich » [archive], sur whoswho.fr, 2003." qui est également une falsification, puisque on peut supposer que Nomen ad hoc n'a pas consulté l'édition W'W 2003.
Ensuite, Nomen ad hoc a modifié et renseigné "W'W 2010" (avec une page) : j'ignore si NAH a consulté cette édition papier. Je sais d'expérience que ce contributeur publie des informations privées sans aucune source en falsifiant : par exemple, sur l'époux de N.H. la date de naissance est sourcée … par une source qui n'indique pas la date de naissance. Epoux pour lequel NAH a créé une page – je me demande pourquoi : en quoi avoir été l'époux d'une scientifique renommée rend-il notoire d'un point de vue "encyclopédique" ?
Donc, en résumé : vous ignorez quand NH scientifique réputée s'est mariée ; vous ignorez quand elle a divorcée, et vous considérez qu'une source mentionnant dans un annuaire de 2010 le nom d'un époux vous permet de publier l'information ?
Vous avez lu les pages de la fondation sur le respect de la vie privée ?
Je répète ma demande de masquer mon identité (identité publiée à plusieurs reprises par Nomen ad hoc sur plusieurs projets, il a été d'ailleurs bloqué une semaine pour ce manquement aux règles). https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANomen+ad+hoc
bien à vous - N.B. J'écris ce que je veux sur twitter ou facebook ; mes alertes ont plusieurs fois été suivies d'effets, par exemple mon signalement d'un pseudo attribué par Nomen ad hoc (sans sources), la suppression du tag "négationniste" sur les fiches de scientifiques ayant lutté contre les falsificateurs de l'histoire, entre autres exemples.

--Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

info plus (de twitter https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhQR3abX0AAYojQ.jpg:large) --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
info plus (twitter https://twitter.com/JPDemoule/status/961633959250718720) --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
invention d'un pseudonyme par falsification de source https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2472744&diff=prev&oldid=655485445 ; je supprime https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2472744&diff=next&oldid=655487674 ; Nomen ad hoc va se plaindre chez Vigneron https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Topic:Uagcocp45gru8r7m ; Nomen ad hoc invente pour l'occasion des rèlges pour Wikidata
« Oui, je l'ai retirée car WP est une encyclopedie où les BPV sont régies par des règles strictes et destinées à être vues, au contraire de Wikidata, qui est une base de données, faite pour comprendre ce genre d'informations, et dont les éléments ne sont pas faits pour être vus (comme on me le rappelait récemment). Si c'était NH qui avait demandé à ce qu'on retire l'information, je comprendrais aisément, bien sûr, qu'on y acquiesce, mais là c'est DDR3 qui la retire unilatéralement (après maints passages en force). Or tu comprendras que je ne souhaite pas céder à DDR3, car la connaissant je crains qu'elle ne prenne cela pour un blanc-seing pour retirer toutes les infos sourcées du même acabit que j'aurais ajoutées. »
L'information erronée (sur l'époux) est restée en ligne dans "l'info-box" de la wikipédia espagnole pendant plus de deux mois (j'ai des saisies d'écran). --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Je viens de masquer ton nom réel. @AntonierCH: merci de respecter le droit à la vie privée de Droit de retrait 03 à l'avenir ; il semble évident maintenant qu'il ne souhaite pas que son vrai nom soit associé à son pseudo ici et c'est son droit. Pour le reste de la discussion, si l'information est présente ailleurs sur Internet alors elle peut être utilisée pour sourcer sur Wikidata (voir Special:MyLanguage/Wikidata:Living people). Si cette information n'est plus correcte, on peut utiliser une propriété (par exemple point in time (P585)) pour indiquer à quelle date cette information était valide. Si on veut la retirer complètement de Wikidata, il faudra d'abord faire le ménage ailleurs sur Internet. Pamputt (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Vu, j'ai pris note de tes deux éléments de réponse. Merci. --AntonierCH (d) 19:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Would Q80048 (Al Capone) be a good candidate for page protection? It seems to be a popular target for vandalism. While these seem to be reverted fairly quickly, one has to consider how fast this vandalism propagates cross-wiki via infoboxes and the mobile interface, and for such a popular article the damage is pretty bad, especially since most users won't know how to revert it (I spent a while looking at diffs on eswiki before realizing the cause; I also don't have the time to go through every interlanguage link and purge the page cache for each, so it might still be present on other wikis). Don't know if the threshold for protection is lower on Wikidata, but I sure hope it is because this kind of thing is exactly what people warned about when relying on Wikidata to reuse information. Opencooper (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't tend to protect pages unless it's really necessary. One of the issues with protecting pages here is that it has unintentional side effects, e.g. when users on other wikis move a page, the page move doesn't get reflected in Wikidata if the user isn't allowed to edit the item here. People also can't add new interwiki links. I think if the way semi-protection works were changed (or we had a new type of protection that allowed indirect edits like that), protecting pages would work a lot better.
I know it's possible to see Wikidata changes on the recent changes and watchlist pages on other wikis, I wonder if there are plans to add the same thing for individual pages. That would have helped a lot here I think.
As I understand it, the pages linked to an item should be purged automatically when Wikidata is edited (how long it takes depends on the dispatch lag).
As for whether this item is a good candidate, I wouldn't object to it, since there seems to be more vandalism than good edits.
- Nikki (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a reasoned response. Fair enough. Does Wikidata have pending changes? That would still allow editing articles prone to vandalism, but would require an editor to review them first. Opencooper (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Colombia

A useless edit war at Colombia. 173.192.141.229 is a vandal. The new president is Iván Duque Márquez, and not Juan Manuel Santos. 2800:200:E6C0:930:3090:4A93:F0BE:691D 00:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected by -revi Pamputt (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes at cycling races

User Vlaam is systematically changing instance of (P31) with the information of stage profile of cycling races for a parameter with not profile for stages. I tried to speak with him at his discussion page with not answer. Examples 2018 Vuelta a Burgos, stage 1 (Q55577803), 2018 Vuelta a Burgos, stage 2 (Q55577810), 2018 Vuelta a Burgos, stage 3 (Q55577816), 2018 Vuelta a Burgos, stage 4 (Q55577821), 2018 Vuelta a Burgos, stage 5 (Q55577824), 2018 Tour du Poitou-Charentes, stage 1 (Q56010989), 2018 Tour du Poitou-Charentes, stage 2 (Q56010990), 2018 Tour du Poitou-Charentes, stage 3 (Q56010991), 2018 Tour du Poitou-Charentes, stage 4 (Q56010992), 2018 Tour du Poitou-Charentes, stage 5 (Q56010993) and many others.Repf72 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they did respond on their discussion page. Can you try to sort it out between you? Is there another way to represent the "stage profile" other than with instance of (P31)? Perhaps we need a new property? Do you have a reliable source for this profile information? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Please semi-protect Talk:Q8989284 (talk page of Project:File Upload Wizard (Q8989284)); repeated advertising/self-promotion. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, for six months. --Okkn (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Q45247032

