Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/01

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cross-wiki vandals

Hi, guys! I'd suggest blocking long-term the following two network ranges:

These have been blocked on bgwiki by Vituzzu after particularly bad vandalism that has lasted for more than a year. The vandals using these ranges are known to jump to other wikis, mostly our Bulgarian projects, but also Commons—and Wikidata. It might be okay to leave the ability for registered users to edit, though the vandals are also known as prolific puppeteers.
— Luchesar • T/C 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalismes répétés de 191.179.171.31

Bonsoir,

l'IP 191.179.171.31 vandalise à la chaîne des élémennts Wikidata par raccourcissement des descriptions.

Désolé si ce n'est pas le bon endroit pour ça, mais je connais pas trop Wikidata, et je n'ai pas trouvé de page appropriée pour demander un blocage.

Merci.

--Tractopelle-jaune (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done L'IP a été bloqué par Andreasmperu pour une semaine. Pamputt (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Q6006942

This item has been deleted today. Could you tell me what was its label since I have no way to check if this deletion was rightful or not. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

English label and description read “Ahmet Aziz, Turkish author”; claims P31, P21, P27, P106, P735; no references, identifiers or sitelinks (thus rightful deletion); deleted sitelink tr:Ahmet Aziz. If you know who this is (or was?) and how the item can be made notable, we can of course restore it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No thanks, seems legit. It’s just very frustrating to see deletions in my watchlist without knowing if it’s an item I’ve created or not. — Ayack (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sistema Brasileiro de Televisão (Q965371)

Various IPs changes the Portuguese description of Sistema Brasileiro de Televisão (Q965371) from "rede de televisão comercial aberta brasileira" (identical to the query's English description) to only "rede de televisão" indiscriminately, without giving any plausible reason for the change. Query protection may be needed. Gabriel (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 1 month. Pamputt (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Varlaam insult and false vandalism claim

Hi, I was notified on my discussion page by User:Varlaam of a contested edit (which is ok) with an insult and a false claim of vandalism (which is totally not ok). It appears that this user is blocked in two other wikis, notably on enwiki with the comment: Edit warring: also, personal attacks, false claims of vandalism, refusal to discuss. Please take the actions that seems appropriate. -- Maxlath (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism 87.223.81.189

Please block 87.223.81.189 to stop his vandalism in Miguel de Unamuno. Thanks, --Morza (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done for 31 hours —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Harassment / death threats

What should we do with this? (IP blocked already) --YMS (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC) PS: I now deleted the page, as the only revision would be a clear case for revision deletion per Wikidata:Deletion policy. This invalidates the link given; admins may see the content here. Still further action (police, checkuser, ...) would be possible, so the question remains the same. --YMS (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think en:Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, #3 (email to WMF’s emergency team) would be appropriate in such cases. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please block user:Jonas03Wiki03. Pajz (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The user has not edited since 2017-12-19 17:32. Also, in my opinion there is no blatant vandalism(don't know German though). which of their edits do you consider vandalism? -Kostas20142 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pajz: fixing ping Kostas20142 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Kostas20142, he incorrectly labelled a celebrity as a "porn actress", which went unnoticed on Wikidata for three weeks until somebody emailed our email response team today, appalled at such a claim being featured prominently in the mobile view of Mrs. Combs' Wikipedia article. Previously, he did the same on the entry on another woman, described a female porn actress as a "slut", a German presenter as a "German whore and busty celebrity", and a German athlete as a "porn actress". Pajz (talk/span>) 14:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Although stale, not here to contribute to the project. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. This is inacceptable, has happened a couple of times over a span of several months (although they reverted themselves most times), and they have been warned to refrain from making such edits in the end of October. Thanks for reporting, MisterSynergy (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

reporting vandalism

User:174.16.118.49 is vandalizing various pages, in part as retaliation because I just blocked him on Simple Engkish Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Globally blocked by Sjoerddebruin.-- Hakan·IST 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Lase speedy delete Wikidata:Property proposal/Hathi Trust ID, which I just created in error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge two items "police officer"

Hi, I think these two items should be merged: Q361593 Q384593 -Pete F (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done; There are overlapping sitelinks to dewiki and ltwiki, which means that merging is technically impossible and we have to keep two separate items. This issue does not require admin attention, please open a new topic at Wikidata:Project chat or on my talk page in case of further questions. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Franciscus van der Steen

Dear Administrators, I have a technical problem. tried to add my German article of Franciscus van der Steen with the English one Franciscus van der Steen‎ on Wikidata. On the German page the English link works. On the English page, however, the German link is shown in a grey colour with the note Translate this page to Deutsch. Could anybody help, please? --Culturawiki (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

“✓ Done”. This is reported occasionally and vanishes without further action. Likely a caching issue on the server or in your browser. Since I can see all interwikis now, I guess there is nothing to do here. If I’m wrong with this assumption, feel free to talk to me on my talk page (this does not require admin attention anyway). —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, everything is ok now. Thank you! --Culturawiki (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalismo IP: 95.18.181.220

Hello guys, please check all editions of this IP: 95.18.181.220 He has been editing so much property names, cause vandalism. Please help restoring all editions to their previous version. Thanks! --Douglasfugazi (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Vernal (Q46118445)

I found a sitelink for this deleted item Mark Vernal (Q46118445), tl:Mark Vernal, while using The Distributed Game. Undelete? --Bluemask (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Links to Main page for /tt, /tt-cyrl and /tt-latn

Please change value for next messages:

Very thanks before! --Kaganer (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Stryn (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ongoing vandalism (emergency!)

Please block 82.158.154.185 as soon as possible for persistent vandalism. --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day. Stryn (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring by Jura1

Three times, Jura1 has removed a constraint from manufacturer (P176); there is an explicit lack of consensus at Talk:Q25796498 for this change to the status quo. As this is not the first time in the very recent past that I have seen Jura try to circumvent normal process in seeking an outcome he is alone in seeking (n.b.), it seems prudent to draw admin attention to the pattern, so it can be monitored and handled as deemed necessary. Swpb (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Before discussing the question itself, I'd like to ask to @Jura1: some restraint in addressing other people: "Could you do something productive?" is not acceptable as an interaction with others.
About the question itself, it is possibly a good idea to discuss such removal with the participants of the Wikidata:WikiProject property constraints, before doing it. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion about the reverts on User talk:Swpb before.
BTW, could you undelete P794 (P794) apparently the outcome of Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2017/12#Property:P794 wasn't productive of an alternate solution.
--- Jura 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if highlighting that particular discussion helps your case here. Note to admin: There was overwhelming, repeated consensus to remove, and keep removed, the property to which Jura is referring. An undelete would be wildly out of process, and immediately challenged by half a dozen editors, rightfully so. There is a process for new properties, which Jura has already been directed to. Swpb (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you keep hiding discussions about problematic edits of yours: Topic:U52mlpif0chewopt, Topic:U50sv2c17wqyeq6w. Calling people "dishonest" that are here to cleanup problematic contributions you can't sort out isn't really helping things.
--- Jura 10:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering if Swpb's account was compromised when they wrote here today .. comments first partially, then completely removed [1]. It's hard to keep track of Swpb's comments, as they keep getting revised or hidden while being discussed, without any evidenced in timestamps [2].
--- Jura 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It's still easier to track Swpb's comment than discussions on your talk page. --Pasleim (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvador Dalí (Q5577)

The item Salvador Dalí (Q5577) receives regularly vandalism, especially number of children (P1971) is often changed. Can we semi-protect it or do something else to prevent this? -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Alaa :)..! 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

vandalism/unsoueced nonsense ethnicity additions

Could you please review 74.88.194.62? They continue the same pattern of vandalism and nonsense unsupported additions, so I believe that something like 31h block is warranted. --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

still ongoing, can anyone please check it? --Kostas20142 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I started this discussion in response to your report, since the problem is much larger than this single user. However, it seems difficult to reach a concensus there. The IP is a static one, so “31 hour” blocks are not really effective. I guess they only learn if my WD:PC proposal to remove all unsourced P172 claims would be implemented. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the one side of the problem however. The other is how to treat this specific user, since their additions are not just unsourced. They are problematic in nature (look like vandalism). Can't believe that anyone has 5+ ethnicities such as "Welsh Canadian, Israeli Canadian, Portuguese Canadian...." etc. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
They even invented some imho completely absurd categories like Q47134194, I fail to see anything really useful from this IP. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Retracted papers are not a subclass of "scientific paper"

