Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive 2018

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Circular redirects

Papilio mechowianus and Papilio (Druryia) mechowianus appear to be circular, This typically needs an admin action to resolve a single target. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It only needs an admin if a deletion is required (or if one of the pages is protected, which doesn't apply here). The issue can be solved by anyone, by redirecting the pages to a page about the actual taxon; or by replacing the contents of one of them with the good data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Catalogue of Life: 2017 Annual Checklist (via GloBIS GART 2013) lists the species as Papilio mechowiana Dewitz, 1885 rather than Papilio mechowianus Dewitz, 1885. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
To complicate matters, Papilio mechowiana currently redirects to Papilio mechowianus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Papilio (Druryia) mechowianus was redirected to Papilio mechowianus by User:Brya on 6 January this year, in (Druryia) mechowianus&oldid=2829946 this edit, which I have undone for now, so at least the last published content is available and findable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not take into account that there was not just one, but two mistakes. - Brya (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several Orphaned talk pages

There are several orphaned talk pages in Wikispecies. I will list them:

Should be deleted those pages or no? As per Wikispecies:Policy#Deletion policy: "If the talk page of an article exists but the article page itself is deleted, the talk page is considered to be an "orphan" and can be deleted immediately". Some of the pages (such as "Talk:Normareyes") were created for vandalism and others were created without creating the article, and also others were created with the deleted article (such as "Talk:Frog") but missing deleting the talk page. --Stïnger (会話) 13:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Heya thanks for this
I am checking the others. Some may be the result of incorrect page moves when combinations changed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Created page for Talk:Acanthinomerus at Acanthinomerus no longer an orphan. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok everyone, opinion here. the various orphans for the members of genus Mecyclothorax listed above are nothing but distributions for the various pages, if you look at the genus page a number have been created others have not, the redlinks have talk pages as listed above. All were created by user:stho002 in I guess one of his attempts to add distribution data. Although the mainspace pages do need to be created do we want these talk pages? or just delete them all. Wanted a second opinion here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I think I/others can re-create the members of genus Mecyclothorax if is appropriate, right? (I'm talking about the pages and not the talk pages) But others should have the opinion about the talk pages if these talk pages are useful or not. --Stïnger (会話) 14:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I never really liked talk pages used for anything else except their intention to be discussion, like on the rest all over Wikimedia. In some cases though, distribution records may be "saved" to the article, but in general I vote for delete. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted a few, where there was no salvageable data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the rest in the list, of course with the exception of Talk:Acanthinomerus which is now "resurrected" by Scott. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Proposal for change of policy text

I propose we add information to the Enforcing policy subsection on "Wikispecies:Policy". The current wording is as follows:

Enforcing policy

In the case of misbehaving editors, such policy may be enforced to keep the community in good order.

  • Warning
    • This is usually the first step to remind editors to behave properly.
  • Block
    • Users will have their editing privilege removed for a period of time (or indefinitely) as determined by an administrator. The blocked editors are still able to access and view Wikispecies, but unable to make any changes to it. It is not necessary for editors to receive a warning prior a block if the administrator believes that there is a clear indication that the editor is disruptive.
(…followed by the "When not to lock" subsection.)

I propose to change that into the following, mainly with additions from English Wikipedia's Blocking IP addresses: Block lengths:

Enforcing policy

In the case of misbehaving editors, such policy may be enforced to keep the community in good order.

  • Warning
    • This is not mandatory, but usually the first step to politely remind editors to behave properly. An initial warning may be followed by up by another if the editor persists in not following Wikispecies policies and guidelines.
  • Block
    • Users will have their editing privilege removed for a period of time (or indefinitely) as determined by an administrator. The blocked editors are still able to access and view Wikispecies, but unable to make any changes to it. It is not necessary for editors to receive a warning prior to a block if the administrator believes that there is a clear indication that the editor is disruptive.
    • While a fairly common action when dealing with recurrent vandalism by registered and logged in users, note that IP addresses (used by users not logged in) are very rarely indefinitely blocked. Many IP addresses are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are periodically reassigned or have different users. In cases of long-term vandalism from an IP address, blocks over a period of months or years are considered instead. Long-term blocks are never used for isolated incidents, regardless of the nature of their policy violation. IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats are never blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time. Such evidence may only be obtained by a Wikispecies Checkuser. A checkuser investigation is only intended as a last resort for difficult cases, but requests can be made here.
    • Open proxies are generally reported to the Meta-Wiki Stewards and blocked globally for the length of time they are likely to remain open on the same IP address, which in most cases is likely to be only a few months. Requests for global unblocking of such IP addresses can be made via the same Meta-Wiki Stewards page mentioned above.
(…again, of course followed by the "When not to lock" subsection.)

What are your views on this? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: I think this has support enough to be accepted, so my suggestion is close and make it happen. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: two weeks and 100% approval. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've been far too busy with non-Wikimedia work lately, but as a result of your reminders I've now made the changes. Thanks. As a final note the Wikispecies:Policy page now needs to be re-translated. I've made a note about this on the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

RfC for the current vote on Stewardship

Is it time to add a RfC for the 2018 Stewardship vote before it closes on the 28th Feb.? Yes there was a notice put forward, now archived. I appreciate we have one of our own involved in the process, but the RfC should not count as canvassing, or does it? My interest was doubly piqued, as our problem with Stho002 is one of the key questions to all candidates and the replies are interesting and germane to WS. Just a thought, but I would urge all admins at least to look at the vote and engage - questions are close, but the vote is still open. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Canvassing guideline on enWP I find it hard to make out whether adding a RfC at Wikispecies about this would be considered canvassing or not. However – and regardless of RfC – making a non-biased and neutral Village Pump note about the election is certainly okay. The question is whether that's necessary, since users regularly gets a note about the election anyway, in the form of a "header note" after they've log in. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
By the way the Stewardship election in question can be found here, together with links to information about all of the candidates. I voted earlier today. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

(Thread moved to the Village Pump, see Village Pump:


Hi. Please consider the following: Accounts like User:Админы русской википедии сука конченые чмыри (this username is inappropriate in russian, also is seen other 5 accounts recently created with inappropriate usernames) are socks of a cross-wiki long-term vandal user. This user created in many times accounts with inappropriate russian names in the Vietnamese Wikipedia, who many of them are globally locked, and it seems he is coming here to do the same issue. I'm posting this as we need to monitor Special:Log/newusers. --Stïnger (会話) 01:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

