Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Administrators' noticeboard This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. If you wish for something to be deleted, please use Wikidata:Requests for deletions. If you want to report a bug in Wikidata software, please use Wikidata:Report a technical problem or Phabricator. Matters not requiring administrator action should be raised at Project chat. Matters that may involve CheckUser should be raised at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser. To report vandalism on wikidata: please click here. Please add {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} to resolved sections. IRC channel: #wikidataconnect

Translate this header box! Start a new discussion

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/06.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Requests for deletions very high ~213 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock low 1 open request for unblock.

Unpleasant interchange

I'm not an admin here, but Wikidata:Project chat#Two new principles introduced by Andy Mabbett seems to me to have started out as something close to a personal attack, focusing in the person rather than the substance, and only seems to have gotten more so as it has gone on. If this were on en-wiki or Commons, I'd have intervened by now, at least to suggest a more polite tone. Is the tone of this acceptable on Wikidata, or has this simply not been spotted? - Jmabel (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The 'taxonomical mafia' (as rendered by @Infovarius: a bit over a year ago) has an interesting history of being served blocks, as a direct result of their behavior towards other editors, by certain admins here (who aside from Nikki have not been as active around here recently). The same sorts of blocks had also been handed down to their target for roughly the same reasons. @Pasleim: is present in that discussion, so the interaction has certainly been spotted, and it has been made clear to all directly involved in that discussion time and time again that the specific behavior they have exhibited and are exhibiting is unacceptable. You're welcome to remind them of this fact at any time, but I would suggest you read up in both the Project chat and Administrators' noticeboard archives about all of their controversies first. Mahir256 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

WD:AN and WD:PC are two completely separate worlds and many who frequent one don't go to the other. I'm not defending that practice, but describing the unfortunate reality. --Rschen7754 01:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made precisely one post in that discussion, and I'm quite happy to stand by it. If you think it ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate, please explain precisely how it is so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If any post that mentions a user is regarded as an ad hominem then I can only suggest reading up on what an ad hominem is. Two further points:

• The pattern shown by the mentioned user of going to revert, after revert, after revert (etc) without giving a supporting argument, or without engaging in any meaningful discussion is surely unwanted. Many users have been blocked for less.
• And, yes, in the past a series of pure ad hominems has been allowed here on this board (two, three times a week, for several weeks), constantly repeating the same demagoguery. Very worrying indeed.

- Brya (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As so tone, I think we all agree that, all things being equal, politeness is preferable. But, clearly, the combination of politeness and nefariousness is not all that rare. Politeness by itself won't achieve anything. What matters is that edits are constructive, that is, they should address issues, and contribute towards better data and better data representation. - Brya (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Brya: Your comment here strikes me as cheap sniping. In terms of the content of this discussion: I don't have a dog in this fight. In terms of how people here talk to and about each other: this is the sort of thing that drives away contributors. - Jmabel (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I must say I am bewildered by this comment. Andy Mabbett's anonymous insertion is strongly deprecating; it mentions "fixing", implying something is broken and then explicitly stating "broken". Obviously, this indent is perfectly functional, doing just what it is supposed to do. If Andy Mabbett holds the belief an insert is desirable, he can do so without the derogatory tone (and he can sign his edits, showing whose beliefs are expressed there). My comment merely mirrors what he is doing and draws attention to his ongoing campaign. - Brya (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Indents

@Brya: If a style of indenting that does not cause problems for users of screen readers is somehow "alien" here, then it's about time that editors started thinking about changing their style. Every time you leave a blank line in an indented discussion, you force a visually impaired visitor to hear something like "end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item;". Yes, that's right: 10 pieces of nonsense for them to listen to, just because you can't be bothered to fill in a blank line with five colons. It's one thing to be ignorant of the problems that you cause those less fortunate than yourself, it's quite another to snidely attack an editor who fixes the problems you cause and shows you how to avoid causing them in future. If you need further reading, then there is a good explanation of the accessibility issue on the English Wikipedia at en:MOS:INDENTGAP. Your style of indenting is indeed "broken" and you owe Pigsonthewing an apology. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

RexxS - Let's start with a basic fact: this is not enwiki. Enwiki has decided to prescribe a style of indenting based on the mind-set and perceptions of a group of users with similar outlook, using similar devices, with screens of similar sizes and with similar screen-settings. A classic case of putting the horse behind the cart, making Talk-pages unreadable for many users: a monument of intolerance. Just the sort of thing that makes people describe enwiki as a creepy sect, communicating by secret, weird, behind-the-back conventions, designed to keep outsiders, well, outside.

        If the designers of "screen readers" have chosen to rely on this enwiki-style, or in other words, decided to build their "screen readers" exclusively for use at enwiki, that is their outlook. If they would be more inclusively-minded, they would have corrected the flaws in their design. That would be a lot more sensible than running around inserting odd little 'patches' accompanied by snide comments at randomly chosen places. It looks to me that both you and Pigsonthewing owe me an apology. --  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brya (talk • contribs) at 03:09, 24 September 2018‎ (UTC).

@Brya: Don't try to patronise me; I'm perfectly aware of the venue and I've been editing here longer than you have. The fact you're missing is that enwiki and Wikidata employ exactly the same style and mechanism for indenting talk page comments. I'm astonished that you don't know that, and it does rather make a nonsense of your derogatory argument about a "creepy sect, communicating by secret, weird, behind-the-back conventions" because those conventions are identical to those used here. That means that the problems caused to a user of a screen reader (Q1328864) are identical. You clearly know nothing about screen readers, so I suggest you read up on the topic before pontificating about their design. It makes not a jot of difference what size screen sighted readers use; a blind visitor using a screen reader makes no use of a screen, because the a client such as JAWS reads the rendered HTML – and reads it in the same way from any website, including this one.

I find your callous attitude to those readers who are less fortunate than ourselves abhorrent. You should be ashamed of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems advisable to read first, before responding. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You certainly should. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Bryas intending, but could you please link to a real experience a screen reader (Q1328864) is not aware of corrupted HTML or refined tags by CSS? --Succu (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Succu: Please understand that a screen reader will read out each <dl>...</dl> and each <dd>...</dd> that it encounters. It's supposed to. Those are genuine description lists that serve a defined purpose in any website. See https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-markup-20121011/dl.html for the HTML5 definition.

Unfortunately, early web developers misused the <dd>...</dd> to produce indents, because most web browsers indented the description term. Wikipedia adopted that bad habit and uses colons (: - the wiki-markup for a description term) to indent talk page comments. Wikidata followed suit. Even more unfortunately, MediaWiki software uses a blank line to signify the end of a list. That means that if you leave a blank line between any two indented talk page comments (as I have deliberately done before this pseudo-paragraph), the parser closes all of the open description lists and then re-opens new ones up to the level of the indentation.

There is no corrupted HTML or CSS involved. The HTML produced between pseudo-paragraphs without a gap is </dd><dd>, but between pseudo-paragraphs with a gap is </dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>. You can verify that yourself by inspecting this page's source. A screen reader should speak the case without a gap at best as something like "end item; second item", and the case with a gap as something like "end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item". It has no option about that. Those HTML tags are genuine, valid tags, and the screen reader is expected announce them.

Now, surely, we should not be subjecting our visually impaired visitors to that for no good reason? Frankly, it makes my blood boil when someone insists on causing others problems even after it's been explained to them they are causing those problems. I'm sorry I'm find myself being so sharp with Brya, but I find his lack of empathy with those less fortunate simply rubs me up the wrong way. Just look at his deliberate obtuseness in his first comment in this thread starting "I must say I am bewildered by this comment" and check the HTML in the page source to see what he deliberately subjected blind visitors to. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You’re describing quite accurately the problem with our “commenting system”: it isn’t one at all. On talk pages we are forced by convention to abuse “definition lists” (or “description lists”) for the indentation, but we write comments, not “definition lists”. The reason why it was invented like that was mentioned by you as well: out of the box it produces indentation in a way one wants to have it, and nobody cared about semantics back then.
Thus, the root of the problem is much more complex than the reluctance of individual users to cope with the technical shortcomings of this “solution”. If the Wikimedia community really wanted to ease accessibility for visually impaired users, it would have requested and accepted a proper commenting system that takes responsibility for clean source code and thus accessibility by itself, rather than relying on users to get this done properly. But either WMF has not been able to deliver something useful here, or the community is unable to accept anything else than this ancient “commenting system” at all.
On a side-note: semantically you’re not using indentation correctly either if you split it to several <dd> sections (i.e. you should be indenting your entire comment only once in the beginning, not each of its paragraphs individually). You would have to create linebreaks with <br> or add paragraph tags <p></p> manually around individual paragraphs. That obviously adds technical complexity to performing a task as simple as “writing a comment”, and technical complexity is an accessibility burden for many users as well.
Another side note: equivalently to “definition lists”, one can produce indentation by using “unordered lists” (lines starting with one or multiple *). This is semantically much more correct than use of definition lists, but it produces those ugly bullet points in the beginning, and incorrect use with a blank line between comments is directly visible. Unfortunately, users are unable to use it properly, as one can see in the many examples with mixed “definition list” and “unordered list” indentation (e.g. *:: rather than ***). Direct use of indentation with “unordered lists” also makes it complicated to semantically correctly use actual unordered lists in a comment, so this is not a clean solution either…
We need a proper commenting system for accessibility in the first place. I hate the current “solution” as well and would love to see something which is actually designed to be accessible by screen readers as well. But as long as we don’t have it, I don’t think we should blame users for the shortcomings we have to deal with currently. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is neither about "the reluctance of individual users to cope with the technical shortcomings", nor "[blaming] users for the shortcomings we have to deal with". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

...and we have a similar problem with wilful breaking of hierarchical, accessible, heading structure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I am indeed describing the problem with our commenting system, but I'm also describing the problem of uses who refuse to take a tiny step to alleviate some of the problems it causes.