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). --jdx Re: 20:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeed it has been deleted on enwiki. I also deleted Q53534663, Q53866643, Q55075631 and Q55973587. Pamputt (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually Q55973587 has a link to ruwiki. So it should be deleted over there first. Infovarius (or other Russian Wikipedian), do you have any opinion on that? Pamputt (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Deltahead for the deletion. I was able to delete Q55973587 just after. Pamputt (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection

Seems there's some vandalism going on at Alfredo Stroessner (Q152534) today, all from the same IP range. Maybe semi-protect it for a while. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kam Solusar, Do not follow: ✓ Done for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Iván Duque Márquez" (Q17478000)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Iván Duque (Q17478000), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
It has already been semi-protected between 6 February 2018 and 6 August 2018.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, for a year. - Nikki (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Interface administrators

As the previous thread got archived, I have remove the {{Draft}} template from this page. If you disagree with the proposed text, please say so at Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikidata:Interface_administrators before the thread at Project Chat is archived.--GZWDer (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Maddy3851155 & User:98.18.169.90 - duplicate creation

In the last 24 hours, I've merged ~57 items created by User:Maddy3851155; most often multiples of the same item. Bit difficult to document all the merges, though see, for instance, the red on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tagishsimon&offset=&limit=500&target=Tagishsimon ... there's been a lot of merge A into B, then B into C, then C into D, etc.

The user seems to be the same as the blocked 72.25.24.183 and is also editing from 98.18.169.90. The user has seen my notes on their talk page, and copied them to User_talk:98.18.169.90. The user has not responded. The user has continued to create duplicates. Please consider whether admin action is now required. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done; - thanks Multichill. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:A885:4B00:3CCE:DF2F:111C:AEDC

It seem the user massively vandal the en alias of many entries, such as McDonald’s (Q38076), Nyami (Q30107123) . Matthew hk (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done; blocked for 31 hrs —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedian with a job

Earlier I got accused of all sorts of things on this noticeboard so I decided to step away fpr a while. I put my thoughts and reasoning about the lack of notability for Wikimedians at Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions#Wikimedian with a job. To be exact: these people. Input appreciated. Multichill (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussion is at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/07#Undelete Benoit Soubeyran (Q40676142) and sub-sections; and is ongoing in in various sections of Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions. See also my recent comment at Wikidata:Project chat#Wikimedian with a job. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Requête de protection

Bonjour,

J'aimerai, s'il vous plaît, que vous protégiez l'élément USB-C (Q20026619) pour quelques jours.

En effet, depuis environ 3 jours un débat anime différents Wikipédia concernant l'utilisation des termes USB Type-C et USB-C. Différentes IPs, que je soupçonnent d'être du même contributeur (environ 5-6 mais j'ai pas regardé tous les Wikis), ont plus ou moins subtilement fait des requêtes (dont la politesse est discutable, en allant jusqu'à répondre « LOL » à un administrateur qui avait refusé) concernant le renommage des pages USB Type-C en USB-C. J'en ai annulé plusieurs et fait des requêtes inverses, la plupart ayant été acceptés (ou sont en cours de discussion). Les IPs que je surveille particulièrement depuis deux jours (et qui sont celles qui font du vandalisme, ou du POV pushing ?) sur Wikidata sont 46.134.32.161, 80.171.207.9 et 77.14.94.108. Comme cette (ou ces ?) personne(s) change(nt) souvent d'IP, je préférerai une protection de quelques jours sur l'élément plutôt qu'un blocage des IPs.

Cordialement. --Niridya (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Mahir256 a protégé la page pour une semaine. Pamputt (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Merci Pamputt. Thanks for protect @Mahir256: ! --Niridya (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Q6249834

Please restore Template:Infobox person (Q6249834) and protect if you find that necessary. Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotect

There's been a series of vandalism by IP editor(s) on Old Alton Bridge (Q7083385) (changing label, removing sitelinks). Can we semiprotect this for a while? - PKM (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for two weeks. Mahir256 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Protection request: Q931088

Request a semi-protect: IPs from Taiwan (likely the same user) have been removing links to the Chinese article since the last semi-protect expired.--112.96.164.22 09:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 3 months. Pamputt (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Merging request

Hi there,

could you please merge Maurice-Yves Castanier (Q55672508) and Maurice-Yves Castanier (Q3300294)? They are the same person (source: Petit dictionnaire des écrivains du Gard, p. 68).

Thanks in advance. 2A01:CB1D:80FC:DA00:C445:583D:FE55:FA79 14:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User Nando1O

Nando1O (talk • contribs • logs) a series of vandalism by user on video games properties. Continues to without reason to delete the steam property, when bot inserts them back (and other removing edits). Please check the user for his edits. Kirilloparma (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Before making a complaint, I should be informed on the discussion page if I have made mistakes. Nando1O (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki notification spamming by GZWDer

GZWDer has, for no reason other than its allowed, decided to import a ton of English Wikipedia sockpuppet categories as Wikidata items. This is causing a flood of interwiki notifications for maintenance categories that are specific to one project and serve no purpose here. The solution of turning off notifications isn’t much of one for those who actually want to get it for content updates. This is causing cross-wiki disruption by distracting from notifications that are actually important and also just plain annoying. It’s no benefit here as it is super-project-specific. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible solutions include:
  1. Formally exclude them in Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria; disallow any sockpuppet categories and deleting all existing items for sockpuppet categories (except which with more than one sitelinks). This is proposed by some users.
  2. Still (soft) allow them but don't import them by bot. This is similar to Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/08#Template_creation.
  3. Allow all sockpuppet categories and import them. People who dislike the notification may turn off it, or exclude the notification from such user (the latter does not support excluding specific kind of notification yet).

--GZWDer (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t particularly care about how this project decides to run its notability: I do care about pointless cross-wiki notifications flooding because of a bot run. I’d support 1 as I don’t really see the point of these, but if you all are going to allow them, option 2 seems like the way to prevent flooding of notifications on other projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Please just global ban his bot, his bot is spamming the Phabricator users. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not the right place to ask for global bans, nor can Wikidata admins do anything about people's behaviour on Phabricator. GZWDer currently has approval to use a bot account for a very broad range of things. If you think that approval should be revoked, Wikidata:Bots explains how to do that. meta:Global bans explains when global bans are appropriate. I don't know who to contact regarding Phabricator, unfortunately. - Nikki (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The whole point of bots is that they can do a large number of edits, so if they're causing too many notifications, maybe the notification system needs improving. Pinging @Lea Lacroix (WMDE): so she can have a look at this. - Nikki (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@nikki: Echo, as you mentioned as our notification system, doesn't have anything wrong, there are users that need or needn't to be notified from bot, so if a bot made nobody that think that's good, just ban that bot, do you really love spambots? --117.15.55.67 06:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Please semi-protect Lil Pump (Q38002101) for a while; virtually all IP edits are vandalism. Jc86035 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for a year. Mahir256 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

98.22.12.243

98.22.12.243 has appeared, with the same modus operandi as the three blocked accounts below: serially creating duplicate items, including multiple duplicates of self-created items. The user does not respond to talk-page solicitations. Multichill has dealt with this user in the past, but appears to be taking a wikibreak.