Hoi, @Pigsonthewing: is edit warring on this. It is bad practice to have something that is potentially transient as a subclass. There has been a discussion on the chat. I leave it to you to ask him to behave. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring all by myself am I, Gerard? get the beam out of your own eye. This issue is already being discussed, at Wikidata:Project chat#Retracted papers, where Gerard's model does not have support. Note that I have not edited the item in question, retracted paper (Q45182324), since 4 January. Note also that I have never claimed that Q45182324 is a subclass of "scientific paper". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
perfect proof .. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
And again. There has been a discussion, it has been said that it is not a good idea to have transient properties for "instance of" and again Mr Mabett goes rogue. He is building a solid reputation to seeing himself as the only authority on everything. He does not listen. "Talk to me" is his motto but listening is not what he does. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
And again GerardM "goes rogue"; and adds a personal attack here, to boot. There is still no support for Gerard's model at Wikidata:Project chat#Retracted papers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2018

Since this category still has unanswered edit requests from last May, this is a notification that I made an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Jc86035 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Johannes Gutenberg (Q8958)

most recently by https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.25.123.92 but also by other IPs in the past. --HHill (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Protected for three months. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi, could an admin mark this edit for translation? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Reason for HTML instead of ====? Otherwise looks good to me. This is for translation admins, by the way. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek, Mbch331: I used h4 to remove the section edit links because otherwise most of the edit summaries would have identical section links. Jc86035 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Threading

threading (Q856915)

On trying to add spanish inter wiki link I have received following message: 

Could not save due to an error.
The save has failed.
Warning: You are trying to add/remove badges to this item. At local Wikipedias adding or removing badges are done by consensus. Saving this edit was blocked and should be done only by administrators or trusted users. If you think you are correct, please contact an administrator.

JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you trying to add a Wikisource-related badge with it? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I did think that adding a badge was a requirement to turn the greyed out "Publish✓" blue...now it would seem that this page was preventing the interwiki link....worked it out myself...thanks Jorge. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a badge

Please add the "featured" badge to Winx Club's Russian article. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Клуб_Винкс is now featured. Coolak (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

95.186.55.144

Please block 95.186.55.144 for date vandalism. This is a cross-wiki LTA vandal who I've already blocked on English Wikipedia, but he's actively editing here, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Globally blocked. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

82.159.135.30

Please block 82.159.135.30 to stop his vandalism. Thanks, --Morza (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 31 hours blocked; thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

194.199.75.59

Please block vandal 194.199.75.59, already was warned.--Jklamo (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 31 hours blocked; thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Park Jimin" (Q20947093)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Jimin (Q20947093), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
It has already been semi-protected between 13 October 2017 and 13 January 2018.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Properties ready for creation

Please could someone address the items in Category:Properties ready for creation; in particular, Wikidata:Property proposal/UK railway station code has been marked as ready, with unanimous support, for two weeks now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Nicola Tesla

Repeated IP-vandalism, see history, thx, --He3nry (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done; 1 year semi-protected. Thanks for reporting, —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing @ Xantus’s murrelet (Q46338167)

There is a disagreement about what is Xantus’s murrelet (Q46338167) about between Mr. Mabbett and me. I tried different approaches but all of them are reverted by the creator of the item. The main problem is that he refuses an reasonable explaination at Wikidata:Project_chat#Xantus's_Murrelet. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Colleagues will note the complete lack of support - much less consensus - for Succu's edits by any of the several editors participating in that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Same procedure as allways. Please notify "your" colleagues here please. --Succu (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides the two of us the following users took part: User:ChristianKl, User:Brya, User:Matěj Suchánek and User:JerryL2017. --Succu (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) ...each of which edits remove statements cited to reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
We had this allready over there... „statements cited to reliable sources“ to prove what concept? That's the question unanswered by you. ---Succu (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I can only repeat what I already said: it is unclear what Andy Mabbett means by this. My guess would be that this is intended for a wider circumscription of Synthliboramphus hypoleucus but Andy Mabbett disagrees that this is what he means. There is just the one source provided, so it is guesswork. Whatever the intent is, execution is sloppy.
        The item is (probably) not harmful, but is (probably) pointless. It may be that adopting items for concepts denoted by common names of bird are worth exploring, given that these are so well organized and standardized, but the way things are going there seems no chance of investigating this. Very uncooperative. - Brya (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
"There is just the one source provided" I've already refuted this falsehood in the Project Chat discussion, so I've no idea why you repeat it here. I've also told, you many times, that your deliberately-broken indenting of comments is disruptive. I've again fixed it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You refuted nothing, because you didn't answered the questions raised. --Succu (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, anyone can see that that is a lie, by checking the edit in which I refuted Brya's falsehood, or indeed by going and counting the references on the item for themselves. Why do the pair of you persist in such dishonesty? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of unanswered questions over there and here. Answering them and staying polite would be helpful. --Succu (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Merely presenting something as a source does not make it a source. I see only one source. And Andy Mabbett has already been repeatedly warned to restrict his idiosyncrasies regarding lay-out to his own comments. - Brya (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Why can't Xantus’s murrelet (Q46338167) be <instance of> common name, description "common name of either of two species of birds" with <has part> for the two species, or something similar? - PKM (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Because that's not what the cited sources say it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyhow « has part » is unappropriate. If this is the class in which the animals of the two species belongs, then union of (P2737) View with SQID is appropriate. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If this item represents a taxon concept, Mr. Mabbett reverted this, taxon synonym (P1420) has to be used. --Succu (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean « taxon concept » ? To me, up to now, a taxon concept is an abstract notion like « clade ». This item may represent a class of animal which is not a taxon in a scientific sense. I see the description of the « taxon concept » item is « the specific usage and/or circumscription of a taxonomic name, according to (sensu or sec.) some specified source » which does not help me. What is meant is that a specific name can have several competing definitions on which organisms belongs to it or not ? But what defines a taxon is precisely its scientific definition … A taxon may be obsolete if its definition is considered not scientifically relevant, why not, put an end date to the statement associating it to a name item. We may then deprecate the « instance of : taxon » claim, and treat it as a generic class of animal. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the wrong place for such discussions. We had similar earlier. --Succu (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this might be a hint that it’s useless to try to settle an issue from whose there is no real consensus by a request to administrators. Admins can only see that there is an edit war but the basis on which the model is based is not settled. This AN has no chance to solve anything. If there is no actual consensus on the model, the thing to do is to set one. Not to edit war. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
agree with @TomT0m: however in the project chat part of this convuluted discussion I have shared my view on this, maybe move this, the chat and any other discussions to the pages talk page?? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure they can't. But admins can at least demand Mr. Mabbett to give clear arguments what this item is about. All he repeats is it's different and there are three sources. None of his sentences offers insight in his thinking like e.g.: This item is about concept xxx because of yyy. --Succu (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
„Because that's not what the cited sources say it is.“ - You refused to be more explicit about this Mr. Mabbett, here and at Wikidata:Project chat#Xantus's Murrelet. Is this your way to resolve conflicts? Avoid enlightenment?--Succu (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Wikipedia" (Q52)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Wikipedia (Q52), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Checked history and there is every now and then some vandalism by IP addresses, but today seems to be very much vandalism from IP's, so I protected the item for 1 week. If it continues after that week, we can always protect the item for a longer time. Mbch331 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
All the vandalism from today has to do with the case #Cross-wiki vandals above. The IP ranges are meanwhile blocked for a longer time. However, the item has seen vandalism from other IPs as well, so a protection seems appropriate. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

vandalism (emergency)

Please block 82.77.22.204 and 213.233.90.37 for constantly vandalizing hamburger (Q6663)--Kostas20142 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: ✓ Done for 31 hours; thanks for reporting. Mahir256 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

semi-protection request

Please temporarily semi-protect Lil Pump (Q38002101)for persistent vandalism by IPs. --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 6 months semi-protected —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandals

All these contributions are harassment/vandalism:

Could you please delete them? Blocking this particular address, on the other hand, is pointless. This is a mobile network with quickly changing dynamic addresses. These vandals are well known to the Bulgarian community, and operate—apart from anonymous proxies—from these five networks (all of them mobile with DHCP-leased addresses):