"the root of the problem is much more complex than the reluctance of individual users to cope with the technical shortcomings of this “solution”." That may be so, but it's the reluctance of individual users to take a small measure to accommodate our visually impaired visitors that magnifies the effect of those shortcoming by an order of magnitude.

"If the Wikimedia community really wanted to ease accessibility for visually impaired users, it would have requested and accepted a proper commenting system that takes responsibility for clean source code and thus accessibility by itself". That's pie-in-the-sky while we have editors like Brya who refuse to accept that they cause any accessibility issues, and blame everybody else. You don't help the situation by making excuses for that sort of poor behaviour.

As for semantics, none of us are using indentation correctly. If you think that <dd> ... <br> ... </dd> is somehow better semantics than <dd> ... </dd><dd> ... </dd>, you're kidding yourself. Indentation is presentation and it belongs in the CSS, not in some mish-mash of HTML tags that coincidentally creates indentation in many browsers.

"We need a proper commenting system for accessibility in the first place". Indeed we do, but we'll never get there while editors are excused from poor behaviour by wringing our hands and complaining about poor technology. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you discussing this here at length? Even en:Main_Page has accessibility (Q555097) issues: check. --Succu (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you really trying to argue that because a web page on a different project has accessibility issues, it's okay for web pages here to have accessibility issues? Seriously? Why are you so reluctant to face up to the issues I've made clear to you? --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is YES. And you are inflaming a discussion about a users habit to comment. Why? --Succu (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Fix the plank in your own eye before you complain about the mote in someone else's. There are genuine accessibility issues here that need to be addressed. Just explain to everyone reading this why you think it's okay to subject a blind visitor to "end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; end item; end description list; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item; new description list; first item" unnecessarily. If you don't have anything useful to say about fixing those issues, then why are you even posting? --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Citing Matthew 7:3 (Q6790058) helps? --Succu (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, but which you misread (being "obtuse"?), it is you who "lack[s] empathy" with people who are different or use different screens. - Brya (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't talk bollocks. I spend a lot of my time working to improve accessibility for all visitors to Wikimedia projects. You, on the other hand, deliberately cause problems for blind and visually impaired users and blame everybody else but yourself for your poor behaviour. Disgraceful. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you want to comment „Oh, the irony...“ RexxS? --Succu (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:RexxS - You are still not reading what is there. Perhaps this is symptomatic of your narrow focus. In the meantime, you are not so much "spend[ing] a lot of [...] time working to improve accessibility for all visitors to Wikimedia projects." Instead, you are spending a lot of time causing problems in accessibility for a lot of participants in discussions of Wikimedia projects, and blame everybody else but yourself for your poor behaviour. - Brya (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Are „as before“ or „as previously“ useful edit comments?

I do not like Admin riddles, Mahir256. If you have an opinion about my working here please plainly address it in a direct manner to me. A lot of admins are pinged here by you. I'm missing MisterSynergy, who tried to settle disputes with me. The general question is: Are „as before“ or „as previously“ useful edit comments? (#1 and #2)? If someone needs another example then please check species nova (Q27652812). Thanks. --Succu (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looks like the conflict at species nova (Q27652812) is settled for now. --Succu (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted with the comment „as before“ - No explanation at all. What to do? --Succu (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What to do? Good question, but there is obviously no easy answer. This dispute is not making any progress for a while now, but we still have some options:

• I’m still much in favor of a mediation process, involving all involved editors and some moderators (can be admins, but other users could also do this), to elaborate a solution. This however requires that involved editors are interested in such a process, and finally willing to somehow mutually approach positions of the other side to some extent. I’ve reached out to Succu and Pigsonthewing in the past, but they do not yet seem to be equally sufficiently convinced to try this. I wouldn’t mind if other admins or users wanted to help in such a process.
• If a mediation is not accepted by all users, we need to use admin tools at some point (protection or blocks). One could argue that this was long overdue anyways, but let’s state the obvious: user blocks do not “educate” users to be more friendly to each other, or to refrain from edit wars, etc. …, and they also do not have a significant deterrent effect on other users. Blocks may effectively silence the problem for a while and appear to be a convenient measure from admin perspective for that reason, but they don’t solve anything (unless they are infinite).
• The future feature of “partial blocks” could also be very useful in this situation. Not sure if and when this feature will be shipped here (metawiki). We could then block involved editors from editing the affected items (possibly indefinitely), and let uninvolved users then set the items up. (This requires some new policies on “partial blocks” before being implemented, of course.)

—MisterSynergy (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"This dispute is not making any progress for a while now" Indeed. The item in question has not changed from being about a subclass of species (nor has it commenced being about a "term"), since the dispute started. The items that use it as a value for "main subject" have likewise not changed from being about a subclass of species to being about a "term", as User:Pasleim has indicated. By all means start mediation, but no amount of it, nor blocks, will change that. Meanwhile, Brya's ad-hominem attacks continue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the modelling of single item, but your constantly unexplained edit pattern, that includes reverting neutral improvements like adding a description or refining a reference --Succu (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss it here or at Myrmoteras mcarthuri and Denny. --Succu (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No Succu, it's about your and Brya's repeated attempts to re-define items as being about different concepts to those they are intended to describe, ignoring the given sources, of which the above is but one example. There is no "unexplained" edit pattern on my behalf, but for clarity I have replied on the talk pages of each of the items in your latest post, referring you to prior discussions where my edits are explained, each of which you are well aware of and involved in. Those posts will be exceptions, as I have told you more than once previously that - as a courtesy to our fellow editors - I will not keep repeating explanations when you ignore them or pretend they have not been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

it's about your and Brya's repeated attempts to re-define items as being about different concepts to those they are intended to describe [...] - Taken Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073) what's the redefinion in place? Brya has not edited there. --Succu (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I see that User:Pigsonthewing has decided to respond for once, although he at the same time announced that this is an exception and that otherwise he will continue to not respond to arguments.

        To start with "Brya's ad-hominem attacks continue", this is part of a pattern to present here on this noticeboard as a "personal attack" any comment that describes his behaviour. This is comparable to recurring discussions on Wikipedias concerning pages that describe gruesome events. Some users complain about these pages being "not neutral", to which the proper response is "it is not the text which is not neutral, it is the facts which ain't neutral". This pattern of reporting everything that is not convenient to him as a "personal attack" obviously works for him: no admin seems bothered by these false accusations and sometimes he lucks out and finds an admin gullible enough to fall for it.

        As to the "subclass of species", it already has been pointed out that this is an invention by Andy Mabbett (not existing in the outside world), so something that would be called a NOR-violation on Wikipedia. It also means the introduction of a new principle on Wikidata. Everything man-made is at some point "new" for a brief while, but Wikidata does not make a separate item for "new book", "new car", "new movie", etc. Nor for "one-year old book", "one-year old car", "one-year old movie", etc. Similar for two-year old, three-year old, etc.

        It has also been mentioned that the "given sources" don't support Andy Mabbett, but rather contradict him. The same goes for the sitelinks. That there are items that use this as a "main subject" is unfortunate, unless it is an ad-hoc measure to be able to find them and put in the actual main subject.

        Mediation pre-supposes that parties are willing to work it out (for the good of Wikidata) and recognize that there is a reality out there. Both these seem to be lacking on the side of Andy Mabbett.- Brya (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Two additional comments:

• While what happens at Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073) is merely petty and disruptive, the edits by Andy Mabbett at species nova are extremely serious. This phrase "species nova" is part of international, world-wide agreements which have set its meaning unambigously. In essence, this is not different from Andy Mabbett putting in that a meter is 13cm long. Of course, there is a pragmatic difference in that Wikidata has hundreds of users (or more) that would revert "a meter is 13cm long" without a thought, branding it as vandalism, while there seem to have been only four users to point out that his ideas on "species nova" are nonsensical. There just are not many users here who have adequate knowledge of taxonomy.
• Andy Mabbett tries to make it appear as if this is just between him, me and Succu. This is only because we two have taken action to counter him on this item. In reality, whenever Andy Mabbett is in discussion with anybody who knows anything on taxonomy, the same happens with regard to whoever is present. Whatever anybody who knows anything on taxonomy says is met with denial by Andy Mabbett, who keeps repeating what he once decided on and is determined not to let reality interfere.