I'd prefer not to have to play whack-a-mole again; I've done ~100 merges of this user's creations. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mahir256 --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Q9696

Please semi protect for 10 days
--- Jura 05:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done semi’ed for 2 weeks —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem reported via OTRS

We got a mail about ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل's action on local dialing code (P473). The sender was complaining about that “why the mentioned user has not been blocked and what is about the three-revert-rule”. Someone with better knowledge in the theme please check its edit history from 19:19, 4 July 2018‎ and tell me if any action is needed or not to I can close the ticket. I cannot act myself because I do not understand completely the situation. Thanks, Bencemac (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

To me it just looks like the IP was disruptively adding incorrect data, and they have been reverted by other users on other items. Jc86035 (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Closed as “closed-no response needed” after reading the previously sent mails. Bencemac (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

212.252.66.54

IP is creating a lot of spam/nonsense pages. It should be blocked. Esteban16 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have requested deletion for some of the pages, but they are too many that I'm afraid of causing flood. Esteban16 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked for three day (feel free to change), pages were nuked. @Esteban16: Next time do not bother with creating RfDs just report the user here. Bencemac (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you, Bencemac. Esteban16 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Please semi-protect Chocapic (Q2964257) for a few days; all IP edits are vandalism. Triplecaña (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for 2 weeks. Pamputt (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please re-semi Q50339681

There is probably some point we are all missing about the item, but I don't see the edits going anywhere. Please semi-protect it once more.
--- Jura 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Mahir256 —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Could 6ix9ine (Q44479972) be semi-protected for about a year or more? (See page history – vandalism stayed in the page for over a week through multiple users' edits.) Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, for a year. --Okkn (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 10:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

186.105.96.216

I know, it is too late and sorry for delay, but 186.105.96.216 has vandalized Kristina Pimenova (Q18697302) Should be blocked?--151.49.89.130 04:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think a block is required. This Ip only vandalized this item and did not continue. Pamputt (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Infovarius

Hi, can somebody stop Infovarius in mass adding country of citizenship Russian Empire to the people, who have nothing to do with it? (Polish people, even before formation of Russian Empire; Example) And revert all his edits since this one? Thanks --Silesianus (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Silesianus, my fault. And I noticed it myself and stopped before your noticing. I was ready to revert the edits, but found that you've already done this. So now should be all right with Russian Empire. But please consider (delete?) using the [[Q36|item for modern Poland\\ for such persons too. --Infovarius (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please block User:KrBot. It replaces a perfectly valid ID by an invalid one on a number of items. This has been notified by myself and by another user to his operator User talk:Ivan A. Krestinin, with no visible effect. Thank you. Sapphorain (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the autofix templates from Property talk:P4491 which triggered the bot to do these changes. This should be fine now, otherwise please let us know. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
It was actually in line with @VIGNERON:'s suggestion.
--- Jura 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I know, but apparently it does not work the way it was done. The Isidore page apparently uses (valid or invalid) ORCIDs and ISNIs as identifiers for their content. I understand that this looks odd and there is need for discussion how to deal with such “Isidore identifiers”, but this should be done on the property talk page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion was about the format constraint, not the autofix. I'm not sure what to do about the technically valid identifer with strange format suing invalid ORCID. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rollback request

Please could someone undo all edits (they are all merges) by my bot, User:Pigsonthewing-bot, made today? They were based on false matches for P496 constraints, due to bad imports of ORCID iDs from Isadore (which themselves have already been reverted). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't much. ✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please semi

Property:P213: edits seem to be mostly by a user already blocked.
--- Jura 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, for three months. --Okkn (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Veillg1

This user adds wrong long descriptions in wrong languages, despite alerts. Please act with him (See Fralambert's messages).Thank you --David (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, he does continue to add arab description with latin leters. [6], [7], [8]. Could you please do something? It's anoying.--Fralambert (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
And a new one today [9] --Fralambert (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have warned him once more. Pamputt (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

2601:3C0:4180:4E8C:14BE:4386:3F6A:4854

IP is creating vandalism-only pages. Esteban16 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ✓ Done with two deletions and a block —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Should Veronika Eichmann (Q11879374) really be deleted? Before the IP user edited this item, it had a sitelink to cs:Veronika Lieblová. --Okkn (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
My bad, of course it shouldn’t. Thanks for watching, —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request of non-notable chess players

A small amount of non-notable chess players has been errorously imported some ago by a bot (User:HypoBOT operated by User:Wesalius). These chess players items were all created based on an entry at the FIDE database, and some of them have also an entry at chess games databases, but since they are basically amateur and hobby players, their database entries should not qualifiy for notability. This has been discussed some time ago here and recently here. I hereby request the deletion of approx. 1200 items of not-notable chess players. The following table contains a first part, 300 items, that shall be deleted:

name
A Glyanets
A. Geracimov
A. Kekov
Adam Antonczyk
Adam Bozek
Alejandro P. Bruno
Aleksandar Babev
Aleksandr Arakeljan
Aleksandr Kavalerov
Aleksandr Kocheev
Alexander Abaturov
Alexander Balberov
Alexander Bochkarev
Alexander Bragin
Alexander Brovkin
Alexander Goncharenko
Alexander Kanikevich
Alexander Khmelnitski
Alexander Kopylov
Alexander M. Kasheev
Alexander R. Glianietz
Alexandr Antonov
Alexandr Arakeljan
Alexandre Abrosimov
Alexey Alexandrov
Alexey Bespalov
Alexey Bryndin
Alexey Budanov
Alexey Golubtsov
Alexey Kachkaev
Alexey Kolesnikov
Anatoliy Genkovich
Anatoly Astrahantsev
Anders Burman
Andreas Brenke
Andrei-Mihai Bonte
Andrey Adamov
Andrey Aminov
Andrey Anikeenko
Andrey Grinblat
Andrey Khromkin
Andrey P. Kharitonov
Andrey Y. Afinogenov
Andriy Klymchuk
Andrzej Grabowski
Anton Anikeenko
Anton Gountintas
Anton Khatov
Anton Mikhailov
Anton V. Bolotov
Arjun Kalyan
Armen M. Arakeljan
Aron Amstadt
Artem Arikov
Artem Konyshev
Artur Babychev
Artur Gromov
Bakhtiyar Askarov
Banerjee Bitan
Batraz Gogaev
Bernard Kernan
Bojan Mihic
Borek Bernard
Boris Anufriev
Carlos Eduardo Gouveia
Csaba Kerek
Curt Jones
Dan Andersen
Dan Golub
Dariusz Kaszowski
David Bernstein
Denis Gretz
Dimitri Biriukhatnikov
Dmitri Borodinov
Dmitri Kochurov
Dmitriy Gladkiy
Dmitriy Grechin
Dmitry Brianski
Dmitry Gordenko
Dmitry Grin
Dragan Jovic
Edgardo Garma
Eduardo Bernal
Egor Kharitonov
Eric Gloria
Erik Azizbekian
Ernest Kim
Ervin Burnazovic
Eugeny Bakalov
Evgeny Ganusov
Evgeny Koloschuk
Faysal Al-Sad
Fedor Afanasiev
Fernando Bertona
Firas Aboud
Frederick Kagan
G.G. Grishin
Gabor Balazs
Gahan M G
Genadij Govashelishvili
Georgios Kanakaris
Gerd Geerlings
Giorgi Gogichaishvili
Gleb Astashov
Gregory Braylovsky
Grzegorz Graff
Gustavo German
Haris Alilovic
Haris Memich
Hector Bravo Sedamanos
Heiko Mertens
Henk Bredewout
Holger Grund
Igor Klimenko
Ilgar Alizada
Ilia Alexandrov
Ilja Golod
Illarion Brikov
Ilya Arakelov
Ilya Gorbunov
Ivan Gospodinov
Jacek Gesicki
Jackie Andersen
Jan Balin
Jasper Geurink
Javier Alzate
Jayant Suresh Gokhale
Jens Kipper
Jerzy Gieruszynski
Jhoel Garcia
Jock Geselschap
Johannes G Jonsson
Jordi Garriga Sole
Jorge Bermejo Martinez
Jose Luis Arregui
Jovan Milovic
Jozsef Biro
Julian Bermejo Collado
Jury Grachev
Kamil Klim
Kamo Alagulian
Karl Bowden
Konstantin Al. Bronnikov
Konstantin Garagulya
Konstantin L. Kodinets
Kostislav Gaynutdinov
Krasimir Brankov
Krum Berovski
Laurentiu-Ioan Aldea
Lazar Gruic
Leonid Golovin
Luboslav Katov
M. Blokh
Maciej Brzeski
Magdy Assem
Mahdi Gholami Orimi
Mahish Abdullaev
Marc Jonker
Marcin Kolago
Marco Bettalli
Marcos Kiesekamp
Marsel Khanukaev
Maxat Alaguzov
Maxim Bogush
Maxim Kaufman
Maziar Bagheri
Michael Braun
Michail Bjeloruseps
Michail Borisovich Kalinin
Michail Kolkin
Mika A Brattain
Mikhail Arbatov
Mikhail Botvinnik
Mikhail Koptsov
Mikhail Melnichuk
Morten Meyling
Mostafa Abdel Megid
N R Anilkumar
N. Asadchenko
Nico Zwirs
Nicolas Abarca Gonzalez
Nikolai Gertsyk
Nikolaos Galopoulos
Nikolaos Georgakopoulos
Nikolay Golovlev
Nir Grinberg
Noam Bergauz
Nurzas Aidarov
Oleg Abelev
Oleg Blohin
Oleg Boginin
Oleg Borisov
Oleg Budnikov
Oleg Buryshkov
Oleg Bykov
Oleg Gavrilov
Oleg Gerasimchuk
Oleg Milovanov
Pablo German
Paul Koppens
Paulo Giusti
Pavel Ivan. Abramov
Petr Mikhalchenko
Petro Katsan
Philipp Balcerak
Przemyslaw Koc
Rafail Klovsky
Ralf Gommers
Ralf Kokowski
Ratko Bulajic
Ravil Gabitov
Ricardo Araya Villalonga
Richard Berendsen
Rikard Backelin
Robert Miller
Roland Greger
Roman Borovlev
Roman Burstein
Roman Kistella
Rustem Karimov
Rustem R Khadzhaev
Said Brih
Sarkhan Gashimov
Sarunas Germanavicius
Sebastien Abello
Sebastien Midoux
Semen Meribanov
Sergei Aleksandrov
Sergei Altukhov
Sergei Aslanov
Sergei Klishin
Sergei Mihajlovskij
Sergej Cacorin
Sergej Klechtsjov
Sergey Bachurin
Sergey Bogachev
Sergey Bogatyrev
Sergey Galakhov
Sergey Golovin
Sergey Kamshonkov
Sergey Kljucharev
Sergey. Golovko
Sergio German
Shahab Khamrakulov
Siddhant Gaikwad
Simon T Buckley
Stamatis Argiroudis
Stanislav Grishanovich
Stanislav Khohlov
Steffen Graef
Stojko Bonchev
Svetozar Acimovic
Tadeusz Juroszek
Thomas Abel
Thomas Keller
Tigran Airapetian
Tihomir Gojceta
Timur Amerzianov
Tobias Baerwinkel
Troels Bjerre
Uwe Bokelbrink
Vadim Khavrenko
Valdas Bucinskas
Valentins Kirilov
Valerij M Kazancev
Valery Kalyuzhny
Viacheslav Galkin
Victor Brond
Victor Gimenez
Victor Grachev
Viktor Khramov
Vladimir Bordovsky
Vladimir Gaydukov
Vladimir Khizhnyak
Vladimir Kobjakov
Vladimir M. Goldin
Vladimir P. Antipov
Vladislav Bakhmatsky
Vladislav Gontcharov
Vyacheslav Goryachkin
Wahbi Kheit
Welf Aumann
Werner Kohl
Yair Judkovsky
Yan Galburd
Yuri Miagkov
Yury Kalinichenko
Yury V. Buslaev
Zakhar Aleksandrov
Zoran Avramovic

-- Steak (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I second this, it was an error on my part, upon a wrong information I though all players above certain elo raiting treshold are fide masters, which is not true. Thank you for your assistance with the deletion. Wesalius (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC).

I don't think they should be deleted en masse before having a consensus to do so (as they does have something described by a reliable database, though which does not necessary made them notable). Clearly we need a more detailed inclusion criterion.--GZWDer (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Breek Morgan (Q36988361)

w:Breek Morgan was a hoax article that I have deleted. I have no idea how to suggest the deletion of something here, but I'm hoping someone can do that. --B (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

199.164.68.175

199.164.68.175 (talk • contribs • logs) a series of vandalism by IP. Kirilloparma (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Q16890578

This item is being vandalized a lot by IPs. A semi-protection would be efficient. Esteban16 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256 Pamputt (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Wikidata items

A set of resources that have been on Wikiversity since about 2012 have been compulsorily moved about 5 August 2018‎ to Draft: namespace on Wikiversity against practiced consensus, see consensus summary on v:Draft talk:Craters by radiation, and deleted here. These resources are Neutron radiation astronomy item (Q26205067)‎, Cosmic radiation astronomy item (Q25962836), Satellites for radiation astronomy item (Q30339724)‎, Telescopes for radiation astronomy item (Q30337999)‎, and Craters by radiation item (Q30299893)‎.