It's obviously up to you what, if anything, should be done about them, but I'll probably keep this information handy, as our AI anti-vandalism bot has recently been reprogrammed to block them much more aggressively on bgwiki, and they'll surely try switching to different projects. Wikidata seems particularly vulnerable. If you have any questions or if I may in any way help, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Cheers,
— Luchesar • T/C 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

+ 85.118.79.179 — Luchesar • T/C 14:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 85.118.79.104 — Luchesar • T/C 15:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 213.226.63.149 — Luchesar • T/C 15:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I've warned about those networks earlier, but nobody paid any attention. I'm afraid I don't have the time (even being a rollbacker) to fight this battle alone. — Luchesar • T/C 15:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
For admins: have we ever applied range blocks? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to give you some more details, so that you may take a well informed decision... Apparently, some legitimate users do use those networks—both when logged in and anonymously. Disallowing registered users would likely be more counterproductive than productive. As for the unregistered users, we did receive a few complaints from such in the past too—when we had blocked those networks long-term. In the end, our decision was to focus on the AI anti-vandal bot, so that it may identify the bad edits and counter them with the shortest possible blocks. How efficient that is in practice is debatable, as usually as long as the blocks expire, the vandalism continues, but well, at least we can be relieved that we're trying. :) So, TBH, I don't really know what would be the best approach here. I suspect that these guys will pop up only when they get frustrated enough on our projects—that's what they've been doing in the past—which may be every day, but may also be only once in a month. If I were in your place, I'd probably keep a note on those nets somewhere, and once that typical silly harassment/vandalism is encountered, I'd block them for a few days. Of course, blocking them long-term (but allowing registered users) is also an option—easier to maintain, obviously, though with some inevitably larger collateral damage. If there's anything else I can probably help you with, don't hesitate to ping me. And thank you very much for the help, indeed!
— Luchesar • T/C 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 85.118.81.71 — Luchesar • T/C 18:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 213.226.63.151 — Luchesar • T/C 18:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 85.118.76.54 — Luchesar • T/C 18:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reports. I issued an emergency block this afternoon after one of the IPs was editwarring WD:AN (from a 4.3 inch mobile device in desktop mode, what a pain). Now some range contribution lists (requires activated gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets):

All ranges/contributions covered? Otherwise feel free to add more ranges, since this makes it much easier to get an overview about the activity. I will further look into this later, however I do not understand a single word of Bulgarian and can’t really understand the vandalism itself. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: as far as I can see, we have only blocked Special:Contributions/85.118.227.75 for three months once—in 2013. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
MisterSynergy, yes, these are the ranges. They also used 78.83.94.41, but it has been since blocked globally. At some point, they were also heavily using anonymous proxies and VPNs, but probably because of the harsh restrictions on our projects (we did at one point block even Amazon) and the ease of abuse of the mobile networks later gave up on it. As for the vandalism itself, it tends to be pretty silly and even primitive. They usually try to harass the admins and patrollers from the Bulgarian projects (for obvious reasons, I guess) wherever they find them active—their preference for Wikidata and Commons thus seems again easy to explain. One way is the trivial posting of offensive or just silly things on the talk and user pages. Or they'd revert edits or simply vandalise pages their targets had edited, usually in a not very sophisticated way (e.g. here they replace a photo of Selechka mountain with a rather irrelevant illustration of the extent of the Kingdom of Bulgaria in early Middle Ages). While they do sometimes engage in apparently nationalistic warring (e.g. calling people "Turks" or "Pomaks", or replacing mentions of Macedonia with Bulgaria, they seem to do this only as copycats. Indeed, one of their typical modus operandi on the Bulgarian projects is seeking some conflict between editors, and then pretending to be one of the sides or someone who takes a side. And they continue with that imitation even months after the original conflict has ended. I'm convinced that whatever their problem is, their main drive, as typical for many vandals, is the crave for attention. They seem to even enjoy the blocking itself, because they have still managed to waste someone's time—and provided they can avoid the block, of course. I guess that for this reason they also seek projects where they sense that combating them is rather resource intensive—indeed, before I was given the rollback right, dealing with them here was a big PITA. One tactic that does work is simply ignoring their vandalisms for a few days and reverting them only later, but for many reasons that might not be too practical.
— Luchesar • T/C 19:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
You talk about “they” all the time. Do you mean that there are many editors, and if so, do you happen to know how many “they” are? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
MisterSynergy, it's a long story, which started full 6 (or maybe now 7) years ago with a group of vandals, who called themselves "the Modernators". We had quite many problems with them at the time, but eventually they had grown up and given up vandalising, and one of them, The Wiki Boy, even joined bgwiki as a good editor. About year and a half ago, all of a sudden the almost same type of vandalism broke out again, perpetrated by someone (or a group of people), who apparently knew too well the previous case from years ago, and even, it seemed, knew some of the vandals of that time in person. The Wiki Boy thinks he knows who these people are, and according to him there are indeed two of them: one who is "contributing" more with the silly and aggressive type of vandalism, and another who may be more inclined to make strange, random edits, sometimes even trying to present himself as a good editor, but still behaving rather awkwardly (e.g. seeing an argument over whether some template should be put on pages or not, he actually starts putting it on every single page where there's even a slightest reason—but certainly not indisputable one—for the template to be put). This fact seems to explain the sometimes strange variability in the types of vandalism, especially when they were coming from a single IP address, 78.83.94.41.
— Luchesar • T/C 20:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW, to give you an impression of the recent level of vandalism on bgiwki, you may take a look at the AI bot's block log. Not all these blocks are the same guys, but perhaps 90% are. And that's just since last July, when the bot started operating.
— Luchesar • T/C 20:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
An example of what I mean by "strange": this literally says "I'll come and break your ears" (yes, it's "ears", not e.g. "nose"). Also, in the next edit another IP (but likely the same person) is saying "Hristo (that's a person's name), leave [this talk page] now!" That type of schizophrenic exchanges was typical for the Modernators from 6 years ago: there was apparently a guy named "Hristo" amongst them and I believe the words used now are exactly the same as back then. I wish I had that much spare time. :)
— Luchesar • T/C 20:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 85.118.79.81 — Luchesar • T/C 05:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
MisterSynergy, ^^^^^^ — Luchesar • T/C 05:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile blocked:

  • 85.118.68.0/23 (until Jan 19)
  • 85.118.76.0/22 (until Jan 19)
  • 85.118.80.0/22 (until Jan 19)
  • 85.118.84.0/24 (until Jan 19)
  • 85.118.92.0/24 (until Jan 19)
  • 213.226.63.0/24 (until Jan 19)