- Brya (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I support this @Pigsonthewing! To cite Achim Raschka „ein anderer Benutzer, der keinerlei taxonomischen background hat (wie Andy ja auf der Wikimania auf meine Rückfrage zu seinen Wikispecies-Attacken zugab)“. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073)

Above, Myrmoteras mcarthuri is dragged in. Mostly, this is an unrelated matter, involving the placement of "named after". That is, when a scientific name honours a person should "named after" be a statement (as favoured by Succu, and used widely) or a qualifier to "taxon name" (as favoured by Andy Mabbett). In theory both are possible, although it is more sensible to have it as a statement, so as not to overload "taxon name" with more qualifiers (there are already too many).

Andy Mabbett has argued his point of view at Project chat at some length, with vehemence, and found no support. From time to time, he changes items to suit him in this regard. These seem to be pointless edit wars, merely creating confusion and trouble. If ever there should be a project-wide decision to have it one way or the other, a bot can be run.

The case is relevant only to the extent that it is yet another example of Andy Mabbett going to revert after revert, after revert, etc without giving additional arguments and without being willing to discuss. The difference is that in this case he clearly has already lost the argument, but is unwilling to quit. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I readded the qualifier named after (P138) to taxon name (P225) as an act of good will, but this was reverted to the version preferred by Mr. Mabbett as his own since 28 March 2018 with the edit comment „as before“. I fail to understand this. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected the page 1 month due to edit warring. --Rschen7754 05:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You preserved the version from 28 March 2018. How do this help to solve the problem? --Succu (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

When I protect pages for edit warring, I protect as is. I don't favor one side or the other, it's the luck of timing. --Rschen7754 06:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How does the item protection help to solve the problem? --Succu (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Is your concern that I protected the wrong version? --Rschen7754 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about to „pull the chestnuts out of the fire for someone“ (= „Die Kuh vom Eis holen“). --Succu (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: The same compromise was reached at Synalpheus pinkfloydi (Q29367343) and Desmopachria barackobamai (Q30434384), but reverted at Balaenoptera bertae (Q21368793). --Succu (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Bogus accusations

Brya's egregious abusive behaviour has now dropped to the level of describing my edits as "vandalism" ([1], [2]). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing bogus about it. It seemed time to stop being diplomatic and just call a spade a spade. Vandalism may be variously defined, but enwiki says:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

This applies here. Andy Mabbett has made the exact same edit, with the exact same edit summary some dozen times, as if he was a self-programmed bot, with nobody in charge. As deliberate as can be. He has done so "without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research," or whatever passes as the Wikidata equivalent. He has not presented any argument why the content he militates against would not be correct. He has not presented any argument that supports the material he put in, beyond giving three quotes which actually contradict what he added.

        The only objection he has raised in the very few times he commented at all are an objection against the format. Apparently, reality does not conform to a format he favours. All in all, he has declined most opportunities to discuss the matter in a meaningful manner, and the second time he did comment, he said that he would deliberately refuse to discuss this for the future.

        This constitutes a deliberate policy to damage and disrupt Wikidata. His edit does constitute vandalism. It is an accurate, descriptive edit summary. Telling it as it is may not seem very polite, but it is still a cut above Andy Mabbettt's conduct. - Brya (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: if you are interested in a de-escalation simply use the talk page of this item. Reverting again and again and again is not helpful. Cooperation and compromises can help to improve the quality of this project. --Succu (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

See my previous comment on that talk page, and the other discussions to on the matter, which I have already referred in this thread. As I have told you on more than one occasion previously: as a courtesy to our fellow editors, I do not intend to repeat my comments, in cases where you or Brya choose to pretend I have not already made them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Succu accuses me of 'trolling'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And again Andy Mabbett is reporting a "bogus" attack. It really works for him. But he is not solely to blame for this. The enwiki style of adminship of turning a blind eye to everything until the last straw is added and then lashing out blindly at whatever catches the eye ("Administrators should not favor one side over the other") is promoting aggression. Andy Mabbett has become a master at it. For myself I deeply regret that this enwiki aggression is being imported to Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked all 3 users for edit warring at Q27652812. I intend to write a longer statement shortly. --Rschen7754 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Solutions

I firmly believe that we need to resolve this situation. Civility and consensus are important Wikimedia principles, and by allowing this behavior to keep on going, we demonstrate to the rest of Wikidata and the entire Wikimedia community that we believe that it is acceptable for any editor. Not only have all three of these editors repeatedly edit warred, they have made numerous personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks towards each other.

I have blocked the 3 aforementioned users for 3 days as a stopgap measure, for edit warring at Q27652812. I do not believe that this is a viable long-term solution, for brave administrators to keep issuing short-term blocks and protections.

I think these are our options:

• Do nothing, and watch editors leave from the negative effects of this dispute.
• Some form of mediation, but as MisterSynegy wrote above, some of the participants may not wish to participate.
• We come up with some partial bans (enforceable by block) to allow them to contribute, but restrict them from all areas where they have edited problematically. For example:
  • Banning them from all items related to taxonomy
  • Banning them from mentioning each other, except at AN
• We indefinitely block all 3 editors for persistent disruption of Wikidata.

Thoughts? --Rschen7754 01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure. I have noticed this for some time. I have tried to stay out of it because I get the impression, which may be wrong, that there is some sort of history in this. In which case maybe some good mediation, preferably mediated by someone with authority in the situation. Find out the root of the issue and see if it can be resolved. My home wiki is Wikispecies and all these editors have edited there, without issues like the above. I consider them all valuable editors at wikispecies. Seems here they seem to step on each other for some reason. Since I have seen them elsewhere I do not fully understand why this happens here. I can see what happens but do not understand why. So my preference is to try some mediation first, I would not like to see an indefinite block if it can be avoided. I note your point on whether they will agree to this. But I think its worth trying. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

At least in my experiences, I've not seen mediation to be useful once things have reached a point like this. But I think successful mediation here would need the following, at a minimum:

• An agreement by all parties to participate
• An agreement by all parties to not continue the edit wars while mediation takes place
• At least one mediator, if not more
• An agreement by all parties to respect the outcome
• An agreement by the mediator to report back on the outcome of the mediation, especially if it fails. --Rschen7754 02:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I've a feeling that the first, second (in the instance that there is a lack of participation from all parties), and fourth solutions are ultimately more detrimental than helpful to Wikidata. Either solution under the third main bullet point makes the most sense here (selective blocks), and the first of these could well be made possible in the near future. (@TBolliger (WMF): if he can enlighten us on whatever Wikidata-specific features are being planned related to selective blocks--I could see a block on editing items based on instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279) becoming very useful here.) Mahir256 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Thank you for tapping me in and for your interest in our work. I don't want to distract from this discussion too much — I'm happy to discuss this more at length wherever works best for you. My team hopes to have page (item for Wikidata) blocking ready on test.wikidata.org in mid-October with namespace and file upload blocking code complete and releasable by the end of December. Adding support for blocking by instances and subclasses is not prioritized, but something that we are optimistic could be added if the base functionality proves useful. — TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A partial ban could also be implemented by coming to a consensus about what edits these editors cannot make, and then blocking them every time they violate the ban. --Rschen7754 18:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A little late due to real life obligations, but I’d like to add my thoughts as well:

• I still prefer to start/try some kind of a mediation process, but I am not convinced that this is really what the participants in this dispute are open for right now. As long as this does not change, I don’t see any possibility for it to succeed. We can’t really force someone to participate in such rather unconventional and formally undefined processes here, so it has to be requested to some extent. I’m still open to help, if someone wants me to do so.
• Alternatives are administrative measures. “Do nothing” clearly does not help to settle the many edit wars of the involved editors as we’ve seen in the past. I hope that the new “partial block” feature would be useful here, and I think we should aim to apply it in items with edit wars, rather than in items which somehow belong to a particular topic (that’s difficult to define anyway). I would also favor it there was some defined way of reverting to a revision that does not favor any of the participants in such edit wars.
• Indefinite blocks of established editors require community consensus to my opinion.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• We can add another option to the "partial block/ban" category: an agreement that if they revert more than once on the same item over a set time period, that is automatic grounds for a block (and maybe a reversion of some sort). --Rschen7754 00:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do we really need to spend development time on this? --- Jura 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• I am afraid we need (i) interaction ban on these three users; (ii) one revert rule in all Wikidata pages (including items), with violations followed by escalating blocks; (iii) if problematic areas could be identified, possibly topic-bans from some of the items. They are just featured on this noticeboard too much, wasting the time of the community (I have blocked Pigsonthewing before, and I was immediately attacked a bunch of his friends - this has to stop in any case).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• From reading the comments it does not seem like there is much enthusiasm for mediation. Is that the case? Is there anyone who would be willing to take on that challenge? --Rschen7754 06:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the users concerned are known for their being stubborn. When in disagreement, that is not beneficial for the project. Reverting series are a consequence of the stubborness. Topic bans will not solve the underlying discussions, neither do blocks. Those bans should be meant to force discussion and agreement. First of all, talk pages are made to have these discussions. If that doesn't lead to conclusion, mediation is a way to get out, but I think that may be difficult or undoable in cases. Then arbitration or an RfC should be the final way to sort disagreements out. We do not have an AC, but I can imagine a routine that both parties may propose two admins and that the four admins have to reach a majority decision, which is to be binding. Something like that? Lymantria (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Topic bans and blocks are primarily also meant to prevent further disruption to the project, which at some point we have to decide that we have to do. While we of course hope that every editor will get along and be able to work collaboratively, the sad reality is that some editors simply cannot or will not, and we need to prevent disruption to the editors who are actually able to. --Rschen7754 17:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • To add: my inclination right now is to propose various editing restrictions such as those described above, and then if they want to come to some mediation/agreement and show that they can edit collaboratively in the problematic areas, they can always do so and then appeal the restrictions. I personally think that added pressure might convince these editors to be more willing to come to the negotiating table. --Rschen7754 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Certainly, but there is some paradox in it, that pressure will also stimulate some users (especially the stubborn ones) to not stop and find a solution, anticipating on the other side to give up. That silences the trouble, but may lead to suboptimal outcomes (e.g. protecting a page in the "wrong version"). So IMHO a restriction should be accompanied by mediation or arbitration. For the latter it would be good if there were a known way to invoke that (without having an AC). Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
        • There really isn't on such an undeveloped wiki, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 18:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If as I understand it, the intent of option 3 is to issue a topic ban for taxonomy, to the three users involved this surely means combining the worst of all worlds. Andy Mabbett's involvement with taxonomy is quite marginal (just check his edits), and mostly aimed at disrupting the Wikiproject. A topic ban will cost him little or nothing. As I read it, this is an open invitation to him (or any user who hates a particular Wikiproject) to go disrupt another Wikiproject; all it will cost is a topic ban, for a topic that holds no real interest.

        Slightly less unrealistic is an indefinite block for all three users. The effect on Wikidata will still be disastrous, but at least it has a minute upside: it will stop the disruptions. - Brya (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Andy Mabbett's involvement with taxonomy is [...] mostly aimed at disrupting the Wikiproject." Are admins prepared to allow this false allegation also to stand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your move?

Now that an admin has intervened, it seems to me that it is up to admins to make a plan. Being as easygoing as I am, I am pretty much up to try anything as long as it is in line with the general purpose of Wikidata and of the WMF, for example as laid down in the Terms of Use.

The repeated suggestion that the only proper response to unreasoned aggression is to roll over, play dead and quit the project is not in line with these, as far as I am concerned. - Brya (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion (a very simple one). Besides having some formal training in this area, I have relevant experience. When nlwiki started its ArbCom, its mandate suggested the ArbCom was there to resolve conflicts, and certainly some ArbCom-members took it to mean that. Interaction bans were a popular tool, and sometimes these actually worked, but that was the exception rather than the rule. Users can be quite different in their characters, backgrounds, knowledge and skills. The problems that happen can be very different, as well. Two users who fight over a point of style or formatting (not governed by a guideline) are quite different from users who vehemently put in that North America is a region in Europe and who won't stand being reverted (actual historical example).

        Anyway it proved that the ArbCom's looking at all problems as conflicts often made matters worse, not better. For example, relatively simple problems had first to be escalated into flaming conflicts before the ArbCom would look at them. Lots of grief, all round.

        At some point I took it upon myself to reword the mandate of the nlwiki ArbCom in the obvious way: I put in that the ArbCom should be making their decisions for the good of the encyclopedia, should base their decisions on existing guidelines (including WMF-guidelines and policies) and made explicit that the ArbCom was there as a last resort for problems of all kinds (not just conflicts, so not necessarily more than one-sided). I got this voted in and over time it made a big difference. The really bad problems went away and the real problem users got fitted in, more or less, by custom-designed restrictions or were banned.

        The WMF Terms of Use state "We encourage you ... to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project." My suggestion is that this is a good guideline for admins also, and that it should be taken literally. Not just when considering a block, to test it against the question "Does this block make Wikidata a better, more accurate database?" But if there is a problem, look at the individual edits in question and test each edit against the question "Does this edit make Wikidata a better, more accurate database?" Then take it from there.

        Just looking at a problem and crying "edit war", accompanied by lots of arm-waving is not going to serve Wikidata if no attention is paid to what is actually happening. - Brya (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Insults

I invited Mahir256, above, "If you think [my first post in this section] ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate, please explain precisely how it is so. I note that they made no reply. I similarly now invite Rschen7754 to offer evidence to substantiate their inclusion of me in the group of editors who "have made numerous personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks".

That said, we would not be where we are now if admins - or, indeed, the Wikidata community at large - had responded when asked to intervene in the content disputes that led us here. In the last couple of weeks, I've reported here false accusations of "vandalism" and "trolling", yet nothing was done, or said, by admins in response. The vast majority of my edits in this matter have simply been to restore items to the status quo ante, after no consensus was shown for disputed changes. I've also indicated, above, that I am wiling to participate in mediation. Finally, for now, it must surely be seen that in any dispute with two people on one side and one on the other, that a "single revert" restriction (whether agreed or imposed) would hand an effective veto to the two who act in concert, over the edits of the other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did a search on the AN archives and found quite a few examples: [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are probably many other examples that I didn't find within a 3 minute search. Please remember that civility is more than not making ad hominems; it is treating your fellow editors with respect. --Rschen7754 18:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

None of the links you provide - which are not diffs - support your allegation, which was to include me in " Not only have all three of these editors repeatedly edit warred, they have made numerous personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks towards each other". Absent evidence, perhaps you will now withdraw it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the last sentence. --Rschen7754 18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I read your last sentence, as I read all of your post; and have read each of the discussions to which you linked. I am therefore not clear how you redundantly telling me to read it shows me respect. You still offer no evidence to support your allegation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"I read all of your post" - which, I now see, you edited after I replied to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec)From that final discussion, some quotes: "I've also told, you many times, that your deliberately-broken indenting of comments is disruptive." "Why do the pair of you persist in such dishonesty?" --Rschen7754 18:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those comments, in the context from which you have removed them, is uncivil. In the latter quote for example, I am replying to the false allegation that I "didn't answered the questions raised" by providing a link to the post where I did do so. Further, in legitimately criticising the action of making a false allegation, or of breaking indenting, not the person making (or doing) it, my comments are not ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

They certainly look uncivil to me. How do you expect people to respond to such questions/comments? How would you respond if somebody asked you such a question? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, they need to be read in context. Have you done so? I would never put myself in a position where such things could reasonably be said to or about me. If people regularly lie about my actions (see, for example, earlier on this page, where the bold lie that I "announced ... that [I] will continue to not respond to arguments" went unchallenged by any admin), I'm entitled to call them out for it. I don't lie about other people's actions, so I can not reasonably be called out for doing so. How would you react, if you were regularly lied about? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if it's true that they were dishonest (and I'm not trying to make a statement about that), I can guarantee you that very few people would respond positively to those words put to them that way. Also, this nitpicking about indents and outdents is not very productive either (note [7]). I will also note the thread that started this discussion at [8] as another example. This is clear w:en:WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (on both sides, for what it's worth). --Rschen7754 00:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no "nitpicking" about indents; it's a crucial matter of accessibility; please see User:RexxS's explanation, above. It is past time you (or admins, collectively) did make a statement about the dishonesty, some of which I have evidenced, and more of which can be seen in the comment currently below this one (e.g. "without any arguments or evidence given"; "long-time campaign to disrupt Wikiproject Taxonomy."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

" It is past time you (or admins, collectively) did make a statement about the dishonesty..." Tumblewed passes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Andy Mabbett claims that there is a content dispute. This presupposes that there is content that is being disputed. The situation here: on the one side there is international agreement (going back centuries) about a definition (well referenced by the users involved), on the other side there is unreasoned stubbornness by a lone user, without any arguments or evidence given. The idea that mediation is useful here is comparable to multiple users who state that a meter is defined as being 100 cm, while one user holds that a meter is 13 cm, without providing any evidence. Mediation is supposed to come to a compromise, like "a meter is 71cm"?
2. There is not incivility from both sides. What there is on one side is continued misconduct by a user who feels secure that admins will back him no matter how badly he misbehaves. On the other there are users who describe this misconduct: a description of misconduct may look uncivil, but it is just a description. Starting a topic in Project Chat may look like a battle ground mentality, but it is just a desperate move, copying Andy Mabbett who has done this many times, in his long-time campaign to disrupt Wikiproject Taxonomy.