When I attempted to insert "Draft:Cosmic radiation astronomy" for en:Wikiversity where "Cosmic radiation astronomy" was I received the following message: "Could not save due to an error.

The save has failed.

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do." My actions are constructive and the resources should not have been put compulsorily into Draft: ns, see consensus summary on v:Draft talk:Craters by radiation, and thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter! --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to resolve this matter on Wikiversity; not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
When and where (here) was notability modified to exclude draft ns? --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Matěj Suchánek created this filter a week ago. Pamputt (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Draft ns is excluded since 2015 after the discussion at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles --Pasleim (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! The filter states "Disallow links to drafts". The drafts voted on were only Wikipedia uses of Draft: ns not Wikiversity Draft: ns, which are unlike Wikipedia ns. These latter are author-optional precisely for Wikipedia article development before inclusion. May I suggest modifying the filter for Wikipedia only per your consensus. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you please clarify how Wikiversity drafts can be useful for Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
See v:Draft talk:Craters by radiation‎. Wikiversity also allows original research, lectures, courses, etc. It also permits fair use and has the WikiJournals where manuscripts can be placed including as drafts. Potential reviewers or contributors cannot find them through WikiData if you filter them out. WikiData connects other WMF projects at least two ways: similar subjects and a fast and efficient search engine! Someone can learn about minerals for example on Wikipedia and through Wikidata. A new mineral may not be described on Wikipedia because it doesn't meet their notability requirements. But, it can be described on Wikiversity because it's unique. It may also be in a draft on Wikiversity but these are no longer author-optional. Let me know if you have additional questions. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I have updated the filter to allow adding Wikiversity drafts to existing items. Still, I'm not convinced these drafts can make an item notable under the first notability criterium, so I discourage creating new items for them. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your modification to the filter. Some 96 % of the resources conscripted into draft ns on Wikiversity meet criterion 1. I doubt many of the rest are on Wikidata. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek, Marshallsumter: Have you all discussed such breaking changes on Wikidata talk:Notability or elsewhere? This sounds like a policy change rather than just modify an AbuseFilter. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek, Liuxinyu970226: See Wikidata talk:Notability#Changes to Wikidata items. --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Matěj Suchánek, Pamputt, Liuxinyu970226, ArthurPSmith, Marshallsumter: I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but this entire thread is an unauthorized attempt by Marshallsumter to bypass Wikiversity community consensus as documented at [10], supported by various discussions since then, lack of support for Marshallsumter after his own canvassing, and confirmed by recent Wikiversity Custodian action. Please restore the filter that prevents Wikidata links to v:Draft: namespace and delete any existing v:Draft: links. Thank you. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: It's a shame this could not be resolved internally as a discussion between admins at the English Wikiversity. Undid Matěj's filter change; perhaps you can undo any edits that were allowed as a result, professor. Mahir256 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I'm sorry that the initial statement just above may have misstated both the facts and the history. Please see v:Draft_talk:Craters_by_radiation#Draft namespace opinions, v:Draft_talk:Craters_by_radiation#Consensus, and v:Draft talk:Craters by radiation#Keeping lectures as main space pages was opposed by consensus?. While I realize once a decision is made few agree to change their mind but we have followed our guideline for consensus for at least ten years until this discussion over Draft: ns. Read the opinions. Form your own. --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this page, per its edit history, except @Guy vandegrift:'s move, all other edits are made only by this user, so I'm not sure if there's actual consensus here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this very section meaning that on Wikiversity, consensus can be made by just one user? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I am the creator and principal contributor to v:Draft:Craters by radiation which is a lecture and contains an hypothesis for testing. I don't understand your question about consensus. Most of the research and original research on Wikiversity is conducted by one or two contributors and the vast majority of resources on Wikiversity are research and original research. v:Draft:Craters by radiation is a lecture about research into craters such as on Earth or the Moon produced usually by radiation impacts such as meteorites. Because we have only about 270 active users, there are very few others present even interested. Does this help or confuse? Guy vandergrift is the custodian who always does whatever Dave Braunschweig wants. And he's one of the six who initially voted for a conscriptional Draft: namespace. --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Mu301, Atcovi, AKA_MBG, Green Giant, Mikael Häggström:@koavf, Watchduck, Juandev, Michael Ten, The Transhumanist: to clarify. --61.170.244.181 23:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I changed Andrew Krizhanovsky (AKA_MBG) to just AKA_MBG, Justin koavf to koavf, and JuanDev to Juandev to see if these are working! --Marshallsumter (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Agreed. Thanks. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Opinions and an apparent consensus

Here are the opinions from Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles and more recent ones:

  1. neutral - "I'm not sure either way.What do you think?" Filceolaire (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. support - "Is there a way we could have Draft items on wikidata - say regular Qitems with 'Draft:' at the start of their names in every language?" Filceolaire (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. oppose -"IMO drafts and articles less than 2 weeks only shouldnt be included in Wikidata, let alone imported into Wikidata." John Vandenberg (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. oppose - "+1 to wait before creating the item."--Micru (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. support - "We could say that draft articles are allowed to be connected to items here, but that a link to only a draft article is not enough to be notable. This way draft articles can use the data on Wikidata and we don't end up with dozens of empty items." Multichill (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. support - "Draft articles may be connected to an item which already has sitelinks to another language of the same project family." John Vandenberg (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC), see 3. oppose above.
  7. support -"+1 to Multichill." --Ricordisamoa 23:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  8. support - "To make a good draft, they might need information from Wikidata available. In that case, shouldn't they create an item as soon as possible add add information here?" --- Jura 04:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  9. support - "The presence of one Wikidata item is sufficient to create an item, but an item does not need a Wikipedia article." TomT0m (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  10. oppose - "Draft articles are excluded from search engines for good reason. Consider wikidata as a search engine as well, and you will bring up additional unwanted links to all search engines that use wikidata as a source. It is early enough to link it to wikidata as soon as it is in main namespace, you also don´t need to monitor if an article has moved to a different namespace."--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  11. oppose - "As a schematic batch of information we already have Wikidata itself. We don't need linking proto-articles. I don't see the need for hurrying, if the draft doesn't go wrong it'll be linked to Wikidata once it's finished." Totemkin (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  12. support - "I see no problem having a Q item here, while the article is being developed in en.wikipedia or whatsoever, but clearly (to me, at least) it's not neccesary having them related." Totemkin (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  13. oppose - "Draft namespace has been created for articles who may or may not adhere to notabilty rules on en.wiki - which are IMHO already far too permissive, considering the it.wp (or de.wp) ones. I don't think we need that." --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  14. oppose - "per above. Unfinished articles have no place here." Mushroom (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  15. oppose - "draft articles are not part of the encyclopedia (yet)" --CutOffTies (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  16. oppose - "per above." --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  17. oppose - "Drafts are articles in development and are little different to user subpages. Once they are mainspace articles they can be added." Green Giant (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

More recent opinions:

18. support - Wikiversity Drafts meet WikiData criterion 1 and have been in Mainpage space for years. --Marshallsumter.