I don’t hesitate to block the other ranges as well as soon as there is activity. The number of involved IP addresses is actually not that large, so even significantly longer blocks are an option here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Blocked 85.118.68.0/23 as well. Perhaps we should go to the stewards and propose global blocks, they seem not to be here to build knowledge base. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, now all ranges above are blocked, and I extended the only shorter block to one week as well. See block log for details.
For us it wouldn’t make a real difference whether we block the ranges for a year locally, or whether the stewards did at meta using the global IP block tool, right? However, the latter would protect all other projects as well. Since I have no overview of cross-wiki activity, I cannot decide which way to go. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I never realized that global blocks, even on ranges, can be whitelisted locally. This would, I guess, still allow us to control the access on bgwiki with the local blocks that our AI sysop imposes. I think that for the time being the best approach may be seeing what is going to happen. I will also discuss it with our community, as I know some people are generally against anything beyond the minimum necessary restrictions, and others—even admins—happen sometimes to use those addresses for quick edits without logging in, and have complained about being blocked in the past. In any case, I'm deeply grateful for your help here on Wikidata, as this project tends to be particularly difficult to patrol, while at the same time being so crucial to the WM infrastructure.
— Luchesar • T/C 11:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input ;-) I guess from Wikidata’s point of view local anon-only longer (1 year?) range blocks for the above listed ranges would be enough, but if there was a global solution we wouldn’t complain either. bgwiki is probably the one to escalate this to metawiki if they want to. Btw. I am a bit surprised to see that these ranges are used so much and seemingly by so many editors in bgwiki. All of the 85.118.* ranges above together contain only 2816 IPv4 addresses, which is a pretty small number. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
MisterSynergy, haha, I'm actually surprised that so few editors use them. The addresses belong to the largest (though not by far) mobile network operator in Bulgaria. I'm not sure however if that's the only address space for mobile users they have—unless they rely heavily on proxies/NAT, I guess it isn't, as they have over 3.2 million subscribers.
— Luchesar • T/C 21:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to give you a heads up that a new network of the same operator and again used by the same vandals emerged on bgwiki, 85.118.84.0/24.
— Luchesar • T/C 15:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
+ 85.118.84.181 -- that's from the above mentioned network 85.118.84.0/24. @MisterSynergy: — Luchesar • T/C 12:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iliev: Thanks, 85.118.84.0/24 is now also blocked.
@All admins: all range blocks expire on Jan 19. Looks like we are going to need range block for longer times then. Any opinions or suggestions? —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
MisterSynergy, or any other admin: could these blocks lead to legitimate users being logged out each time they try accessing Wikidata? The blocks are anon-only, yet I can't think of another explanation, at least server-side. One of our sysops, Алиса Селезньова (talk • contribs • logs), is apparently affected and she's also one of the users who sometimes use those addresses. Could you possibly set the ipblock-exempt flag on her account—this seemed to fix (or at least avoid) similar problems on other projects in the past.
— Luchesar • T/C 11:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Technically she shouldn't be needing an ip-block excempt to edit from these ranges, but since she's a trusted user, I've granted the ip-block excempt anyway. Mbch331 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I’d like to mention that I occasionally happen to be logged out as well since two or three days (and definitely not longer), and I am not editing from those ranges of course. This seems to be a different problem. In general, blocks do not prevent the blocked user from logging in. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Mbch331, MisterSynergy, thank you, guys! Indeed, I was myself somewhat puzzled how anon-only block could affect logged in users, so it's good to know that the problem is still likely server-side, even if not due to the blocks themselves (user side problems can sometimes be so difficult to debug :)). If it continues for longer, I guess we should open a ticket on Phabricator. As for the ipblock-exempt, it will still be helpful, indeed, as my colleague also uses sometimes computers at public libraries, where logging in, especially with sysop credentials, might not be quite desirable. Thanks again!
— Luchesar • T/C 14:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iliev: ip-block exempts only work when you are logged in. Mbch331 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Eh, my bad, of course—it's pretty obvious... I was actually thinking in my mind about two different situations and got them mixed up in the end. Using an untrusted computer without logging in doesn't have much to do with the ipblock-exempt, indeed. What else I was thinking were the free Wi-Fi networks (also in universities and other public places), which happen sometimes to be hard-blocked, as they can be inadequately protected and thus heavily abused (the vandals here had done that in the past too). And since you use your own laptop in this case, it's safe to log in, but in case of a hard block and without ipblock-exempt, you're still out of luck. Sorry about this confusion—I obviously shouldn't be so absent-minded. ;)
— Luchesar • T/C 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
MisterSynergy, it's probably a good idea to block again those ranges for at least a month. The previous blocks had just begun to expire and the vandalism immediately continued.
— Luchesar • T/C 07:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. All six ranges are now blocked until July 1, 2018. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Other admins: please have an eye on User talk:85.118.80.137. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Question for the other admins: the vandals continue to write on their user talk pages, for which I have not removed access yet. However, their contributions are still aggressive and insulting [3][4], so should we remove talk page access as well? —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Point 1 of notability: Meta?

In our notability guideline is write "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." I don't see nothing about pages on meta.wikipedia, we forgot to add it or there is some discussion that I have missed? --ValterVB (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a matter requiring administrative intervention; Project chat is a better venue for such questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Depend I ask an opinion to other admins, before delete items that have only link to meta. --ValterVB (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Could you give examples of a few items you want to delete on those grounds? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Our notability guideline sounds silly. It should read "... contains at least one valid sitelink to a supported Wikimedia wiki." -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't examples, but I find "funny" that we have excluded Meta from our notability guideline, so I asked to other admins how they behaved for pages with only 1 sitelik in Meta --ValterVB (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How delete wrong property value

I should apologize, I made a failure. I have set with QuickStatements about 2800 wrong edit. How could I delete this wrong item values. I do not have bot right. (Property: P279 value: Q14502790)--Texaner (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You can delete the same way you added them, by adding '-' to the beginning of each line. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Could you give an example? - Q4433 P279 Q14502790 did not work. --Texaner (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
-Q4433 P279 Q14502790 should work (no space after the -). Mbch331 (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The QickStatement say: ERROR: -Q4433 is not a Wikidata item (Qxxx). Did you forget to set a wiki to convert from articles to items? --Texaner (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You should use this version. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

spammer

Please block VIP-LIMO as promotional-only account (promotional username, promotional edits) --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: ✓ Done indef; thanks for reporting! Mahir256 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive behaviour from Fractaler (2)

Fractaler

I think we came to the point where a block is needed, and a rather long one. Following WD:BLOCK, Fractaler has shown a pattern of local abuse and started with harassment. I haven't been much active for the past few weeks (and won't have much time in the near future either), and yet I came to find my talk page with several messages from Fractaler asking about his creations being deleted, even though I already replied to him about a month ago. This user has created a massive amount of items with questionable notability (I have yet to finish compiling a list here). Over half of his creations have already been deleted, but despite having been continuously told to add references to assert the notability of the rest of his creations, he hasn't done anything about it but complain when they actually get deleted for lack of notability. Even worse, he was warned to stop creating such items, and yet I found that he has kept going, which shows a completely lack of respect for the project and the time of other users (deleting all his non-notable creations required and still requires a huge amount of work).

He wastes editors' time with non-sense discussions, often completely off-subject, on the Project Chat and several Wikiprojects. Some examples that I could quickly find: interaction with Wostr, tries to derails a thread here, gets told off for derailing the thread in here. Also, he has created an absurd amount of talk pages for items just to write more non-sense (he literarily doesn't make any sense most of the time). Only rarely (like in Talk:Q12131), somebody dares to answer him, and then he just annoys whoever discusses with him until they gave up. I just hope he hasn't scared off any new users by following that pattern.