No such page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that user account has made no edits on this wiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes he doesn't edit, but he creates the accounts to harass Russian wikipedia's administrators (the previous time was in the Vietnamese wikipedia and Vietnamese admins blocked these accounts and reported it at m:SRG). He is creating here the accounts for the same problem. --Stïnger (会話) 12:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Just a note: I've fixed my mistake --Stïnger (会話) 12:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Blocked all six, on the basis of the user name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Wikispecies

As far as I can tell the newly created وݙا ورقہ page is an attempt to create a Saraiki (or perhaps Urdu) language version of the Wikispecies Main Page. I do however see some issues with it. After the standard page header the first three words on the page are ست بسم اللہ i.e. Bismillah Allah or in English "In the name of God, Allah". I don't know much about the culture in and around Punjab (whether Indian or Pakistani parts), and as for this particular page I'm not absolutely sure it's meant to be a religious statement at all. Yes the phrase itself consists of the very first words in the Quran, but from a cultural aspect perhaps it's also a mere phrase of civility and courtesy? Analogous with "Bless you, visitor", if you like? After all the equivalent phrase on the English main page is "Welcome to Wikispecies". Personally I'm not a religious guy and have no problems whatsoever with these matters (I'm more of an agnostic atheist, if anything), but my question to you fellow admins is whether there is an overall or general Wikimedia policy governing cases like this? If there is I say we act accordingly.

Secondly the page goes on talking about "Wikiquote varieties" (وکی انواع) and "Wikinews is free" (وکی انواع مفت ہے) rather than the Wikispecies' ditto phrases. Unfortunately I have no clue what the Saraiki name for "Wikispecies" is, so I can't really change that... How should we go about dealing with this page, and future pages like it? Your thoughts, please! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Punjab in India can be Hindu or Muslim. Louisiana's former governor Jindal was Hindu from India's Punjab, converted to Catholic. Even Soviets had cultural statements that mentioned God, and Stalin composed love poetry mentioning God. Thus, we do need to be careful. I like to keep religion away from public affairs, and I agree with Aristotle that monotheists have screws loose. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being written in Arabic script, it is quite obvious, that Saraiki is the Muslim version of Punjabi, as Urdu is the Muslim version of Hindi. This doesn't mean, that these languages would be restricted to Pakistan, as there still exists a considerable number of Muslims in India. I suppose, the name of the language is derived from "Saray", which seems to imply, it would have originated from the dialect of Punjabi spoken at the palace or court of the Muslim rulers of the country. Anyway, if such a phrase is meant as a welcome message only, I would not see any problem. I suppose, that the content of Wikispecies could not be used to convert anybody to any kind of religion. However, beware of any attempts which might give the message, that WS seemingly would support creationism. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── For the page at hand it's pretty obvious that it is written in Saraiki. The user name of the editor is "Sraiki" [sic] and all of the users' other edits are translations using the .skr language code, i.e. Saraiki. So yes we're dealing with the main page for the Saraiki language version of Wikispecies. In essence I agree with Franz Xaver but I want to stress that I'm not at all certain that the phrase is meant as a mere welcome message and nothing else. It may be, or not – I don't know. It would really help if there is a global Wikimedia policy to guide us in situations like these. Does any of you admin's know of such a policy? If there is one we might as well adopt it as a local policy, perhaps together with an NPOV policy adapted for the special type of information we manage at Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

 Support I think its a good idea. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support But ! do not know of a global WM policy. However, taxonomy is independent of religion, or at least should be. Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Wikispecies and Religion can't live together. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 22:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support We do need global policy, which can be adapted for Wikispecies in particular. Wikispecies, like science, must be independant of all religion and politics. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support same as above we must be independent of religion and politics, this is science. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translators and Unpatrolled Pages