19. support - Thanks for your answer. I have updated the filter to allow adding Wikiversity drafts to existing items. Still, I'm not convinced these drafts can make an item notable under the first notability criterium, so I discourage creating new items for them. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC) from Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items.

20. neutral - @Matěj Suchánek, Marshallsumter: Have you all discussed such breaking changes on Wikidata talk:Notability or elsewhere? This sounds like a policy change rather than just modify an AbuseFilter. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC) from Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items.

21. oppose - "Please restore the filter that prevents Wikidata links to v:Draft: namespace and delete any existing v:Draft: links. Thank you." -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC) from Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items.

22. oppose - "Undid Matěj's filter change; perhaps you can undo any edits that were allowed as a result, professor." Mahir256 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) from Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items.

23. support - "At this point I don't see any good reason to change Wikidata rules to accommodate this Wikiversity issue, it needs to be resolved there." ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC) from Wikidata_talk:Notability#Changes_to_Wikidata_policy_for_Draft_namespace_for_Wikiversity.

24. support - This sounds like controlled by magic word, I don't think a magic word can be enough to change a policy. --61.170.244.181 23:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC) on d:Wikidata talk:Notability#Google search comparisons.

25. neutral - I am not sure that Wikiversity drafts should be presented in the search results of other wikis. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC) from Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items.

An apparent consensus is

Support - WikiData entry for Wikipedia drafts (2,5,6,7,8,9,12) = 7

Support - WikiData item for Wikiversity drafts (2,5,6,7,8,9,12,18,19,23,24) = 11

Oppose - WikiData item for Wikipedia drafts (3,4,10,11,13,14,15,16,17) = 9

Oppose - WikiData item for Wikiversity drafts (21,22) = 2.

Neutral - WikiData item for Wikiversity drafts (1,20,25) = 3.

Apparent consensus: 11/13 = 84.6 % for WikiData item for Wikiversity drafts per filter modification by user:Matěj Suchánek. Comments, criticism, support, or disagreement is welcome! --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: I doubt if 24th is really a supportive comment, as that IP user's comment looks rather like disencourage policy changing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: No policy change was/is required which leaves the original supportive actions. And, that IP user's comment is clearly not opposed. --Marshallsumter (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please block Special:Contributions/GZWDer_(flood)

There seems to be another malfunction of the batches: User_talk:GZWDer#You_created_a_duplicate_page.