@ChristianKl: was supposed to keep an eye on Fractaler; however, he hasn't stopped creating non-notable items. It is fair to say that this user has shown a pattern of abuse by trying to forcibly establish a made up ontology even though nobody seems to agree with him (a disrupted behaviour was also the cause of him being banned from his local project). Most of his edits are detrimental to Wikidata, so I see no point of him wasting more time from other users. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 06:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr, Horcrux92, EncycloPetey:, as the involved users in the threads Andreas linked to. Mahir256 (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, @Sänger: Although, unfortunately, there are many more parties involved than the above-mentioned. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 07:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Some more "discussions", s/he started with illegible "wording" about useless nonsense, where I happened to ask for sense: Talk:Q198763, Talk:Q2043199, Talk:Q209075, Talk:Q2793701 and a lot more. They are the last ones, so my tone is not always as soft as it was in the beginning, as there seems to be absolutely no learning curve. S/He tries to invent a world, so that it could be pushed into self-defined boxes, without regard to the reality, and the sometimes slightly different meanings of items in different languages. S/He doesn't seem to care at all about the real world, as long as s/he can shove items in useless boxes. If they can't be defined in a way s/he wants because of disambiguations and for this item non-useful properties. If the properties are useful for the items, s/he sometimes does good work, but it's a bit time consuming to evaluate all this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm dubious about the notability of the items that s/he creates, but I totally agree with you about her/his way to interface with other users: I often struggle trying to find a sense in her/his words and most of the times I give up on finding it and I leave the conversation or even stop reading. --Horcrux92 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • At the time, I did ask the right to ban him when needed as a condition for taking responsibility and that was rejected. I do  Support a block. I did make a good attempt at explaining how Wikidata is supposed to work to him but unfortunately that wasn't successful. The recent discussion in the chemistry project where he advocated that IUPAC is supposed to be irrelevant for how we structure our ontology because we are making our own database is a good illustration that the principle of Wikidata that we don't seek to do original search when there's prior art available doesn't seem to be understood by him.
I don't think he makes a good faithed attempt at coming to consensus and that means that people get involved with him into long discussions that don't lead anywhere but that do take up volunteer time that could be otherwise used more effectively. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:, please, what my words here said "IUPAC is supposed to be irrelevant for how we structure our ontology"? --Fractaler (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm referring to "Does IUPAC make any knowledgebase or we? IUPACIUPAC is just for rules, for notability,for living of item in the WD-space." ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Should the project provide the user with the right to click on the link and verify what is being claimed? Can I ask you to give a link next time? Thank you in advance --Fractaler (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I referred to Wikiproject Chemistry and that's enough information for anybody who's interested to look up the discussion. I don't believe in the creation of all sorts of rights because you want rights. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think that all "readers of this game" (do not confuse with "anybody who's interested"!) will reread the whole discussion to find what you claimed? --Fractaler (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I see no need for them to reread anything, but if they want they can do so. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you know telephone game (Q151939)-effect? What do you think, on what principles are the fake news (Q28549308) built? And faith (I believe, I don't believe, approvals without quotes, references, etc.) is a property of the emotional system on which religion relies. A person who does not rely on (and does not adhere to) the principle of verifiability is very easy to manipulate - he will never have his own opinion, only the opinion of authority, and he will be afraid to break, fall out of favor with authority. And WD does not rely on religion, it relies on statements that can be checked. And this progress can not be stopped. --Fractaler (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu: he hasn't stopped creating non-notable items links, please. --Fractaler (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Horcrux92: I agree, I have this: if I have an idea, I do not express it at once, but I try to bring my idea to interlocutor (method "step by step"). Perhaps this strategy is erroneous and needs to be changed. --Fractaler (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
a disrupted behaviour was also the cause of him being banned from his local project: such inaccurate statements(kind of polysemy (Q191928)) tend not to be used in modern science, because there is still greater need for accuracy (unfortunately, WD is not yet fully a scientific project). But such polysemy (in fallacy (Q186150)) can be used to manipulate the opinions of those who do not have full information! --Fractaler (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The reason given is злоупотребление википочтой, google translates this with abuse of wikis. The block log in ruWP confirms this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
And Google does not specify, in whose opinion it was abuse of wikis (polysemy)? How do you think, the adimistrator can use the wording abuse of wikis for personal purposes? How do you think, the administrator who played not by the rules won or lost? --Fractaler (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how such things are organized on ruWP, I know from deWP and enWP that such decisions are not lone decisions by abusive admins, or if they were, these admins will not be admins any longer. There is always the possibility of a review, and your ban seems not to have had anyone protesting. So it's a fact, that you had been abusing the ruWP. Or do you have any other prove? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
From your experience of communicating with me, do you think I can insult ("make abusiveness") a person? Can lone administrator make a decision change deadline (reword) with the wording "abuse of wikis" (abuse of wikipost)?
May be you mean this ban-start? Then yes, this temporary consensus of administrators as of January 2012 discussed me. Then, this administrator put blocking endless locking. And at the same time disclosed my confidential data. When I said that it was right for him to sue and demand compensation for moral damage. I was re-blocked with the phrase "for threatening the court". When I asked the administrator to delete some of my contributions, he probably did not like something and the wording was changed again. January 2012 RU-WP was very aggressive, authoritarian, persecuting dissenters with other legitimate approaches, blocking such people even for discussion!!! How do you think, should the administrator permanently block for a discussion on the topic in the category space? Problem was especially evident when I asked: "Who owned Wikipedia? Does it belong to, for example, a temporary consensus?". And now, most interesting observation: in this project there are also editors who are afraid to change their point of view! Anyone who tries to show that there is an alternative, they suppress. And this is a known fact in psychology. From this can not escape. If this is necessary for the project, then let it be. --Fractaler (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe the Trump talking point that the New York Times is fake news. The fact that they don't provide sources for all the claims they make doesn't change the fact that they have developed a lot of authority by building up their reputation through providing well researched articles. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Your statements, the methods that you use, indicate that you have used little scientific principles, methods, etc. in your practice, but more religious principles, methods (faith, authorities, etc.). I'm right (it's just an observation, you can not answer)? What do you think happens in science when a scientific fact appears, for example, a refutation of the statement of the super-light of science (has "have developed a lot of authority by building up their reputation through providing well-researched articles", etc)? Fractaler (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been pinged here, so I feel obligated to comment in this thread. However, as I am involved in dispute with Fractaler on WikiProject Chemistry pages (which is not entirely substantative discussion, but also personal, and where I stated in quite strong words that I won't continue this discussion until some conditions are met), I think it is not appropriate for me to advocate for or against any administrative actions against Fractaler.
Also, because I recalled in WP Chemistry Fractaler's block log on Russian Wikipedia, I think I should point out that the exact reason for indefinite block was злоупотребление википочтой (what seems to me can be translated as abuse of wikimail rather than abuse of wiki, cf. ru:Википедия:Википочта). Although, by writing I see that he's indefinitely blocked on his home project for disrupting actions I meant his indefinite block in connection with earlier blocks (деструктивное поведение = destructive behaviour).
I cannot judge if his block on ru.wiki was correct or was based on personal reasons as Fractaler stated above — however, based on my six years' experience as an pl.wiki admin, it seems very unlikely that incorrect admin decision has not been reverted for years, but I'm not familiar with ru.wiki rules. The administrator's discussion can be found here. I could find and describe the whole situation in ru.wiki (at this moment, I can only say, that is was probably about some aspects of categorisation), but I don't think it matters — block here cannot be based on edits or administrative actions on other project. Wostr (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it (Wostr's statement) is one of the typical examples of the scientific approach (accuracy of formulations, study of the source, etc.). I think it is for such people that the future of the project (and not for those who do not use the scientific approach) Fractaler (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think WD is only a game, Fractaler, where a user „won or lost“? --Succu (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Succu: Where did I claim that "WD is only a game"? Sorry, I do not know English well, +sometimes I do not have the opportunity to make a clarification. Just in case, (system (systems biology (Q815297)) biologists can not read the basics below):
There is game theory (Q44455). There are rules of game. There are participants (agent (Q24229398)) in the game. There are participants who follow the rules of the game, there are those who do not comply. The organism (from micro- to superorganism like superorganism (Q916139)) exists due to observance of the rules of the game (the rules that ensure its existence). These rules state that any component of the system must respond to requests in the system. If one of the components of the system stops responding, then such a system begins to fail, the sum of which leads to the collapse of the system
Examples: (non-biological) I think, everyone, faced with when the WD-database (one of the components of the system) ceases to respond to the requests of its users (other components) or gives not what the user requested; (biological): the cell ceased to respond to requests for termination of division (violation of the rules of the game). Such a cell is called a cancer cell. A person endowed with power ceases to respond (violation of the rules of the game) to the demands of those who gave him this power. If the powers are large, then it can be, for example, a tyrant, an authoritarian personality, etc. (theory: authoritarian personality (Q788594), right-wing authoritarian personality (Q4376276), etc.). Such people should never be given the absolute power to which they aspire (in order not to be responsible for their actions to those who endowed them with power). If they are not stopped, then this leads to the collapse of the system (there is a very long list of examples from the history). Fractaler (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Norms of administrative behavior

Are there rules for the behavior of the administrator in WD? For example, does it have the right to use the request from the administrator who deleted the item without discussion, so that he could prove his rightness at the remote item? What measures should be taken to the administrator, who not only failed to prove the legitimacy of his actions, but still does not respond to requests? There were, there are and will be people in the world, endowed with power, who themselves resign for understandable reasons. Are there any similar examples in WD and did the community's opinion on them change after that? --Fractaler (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andreasmperu:, I have a personal question: do you think why some people, endowed with power, resign? Fractaler (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Fractaler, there is a set of Wikidata policies which administrators have to obey just as all other users have to as well. Unfortunately, I cannot go into more detail as long as you are just asking a rather abstract question, while you have a particular administrator (Andreasmperu) and maybe even a particular case in mind that you do not present here. If you happen to think that Andreasmperu has violated a specific Wikidata policy, you need to describe the case here in detail including difflinks to critical edits. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss at the Administrators' noticeboard, and nothing that other administrators can have a look at. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, let's take a concrete example. @Andreasmperu: without any warnings and discussions began to delete items created by me. The first point I found was paired and unpaired organs. I asked to join the discussion of these items. She did not answer and did not join the discussion. @Andreasmperu:, if you can prove that these items should not be in the WD, I myself terminate the activity for the period that you specify. If you can not, then you restore the item and bring me your apologies. Do you agree? --Fractaler (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's false. There have been a lot of discussions with you. You have been told to add references to items. You failed to do so and Andreasmperu deleted items without any references. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: There have been a lot of discussions with you, just show these discussions, where she proves that items (paired and unpaired organs) can not be in WD. --Fractaler (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The last paragraph by Fractaler nicely sums up the problems with him/her: Sets "set 1" and the "set 2" must have a superset. S/He's got an idea, that's not supported by reality or any reliable source, but is must be included. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sänger: you still maintain that:"The real world is that, what you see, once you get up from your chair in front of a monitor and open your eyes"? --Fractaler (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Place of obligatory answer