        Plain for everybody to see, on "species nova" there has been a mounting series of calculated insults. There have been (by my count) fifteen reverts with the edit summary "(as before)". Two, maybe three, times might be excused in somebody who was very, very drunk. Four times is a mortal insult that would have meant "pistols-at-dawn" in many a day and age. There has been remarkable restraint on my part (even on Succu's part), in the face of an unending stream of deliberate provocations and deliberate insults. - Brya (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Brya, are you saying that you will not participate in mediation? --Rschen7754 05:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"long-time campaign to disrupt Wikiproject Taxonomy."; "might be excused in somebody who was very, very drunk" And again admins allow this to pass? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754: Oh, no, I am not saying that at all. But any effort had better focus on what is really driving Andy Mabbett, which he is not being very explicit about, despite dropping hints. The subject matter is not involved here (the total absence of arguments, which seems to be such a regular feature of Andy Mabbett's "conflicts", speaks volumes by itself). - Brya (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Are admins prepared to allow this vague and unsubstantiated ad hominem attack to stand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing

It seems Succu's response to the recent blocks is to immediately revert, more than one, of my edits; on items where we have previously had a content dispute, and where (in the first case) I cite not one but two sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the history of American Journal of Science, and Arts (Q22305255) is pretty clear: created by me with the title American Journal of Science, and Arts you decided the comma (Q161736) is not inline with the title page. My edits were triggered by Chris.urs-o and not you. --Succu (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The versions with "The and ," seem to be gramatically correct. But most people do not use it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

„immediately revert” at Taxonomic etymology - in search of inspiration (Q21090291)? Your last edit dates from 7 April 2018. And you missed the items talk page entry dated before your Ongoing here. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just discovered yet another case where Succu reverted (in June) my use of valid, open-access, reliable citations (to a webpage of the Natural History Museum of France) on an item, replacing them with a paywalled alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The context is this property proposal. --Succu (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As to this item,

1. for any designation of a holotype the original publication/protologue is of very great importance, nearly essential. Why on earth remove this?
2. on a Wikipedia, it makes no difference if a reference is on-line or off-line. Why should Wikidata be different?
3. Andy Mabbbett makes the specimen a reference for something that is not even mentioned on the specimen label???

- Brya (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

My original edit removed nothing, except incorrect coordinates. At no time did I give "The specimen", much less "The specimen label" as a reference for anything. I'm tired of being misrepresented in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit the next day did remove the original publication/protologue. Why deny the obvious?

        If the specimen label was not intended as a reference, why provide a url to it, as a reference? How can a url serve as a reference other than by the content it leads to? - Brya (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing this proposal as not successful. --Rschen7754 06:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

---

For repeated edit warring and uncollaborative behavior, Brya, Pigsonthewing, and Succu are topic banned from all Wikidata items related to taxonomy, under all accounts (including authorized bot accounts). In the absence of a formal policy on topic bans, the following provisions shall apply:

• These editors are not to make any edits or logged actions to Wikidata items related to taxonomy.
• Discussion pages are explicitly not included at this time, in the hope that these editors will come to an agreement.
• Violations of this should result in blocks. Blocks made under this restriction should be logged at a new page, Wikidata:Editing restrictions.
• Subsequent violations should result in blocks of increasing length. After the fifth violation by an individual editor, the blocking admin must start a discussion at WD:AN to see if further sanctions are necessary.
• Appeals of this restriction must be made at WD:AN.
• All three editors are warned that further misbehavior on Wikidata, especially in (but not limited to) the taxonomy topic area, may lead to further sanctions, including an indefinite block from Wikidata.

Please leave this discussion open for at least 7 days, and until there is a clear consensus. I am hoping that an admin who has not participated in this discussion will close it. --Rschen7754 01:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support as proposer. I proposed 4 options above. But of those, we obviously need to do something (so there goes option 1), and nobody has volunteered to mediate (option 2). So, option 3 as a last resort to an indefinite block. --Rschen7754 01:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment. Two points: (1) for me personally, there is no distinction between this topic ban and an indefinite block. (2) It seems to me that admins should consider carefully before setting this precedent and declaring total victory for Andy Mabbett in his campaign to disrupt a Wikiproject he is not really involved in. - Brya (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Are admins prepared to allow this baseless ad hominem attack to stand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Firstly this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and what happned to the proposal of mediation, which I accepted?). Secondly, "all Wikidata items related to taxonomy" is far too vague and all-encompassing: does it include people who are taxonomists? Journal articles? Journals? Artworks depicting species? If so, it means that if one of us throws a person's QID into a tool like SourceMD, or does a batch import of IDs through harvest templates, or runs through a set on Mix'n'Match, and the subject happen to have written on taxonomy, then we could breach the ban without even knowing we were about to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• After some thought about the proposal, I think a topic ban on taxonomy is not an appropriate solution for several reasons. At the same time I have to acknowledge that after reading the aggressive conversation of the past days here on this page, I don’t believe in a successful mediation any longer. Nevertheless, we have to do something to protect the project, and at this point I would support a “partial block”-like approach that excludes all three editors (Brya, Pigsonthewing, Succu) from editing items (and maybe pages) that have seen edit wars including two of the three editors. We could start listing the items on the proposed page, and use the actual “partial block” tool once it is going to be available later this year. The rest of Rschen7754’s proposal, particularly the proposed sanctions, could also be applied for such a “minimalist” edit ban. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem is that I fear the edit wars will just go on from item to item. Once one is removed in this manner, another will come up. --Rschen7754 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • In case of a taxonomy topic ban, which is difficult to define and supervise anyway, they could still do this in any other topic. We should at least try the minimalist edit ban as suggested for a while before we solve this problem with a “bazooka”. If it does not work, we can still extend the edit bans to topic bans or account blocks. It would be pretty much up to the three editors not to escalate this any further. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Question Isn't it enough if we just prohibit these three users from interfering with each other in the items or pages related to taxonomy? --Okkn (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How would you define "interfering" in a way that won't cause arguments among admins as to whether to apply it? --Rschen7754 18:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • How about “reverting each other's edit without a community consensus”? --Okkn (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry but „The community“ in general has not much knowledge about nomenclature and taxonomy. If this would be the case we wouldn't have reached this point. Ironically Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy was not informed about this proposal by User:Rschen7754. I think it's easy the see which users give answers there. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Please do not cause an edit war even if your edits are taxonomically correct. Simply, you three must not revert each other's edits. This is a problem of you three, not a problem of taxonomy. --Okkn (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I agree, reverts are a bad habit to resolve conflicts. Discussions followed by compromises or better generalized solutions are the way to go along. But we have species nova (Q27652812), Myrmoteras mcarthuri (Q13871073) and some more without a solution. The proposed „topic ban“ avoids necessary discussions and is not inline with the goal of Wikidata. --Succu (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Succu raises an important point. The whole WMF rests on the basic premise that users should make edits only when they know enough about the topic they write about. This is expressed in "Assume good faith": if one sees an editor making edits one does not understand, the basic assumption should be that this user knows more about the topic than oneself. The next step is checking if this assumption is likely, by sampling the literature.
      •   Rschen7754's approach would be admirable if Wikidata were a collaborative project to write a work of fiction, and if there were an argument about the direction the plot should take. However, Wikidata aims to be a database, with data that aims to represent reality. Checking facts (by sampling the literature) is a basic admin responsibility.
      •   There are not all that many users in the WMF who have knowledge in some depth about taxonomy, a field of science (or rather several related fields) where there can be a lot of (simultaneously valid) points-of-view. Everything is relative (but should be backed up by references). This is not universally popular, many people would like to have a single authoritative point of view ("keep it simple"), with themselves as the authority-in-charge.
      •   Within taxonomy, there is the entirely differently organized discipline of nomenclature, which is governed by international agreement. These are very extensive sets of agreements (kind of miniature international treaties), with different sets of agreements in place for different organisms. There are lots of absolutes in nomenclature. This is not a coincidence as this intended to keep independently-minded scientists all over the world (in Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, Spain, etc) exactly in line (it also has to deal with the works of those independently-minded scientists over the last few centuries). This too is unpopular with many users who love the freedom to just use whatever piece of literature is in front of them. Awareness of the existence of, let alone knowledge of nomenclatural rules among users tends to be very limited.
      •   Andy Mabbett is not fulfilling his part of making edits only on topics he has knowledge in depth of (see also this comment by Scott Thomson, who does know something about the topic). He should stick to what he knows (or be made to stick to it). - Brya (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand the role of an administrator. We are not given any sort of special editorial privileges. Once we express an opinion in terms of content, we have to refrain from using the administrator tools to enforce that position. --Rschen7754 04:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The role of an admin is to help the project/Wikidata. Any user should make his edits with the aim of making Wikidata a better, more accurate database. This applies to admins as well; there is no special priviledge absolving admins from this basic obligation. If an admin does not pay attention to content (not express an opinion, but pay attention), he is essentially striking out blindly, and is working at cross-purposes to the general purpose of the project/Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • So in short, you are saying "I'm right, and nobody else, including admins, are allowed to comment or criticize my behavior because they don't know anything about taxonomy, and because admins don't agree with me, they don't care about content, and are anti-Wikidata" and I wouldn't be surprised if you then tried to undermine any administrator who criticizes your behavior that way. That is not how Wikimedia works. See m:Consensus. If you're right, then convince people of that. Don't edit war and don't make personal attacks or intimidate others to get your way. That could be said to all three of these editors, really. --Rschen7754 05:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not saying that at all. What I am pointing out that there is an international agreement, equivalent to "1 meter = 100 centimeter". There is an objective (or in this case normative) reality out there. Anybody who edits at Wikidata, including admins, should pay attention to the reality that their edits to Wikidata reflect and incorporate into Wikidata. Go look it up. Base your actions on fact, not on your likes or dislikes. - Brya (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Brya is toxic and should be blocked, indefinitely. Period. I have had multiple altercations where his only contributions have been sniping or deliberate obtuseness or patronizement. That he was banned from English Wikipedia for much the same behavior should decidedly be relevant.