Please block it until it's sorted out and we can be sure it wont happen again.
--- Jura 13:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes duplicates may happen. Previously I did removed all possible duplicates (i.e. pages with items with labels same as the page title; this is default by PetScan) from the list before creation, but nowadays I think leaving pages (even thay are probably duplicates) unconnected for years is nowhere a good idea than creating items for them and merge duplicates afterwards. Wikidata provides plenty of tools to deal with them where they can not deal with unconnected pages.--GZWDer (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus for such deliberate duplicate creations. Please make a new bot request to seek approval.
--- Jura 13:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
As I previously said, many bot imports will create duplicates and we should not assume that there're no duplicates in Wikidata. After duplicates are merged, they are gone.--GZWDer (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Previously you assured us that no deliberate duplicates were created. How reliable is anything you are writing? As you generally leave it to others to clean up after your defective edits, I don't see how why we can be sure that it will be "gone". Please seek proper approval for your edits and make sure they match what you lay out.
--- Jura 13:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
However there're also the fact that there're pages never connected to Wikidata after creation for years, and no one is caring of them. It may provide a workflow of creating items of them -> (importing statements to them, which may make discovery of duplicates easier ->) merge them if duplicate are found. Any later steps relies on an extant item, so Wikidata will not provides anything if no items exist. I does skip wikis like nlwiki where unconnected pages are regularly monitered (duplicity is a tool to moniter it), but it seems they are lacking any monitering and too backlogged to be done manually.--GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
If there is a consensus to that, why not ask for community feedback before changing the agreed approach once more? We keep getting 10,000s of items create by you that need fixing. Just last week 30000 incorrectly created items had to be deleted.
--- Jura 21:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This user's bot creates the impression of following me around and messing up my work. I favor a block. And if the bot is going to work on items from the English Wikipedia there must be a clear, easy to find, English-language explanation of what it is up to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Every items without any statements needs improvement - creating them provides a start point, even including those which need merging. For the sock category issue, they are not inherently non-notable; before we formally exclude them (by consensus) I don't think a reason not to create them. The aim is make every article (excluding soft redirects etc) an entry in Wikidata, so that others may improve them using various tools. (the only tool to work on unconnected pages is duplicity, which I don't think is an efficient tool unless regularly monitered). Unconnected pages is very unideal (barring people to improve them); ideally there should be someone who clean up unconnected pages (creating items with statements for them, just like nlwiki), but before we have enough people to clean up them, mass creation of item will be a rough way to dealing it.--GZWDer (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It just that every time you create a second item for the same concept, you make it more difficult for users to match their data to the correct item. If everyone acted like you people would just upload their stuff and expect others to merge them afterwards, we would have even more duplicates, triplicates, etc. Obviously, such indiscriminate creation is much quicker.
    --- Jura 04:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Having no items is worse as if there're duplicates, users may discover them; but if only a part of articles are assumed to be connected, users must search all Wikipedia projects to find possible additional matches. Of course we can manage unconnected pages manually, but in most wikis nobody is doing it. Nobody should assume that no duplicates exist in Wikidata.--GZWDer (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
If you say so. Maybe we should shift to an approach with more duplicates.
--- Jura 05:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps so, Jura1, although I think we should try to avoid duplicates as much as possible. But even the not so big wikipedias have duplicate articles. And I think it is wise to take in mind that sitelinks exist, whether or not they are linked to an item here. They are latent valid items. It is fair to consider unconnected pages that belong to an existing item as hidden duplicates, as they are in a sense merely hidden for wikidata users by not creating the items. Hidden duplicates are less easy to solve than the real ones. Lymantria (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they could flow into mix-n-match .. it also holds "hidden" duplicates.
--- Jura 07:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I find this "alternativeless" argumentation of GZWD quite disgusting. First: It is absolutely doubtfull if "having duplicates" is really better than "having no item". I favor the latter one over the duplicates, other maybe also. Second: What is the alternative of creating items and hereby creating duplicates? Creating items without duplicates! But GZWD acts as if there is no way to connect articles and on the same time to avoid duplicates, but this is bullshit. Please block this user untill he manages to create items without duplicates. Steak (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Every now and then articles are created for existing topics without linking to Wikidata. They (possible duplicates) will never be discovered until either items are created for them, or someone doing a full cleanup in duplicity. As duplicity is currently heavily backlogged, in many cases the latter is unlikely in the foreseeable future.--GZWDer (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
You just make people at Wikidata work twice instead ..
--- Jura 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I used to do duplicates and felt good about cleaning a queue. It was less than exciting to see it repopulated, and more than somewhat annoying when trying to address the matter with the account owner to think that my opinion was ignorable or dismissible. Iterating over unnecessary queues of duplicates is so frustrating, especially when the account owner is happy to press the button for the numbers of items created. I no longer do duplicates, and this is one of the issues that has pretty much pushed me away from contributing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There were already several problems with that contributor about mass item creation. Remove its bot operator right because this behavior is against the trend of improving WD in term of quality. Snipre (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • If duplicates are created, there're plenty of ways to find them. However if they are leaved unconnected, they will be never found unless someone look at them. Merging duplicates are usually as easy as adding links. For quality issue, there're always plenty of things to be done in Wikidata and leaving pages unconnected does not decrease them (as finding or creating items for every articles is a thing).--GZWDer (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It's easy you say, but you don't do it? Why is that?
        --- Jura 09:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
        • For items created I'm going to improve them in several ways (petscan, harvest template, etc.), but as Wikidata is a cooperative project, creating those items also realizes other to use them (and also multiple tools for finding duplicate). If it's difficult or terrible to find duplicates, leaving them unconnected only make things worse.--GZWDer (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I'd rather see you focus on improving items you already created and repairing defective edits of yours. Apparently, your view isn't really shared about the benefits of making people at Wikidata work twice. There was probably a good reason why the 30000 items of yours that were deleted last week were disconnected and hadn't been connected before.
            --- Jura 09:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Petscan (for doing Wikidata edits) can only find all specific pages with items or all specific pages without items; Harvest template can not create any new items. (This is also true for most Wikidata-related tools.) So for every user's benefit it is useful to create many new items for future improvement. For sock categories, my opinion is all pages are presumed to be notable unless explicitly excluded by consensus. (Common senses may be used, but I also previously opposed to exclude them.)--GZWDer (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have looked up more details of GZWDER's interference with normal editing. In this edit User:GZWDer (flood) created an item for an English Wikipedia item that was only 7 days old, not something that had been languishing for years. I renew my call for a block. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lymantria about the fact that sitelinks not connected to Wikidata are hidden duplicates and that connecting them to Wikidata helps user find them. However, it must be clear that connecting to Wikidata pages which have been recently created (e.g. less than 2 months) is to be avoided. --Epìdosis 13:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
And there shouldn't be new items containing sitelinks with Template:Merge (Q6919004) (e.g. Q56373503). --Epìdosis 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
A local merge can have two meaning: One is two pages about the same topic (and should be tagged Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920)), another is two pages are two different but related concept (we may keep two items even the local pages are merged).--GZWDer (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done While Lymantria and GZWDer find this bot useful, Jura1, Steak, Billinghurst, Snipre, Jc3s5h, Epìdosis and Liuxinyu970226 find it disruptive. There is a pretty clear consensus against this mass creation of new items without satisfactory checks for duplicates. I am blocking this bot for a week. @GZWDer: please do not resume this bot until this new behaviour has been fully agreed on at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot. − Pintoch (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I do understand the concerns raised and for instance I fully support the statement made by Epìdosis. However, in general, I oppose to the opinion that sister project site links should not be added here by creating items. Pintoch, your way of posing here my opinion however is not correct. Lymantria (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lymantria: sorry about that! I am fixing my summary then. That makes the consensus for a block even clearer. − Pintoch (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: I have created Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/GZWDer (flood) 4. The bot can be unblocked (it will not do any edits in the scope of review). By the way, though there's currently no problem, you should not enable autoblock when blocking a bot.--GZWDer (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Also @Lymantria, Jura1, Steak, Billinghurst, Snipre, Jc3s5h:.--GZWDer (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Epìdosis, Liuxinyu970226:--GZWDer (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As we don't know exactly what it does, please make another request for anything that isn't covered by (4). We need a reliable basis to be able to monitor it.
    --- Jura 20:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Given the recurring issues with this bot, I agree it would be useful to have a complete description of all its tasks first. The only task this bot got approved for mentions that it don't do any fully-automatic edits so you should be able to do these supervised edits from your own account. Mor broadly, may I suggest that you seek consensus for your actions before carrying them out, rather than waiting for a block to react? For these reasons I do not think it is urgent to unblock this bot, so I will not do it myself right now. − Pintoch (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: I don't like to do any (semi-)automatic OAuth edits using my account, as this will flood recent changes and mix up with manual edits in user contributions. In addition the review already get rid of the most controversial parts of edits.--GZWDer (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Q156723

On 28 November 2017 I uploaded on Commons a good quality picture of a portrait of Queen Louise of Prussia [11], painted in 1802 by Josef Grassi and now kept in Charlottenburg, Berlin. It's the most famous depiction of the Queen, already reproduced in several medias in the XIX century (engravings, prints, postcards) and usually used as bookcovers on her biographies. Instead of this picture, it was used a postcard of 1915 [12]. After my edits in all Wikipedia projects, where the postcard was wrongly considered the original paintings, User:Huelam987 started an enervating edit war, just because he simply prefers the postcard than the original painting (he clearly said it in more occasion, defining Louise in the postcard "a beautiful woman" and in the painting "an old witch", for example in that edit [13]). He's not only replaced the image - without any public confrontations in public discussion, as I asked him to do several times - but he's deliberately spread wrong informations, claiming that the postcard is the original painting. After several months and his continuous edit war, finally a bot of Commons, after an administrator request, changed again the file with the correct one (it was 4 July). Recently Huelam987 started again his edit war, trying several ways (for example he uploaded a lower quality version of the postcard with altered colors and try to use it in some page, on wikidata too [14][15]; the image has recently been deleted as duplicate, so you can just see as redirect the original postcard), then he uploaded a crop version of the postcard and did the same [16]. After I changed informations oh this cropped version, he undid my edits, claiming again that it was the 1802 original painting [17]; so I asked help to an administrator on Commons. Finally he looks so obsessionated with the idea that the original painting is awful, that some hours ago he changed again image here on wikidata, using another absolutely ridiculous image [18]. Actually I have no personal reason to require necessary the use of the 1802 painting, but, as I told before, it's simply the iconic image of Queen Louise (and it was already used in every wikiprojects before my edit, where I simply replaced a cheap copy - as a postcard - with the original one). I'm sorry for this "papyrus", but I thought it was necessary to explain all this absurd situation.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I ask your help for this type of edits... I really don't want to continue this silly edit war (as you can see he also undid the change of two images that represents the same painting but with a better quality file, because he want to use the files he uploaded personally, while they are evidently worse).
Thanks for you attention.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but maybe my message wasn't enough clear. I tought that an administrator, with more authority than me, could rollback these edits by Huelam987 and writing him something (I think that I well expressed how much reasonably that these edits are without sense: above all I notice that now many wikis have a mirrored portrait as main image in Maria of Prussia's biographies...). If no one does it, I have to do it by myself again (and probably he will continue to undo my edits too). This user has a problematic behavior, not only here but on Commons too and several wikis (often reproached, with undoing changes but actually never stopped. Yet).--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Restored your choice of image and warned Huelam987 on that user's talk page. Let's see where this goes. Mahir256 (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks, @Mahir256: Could you do the same for Maria of Prussia [19] and Maria Alexandrovna [20], please? Above all the first one is really "problematic", because the painting is mirrored in the version he uploaded. Thanks again.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: as you can see, he really doesn't care about any suggestion [21]. I think I'm not partial about the idea that he expressly logged out before he undid your edit (maybe he doesn't know that exists an IP checking). By the way you can see on this panoramic photo kept in the castle that I'm right about the fact that his lower quality image is mirrored too: it's the portrait on lower right.--Kaho Mitsuki (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User categories cleanup