This place is not obligatory. Then where? Fractaler (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just an attempt to get answers from a editor to whom the society temporarily gave more rights

Not-done-items of "Requests for deletion

Q38791127 was discussed at this "Requests for deletions" and was not deleted. Andreasmperu deleted the item without any discussion. --Fractaler (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

unit (Q2198779)

There was Q30103061 ("unit"). Andreasmperu deleted it, instead of making a redirect to unit (Q2198779) --Fractaler (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Crew, crew member

Q41302258 (label "crew member") was deleted by Andreasmperu without any discussion. This led to problems that were discussed here. Later, the administrator for crew member (Q5184855) gives the name "crew member", and tautological description: "crew member serving in the operation of an aircraft, naval vessel, or train ("crew member" is "crew member"). On repeated requests on "crew member" problem until now there was no reaction. --Fractaler (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Labels

I can not to see labels, description, links to other item from some deleted items (it used in conversation, outside and inside WD, for example, used in the structure of WD, etc.). Andreasmperu, does not respond to requests to give the name of the items that she deleted. Fractaler (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Questionable notability? What is it?

This user has created a massive amount of items with questionable notability (I have yet to finish compiling a list here). Over half of his creations have already been deleted: Andreasmperu, but why did you stop? What are the remaining items than they differ from those that you deleted without any discussion? Fractaler (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
He already indicated that the remaining items do not necessarily differ. - Brya (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The list was last edited in 3 December 2017. If "the remaining items do not necessarily differ", then why these items were also not immediately deleted without any discussion? Why she restored, for example (unfortunately, I do not have access to the entire list of restored items for completeness), 1, 2? --Fractaler (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


User rights

Andreasmperu, how do you think, do the creators of the items have the right to make the item comply with the rules of the notability? Here was the proposal to create a policy document wit: item's creator has no rights to protect the right of existence of the item created by him. Cause (by ChristianKl): given the amount of items that get deleted those admins who do the bulk of the deletion work see such a right as a problem for their work. Do you agree with this statement? Can we add this statement to the policy? Fractaler (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The creators of the items have the right to quit Wikidata. They also have copyright, in as far as it applies. But otherwise, no rights. - Brya (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Should editors have the right to make the item comply with the rules of the notability? --Fractaler (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The editor that makes an item should make sure it complies with the notability rules. It's not a right, but a duty. Mbch331 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. And what about the case for editors who do not know about "notability rules" yet? What are the duties of the administrator in this case? Wikidata:Administrators, Wikidata:Deletion policy, for example, nothing said about the administrator's responsibilities in relation to such editors. There are no such duties? Fractaler (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You may als consider to request removal of his administrator right via WD:RFP/R. --218.68.229.246 02:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior and presumption of innocence (Q275462)

Does the administrator have the right to use terms such as "disruptive behavior"? Why is it permissible to use such expressions? Is there such a thing as presumption of innocence (Q275462)? --Fractaler (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This "presumption of innocence" is a legal concept (often pretty twisted, in practice). It does not apply here. - Brya (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Should WD have an improved and adapted analog? Should the user be protected from charges that he can refute? Should there be compensation to the user for the damage user was caused by inaccurate language? --Fractaler (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
We already have WD:NPA, WD:AGF and WD:UCS. Those should be enough for user interaction. If you have problems with a user you can't resolve yourself, seek help from other users or admins (depending on how bad it is). Mbch331 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I will study links --Fractaler (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mbch331, Fractaler: Note: I recently requested removal of his sysop permission at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Andreasmperu. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Q28859140, Q28859155

(now: first entry/second entry of the pair, first component/second component) were deleted by Andreasmperu without any discussion. Her such deletions caused confusion. --Fractaler (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Q37724659

"physiological quantitative characteristic" (biomedical measurand type (Q42014143), biomedical measurand) was deleted by Andreasmperu without discussion. --Fractaler (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Full list

For completeness of the scale of violations, it's need the entire list of items (with labels and description) that were deleted by the Andreasmperu without discussion? How to do it? --Fractaler (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That won't be possible. There's no tool to create such a list, so an admin would have to manually make such a list. I don't think any admin wants to do that. I'm trying to AGF on your side, but I more and more get the feeling that you're trying to frame Andreasmperu. Please don't make a list here of items that were deleted. If you think Andreasmperu start a removal procedure on the page I provided for that (don't know in which part of this discussion I provided that link, since you've made so much sections). Otherwise just stop. This isn't the place to make a list of what you assume to be bad faith actions by Andreasmperu. Mbch331 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Here I gave examples of violations as I was told. If the available facts are enough to just pay attention (as below I wrote I do not have a goal to pursue Andreasmperu, deny administrator rights, to frame, etc), then I fulfilled my mission. I hope this will at least slightly affect her attitude to the editors. --Fractaler (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
A list of items created by you, including those which were deleted, is available with the xtools tool. However, it does not filter for items deleted by Andreasmperu, and it also does not know whether there was a discussion in advance of the deletion. This list might still help you to figure out more details.
Besides this, I’d claim that at least 90% of all item deletions are not discussed in advance (there are 500+ deletions per day, please compare the number of cases listed in the WD:RfD archive pages); thus a deletion without prior discussion is not necessarily a violation of policies. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and explanation. I hope I do not have to use this tool. I think now, after attracting the attention of so many users, the Andreasmperu will finally understand that editors may not know some of the requirements and their work should be treated with respect (without discrimination). --Fractaler (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that you are the only person who objects here to his behavior, this discussion provides little reason for him to change. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You again made fallacy (Q186150), which is often used in non-scientific method (Q46857), non-science (Q28954762). It will be interesting - let me know. Tell (here or in the section "Administrative duties, re-election"), would you vote for the introduction of the item "objectivity in defending the rights of the editor of WD" " in the re-election of the administrator? And rightly I understand that the behavior of "user, you made several/many items that do not comply with such rules (link). You are given X time to fix the situation, otherwise they will be deleted" is the wrong administrator behavior, instead of which should increase the counter of deleted items immediately delete the work of the user without any discussion? Fractaler (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrative duties, re-election

1) Does the administrator have to protect the user's rights? 2) How often is the administrator re-elected and who has the right to vote? --Fractaler (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The rules for an admin are on WD:A. There are the answers to your questions. Mbch331 (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks! --Fractaler (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I understand, administrators are not chosen for a specific (1 year/2 years/3 years/.../etc.) term (as is practiced for sustainable systems in which people are empowered). --Fractaler (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
In which cases should the administrator not delete the item immediately, but nominate it for deletion? What measures are applied to an administrator who does not practice this approach? --Fractaler (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
An admin should nominate an item when he/she doubts about the notability or if he/she expects discussion by multiple users about a deletion. If an admin doesn't practice this approach, first step would be requesting the admin for undeletion. If the admin doesn't want to, request an other admin (via WD:AN) for undeletion. If an admin persists in not following this practice you could start a removal procedure on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal. Mbch331 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and explanation. Now the problem is that the administrator made a massive deletion that: there are no shortcuts, no description, the whole picture is broken, communications are lost, it is impossible to restore what was connected with, you can not go to the items that were deleted (they are not found when searching). How now to find all this lost information? Without this information, I can not fully show the full picture, the whole scale. I did not even suspect that in such a solid project administrator (!!!) could remove the colleague's work without any warning, discussion (which is being blamed in civilized projects where there is respect between colleagues) and therefore did not retain any information in case of damage. I am not aiming to deprive Andreasmperu of his rights, in many ways I agree with her, we seem to have common goals. I just want to draw the attention of colleagues to the attitude of Andreasmperu to the editors. --Fractaler (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
All information is retained and can be checked by other administrators. On the other hand, the amount of debate and time you can demand from other people do deal with the mess you cause is by design limited. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
My task was to provide facts (and not speculation), I provided them until I was told enough. Fractaler (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked Fractaler for 3 days. The discussion above has long ceased to be productive and has descended into one lengthy mud-slinging attack. --Rschen7754 08:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining account creators