Just wondering, should we have a policy to look at those doing translations fairly quickly and give them patrol rights if warranted. Since our unpatrolled edits went from 60 odd to 800 odd in a day or so which is largely a combination of one translator and one ip, whom I suspect may be the same translator. Thoughts on this? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess @Faendalimas: you mean autopatrolled, and not patrolled rights? In that case, I agree with you, that it would be good to somehow bring down the list of unpatrolled edits, which just includes translations. I guess in many cases, it should be enough to checkup some 10-20 edits of a contributor, and if they look OK; then use RTRC and masspatrol the rest of the dits and give the translator autopatrolled rights. The problem is of course, that unless theres several or many users who understand the particulair language, how can hundreds of edits be controlled, when written in a language that I dont understand? Somehow I feel that all those translations should be administrated somewhere else, like translationwiki, where more users speak the particulair language, rather than here on WS? In any case, 800 edits to patrol, in a language one doesnt understand, is a major challenge.
What does WS translator admins think about this? Dan Koehl (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Just a short note about RTRC. I frequently use it, but for me the tool always ignore any edits that are translations, regardless whether I chose "All" or "Translations" in the Namespace drop-down menu.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
yes I am meaning looking at a way to fast-track them to autopatrol rights. I am thinking of this with users who have possibly a clear history of translating on other wikis etc. I agree the cqpacity of us to actually manually patrol their edits, considering they may be in languages I do not understand, can be limited in any case. I also am interested in what our translation admins have to say on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, most of the unpatrolled editions correspond to translations, in addition, later verifying those translations for those who don't master the language is challenging, and Wikispecies does not have a large multilingual community as one would wish. Regards. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could be raised as a question on Phabricator, if it would be possible to "outsource" the translation edits to translatorwiki? I have noticed that this seems to have been the case with some pages I have translated on meta. At Meta, after clicing on "translate", obviously the translation process where located on translatorwiki... Dan Koehl (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am don't have patrol rights and therefore i don't see what you see in the "recent changes" (but I understand what you mean ;). I called User:Amire80 here to get a wise decision from him.
In my opinion, translations should not be excluded from patrol. And also "autopatrol" right should not be granted automatically. If "Patrol" mechanism allows grant the patrol flag only to certain namespaces, it would be possible to assign this flag to trusted users from other projects, who will occasionally check the translations in their languages.
About current workflow. Current filter "Not translations" in he Recent Changes may be useful for hide changes in the translation namespace. Similar filter for RTRC tool (like "Hide translations") currently requested.--Kaganer (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree, it should not be automatic. More I was meaning that we may wish to look at translators work on other wikis, when available, and use that to make a decision. At least this way reduce the number of unpatrolled edits from translators. Your filtering ideas are also of course useful. Thanks Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many good unpatrolled edits are just translations that don't need to be in that queue. Since very few users are native Wikispecians, we can easily click on their home wikis and see if it looks like they are doing good work there (no blocks, lots of edits, many edits which are current versions) and make a snap judgement that will be correct 90% of the time. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get a little confused here, what benefit does it make if I can filter out 800 translations with "Hide translations" on Recent Changes aside from that I dont see them anymore, but they are still there and will for sure give someone else headache? Secondly, I find it implementing a very weak way of "patrolling", checking what a user has done on another wiki and taking for granted, or guessing, that this is such a good person, so the edits must be ok. I would stress the fact, that an edit written in a language that I dont understand, and cant read, is out of my capacity to patrol? Using google translate can serve a cause in some cases, but not for 800 edits?
So, as I see it patrolling on Wikispecies should be in regard to that a new editor follows standard of syntax, supply valid sources etc, but Im afraid that we cant really seriously handle the almost 300 languages listed as different language editions of Wikipedia without starting guessing that they are good edits, and what purpose does the patrolling then really provide? Wouldnt it really make sese that translating and patrolling in 300 different language translations of the WS pages should be performed outside WS, by people who know the different languages?
Somehow I see Wikispecies syntaxt edits as responsibility for the WS community, and should be our patrolling focus.
  1. Filter out operations doesnt solve the problem, just makes me not see it anymore?
  2. Guessing edits are OK by judging the users edits on other projects, is not really a serious way of patrolling?
  3. If people want to translate Wikispecies into 400 different languages, I believe it should be up to THEM, who understands that patriculair language, to patrol those translations.
Dan Koehl (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just given User:Omotecho the 'autopatrolled' flag. unfortunately this does not mark their earlier edits (of which there are many; and for which we shoudld be very grateful) patrolled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Koavf. translation changes cannot be mark automatically because it have some vandalisme. but after enough translation(20?50?100?) made by a user, in all wikimedia project, The sysop can consider to give autopatrolled rights. - yona b (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: yes it is beyond our capacity in general to patrol 100's of edits in a language we do not understand. So My question/ suggestion was to utilise their history on other wikis. I think if someone has made several hundred edits on a wiki with zero complaints, no admin intervention, and possibly received autopatrol rights on that wiki, then in good faith we can assume they are doing the same here. This is about translators only of course. I would suspect that with some of these translators it would be several wikis behind them. This should not be automatic, if their is no background then there is nothing we can do I suspect. We would have to use our own judgement as to when to give autopatrol rights. As to the numbers as per @יונה בנדלאק: point, I think in this case a higher number and maybe multiple wikis, so at least 100, however, I think a good translator is not going to have difficulty having that edit count. Thanks @Pigsonthewing: for giving Omotecho autopatrol, clearly yes this is who I have been talking about right now, but this was just the current example, its not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. I do think from what I can tell that his edits are all in good faith and very useful to us, for which I am grateful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with yona b. CreativeC (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Koavf. Sorry for my limited time but I recently read this. --Stïnger (会話) 23:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
One problem with using other-wiki edits as a reference for (auto)patrolling is that historically we've seen cases where the actual translations have been good, but the quality of the translations haven't been matched by the editor' understanding of Wikispecies' rather special syntax and layout preferences. This is of course not a question of vandalism or any other sort of malicious motive: most often it's simply a matter of not knowing how our author- and reference templates etc. should be formatted. For example many Wikipedia-savvy users have added {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite web}} templates over the years, not knowing that they are unrecommended for use on Wikispecies. It's all done in good faith of course, but still takes quite a bit of time to fix afterwards. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

"Autopatrolled" entries to be removed from the logging table

The following information was copied from the latest Wikitech ambassador's newsletter:

Hello all,

This change might impact people who run tools based on the patrolling status of edits. This could also be relevant for admins. Feel free to share with your local communities.

Currently, MediaWiki is storing the information about if an edit has been patrolled or autopatrolled in the logging table. This table is getting very very big, causing significant infrastructure issues.

Therefore, we plan to make the following changes:

  • Stop adding new entries for autopatrolling to the logging table
  • Remove the old entries for autopatrolling from this table
  • Since the distinction between autopatrol and manual patrol was introduced in April of 2016, We need to remove every patrol action (manual or not) before that date.
  • Include information about autopatrolled in the recentchanges table. The fields rc_patrolled is current 0 for unpatrolled edits, and 1 for patrolled edits. In the future, it will be 0 for unpatrolled, 1 for manually patrolled, and 2 for autopatrolled edits.

This means that the information about if an edit is autopatrolled, will be accessible only in the Recent Changes table, for 30 days. For now, manual patrolling actions will continue to be recorded in the logging table as before, and will remain visible on Special:Log. More details can be found in the technical RFC document, see phab:T184485.

We plan to deploy these changes on April 4th. The script removing patrol actions in the database may take several weeks to run.

If you’re maintaining a tool using logging.log_action = "autopatrolled", please consider changing your code to use recentchanges.rc_patrolled = 2. If this is going to cause large issues for an important tool, please let us know.

If you have any technical question, feel free to write to user:Ladsgroup.

Léa Lacroix (WMDE)
Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Block request

Please block for Special:Contribs/ . vandamism --Rxy (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked this IP address due to seems no available local sysops for this time. Please delete pages created by this IP address. Thanks. --Rxy (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im looking into this, trying to mass revert, thank you, @Rxy:. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see now that all edited pages hes been reverted, and there is no created pager, once again, thanks Rxy! Dan Koehl (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate: Harutaka Hatanaka and Harutaka Hata

@Pigsonthewing:, hi, I am working on Wikidata d:Q21392731 and figured out it is the same person as d:Q21389345 畑 晴陵 (Harutaka Hata). The author's family name per the cited doi is Hata, not Hatanaka. How do you solve that case first in Wikispecies? Hatanaka needs to be corrected as Hata, but since it is the first case for me, and please point me to which page I will learn the details of procedure. Thanks, ----Omotecho (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Omotecho: There are several stages, best performed in this sequence:

  1. move Template:Hatanaka & Motomura, 2015 to Template:Hata & Motomura, 2015
  2. update any pages that were using Template:Hatanaka & Motomura, 2015
  3. update every Wikispecies page that currently links to Harutaka Hatanaka, so that they instead link to Harutaka Hata
  4. redirect Harutaka Hatanaka to Harutaka Hata
  5. if true, add a note to Harutaka Hata, to say that the name "Harutaka Hatanaka" is used in some places
  6. on Wikidata, remove the link to Harutaka Hatanaka from d:Q21392731
  7. on Wikidata, merge d:Q21392731 into d:Q21389345
  8. on Wikidata, clean up d:Q21389345 if required