Following the above discussion, a series of items should be deleted. Is there a script to do this? Is there an admin willing to do it? Do you need any help with it?
--- Jura 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an idea how many items need to be deleted here? With SPARQL I find that there are at least 15k items affected, possibly even more. I guess we’d need some automation for this task. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=5525506 has some 32k
--- Jura 04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I could delete those but for me it is not clear which items should be deleted. The heading implies that all user categories should be deleted but in the discussion only references to sockpuppet categories are made. --Pasleim (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 Support deleting sockpuppet categories. --Epìdosis 10:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We should delete according to Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria, changed here on August 10 without any objections yet. The discussion mainly took place on this page, further above in #Cross-wiki notification spamming by GZWDer. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that at Wikidata, we can't add "noindex" to items. I think we should amend it to fully exclude such user categories.
--- Jura 11:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The text in Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria currently does not exclude user categories in general (it says “maintenance categories”). If you want to get rid of all user categories, please initiate such a change of the notability policy (I’d support it). Until then, I think we have enough to do with the sockpuppet categories we have been discussing until now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done deleted enwiki sockpuppet category items with only one sitelink --Pasleim (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, therefore this discussion shouldn't be done and archived unless if the privacy concern is to be resolved. I will rewrite the signature to avoid bot auto-archiving. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Amend exclusion criteria

 Support. --Epìdosis 15:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose for items with more than one sitelinks - they are useful, at least for vandal-fighting.--GZWDer (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 Support Showing private datas here are clearly violating TOU, I don't know if there are tools which even need such items for their works. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that the Wikidata item itself only provides sitelinks, and does not say anything about sockpuppetery.--GZWDer (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
"only provides sitelinks, and does not say anything about sockpuppetery", hehe. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The items does endorse the sockpuppetery of master in no way. There're also nothing private in the item itself.--GZWDer (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, sitelink itself is not necessarily directly useful by tools. They are provided for navigation purposes.--GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Your statements are clearly hurt to a magic word __NOINDEX__, there are users who really don't wanna see him(her)self on search enginees, and the NOINDEX is just useful for them, and so categories that collect them should also always be NOINDEXed, your item creating of them can however make another way that search enginees can collect those usernames, which is why I and many WD:AN followers are concerning, since Wikidata items don't support NOINDEX function. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
"Wikidata items don't support NOINDEX function" is another issue (see phab:T195776); it is not grounds for deletion of the whole item (otherwise the local sock categories and LTA pages should also be deleted). Also I don't think it is a critical issue: Some items for sock categories already existed for more five years, but no concern specific to noindex has raised.--GZWDer (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that really won't be happened, just like global merging accounts, because a sane Wikidata editing is just modifying text values, not introducing parsers. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note Wikidata entities are not wiki texts, but JSON, which noindex information may be stored as a field.--GZWDer (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 Support Per Liuxinyu970226, having those categories to be stored on Wikidata can lead search engines to index their private datas, which is really a violation of WMF Terms of Use. As for vandal-fighting, this can just be done via guc. --180.97.204.9 23:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There're used for easy navigation between sock categories for cross-wiki abuser. The items themselves (what search engines indexed) provides much less contents negative than sock categories and SPI/RFCUs (e.g. says nothing specific about sock puppetery). Deleting items only with one sitelink also get rid of trouble in most cases. So I think before noindex is supported, items for sock categories should only be created when needed and be deleted upon user request; if we decide to exclude them now, it's probably an issue about whether to reinclude them once noindex is supported. Meta RfCs have a similar status (but include much more information about controversy/drama between users): they are indexed by default, but may be excluded upon request.--GZWDer (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Not all search engines are obeying the Robots.txt, and how do you let those which can bypass it to also remove results? --180.97.204.9 22:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If they can bypass robots.txt they can index local sock categories or discussion too; items are much less sensitive for privacy.--GZWDer (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately as too many privacy concerns regarding those categories are really having, still not resolved and need experts of this grey-area to clarify, the entire section is reported to WMF Trust and Safety members by me, therefore it's unlikely that someone other than those can simply reject or adopt it: @PEarley (WMF), SPoore (WMF), CSteigenberger (WMF), JSutherland (WMF), JEissfeldt (WMF):@Jalexander-WMF, Kbrown (WMF), Samuel (WMF), THargrove (WMF), Kalliope (WMF):. --60.26.9.252 03:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Unarchived to allow continue discussing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 Support violating WMF's Terms of Use is just violating WMF's Terms of Use, nothing is white-clearable by WD linking. --125.36.185.130 08:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
However it is not certain that it is a real violation.--117.136.38.154 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jalexander-WMF: any update? --User:Rschen775Rschen7754 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO it can be useful when the sockmaster is cross-wiki, but just for one category? Uhm... no, we don't need that. — regards, Revi 18:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not the purpose of this section; it's already decided to exclude such without more than one sitelinks.--223.104.3.10 12:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The actual problem is if we allow search engines to index those items, that will also allow indexing IP addresses that those sock masters are or were using, which is really a violation of the global CheckUser policy, that those IP addresses should NEVER BE PUBLISHED. --117.13.95.22 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
If it is really a violation, the categories themselves should be deleted first; I don't find any policy explicitly said about the index status.--117.136.0.136 18:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
IP addresses can be disclosed under the Access to nonpublic info policy: see the disclosure rationale vi. — regards, Revi 07:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 Support Per above, TOU violation of WMF is terrible, and protectism of that is subject to WMF global ban. Since GZWDer still don't explain that why this kind of including won't be a violation, the concensus can be filed to WD:N policy now. --125.38.13.141 07:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If having local sock categories (including of IPs) does not constitute violation of privacy policy, items do not either.--117.136.38.158 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2018/08&oldid=790001245"