This seems to have run its course. Could an uninvolved admin please close it? --Rschen7754 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I closed the RfC but I don't know how group user rights can be changed. Is a Phabricator ticket needed? --Pasleim (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Thanks. A ticket needs to be created and tagged with site-requests. I can handle that if you don't want to do it. --Rschen7754 19:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, phab:T185597 --Pasleim (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion request on User talk:יונה בנדלאק

How do we think about it? Should we store items that are about domain redirects of Wikimedia wikis? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored all four items and started Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Bulk deletion request: discontinued Wikimedia projects. In case of a contested deletion and a request for a discussion of deletion this is in most cases the best one can do, particularly when there are only a couple of items involved. @יונה בנדלאק, Jura1, Liuxinyu970226: FYI. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Arsenal F.C. (Q9617)

Recurrent vandalism over several days by multiple IPs. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month semi —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

spam

Please delete page creations of 1.47.75.158 and block them for spam. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It was cleaned up, but now it is too late to block, all of their contribution is from January 16.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

translations cleanup

Please nuke all pages created by Imanmosavi1. These are translations completely irrelevant to the message translated and appear to be spam. Please consider any further actions as well. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: Deleted and blocked for 31 hours; thanks for reporting! Mahir256 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection of Q42410

Please semi-protect Evo Morales (Q42410). Persistent vandalism from various IP addresses, popular theme.--Jklamo (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month semiprotection. Csigabi (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Artist of Black Lunch Table

Discussion at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Artist of Black Lunch Table seems to have ended; can an uninvolved admin close the discussion and take any necessary actions please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This still requires administrator attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Remarkably, still the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

AdminConvention 2018 (german language)

Dieses Jahr findet die AdminConvention, das deutschsprachige Treffen für Themen rund um die Administration von Wikimedia-Projekten, vom 23. - 25. März in Hornberg im Schwarzwald statt. Die Anmeldung ist ab sofort geöffnet, wer Themenwünsche hat oder erfüllen will, Vortrags- oder oder Workshopangebote machen möchte oder bei Organisation und Ablauf helfen möchte, trage sich bitte auf den entsprechenden Seiten ein. --Seewolf (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Google translates this as: "This year the AdminConvention, the German-speaking meeting for topics around the administration of Wikimedia projects, takes place from 23rd to 25th of March in Hornberg in the Black Forest. The registration is open from now on, if you want to fulfill or have wishes for a topic, would like to give lecture or or workshop offers or if you would like to help with the organization and the process, please write on the corresponding pages". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

self-promotion

Pitchvoice has been used solely for self-promotion and the username itself indicates that they are here solely for that purpose. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ blocked - Mbch331 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Einar Myre (talk • contribs • logs)

User is removing links. Then he is creating separate items with the separated items. from 1 to 2. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of separating items for [year] Football League and [year] Football League First Division. These are not the same, and should therefore not be mixed up. I'm not done cleaning up everything yet, so there's still some mess left, but I'm hoping to sort it out soon. Einar Myre (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
really, they are part of each other. Also, the English language Wikipedia articles on first division redirect back to the normal articles. I dont know really. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Most articles there redirect, but not all - see en:Category:Football League First Division seasons. These already had their own separate items, and so do seasons of other divisions of the league, see for example Q1436300. Einar Myre (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Why have you raised this here, without first discussing it with Einar Myre on their talk page or elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Carles Puigdemont (Q4740163)

Persistent defamatory vandalism, ever since protection expired in January. I recommend renewing it and extending it to indefinite. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: Semi-protected for another three months—hesitant to impose indefinite protection unless something like "extended-confirmed protected" is desirable as a protection level throughout Wikidata. Mahir256 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I am sysop of Vietnamese Wikipedia. Recently, we found that Cotonkin (talk • contribs • logs) vandalizes a huge number of wrong interlinks. This user tried to connect articles (in Vietnamese mainly about political parties) to unrelated articles, such as [6], Thai Pongal links to Đảng Xã hội (Đông Dương) (mean Socialist Party (Indochina)). Pls stop him. Thanks! Alphama (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alphama, does it mean that all the contributions of Cotonkin must be cancelled? Pamputt (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It definitely looks like it, the few random samples I looked up were all bad faithed vandalism. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
He continues to vandalize today. [7]. Alphama (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I blocked him. That's said I have no time to revert all he did. I can have a look tonight or this week if it is not done before. Pamputt (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pamputt: Few of his first edits are OK but the remainder should be canceled. Please stop him. Alphama (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Property for deletion

Please could an uninvolved sysop close the following discussions:

This should still be done. Note, closing a discussion on PfD does not mean the same admin has to (re)move all current usages and to delete the property. The latter two steps can be done on a later date. --Pasleim (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Maitsavend

Добрый день. Можно ли заблокировать или лучше отменить все правки данного участника User:Maitsavend, так как практически не один его перевод на татарский язык не является правильным, участник сам придумывает словосочетания, слова, можно в этом убедиться открыв словарь или переводчик. Good afternoon. Is it possible to block or better cancel all the edits this user is User:Maitsavend, as virtually no one its translation into the Tatar language is not correct, the participant comes up with phrases, words, can verify this by opening the dictionary or translator.---Damir (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No discussion has been opened on the user's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ogoorcs (talk • contribs • logs)

Ogoorcs (talk • contribs • logs) reverted my edit on Lionel Messi (Q615): fact is, I do not think that Lionel Messi (Q615) should be considered a con artist (Q41515083) just because he has been convicted for it, so I do think that a statement such as Lionel Messi (Q615)occupation (P106)con artist (Q41515083) is factually wrong as an assumption. I would like some more opinions from you all about this, since it seems that the user's behaviour is mostly centred on such assumptions. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I see many people still confuse occupation (Q12737077) with profession (Q28640). I can advice reading a previous discussion on the same matter. Summing up, occupation (Q12737077) is any activity characterized by habituation (Q1136816). Committing fraud isn't something that happen over night; the fraud ends when the person start to declare correct information to the state, so anyone committing fraud is a fraudster for at least an year (depending on the country's tax reporting habits). Messi (not only his accountant) was convicted for fraud, so it is formally correct to say that one of his occupation was being a "fraudster" from *date in which the crime started* until *date in which the crime ended*. One can extract that information from the sentence or any valid reference. I did not search that information, anyway the fact that it is not specified the period of validity does not make the claim uncorrect. I can understand that reading the statement without the dates could make it questionable, anyway I think it is always a good thing to add a valid statement even when lack of information raise readers' doubts. --Ogoorcs (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Same problem on Umberto Bossi (Q47832) and Silvio Berlusconi (Q11860). Items already has convicted of (P1399) with source, the use of occupation (P106) for a "single event" without source that said that the occupation of the person is criminal or a fraudster can be a problem. --ValterVB (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Many valid references can't explicitly contain occupation statements. As in a previous example, I could provide a newspaper interview in which Messi says that he loves gardening and cares for a garden on his rooftop since 2005. Such a reference makes an "occupation":"gardener" valid for the subject without explicitly saying that Messi is a gardener. This is valid because "occupation" is not the same as "profession". In the particular case, the same reference valid for the "convicted of": "fraud" statement is valid for "occupation": "fraudter". --Ogoorcs (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that is IMO, that occupation (P106) is he only property (or widely used property?) that can be used to automatically generate a description á la "XYZ is a Portuguese footballer" or "Italian politician", something you'd find at the beginning of an encyclopedia article or as a summary. And in my experience, you rarely see every single job that a person ever held, or every activity ever performed listed as occupation (Q12737077). Which of course makes statements such as "fraudster" seem somewhat misleading, since that's not something you'd usually expect in such summaries. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact that every single job a person held is not listed on Wikidata can be considered a lack of information about the subject, not the proof that "occupation" should only contain relevant jobs. We have statement classification for a reason. Statements about relevant occupations should have "preferred" classification. Any other job we have reference the person held can be classified as "normal" or "deprecated". In any case, this is a problem of the tools who use statements, not of the latters. --Ogoorcs (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Is this not good enough for you, Ogoorcs? --Succu (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope you're kidding. Do you think this is some sort of battle to record crimes or something? This is a matter of words and inference. We have two concepts and two properties that are not unrelated: when a subject contains the "convicted for: fraud" statement, then that subject should automatically contain the "occupation: fraudster" statement (circumscribing the validity of the claim to the correct period of time it's a good thing of course). That's not me asking that, but the very definition of fraudster.
If this project wants to omit statements because part of his user base thinks that could they are obvious or something, well, I remember them that databases are primarly read by machines, not from humans, and the firsts don't interpret labels, but statements. The fact that some people (maybe from inside Wikipedia) have written machines that don't discriminate occupations or don't make the difference between 'occupation' and 'profession', well, it's their problem. Information processing is not a simple task: write a better machine, create a new property, do not try to manipulate information. Wikidata is not about Wikipedia, is about open data. --Ogoorcs (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but I feel that there's a big divide between what the property is intended for, what people (especially outside Wikidata) might expect from it and the way it is often used in practice. It's a situation that's going to lead to disagreements and minor conflicts every now and then. --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ban of Fractaler