  Regarding Pigs, I agree that a topic ban is warranted; though I happen to agree with his positions on how messed up our taxonomic modeling is, he clearly cannot contribute collaboratively to fixing the problems related.

  Succu's behavior in general does not rise to either of those two's. I don't think I would support any sanction (in other words, provide Succu some en:WP:ROPE to see if the area clears up without Brya and Pigs). --Izno (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  „how messed up our taxonomic modeling is“? Izno, try out Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for comments. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I would be willing to consider supporting an indefinite block of Brya, considering the severity of the personal attacks they have made (including one in February for which they were blocked 1 month and arguably could have been indefinitely blocked then), and factoring in their indefinite block on enwiki. --Rschen7754 01:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm confident that the many editors with whom I collaborate successfully on taxonomic matters would disagree with your portrayal of me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: Rs. I get the feeling that people get paid to harass Wikipedia projects contributors. I do not like that. Brya contributed a lot to taxonomy in the animal kingdom. Succu build up the taxonomy in the plant kingdom. A databank has rules, otherwise it gets destroyed. The super wealthy want to destroy Wikipedia. If we are in the dress rehearsal of the last book of the Bible, more than 2/3 will die after Trump's administration. User:Rschen7754 should stop making edits to Wikidata taxonomy. There is no plant taxonomy on Wikidata without Succu and Rschen7754 is incompatible with Succu. Or you love Wikipedia and leave systematic at Wikidata alone or you are Wikidata's enemy. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not dignify this unnecessary use of political and religions rhetoric, combined with an accusation of paid editing, with a response. --Rschen7754 18:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: The comment by Chris.urs-o looks like intimidating behavior to me. I have thus blocked Chris.urs-o for 31 hours. Mahir256 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

„looks like intimidating behavior to me“ - Maybe before blocking you should consult your fellow admins first. Unbelievable. --Succu (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oppose ok I see this is stil ongoing. I have been away a week. Ok I do not think that a total topic ban is appropriate or probably even practical. I agree something needs to be done and I am not sure what can be done. But I want to make a few comments. First up I consider (from my perspective as a taxonomist) that both Brya and Succu are very capable of making decisions on content that is correct with regards to the respective nomenclatural codes. This is based on many edits over many years, most of which have been uncontested by anyone. The impression I get of Andy is that his strengths lay in areas of technical wiki markup issues and administrative issues as they pertain to Wikimedia. However from a taxonomic perspective it seems he is more attempting to understand taxonomy from the perspective of this other strength. These knowledge sets may not always be in agreement with each other. The codes have rules, we are like any zoologist or botanist bound by those respective codes first and our needs to make that work in Wikimedia second. I think this is apparent in many of Andy's edits. I personally think all three of them have great use to Wikidata. My conclusion on this is that when its taxonomic issue I think on balance Brya and Succu are more likely to have the correct response. For administrative and markup issues I would suspect that Andy would usually be the one with the knowledge. I think the three of tem need to acknowledge this and work within their strengths. I noticed a comment by me was linked above in a diff. Yes I did say this but please remember it was in the context of that situation only. It is not necessarily relevant to the current debate. In summary I think banning Succu in particular and also Brya from editing taxonomic pages is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. Their contributions are vast. Andy also has his strength and can have a good supportive role on the taxonomy pages. I think these three need to appreciate their strengths. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

By and large, I think this is a good analysis of the situation. - Brya (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This sort of sniping needs to stop: [9][10] @Faendalimas: did you see this? --Rschen7754 18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There is, again, no "sniping" in my comment (your second diff). In fact neither is there in your first diff; its false ad hominem attack against me is far more than "sniping". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: yes I noticed. I am not too concerned about some indenting corrections, I get you point. @Pigsonthewing: Andy I get what you did and it had no intent, but the comment was unnecessary, this is what is being referred to. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support proposal as written; although if they want to give advice on their own talkpages in case other editors ask them about taxonomy questions, that should be allowed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am quite aware of too many edit problems in the taxonomy topic among the three users. But not all three of them are equally involved into this subject. Succu and Brya are focussing mainly on taxonomy, while Pigsonthewing edits in many subjects. That means thata topic ban would not "harm" them equally. In addition I must say that Succu and Brya are to be credited to be the main factors in improving and remaining quality of the very numerous taxon and taxonomy items. Many users misunderstand the issues at hand and they tirelessly correct that. Pigsonthewing is very skilled in data structure. The problems arise when he "attacks" some common uses and changes it. All three of the users feel a need to maintain or improve quality and get heated before they have explained the issues to each other. It would make sense if Pigsonthewing would discuss his improvements first, recognizing that Succu and Brya have more knowledge on taxonomy. While it wouls also make sense if Brya and Succu would consider his improvement ideas with open mind and see them as possible improvements. It asks for a cooperitive mind, willingness to give in when the other idea is better, trying to understand what issue the othe user sees and not feeling attacked too soon. In an ideal world that is. I have not given up thinking it to be possible. But also, concluding, in my opinion a topic ban would really harm quality of the taxonomy topic and not help sove the underlying issues. Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a significant representation of the issues at hand. For example, in the case of SP. Nova, I created the item and have not introduced any changes to it, much less "attacked" anything. The disputed and unjustified changes (most recently making it an instance of a "phrase", instead of a concept) were made by Brya and Succu. In the case of taxa named after people or places, for example Desmopachria barackobamai and Synalpheus pinkfloydi, each of which I also created, and Myrmoteras mcarthuri, it was me who first added the honourees, and Succu who then applied disputed - and unexplained - changes. I subsequently explained my edits at length (also here; and here); my reasoning (especially regarding the multiply-named 'Kentish Plover' example in the former discussion) has never been cogently refuted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. Does this mention of creating an item constitute a claim of ownership?
    2. The item "species nova", "as created" had "instance of: Latin phrase" in it, as is correct. Apparently, the creator is not so much at war with other users, as he is with different versions of himself?
    3. As to the Kentish Plover example, this seems very simple. Kentish Plover is an English common name, one of many common names in different languages that can be applied. There may be lots of common names in one language. On the other hand one common name may easily apply to four or more different items as an alias. Often enough each common name has its own derivation, so perforce "named after" must be used as a qualifier to that common name. In an item Synalpheus pinkfloydi "named after" can be used unambiguously if it applies to the "taxon name". It need not be a qualifier, so it is sensible not to overload "taxon name" more than it already is. Labels of items dealing with taxa don't really come into it, they change far too often. Also, species of birds are not handy for this kind of discussion, since they are an exception. - Brya (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Pigsonthewing mentions he "explained my edits at length", which is not the same as discussing it or be open to understand the opinions of opposers, except that his reasoning has "never been cogently refuted". It sounds like debating and never giving in. That will not solve anything. Lymantria (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I appologise for my lack of clarity. I discussed my edits at length. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not consider Topic ban to be the solution, of the described problems, while we may demand from anyone, a high motivation for cooperation, as well as respect for other users. In any case, I do not presently support any long term block with any of these three users, and hope that admins will only use block as a short-time "cooling" limitation, but not a way of closing any of the three users out for a longer period, or indefinitely. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Alternative proposal

The above proposal does not take into account the realities of the situation, or take the best interest of Wikidata to heart.

Wikiproject Taxonomy is a fairly big project, with millions of items, attracting attention from many users.

• In many ways, including number of edits, Succu is the mainstay of the Wikiproject, I don't have numbers, but would not be surprised if he was responsible for more than half of the total number of edits. Succu's conduct in the matters in question may not be exemplary (he tends to be fairly angular in the way he expresses himself), but he clearly made many efforts to get Andy Mabbett to produce even one argument, or take part in a discussion.
• Although it would be an overstatement to say that Andy Mabbett has contributed nothing at all to the project, he is barely involved. As far as he is involved, this is all too often disruptive in intent. Besides the items where he conducted these edit wars (notably without presenting any arguments), he has tried several times to disrupt the project by posting in Project Chat (no doubt examples can be provided, if this is of interest). To put it mildly, his conduct is far from exemplary, and in a Wikipedia he would have violated multiple policies, starting with VER and NOR. Even on this page, in this discussion he has made no positive contributions, but just acts insulted, and is looking to stoke up the fire.
• My own conduct looks closer to exemplary, at least to me (I don't see how anybody can expect me to leave in the equivalent of "1 meter = 13cm"). Although I have made a decent number of edits, my involvement with Wikiproject Taxonomy is mostly elsewhere, but quite constructive.