I don't think any of this is documented, other than the Wikidata merge process, at d:Help:Merge. Please let me know if any of this is not clear, or you need help. And thank you for your continuing good work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:, your instrcution is very clear, and I will follow the steps, which I feel comfortable to the third dagger at the moment. I will try and provide reason why those two templates needs to be merged, not only the above point but add perhaps cinii record statistics. Maybe ask you a question on the way. Best, ----Omotecho (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge done as above instruction, and Wikidata cleaned up for d:Q21389345, but not noted that the only page linked to Harutaka Hatanaka (erroneous name merged into d:Q21389345) is this page. If there be any error, please kindly ping me. ----Omotecho (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Please block
for repeated vandalism. Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need help reviewing a Global RFC

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also block

@Dan Koehl and Koavf: and anyone else with a view, I noticed a recent sock account issue on EN:WP may have ramifications for us. here. I am wondering if we should preemptively block these accounts too since they do not seem to be global blocks. I ask because in this case the user is a known creator and vandaliser of pages on Lepidopterans, Birds, Fish and Plants. Both accounts blocked there have been created here. ie User:Caftaric and User:Nono64. However at this point no edits have been done here by this user. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow sockpuppets on this project either, so it's not a problem to preemptively block from my perspective. I would not block the main account, tho--everyone deserves a second chance and he could be a productive editor here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Justin, the main account should only be blocked IF the user vandalize. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok cool, I have blocked User:NotWith as a known sock of the original account User:Nono64 other known socks User:Caftaric, User:R567, User:Wwikix, User:Couiros22 are not present on Wikispecies at present but I note them here. The original account has not been blocked. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Earlier today I deleted the page "The DisuseKid Bible" and blocked User:Koda Knows(Global account information) who created the page. The account is a confirmed sockpuppet of the cross-wiki vandalism-only account User:DisuseKid(Global account info) and a suspected sockpuppet of User:DisuseKid's Disciple.(Global account info) Furthermore, all three of those accounts are also globally locked. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

"Messages to the community"

Is the newly created page Wikispecies:Messages to the community and its complementary template {{Messages to the community}} something we need, or should they be deleted? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I vote delete, not what we are about. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Andyboorman (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest asking the colleague who created them about their intentions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This is nonsense. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user group for editing sitewide CSS and JavaScripts

Dear administrators, please note that in order to improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for editing CSS and JavaScript ("JS") pages has changed throughout Wikimedia. These are pages like MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.js which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.

One of the changes includes the creation of a new user group called Interface administrators (interface-admin). Starting four weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). You can learn more about the motivation behind the change here.

We need to realize that this is a potentially dangerous permission to hand out; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than "standard" admin permissions could be abused. Therefore this permission should only be assigned to users who really need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices – and preferably also use two-factor authentication when logging in to Wikispecies (which by the way is a good idea regardless of user rights).

I'm not at all sure we actually need any interface-admin's on Wikispecies, but if we want to they can be added the same way as new administrators are appointed, i.e. by Wikimedia stewards or our own Wikispecies bureaucrats (not by admins). It's important to remember that our local bureaucrats can only assign this user right to a user, but not revoke it. Hence we will require the help of a Wikimedia steward to remove a user from this user group, if need be. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that this permission can be granted in the same way as the administrator, following a vote and that the bureaucrats grant it. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 23:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if we will be voting on then granting this right what guidelines do we have from Meta to determine suitability of the candidate. Including from my perpective, as a programmer I can see the risks here, of the skills necessary to do this properly. Also agree not sure we need it, but in the event it comes up. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want my personal opinion, people who know enough JS to not break things, who take precautions to avoid having their accounts hacked (two-factor, for example), and who you trust won't violate your privacy or have enough greed to do cryptomining. --Rschen7754 04:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as is already the case with Checkusers I feel that if we have any Interface administrators we must always ensure to have no fewer than two, for mutual accountability. However I still lean towards having none is probably the best, at least for now. There's no point in assigning people to a user group simply because we can. For instance we've never had any Account creators or Oversighters, but still do well without them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The WMF has decided that the following will take place on August 27, 2018
  • The ability to change .js and .css pages is removed from administrators and bureaucrats
  • Instead, a new group of interface-admin will be created
  • The reason is increased security

We need a plan for how we intend to handle this. Here's my proposal.

  • Neither administrators nor bureaucrats should automatically become interface administrators
  • If an administrator needs to edit JavaScript- or CSS files he should ask a bureaucrat about this on Wikispecies Administrators: Requests for adminship. Since this privilege entails a security risk, a request for interface adminship should not lead to a public poll.
  • No bureaucrat should assign himself to the interface-admin user goup
  • When assessing whether a person is to be authorized, the bureaucrat should take the following into account:
    • Has the person shown technical skills involving JavaScript and CSS?
    • Has the person proven responsible?
    • Most often it isn't necessary to edit JavaScripts or CSS files on a frequent basis. Therefore it is likely that the assignment of the privilege should be time-limited, after which it will be automatically revoked by the software
    • If uncertain, the bureaucrat is invited to ask other trusted users for their opinion
  • Interface administrators should consider the following:
    • Use a good, unique password for your account. Using two-factor authentication for logins is highly recommended. (This can be set globally using Special:Preferences. However be careful to read up on the details first, or you might be unable to at all login to Wikimedia later on. A simple password reset wont help if you are locked out, and due to security related technical limitations the Wikimedia staff may not be able to help you if that's the case.)
    • Never copy-paste JavaScript or CSS code that you do not understand
    • Never include anything from an external URL (such as fonts, images) as it violates Wikimedia's policies
    • If you leave Wikispecies, ask a bureaucrat to revoke your interface administrator user rights

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Now an RFC: see Wikispecies:Requests for Comment#New user group for editing sitewide CSS and JavaScripts. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Policy to only follow IOC for Bird nomenclature.