Given that no administrator spoke up on the previous discussion to object to the proposal to ban Fractaler I went ahead and banned him for the proposed reasons. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I can't find such a proposal on that page; please can you give a more specific link, or a diff? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: It wasn’t the most explicit proposal, but At the time, I did ask the right to ban him when needed as a condition for taking responsibility and that was rejected. I do  Support a block. seems like the quote you’re looking for. Mahir256 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So a ban was rejected, and ChristianKl subsequently requested a block, not a ban. Absent any evidence of consensus for a ban, I suggest ChristianKl do one of three things:

  1. reduce his ban to a time-limited block, explaining clearly the reason for blocking, on Fractaler's talk page
  2. reduce his ban to an indefinite block, with a clear condition for its lifting, and explain that clearly on Fractaler's talk page
  3. lift the ban, and reopen discussion in order to find consensus.

[ping fixed] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand "I think we came to the point where a block is needed, and a rather long one. Following WD:BLOCK, Fractaler has shown a pattern of local abuse and started with harassment" to be a request for a block. Do you think it isn't?

Our policy says nothing about putting explanations on talk pages of banned users. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask whether you are aware of the differences between bans (a social concept) and blocks (a technical concept)? A single-handed permanent ban by a lone administrator seems pretty inadequate, to be honest. Bans are the very last resort we (the community) have to prevent damage from the project, but it has to be widely agreed on by us (the community) and then enforced by a (permanent) block, which is issued by an administrator. I agree that we may discuss such options in the Fractaler case, but I do not see that this is the only option left, or that we (the community) clearly want this. Also mind that we don’t even have a local “banning policy”. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not think good wording has been used here. We do not have bans here, and ChristianKl just imposed a block of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that my wording wasn't optimal and I have no problem with changing it to block. I don't think our blocking policy is about something inherently technical. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
As I indicated above, indef blocks should not be placed on regular contributors without some indication of what steps may be taken to remove the block. And no regular editor should receive a block of any length without being informed of why; and how to appeal it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion that's not backed by our policy. The policy as written has the advantage that it reduces the administrative effort that we would have if we continue to regularly discuss about Fractaler. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
As others have indicated, it is a suggestion of a block, not a ban. You shouldn't need a written policy to tell you not to issue bans with no warning, nor indefinite blocks with no notification of how to resolve them. But if you want to stick to the letter of the policy, WD:BLOCK says "If any block... is controversial, the status-quo should be restored and discussion should commence via administrators' noticeboard on which course of action to take". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider a decision that was taken after nobody opposed it when it was proposed at this page to be controversial. If another admin sees it that way, they are free to act how they interpret it. The policy allows any admin to apply it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion of whether your action was controversial is not the point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Outline of reasons

On October 2016, @TomT0m: brought the attention towards Fractaler's "weird edits" (Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2016/10#Somebody_to_watch). Around a year ago, the same user accused Fractaler of harassment (Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2017/01#Fractaler). On March 2017, @DavRosen: wrote to Fractaler "we can't each edit and organize WD according to different theories about how the knowledge should be represented, no matter how sophisticated or correct the theories may be. If you want to propose doing things differently then make that proposal, but don't edit WD according to such a proposal unless it is accepted". There are several other warnings on Fractaler's talkpage about him creating items backed only with his own reasoning or using properties in a wrong way (and damaging Wikidata's structure as a result). Almost three months ago (on 6 November 2017 to be more precise), I warned him on his talkpage to stop creating non-notable items, and I explained in detail on this noticeboard what was the problem with his behaviour. He has also been told by several users to add references to assert the notability of the items he had created (also by me, over a month ago); however, he has failed to do so. After my warning from November to stop creating non-notable items, Fractaler has created 55 new items (all creations listed), including Q42879824, which was actually discussed in a request for deletions and subsequently deleted. Also, among those 55 new items there was Q47461773 (label: "human cardiovascular system"; description: "type of cardiovascular system"; no references), Q47461615 (label: "classical ballet"; description: "dance form, originating in France during the 17th century, began as a theatrical dance (it was not until the 19th century that ballet gained status as a “classical” form)"; no references); Q47458971 (label: "common structural feature"; description: "(in class of compound) feature to which is attached a variable part (or parts) defining a specific compound of the class: a functional group to which one or a small number of variable parts are attached; sizeable part of the molecular structure, or a repetitive part of the molecular structure, possibly but not necessarily devoid of functionalities; quite often the attached variable groups may be many and of any functionality"; one reference for the statement subclass of quality (Q1921834): to this link; however the link doesn't support that statement). By the way, I also told him months ago to check Help:Description, and got this as a reply, and considering all his descriptions he has clearly no intention to follow that convention either. Moreover, he adds questionable or even absurd statements without any references to support them, and just doesn't recognise he might be wrong even though other users point out the problem (for instance, Talk:Q20978643). And finally, since I have dedicated way too many hours to this case, and even got some headaches because of it (literally), I have been a target of an harassment's campaign where I have been called a tyrant who is going to collapse the system, among other things, even though I haven't been the only administrator who has deleted Fractaler's non-notable items or undone his wrong statements. Fractaler asked for the right to make the item comply with the rules of the notability, and yet he has had almost three months to add references to the 700 items that he has created and haven't been deleted, but he has decided to not do that, and continue with his disruptive behaviour. Several users have tried to explain how Wikidata works, and failed. At this point, the only reason I could find is that he is boycotting this project and, therefore, needs to be blocked before further damage is done. Either way, I urge more users (not only administrators) to get involved in this case since there are still a lot of wrong edits to fix (not just his creations, but wrong statements), because I have already spent too much time and effort on this case and have been singled out as a result. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid but

I  Strong oppose this, this looks rather like personal grudges between Andreasmperu and Fractaler than what all Wikidata community should consider, there's various functional words in the proposal text, which is rather irrelevant, and some are also affecting legal authorities which even kindly beyond the WMF staffs' control. Maybe, as only maybe, the members of Communications committee could make some reflects here, but at least I won't do, because by doing it, no one even me will trust me anymore as such thing is subject to legal threats, is subject to privacy issues, and is subject to works of m:SuSa which therefore no one of Wikimedians who just visited Wikidata will run away, which of which is not what I wanna see. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal#Andreasmperu

There really should start a vote under this link, why still purely discussions? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Because you started that vote too early, and people are still discussing. --Rschen7754 07:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussions to remove advanced permissions tend to involve more debate than appointment discussions, because editors are rightly interested in resolving the causes of the problem. Past discussions at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal generally tend to be more discussion than voting. Deryck Chan (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

2a01:388:2e3:150:a01d:2a25:aada:45a7

I'm alarmed to see anon edits from IP User:2a01:388:2e3:150:a01d:2a25:aada:45a7 that have added the wrong identifiers to biographies.

Examples include:

I fear it may be best to revert all of this user's 447 additions, all made on 6 July 2017 - but I am also concerned that they may have operated from other IP addresses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a view? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Some of them appear to be correct, for example the edit on Tony Bradshaw (Q15994320). Is there some automated way to crosscheck all the Scopus ID's with their wikidata items to look for problems such as those you found? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Not completely, but they can be triangulated with other identifiers; or the constraint report for multiple uses of the same value can be checked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2018/01&oldid=993295729"