The pragmatic solution is for Andy Mabbett to stop editing any items concerning taxonomy, and not comment on it (except for brief comments on technical matters, not related to taxonomy). Preferably voluntary, but by a topic ban if necessary. As far as I am concerned he is welcome to propose properties (after all, this is how he earns his money). This will allow everybody to get on with most of what they were doing, with a minimum of restrictions. It would probably be wise for Succu to avoid him outside of taxonomy.

This is not to say that Wikiproject Taxonomy will then run smoothly, given the pressure it is under, and it still being "under construction", but it will at least have a chance. - Brya (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose "My own conduct looks closer to exemplary" what about all those blocks for personal attacks? --Rschen7754 06:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • They were blocks for describing abject behaviour. A description of something really bad will not look nice if it is at all accurate. The first block was for using the word "spamming", which caused an overwrought admin who had let things slide for far too long (repeat after repeat after repeat of the same emotional but baseless appeal) and who seized on that as being a "personal attack". But from a technical perspective "spamming" = "Unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet." is a correct word for what was actually happening, that is, mass-produced contentless pages, created to draw attention, for a purpose that has nothing to do with the WMF-mission. And as you know, you blocked me for describing Andy Mabbett's campaign of harassment. - Brya (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not "unhelpful sarcasm"; it's the legitimate use of sarcasm (I'm English; it's part of my culture) to highlight the hypocrisy of false allegations made against me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not only sarcasm, but obviously flawed sarcasm. As Andy Mabbett has amply demonstrated, it is quite possible to revert many times on an item, all the while refusing to discuss, and from time to time post in Project Chat trying to stir up sentiment. - Brya (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

And now Brya is hiding my comments. I have of course reverted him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposals

I do not think these proposals will resolve the matter at hand, but I think they at least move in the right direction by stopping some of the current fights. --Rschen7754 18:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

For me this proposal looks like as a sanction (Rechtfertigung) issued by you as „including an indefinite block from Wikidata” (see below) you threatened earlier in your blocks. --Succu (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Okkn, MisterSynergy, Ymblanter, Mahir256: as you have commented on previous sections. --Rschen7754 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Rschen7754: I agree that they should be isolated from each other in order to stop fights. In addition to the two proposals below, I think they are also not to revert each other's edits in any pages. --Okkn (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Okkn: Yes, I think there needs to be some sort of ban on reversions beyond our usual edit warring (proposed) policy. That is the missing component. I haven't come up with any ideas on how to make it so that it does not favor one side over the other. If other administrators want to propose anything they are welcome to. --Rschen7754 18:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No idea why do your think Brya and my self fighting edit wars. The case here is Pigsonthewing vs. Brya & Succu. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
      • The case is rather "Pigsonthewing vs. Taxonomy". - Brya (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Are admins prepared to allow this further false allegation - again made without any attempt at providing evidence - to stand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for closure

Could an admin who has not taken part in the discussion determine if a consensus for the two restrictions has been obtained in the discussion above? --Rschen7754 06:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting... --Rschen7754 17:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Closed by Pasleim. --Rschen7754 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Still ongoing

Even while this discussion is taking place, Succu has again reverted me at Species Nova. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have fully protected the item. --Rschen7754 05:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is odd, that there is no edit war there (you'll note that i did not revert the edit I reported here), and so you have now handed Succu a free pass for his continued reverting and - 'wrong version' essay not withstanding - an effective month-long veto over my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Context: da ist nichts "provisorisch" and newly name(d) is Ersatzname (Q749462) led to to avoid confusion. BTW The talk page is open... --Succu (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Protect John «Fornite» Kennedy Q9696

Excessive vandalism in the entry John F. Kennedy (Q9696) changing the name to John «Fornite» Kennedy. I request a long time semi-protection. -- Leoncastro (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 3 months by Mahir256. Pamputt (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection for Q36524 (authority control)

Hey, I was wondering if we could semi or fully protect authority file (Q36524). The labels of this item are used on Commons in the highly-visible templates {{Authority control}} and {{Wikidata Infobox}}. Earlier today, an IP user changed the English label of this item, and this incorrect label began appearing all over the place on Commons. I realize it's a bit odd to request protection for something that's highly visible on a different wiki, but the alternative solution is that Commons would have to maintain another identical list of dozens of language labels. Would the admins here be willing to protect this item? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done, protected for 1 year--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Quickstatements demo for Wikidata 6 birthday event at University of Edinburgh

Hi, would anyone be able to help our event run smoothly tomorrow from 11am to 3pm GMT? Running an Intro to Wikidata, SPARQL Query Basics and Wikidata manual/mass edits demos as [art of Wikidata 6th birthday event. Quickstatements demo will involve participants working with batches of data allocated to them. These may be new accounts doing this facilitated demo. Would we need the user accounts to be 'confirmed' by an admin to ensure QS edits went through? Stinglehammer (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Protect Q20026619

Hello,

The IP user 77.179.111.84 restarted vandalize Q20026619. This element was protected 1 week and another time 2 weeks. Now I request one month of protection at level autoconfirmed.

I precise that I don't request IP block (but you can also block if you want) because this man use dynamic IPs to vandalize. (Recent examples: 77.179.111.84; 77.179.43.22; 77.179.65.173; 77.179.69.248 and a lot more about other wikis.

Cordially. --Niridya (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done, for 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Mq-TW.QR-WL1H

This user is cross-wiki vandalizing User:Billinghurst's page, and some other contributors's ...

Seems on a vendetta... https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Mq-TW.QR-WL1H

Thanks--Hsarrazin (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This user account was gloabally locked 2018-10-31T13:54:41. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

and s.he's back User:MLs akETzR --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

To lessen the administrative burden here it might be worth putting soft protection on my talk page for 3-6 months, especially as I am not particularly active here. FWIW it is a known and continuing xwiki LTA who thinks that it is clever, or annoying to me. You just cannot help the stupid. Like whatever ... water ... duck .... back <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, it has been done for a month. Let us see how that helps.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I just did the same on fr.ws :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated items (schools in Venice)

I have found these three items:

• Category:Guild schools in Venice (Q54858759)
• Category:Scuole Grandi of Venice (Q30696402)
• Categoria:Scuole di mestiere e di devozione di Venezia (Q9257391)

They describes the same things: Scuola [school] (also written Scola or Schola) in historical Venice is a voluntary association; it can be a Scuola di devozione (confraternity) or a Scuola di arti e mestieri (guild) and also their headquarter buildings; only nine confraternity became Scuola Grande. The best italian definition can be Scuole di devozione, arti e mestieri a Venezia [confraternities and guilds in Venice] or also Scuole di arti e mestieri e devozioni a Venezia.

By the way also Scuola Grande di San Teodoro have two items: (Q55599837) (Q30914627)

Can someone can unify them? --Zanekost (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But remains Scuola Grande di San Teodoro. Although it would be better having different identifiers for the building (or buildings) and the institution, San Teodoro looks the only one having two identifiers, and also categories and pages of any Wikipedia talks about building and institution together.--Zanekost (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong translation messages

Hello.Please delete these messages because they match the original text.Thanks David (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Bencemac (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

AliciaFagervingWMSE-bot adding incorrect information.

AliciaFagervingWMSE-bot added false information, claiming that Walter Raleigh's country of citizenship was the United Kingdom, despite the fact that the United Kingdom did not exist during Raleigh's lifetime (he died in 1618).

This is despite complaints by 2 editors taking issue with three edits at User talk:Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)#Guy Fawkes edit warring; no response has been offered to these complaints. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the bot until the concerns have been addressed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate

Could you please merge justice of the peace (Q20729535) and justice of the peace (Q26857447)? This is the same position. 2A01:CB1D:80FC:DA00:2DD6:B47B:812B:83ED 19:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of database and hundreds of linked items

Hello,

I created a new large number of networked items starting with Q48843087 Buddhist Matikas (Lists) in the spring of 2018. I added to it throughout the summer and even accessed it publicly in September of this year. Today, I went online and couldn't find any of the items, nor could I log into my account: Username = Buddhist.Matikas. This is months and months of work. I received no notice prior to deletion. I created a companion google website https://sites.google.com/view/buddhist-matikas/home with its own email address: buddhist.matikas@gmail.com and didn't receive notice prior to deletion. Please advise how to reinstate my account as well as all of the items.

I am a real person and can be reached via either the buddhist.matikas@gmail.com or my personal email address: upjnkml@gmail.com. I am a student planning to pursue graduate studies and am using what I created in the spring but can't access any of what I created.

I need your tool to achieve multiple things as outlined in my webpage. Please help.

Thank you.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.24.84 (talk • contribs) at 19:58, 31 October 2018‎ (UTC).