Hi everyone. I have been asked in the discussions on Global Checklist development (currently underway between over 200 international taxonomists and conservationists) to provide details of when and why Wikispecies and Wikipedia have a policy to follow only the IOC and to not include new taxa until this list updates. Which from my understanding from past discussions is our policy here. I need a pointer to that decision if I can so I can provide information on this. Any help there would be appreciated. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search for "IOC" in the Village Pump archives renders a mere seven results, of which only the thread "Inclusion of new taxa, or splits, or other taxonomic changes in Aves not yet listed by IOC" seems at least remotely relevant to your request. You probably remember it: the issue was closed in December last year, and you took part in the discussion. But a local official policy or guideline? No, I don't think we have one. As a side note we also don't have a link to the IOC World Bird List on our Help:Project sources page. Adding one next to our link to the BirdLife International Data Zone might be a good idea. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I searched as well, and as I was doing so I remembered that @Pigsonthewing: asked for a link to this also and it never appeared. Though there does seem to be links to en wp about it which I also followed. Again its just a recommended reference. So I do not know where this idea that we must follow the IOC comes from. It has certainly been raised with the insistence that birds are an exception to other species in this issue. Which to the best of my examinations is not the case. But is being promoted as such by some. Personally I wish we did not do this as it is one of the main detractors that this appears to be the case when its not. Andy am interested in your opinion here too. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This links to IOC homepage: IOC. They update in January and June each year only. There appears to be no claim to be authoritative. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ray. Added. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Pls mark for translation, parts of Help:Image_Guidelines

Moved to Wikispecies:Translation Administrators' Noticeboard#Please mark for translation, parts of Help:Image Guidelines by Tommy Kronkvist (talk) at 22:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block

The following message was copied from Meta-Wiki:


You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF), Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative, Wikimedia Foundation. (Talk) 10 August 2018.

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Use translated versions in MediaWiki:Edittools

Hi, I think it'll be good to use translated versions of headlines in MediaWiki:Edittools. Instead of ==Taxonavigation==, in that MW page, =={{Taxonavigation}}== should be used. I was asked by Rosičák to request this. Thank you in advance, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many, many times before, and it may still be problematic. For examples please see these earlier, now archived discussions regarding the templates {{Publications}}, {{Taxa authored}}, and {{Taxa authored 2}} which all are similar to {{Taxonavigation}}:
I'm not sure, but I think using the magic word int: is a better solution, e.g. =={{int:Taxonavigation}}== and =={{int:Name}}== which will automatically translate the headlines without using any templates (yes they look a bit like templates, but they are magic words, trust me. :-)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
OK, já ti věřím./OK, I believe you. Udělej to tak, jak myslíš, že je to lepší./Do it the way you think it's better. Kód bude sice delší, ale řešení je funkční./The code will be longer, but the solution is working. Ve druhé fázi je určitě potřeba roboticky pomocí bota provést hromadnou změnu v článcích./In the second phase, it is certainly necessary to robotically use the shoe to make a bulk change in the articles. Zařídíš i tohle?/Will you arrange this?
Zdraví a předem děkuje/Health and thanks in advance --Rosičák (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Utility

Hello User:Andyboorman/common.js does no longer appear on the tool links as Create Redirects. Anybody have a clue why? Andyboorman (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman:, I checked your common.js and the script looks OK. Sometimes such scripts become overridden, if you add similar scripts on meta, in a META global.js file, did you possibly change anything on your meta account? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Not as far as I am aware. No meta changes made by me. Andyboorman (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman:, I use a little bit different script at User:Dan_Koehl/common.js, which may be something to try out for you? I just checked, and the redirect utility is still active within that script. (IF it is not, in reality, is controlled by some script on meta, which I forgot that I applied over there...) Dan Koehl (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Do I use importScript('User:Andyboorman/createRedirects.js')? Andyboorman (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Your script works OK. I guess that the earlier problem was my browsers not meta. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, case solved. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, I had the same problem too. Now solved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
In that case, if you both had the same problem, I guess that script was not working so good? In order to avoid the possibility of future problems due to script conflicts, I think its wise to remove the old script. Anyway, happy I could contribute to a solution to your problems. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Your common.js file is a fair bit different compared to mine and Andy's. Which particular part of your common.js file handles the createRedirects script? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Good that you asked @Tommy Kronkvist:, since I see that my common.js file doesnt handle redirects at all (I copied your yours now) it must like I thought instantly, be a file on meta, since it has numerous admin functions, and I have the same utilities on enwiki. It IS a very useful script, Ill tro to locate it, and inform you. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Thanks Dan – that certainly explains why I couldn't find it in your file... ;-) Jokes aside I figured that the createRedirects script was embedded in some of the other scripts your common.js file refers to. However the code base of some of those scripts is rather extensive and/or calls up source code from other scripts on Wikispecies, Meta-Wiki, Wikidata and/or English Wikipedia. All in all that adds up to involving some +20 or so JavaScripts, and quite frankly I didn't bother to read through them all... Easier to ask you instead, since I know you tend to keep a close eye on whats going on within your user pages and settings.

As for Meta and global settings, I tried to have a look at the contents of your global.js file you deleted back in February this year. My sole reason for this was to compare it with my own global.js file to see if I might get any hints or tips from it. So I tried the "view/restore" link in the deletion report (obviously only with the intention to view the file, not restore it) but ended up with a permission error saying that "The action you have requested is limited to users in the Administrators group". I have both administrator- and bureaucrat user rights, so I guess the permission error really should read "The action you have requested is limited to users in the Interface administrators group". Do you know where these sort of error messages are stored, and can be managed? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist:, restored my User:Dan_Koehl/global.js, and as you can see it fetch from m:User:YMS/orc.js. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: 👍 Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
By the way I've now mined all code I need from the script and have no further use for it, so feel free to delete it again, if you want to. (Not that you need my permission... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism in Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae scopulinus (talk·contribs·logs)

On Commons I have soft-blocked the whole range. BTW. Why there is no Navigation popups here? --Jdx (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. I have reverted those edits and blocked the IP. --Thiotrix (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily offline

Hello fellow admins and other Wikispecians. I wish to inform you that the two main computers I most commonly use has gone temporarily kaputt, and it will take some time (and money, most of all…) for me to fix them. That's the one and only reason for my recent absence from Wikispecies, and unfortunately will be the case for yet another week or two. During that time I will continue help monitor all activities on Wikispecies using my cellphone and iPad, but I will not add any new taxon pages or create categories and such. I don't feel that iOS offer as high level of control I require to meet my own standards for the job, hence I wont use it for anything else other than the mere necessities such as checking for vandalism etc. (In my opinion the same goes for Android, however I don't use Android units anyway.) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: We look forward to you being back. Thanks for the heads-up--on such a small project, it's good to keep the lines of communication open. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a good time to evaluate the mobile interface and see how editing can be improved there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump archive

The Village Pump archive is full, and the parts Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 47 + Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 48 are missing from the archives list on the VP main page. Any one up to fixing it? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I've fixed up the main page's list, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Two pages about the same scientist.

While adding data to Wikidata I've realised that Anthony Hume Whitaker and A. H. Whitaker relate to the same person. I was wondering whether it would be possible for an administrator to merge these pages? I'm unsure of the procedure for this in the Wikispecies project and so thought I'd leave a message here. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Von Mering redirect

I have just restored the redirect at Sabine Von Mering, which was deleted in good faith by User:Andyboorman, after User:RLJ repeatedly restred a speedy deletion template, following my declining the deletion. The page has been recreated more then once in recent days, after previous speedy deletions, per User_talk:Thiotrix#Sabine_Von_Mering.

I ask that the page be protected, by an uninvolved admin, and RLJ cautioned not to repeat this behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The capital letter is a clear orthographical error and by no way an optional writing; in German language, prepositions are written with a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence only, see Duden, item 8 at the bottom of the page. This incorrect writing goes back to BioOne, a non-German publisher, and certainly without authorization by the author SvM. Wikimedia products should not propagate orthographical errors and other fakes. Furthermore, search in Wikispecies is case-insensitive; entering of "Sabine Von Mering" would directly lead to Sabine von Mering without this redirect, which is contraproductive in this aspect. It is highly unnecessary. -RLJ (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing's only comment was "the name is used with that spelling at for example." (see User talk:Neferkheperre#Sabine Von Mering) -- RLJ (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Von" misspelling comes from the American publisher BioOne and concerns nearly all "von" authors in their database. Possibly the misspelling was machine-generated in setting initial capital letters to all surnames. Try =PROPER("Sabine von Mering") in Excel. I don't think that these misspellings have any relevance to Wikimedia products. --RLJ (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ask to delete this redirect, and to let it deleted. -RLJ (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion of the merits of the redirect, which I'm quite happy to defend in a more approrate forum, but of your egregious behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My behaviour mirrors yours. Contrary to you I have given my reasons, and I wasted a lot of time and a sleepless night on it. I only followed common practice. Of several hundreds of redirects I tagged with "Delete" during my Wikispecies career three were declined, all by the same user. -RLJ (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RLJ has reverted me, and again tagged the page for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and held back. I do agree with @RLJ:'s logic, as I have 4 years of German. however there seem to be other factors. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for stepping in inadvertently. I echo Neferkheperre, but hope you come to an amicable agreement. Andyboorman (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. A clear case of misspelling, and until there is a consensus on WS that all surnames which include a "von" should be created also in misspelled versions with capitol "Von" there is no need to keep a single one, which had no links to it. As a side note, Wikispecies has been a pretty peaceful place, with no major conflicts, and lets hope it can remain like that, so users dont have to waste time defending apropriate actions. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Back to work bringing Wikispecies forward. --RLJ (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Please undo this deltion. As noted above, "This is not a discussion of the merits of the redirect, which I'm quite happy to defend in a more approrate forum, but of your [RLJ's] egregious behaviour". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: if you want the WS community to establish some kind of rule for such misspellings for hte prefix von, please start a consensus discussion. As far as this case, I interpreted there was consensus for delete, and enwiki is clear: The prefix von is not capitalised in German-speaking countries, please see the article von. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said; "This is not a discussion of the merits of the redirect, which I'm quite happy to defend in a more approrate forum, but of your [RLJ's] egregious behaviour". You've now inserted yourslef into an ongoing community discussion with a "supervote", and wheel-warred with other admins (three of whom, IIRC, have recenly undeleted the item after RLJ's repated "ask the other parent" tagging of it for speedy deletion - so much for your claim of consenus). Restore the item; and let us deal with the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im am presently not able to see in what way this arguing is constructive for Wikispecies project and its community, and Im worried that it may develop into something like this time wasting discussion on Wikidata. I would like to hear opinions from others involved, @RLJ, Andyboorman, Thiotrix, and Neferkheperre:, as well as the entire WS community. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're unabel to understand why this is important for the Wikispecies project and its community, then restore the item as requested, and leave the discusson to others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl, Pigsonthewing, RLJ, Thiotrix, and Neferkheperre:. I am happy to discuss having inadvertently stumbled into the situation, but is this about; the deleted redirect, contributors' behaviour or indeed both? I would also like to remind people to be aware of ad hominem when discussing possibly contentious issues. Andyboorman (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made that abundantly clear already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: So, for you, it is behaviour, as the cited source contains both variants and her work web site has the "correct" German spelling. I, as one of the three Admins who undeleted probably all in good faith, am not taking sides in a behaviour debate. Andyboorman (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl, Pigsonthewing, RLJ, Thiotrix, Neferkheperre, and Andyboorman: If this discussion is going to be about misbehavior, I will add the following proverb: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." OK, marking several times for speedy deletion the same redirect, is disputable. Anyway, admins have to decide on such a request – and most of them decided in this case, it could well be deleted. However, restoring several times the same redirect, after different fellow admins had deleted it, IMO is not much better. Is it appropriate to use one's admin tools, when the respective admin is involved in a controversy on content? Moreover, I am still missing a valid argument, why this redirect is needed. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Franz Xaver, I fully agree. Certainly I should have gone into discussion earlier, and by own initiative. The lack of a satisfying explanation why this misspelling should be relevant to Wikispecies caused the issue. The use or abuse of administrative privileges is a good point. I had to consult a dictionary to learn that "egregious" means "unverschämt". I would like to reject this attribute and to qualify it as a personal attack. --RLJ (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to express hereby my disapprobation of Mr. Pigsonthewing's behavior and my support in RLJ's request. Mariusm (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"restoring several times the same redirect, after different fellow admins had deleted it, IMO is not much better." Were that what I had done, you may have a point. In fact, I restored it only twice; the first time after checking first at User talk:Thiotrix#Sabine Von Mering and doing so with his prior blessing ("if you like to restore this misspelling, please do it"); the second - restoring the staus quo ante - followed immediately by my opening this discusison, where I have already given my reason for doing so (and in which case I undid the deltion by Andyboorman, who subsequenlty and garaciously appolgsed on this page "for stepping in inadvertently". RLJ, in comparisson, marked this item for speedy deletion no fewer than four times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Regardless of everything said above I wish to note that there are several examples of "von names" that actually are officially spelled with a leading capital "V". Most of them are originally the names of German-speaking persons who immigrated to the U.S. during the 18th or 19th centuries and inadvertently got their names capitalized by immigration officers or other officials. The same is true for some Spanish speaking persons with "don" names who were registered with an upper case "Don" when immigrating to the U.S. In order to minimize the risk of red links I suggest those names should always have redirects from the lowercase versions "NN von NN" and "NN don NN NN", respectively. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist:, Im not arguing aginst you, except that instead of should always have redirects from the lowercase versions I really think that such a policy should be preceeded by a consensus discussion. And IF its the will of the community, then, may be it, but I dont see a reason to force this on the contributing users on WS, like Andy has tried to do, without trying to reacha consensus. Also, please consider all en:Patronymic that Americans have altered... should we create redirects from all Carlson, Peterson, Anderson etc, to Carlsson, Petersson, and Andersson also, what I mean, such a project can easily grow above our heads? Therefore, I think only such redirects serve a function, when they are viewed as necessary. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: I guess you're right, however when pondering upon the matter I realise that it's a non-issue. Currently there are 286 pages with "von" or "Von" in the title. With the exception of a few author disambiguation pages (such as Von Klinggräff) only one of them use caps, namely Noé Carlos Barbosa Von Atzingen. Lowercase letters in page names seems to be given sort of a wildcard status by the wiki servers, hence a search for the lowercase variant Noé Carlos Barbosa von Atzingen always automatically redirects to the correct uppercase page, even though an actual redirect page has never been created. N.B. this only works when entering the name directly into the upper right search field (hence the red link here) but the point is it works – and no one would click a red link anyway, if there is no red link to click on... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My thoughts on this matter were already stated here User_talk:Thiotrix#Sabine_Von_Mering. The spelling is incorrect and the redirect not linked, so IMO could be deleted. But if one of us editors feels unhappy with this deletion and thinks the redirect could be useful, then the quality of Wikispecies will not suffer from some unnecessary redirects. But it will suffer, if we editors feel not respected, or feel insulted, and if we all are not trying to follow the rules of en:Nonviolent Communication.--Thiotrix (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here! Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── From logs and version history, I make a try to recontruct the chronology. [Additions and comments by User:RLJ in square brackets]