I don’t see a reason why you are unable to log into your account Buddhist.Matikas as it is not blocked. User:Sjoerddebruin has deleted many (or all) of the items, so he can probably explain the problem to you. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The items weren't sourced or properly structured, please see our notability policy and Help:Sources. I wasn't aware of any external usage, but it's much easier to just start over again as the previous situation was quite a mess. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The deletion of Q48843087 (and, presumably, the other items referred to) does not appear to have been discussed at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Since those deletions have now been challenged, the items should be restored, and if necessary sent to that page, in order that the community decide collectively what should be done with them (i.e. whether to delete, or improve, them). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to your statement that "The previous situation was quite a mess" and "much easier to start over again" --- No it wasn't a mess and not it's not easier to start over again. The "mess" was because of Wikidata's capability to support many-to-many linkages and be a publicly editable database -- the network that I was creating required both of these capabilities. And, I have no problem updating each item with proper sourcing. Keep in mind -- as I am a new user, I will probably need help with what is an acceptable source. Can I source a textbook instead of other wiki sites? Not clear. I am creating a network database that holds information for multi-linked items that are from ancient Buddhist texts. Instead of arbitrarily deleting items, a message would have helped clarify the issues. Please ... please ... please restore all items! And provide guidance. It would be much appreciated.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buddhist.Matikas (talk • contribs) at 19:18, 4 November 2018‎ (UTC).

Jonas Kress (WMDE)

In this edit, user:Jonas Kress (WMDE) asks "Please disable this account.". Perhaps a block and protection of his user page would be best? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The account is already blocked since yesterday, and the user page is a global one from metawiki. Elevated rights have been removed a couple of days ago as well by a WMDE staffer. Nothing to do here, I guess… —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact that a user page exists on Meta does not stop anyone from creating a user page on this wiki. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection for Q32641

There's an edit war in the descriptions and the statement "instance of" of the item Q32641 since june. Can someone protect it? Thanks --Foguera (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As explained in the talk page, both views of "instance of" are valid as they are properly referenced.--Micru (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

95.26.22.55

Same weird edits to Brad Dourif etc., as previously [12]. Ghouston (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Q48928408

User:210.3.92.210

This user still make edit wars in West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408) even I warned them for more than 3 times, per this document on zhwikisource, the Mainland Port Area is not under Hong Kong government control, but under Shenzhen government control, therefore its located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) value should be Futian District (Q572153), not Hong Kong. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 Support This area has administrative mark that said Shenzhen West Kowloon, so this area is by de jure not in Hong Kong. --117.136.54.33

new section

The West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area is located in the administrative territorial entity of Hong Kong. As stated by the response from the Government, the implementation of co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the XRL does not involve realignment of the HKSAR boundary. This is consistent with the views of the NPCSC as stated in the preamble of the Decision that “the establishment of the Mainland Port Area at the West Kowloon Station does not alter the boundary of the administrative division of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”. As such, the HKSAR Government considers that the purpose of Clause 6(2) is to articulate an important point of law that the co-location arrangement does not affect the HKSAR boundary. 223.17.65.23 07:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

for all of your claims. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, the existing of Vatican City (Q237) does also not affect boundary lines of the Republic of Italy, but therefore Vatican City (Q237)country (P17)Italy (Q38)? The fact is that this is under Shenzhen Government control, not Hong Kong Government, and another fact is that by entering this area, your travel document (Q2616578) will be stamped a "深圳西九龙 Shenzhen West Kowloon". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Section 6(2) of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Ordinance: “Subsection (1) does not affect the boundary of the administrative division of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region promulgated by the Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No. 221 dated 1 July 1997 and published as S.S. No. 5 to Gazette No. 6/1997 of the Gazette.” 223.17.65.23 14:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@223.17.65.23: As description said, non of Hong Kong legal documents are applied to this area, whether you think this is fair or not, and even you have rights to claim Hong Kong independence (Q113301), there's nothing to do with the usages of properties, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is mainly for the de facto administrative entity, optionally for the de jure administrative entity, but never for just geographical places. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove the warning templates that you've got, that's not civility. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

There is no "深圳西九龙 Shenzhen West Kowloon", confirmed by the Shenzhen General Station of Exit and Entry Frontier Inspection 223.17.65.23 14:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Then what's this entry stamp meaning? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dhx1: As that user helped clarifying the legal documents involved this on WD:PC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

香港特別行政區行政區域界線不受影響，因此内地口岸區實際上依然是香港特別行政區的一部分，政府文件也認爲這是個重要的法律觀點，你知道嗎？223.17.65.23 15:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

梵蒂岡的存在同樣也不影響意大利共和國的國界線，難道梵蒂岡就是意大利的么？--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

資深大律師潘熙接著陳詞，指中央早於1997年已訂下明香港特別行政區的界線，當中包括西九龍站內地口岸區。 223.17.65.23 15:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

警官在片段的4:04親自說：“到香港境内的內地口岸區工作” 223.17.65.23 15:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

From my point of view, Liu is right, this area is an enclave that is controlling by Mainland China departments, just like Vatican City which is by geographical located in Italy, But also a country (and that's the shortest country of world). --117.13.95.75 02:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Senior Counsel Martin Lee: "It created a smaller special administrative region within Hong Kong" 210.3.92.210 04:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please, no personal attack, he didn't say that. --117.136.55.102 12:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Closing of the RFC Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata

There's a clear consensus on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Allow_the_creation_of_links_to_redirects_in_Wikidata . I don't see any reason why the RFC doesn't get closed more than a year after it has been opened. Given that I myself started it, I'm not in the position to close it but I see no reason why any other admin shouldn't be able to close it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Anf dxkse

It's only beginning, but I think I recognise a known pattern of actions -> see User:Mq-TW.QR-WL1H, User:MLs akETzR… on October 31th... Thanks --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

wow, that was quick Special:CentralAuth/Anf_dxkse :D --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Harvest Templates import

Hi, please block Edoardo88 if he doesn't pause his Harvest Templates import of song data. He is adding a lot of incorrect data to items about compositions; the data being added pertains to the respective items about the audio tracks. Jc86035 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MB-one and Aichach (Q55133909), Aichach station (Q57174619)

User MB-one always splits the one item into two because of some "fictional" concepts. Because I'm creating hundreds of this form of locality, please block him from doing so.

There is a train station called "Bahnhof Aichach" which all its train station related properties. In Bavaria there is a term called "Gemeindeteil" - this term stands for any named place in a municipality like towns, villages, hamlets, hermitages and sometimes castles, sanatoriums, mills, forester's houses, train stations and so on. These "Gemeindeteil" are named by the municipality and sometimes it revokes some of the names too.

Aichach (Q55133909) is a train station, which is proved as train station (Bhf.) for example in the "Amtlichen Ortsverzeichnis von Bayern" (official gazetteer from Bavaria) 1964 page 9 [13] under the municipality "Algertshausen". From the same gazetteer, page 6* [14] I cite "Die Bahnhöfe sind mit ihren bahnamtlichen Bezeichnungen und der Höhenlage über Normalnull in den Gemeindeteilen angegeben, in denen sie liegen. In manchen Gemeinden bilden sie eigene Gemeindeteile." (The train stations are specified with their train-official name and absolute altitude in the Gemeindeteilen, in which they are. In some municipalities they form own Gemeindeteile). So the train station themself is a Gemeindeteil.

User:MB-one always divides this train station in two items without any need. His reason is, that train station and "Gemeindeteil" subject two different concepts. Is this the idea of wikidata, to create concepts and divide one physical existant object in more items? I cant't follow him. He distributes the properties to the two items and ignores the sources. Why ist inhabitants a property of his created "Gemeindeteil" but not of his train station? Like the source of 1964 shows, there live 11 inhabitants in the train station (perhaps the station master with his family and so on). Why is located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with Algertshausen municipality value only in the "Gemeindeteil", the train station is there until first of January 1974, too. Why he deletes the alias name "Bahnhof Aichach" from the "Gemeindeteil" I don't know - you can see at [15] that the "Gemeindeteil"/train station is named so at 1980.

I'm importing for a long time many information from the Bavarian official gazeteers from 1877 to 1987 and there are many such objects (train stations, castles, mills, even powerhouses, and so on). I don't think, it's a good idea to divide all of them into more items without any need. --Balû (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Balû, MB-one: You should probably discuss this on the relevant item Talk page, or to come up with a general rule perhaps in Project Chat. I'm aware that some very small places are included in old gazetteers (I have some ancestors who lived at a mill that was a little apart from the nearest town in Bavaria in the 1800s). Is a mill or station a conceptually different thing from the small community of people who lived there? I think that split is (somewhat) justified. This seems similar to how we may split off an item for a building from the organization that operates there (say a hospital or institute, etc.). I don't think the splitting is required, but if somebody wants to put in the effort to do it it improves the internal conceptual integrity of the items in Wikidata, so in general it seems a good thing. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Becerro87

The last edits of User:Becerro87 are only to delete a certain property on Rafael Nadal, resulting in 10+ languages not showing the value in infoboxes. The user has been warned/asked before by user Vinkje83 (I miss him!), but without any result. Edoderoo (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 months. Lymantria (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)