0) [22:33, 22 Nov: User:Pigsonthewing published a first version of the article under the lemma "Sabine Von Mering", apparently from which contains the "von" Version provided by BGBM (Berlin) as well as the "Von" version generated by BioOne.]
0a) [23:01, 22 Nov: User:RLJ corrects the spelling in accordance with IPNI and adds the information from this source.]
0b) [23:01, 22 Nov: User:RLJ moves page to the lemma "Sabine von Mering"]
1) 23:07, 22 Nov: User:RLJ adds a speedydelete template to the redirect, which some minutes ago was created moving the page to the correct spelling.
2) 23:23, 22 Nov: User:Neferkheperre deletes the redirect
3) 23:53, 22 Nov: User:Neferkheperre restores, after having been approached by User:Pigsonthewing at 23:41. Protest by User:RLJ at talk page of User:Neferkheperre 23:57 comes too late. No answer there [and nowhere else] to his protest. The restored version still contains the speedydelete template.
4) 10:32, 23 Nov: User:Thiotrix deletes the redirect.
5) 22:08, 23 Nov: User:Thiotrix is approached by User:Pigsonthewing, but does not react immediately.
6) 16:03, 26 Nov: After having been reminded, User:Thiotrix indicates, that this misspelling is not of priority interest to her.
7) 17:32, 29 Nov: User:Pigsonthewing restores the redirect himself and removes the speedydelete template.
8) 22:05, 30 Nov: User:RLJ adds the speedydelete template a second time, including a rather long explanation [which is not responded in the following].
9) 01:23, 1. Dez: User:Pigsonthewing removes the speedydelete template. (What does FFS mean?)
10) 02:52, 1 Dec: User:RLJ adds the speedydelete template a third time [with some additions to the explanation which are not responded in the following]
11) 10:25, 1 Dec: User:Andyboorman deletes the redirect.
12) 12:36, 1 Dec: User:Pigsonthewing restores a second time.
13) 12:45, 1 Dec: User:Pigsonthewing starts this thread.
13a) [12:45, 1 Dec: User:Pigsonthewing starts communicating with User:RLJ]
14) 12:46, 1 Dec: User:RLJ adds the speedydelete template a fourth time [after having noticed the watch list, not the discussion, with some additions to the explanation which are not responded in the following]
15) 03:57, 2 Dez: User:Dan Koehl deletes the redirect.
Did I miss any attempt to discuss the matter directly with User:RLJ? As far as I can see, the first misbehavior by User:RLJ was at point 8) or rather at 10). However, I am asking, why in the week before User:Pigsonthewing consequently avoided to communicate directly with User:RLJ, while approaching User:Neferkheperre and User:Thiotrix? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I allowed myself to add some important items. The first communication with User:Pigsonthewing started at point 13a) --RLJ (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. In English (UK, Australasia, Canada, USA etc.), most usually FFS means "For Fucks Sake" apologies if I offend or this is what was not meant. Andyboorman (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy. Now I can scrap the email to Franz which I'm currently writing with the sole reason of not having to print out the meaning here in public... ;-) As a side note it should also be said that the abbreviation is often used as an expression of annoyance directed mainly towards the problem at hand, rather than as an attack on any specific person. A rather more neutral abbreviation would be FCS, "for Christ's sake", but this is not the place for further discussion upon these kinds of matters. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Quite, although I try to avoid religious curses, because, although I am an atheist, I respect the fact that they are hurtful to believers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ususal to communicate with a user when removing a speedy deletion template; the usual next step is for the user who placed it to either i) accept the objection to the proposed deletion or ii) make a case for a deletion in the approoate forum. It is certanly not usual, or acceptable, to edit war to restore the template in the hope that another passing admin will act on it without knowing about the objection. On many projects, repeatedly restoring a speedy deletion template, once declined, is itself a reason for a block. Note that rather than requesting a block, I took the lesser step of simply asking that a neutral admin caution RJL not to repeat the disputed action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: OK, at first instance the request by User:RLJ was not denied, but the redirect containing the misspelling was deleted by User:Neferkheperre. You obviousely did not accept this decision, as you felt, this misspelling was not an error? Did you make your case in the appropriate forum? Was the talk page of the involved admin this appropriate forum? Anyway, why not respond to User:RLJ at that place? If this talk page was the appropriate forum for your objection, it would have been also appropriate for User:RLJ. Isn't it? --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: What is this misspelled redirect good for except for your ego? Your only comment "the name is used with that spelling at for example." is weak and can be challenged by the issues "Language competence of BioOne" and "Machine-generable pattern". I have wasted so much time and nerves in explaining my point of view on this trash, with nothing coming back except comments like "again..." and "as previously discussed" (What??? When??? Where???). -- RLJ (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"except for your ego?" I trust one of the other admins here will deal with this outrageous ad hominem attack? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With another initial author than User:Pigsonthewing the story would have ended at point 0) or 2) --RLJ (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On subject of spelling, I went to digging this afternoon into my ancestors from Östpreußen. My g-g grandfather came to US as Reinhold von Pfennighausen, and personally always used that spelling. His father in law was Theophil von Gallen, whose father in law was Ignatz von Tolzig. In all cases, von was used, not Von. Only some later Amerikan relatives used Von. If we are going to aim for consensus, them we must not only decide on Von/von, but Dutch van, and various Latino usages, such as da, dos, etc. My own habit has been to use small letters when creating new author pages, and not alter existing pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, that's been my way of dealing with it as well. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My deepest appreciation for everyone being concerned, caring and giving balanced input to this issue. I remember when I renewed my activities here back in 2014, when WS was pretty chaotic, with frustrated users leaving WS, others feeling apathic and helpless, and some almost desperate asking for help to rescue the project. Its nice to see a stronger community today, where minor misunderstandings between two users mostly can be solved and cleared out in polite ways, as well as we together can to stop a fire before it is growing out of hands. Things and details, rules and policy may change, but its good to see that they will do so with the support of majority and consensus, and not forced upon the community. Whatever comes out from this discussion, I view Wikispecies as one of the most stable Wikimedia projects I have personal experience from. Thanks again, everyone! Dan Koehl (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I know this is not quite in line with the discussion above, but I would like to point out that we have to careful when making these sort of redirects. As a very good example @Mariusm:, de Andrade is redirected to Maria Lourdes de Andrade via the WS Search Box, but there are some dozen other authors with this patronymic, which are then missed. This redirect should then be deleted I feel and I wonder how many similar are lurking here undetected. Andyboorman (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: I don't think they should be deleted, instead they should be changed into disambiguation pages. It turns out we have exactly a dozen "de Andrades" listed. I took care of it: please see the new version of de Andrade. You do however point out a rather important issue, since we have quite a large number of author redirect pages that ought to be converted in the same manner. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: You are right about the disambig. pages, of course. If you don't mind I will leave such improvements to others, as there are still many red link genera in plants. Glad to be a help, though. Andyboorman (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of your contributions here are very much appreciated, and shifting the colour of our many red botany links is important. Besides, as luck would have it there are currently exactly 5,000 redirect pages (no less, no more!) and checking them all isn't a one-man's job anyway... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps colleagues have missed the post, above, where I asked that one of them deal with an "outrageous ad hominem attack"? Not to mention that the original matter that I raised remains unaddressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that if you wish to request sanctions then a bureaucrat would be more appropriate. I would hope that, as we are entering a of generosity and also new beginnings, we could quietly lay this one to rest. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be approproiate; we just need admins to be willing to do their job. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except A) that administrators blocking each others has never worked well on any wiki, especially a small one like Wikispecies B) no one else is willing to point out your lax definition of "outrageous ad hominem attack" and C) everyone else (but hey, today is my stupid day) knows better than to bite on your obvious bait. Circeus (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:, @RLJ:. Wikispecies administrators have done their job, and IMO, all has been said above: With User:Franz Xaver's list we got an overview of a conflict that grew, because the participants did not communicate early and directly with each other. In anger, hard words were written, so that Andy Mabbett feels attacked and RLJ feels insulted. User:Dan Koehl addressed the hope, that Wikispecies would stay a peaceful place. Of course, all kind of verbal attacks should be avoided here. So I seriously reminded all editors, to keep to non-violent communication. (Hard words cannot be made undone once spoken, and they leave scars. But it is out of administrator's functions and power, to force that such a conflict can be finally solved by forgiving each other...). Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for anyone to be forced to "forgive" anything. I asked that "the page be protected, by an uninvolved admin, and RLJ cautioned not to repeat this behaviour". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: Where did I ask for anyone to be blocked? Which adminstrator are you talking about? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


So, I'm looking at the fancy-shmancy ISSN page and wondering... does anyone have the Wikidata wizardry to generate a list of items on WSP with links to Wikidata items that have ISSNs, and whose names do not begin with "ISSN"? Circeus (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Do you have an example? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Within minutes on only the first page of category:sources I got Annals of Botany. London (Q1821243, ISSN 0305-7364), Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève (Q4903513, ISSN 0366-4619), Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias (Q5731488, ISSN 0325-2051) and Boletim do Museu Botanico Municipal (Q16888317, ISSN 0100-008X). Circeus (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: I think the solution is actually to move the page to "ISSN [x]" and keep the original name as a redirect in Category:Sources. Thoughts on that proposal? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OH, I guess I wasn't clear. The intent is obviously that we have a convenient, automaticallyly updated list of pages that need to be moved. I wouldn't leave the redirect in the category myself, unless we intend to categorize the redirects for everything in category:ISSN, and I don't like that idea either. Circeus (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] There it is. The folks at Wikidata helped me. It's a little awkward because I have no idea how to get the third column to show links to the actual article name (as opposed ot the Wikidata name). Circeus (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modify a Template

Can anybody with more knowledge of template procedures help me out. I have made a template BRBA, which I hoped and thought linked directly to a taxon page via the template's and Brassibase search procedures. I based it on the well known and well used template WCSP. Unfortunately it does not work correctly, although I thought it did! Brassibase has now become the most respected and well known site for Brassiaceae, as can be seen, so I feel it would be good to get it working correctly. Best regards and fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Looks good to me. On Aethionema, it goes to on Isatis it goes to Where should these be pointing instead? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Template has been sorted by @RLJ:, but thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection

{{Disputed}}, {{Disambiguation}}, {{Commons}}, {{Test}} and {{Delete}} need to have some protection, a LTA vandalised these (using a IP and sock) by adding a photograph they uploaded on Commons (since deleted). Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked new and unregistered users from editing these templates. Hope this is OK. Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks like you'll need to add {{Dichotomouskey}} that need protect. Bidgee (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: @Bidgee: Why do you want to delete your user page after changing it from Willy Get His Wheels to Bidgee? Andyboorman (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I never changed my username, the vandal added libel vandalism that should be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee: I have blocked Willy Get His Wheels, am I right it created the Bidgee page you wished to be deleted on 02:20 23 Dec? I assume this will not affect your ability to post and edit. Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: yes please. You’ll see in the history the libel vandalism and summary they left. I have a global user page on meta. Bidgee (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bidgee: All done. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye out just in case. Seeing a Willy on Wheels reference after all these years is worrisome in and of itself. Circeus (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up move vandalisim...

Anyone care to clean up the move vandalism of this user:

and then revdel this request to DENY? Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^^ User's been locked already, I've reverted the edits that weren't moves, just the moves left. Hiàn (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the moved pages and revdel'ed the edits containing inappropriate image. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thread moved to the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.