ISNIplus

Welcome to Wikidata, ISNIplus!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Related category

Hi! I don't really know why you reverted my edits on Q6417957 and Category:Artist groups and collectives (Q125124531) (note that I created the second item to separate the two concepts), but when I initially added related category (P7084) as a property to the items, I didn't realize that the usage was wrong, so I subsequently changed it to said to be the same as (P460), as it was... said to be the same as or that it could be identical. There may be a better property for this, but the current one is used wrong, so I'm reverting the changes. EdoAug (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Γιάννης Μπέζος

Στην ιδιότητα ΑΞΙΟΣΗΜΕΙΩΤΟ ΕΡΓΟ δεν καταγράφουμε όλες τις δουλειές του ηθοποιού και μάλιστα αναιρώντας τις προσθήκες άλλων συντακτών, αλλά μόνο αυτές που σημείωσαν επιτυχία, επιτυχία που αποδεικνύεται από τις ΠΗΓΕΣ . D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello

@ISNIplus Hi, I saw this account was created in January and that our "paths have crossed" a view times so thought I'd "reach out" and say hello, I'm Neil and am interested in helping entries link-out to good quality databases and in return making their connections into Wikidata work better, because of this I was interested in the username you chose as there doesn't seem to be as much use of ISNI id's as there could be and even the Wikipedia article for it could be improved. Anyway, feel free to reach out and as the song goes "Willkommen! And bienvenue! Welcome!" Back ache (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WorldCat-Identities

Hi,

may you use a distinct bot account like ISNIplus_bot for your removal of the WorldCat-Identities IDs? Otherwise it is hard to scroll to the last human edits.

Thanks in advance Billy McCartney (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The edits have a tag, and the search interface gives the possibility to search by tag and invert that. So, for edits of ISNIplus other than quickstatements 2.0 the search URL would be https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=ISNIplus&namespace=all&tagfilter=OAuth+CID%3A+1776&tagInvert=1&start=&end=&limit=50 ISNIplus (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Library of Congress authority ID

Hello. I have reverted seeral of your edits which introduced a Library of Congress authority ID (P244) with incorrect format. Please review the corrret format. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Please give an example. ISNIplus (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The one I just reverted again. It is missing the final digit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting, they are from P7859, please look up in WCE. ISNIplus (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I will block your account if you continue to add incorrect values when you have already been advised they are correct — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool down. ISNIplus (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You should not remove referenced values in the first place and maybe block yourself for vandalism. ISNIplus (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion/P7859#P7859_revival_proposal ISNIplus (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account for two reasons:

• You are not behaving in a compatible way for this project. Your attiude towards other editors is rude, combatitive and aggressive.
• You are not taking responsibility for your edits. When errors have been pointed out, you have not responded properly or made efforts to correct them.

To become unblocked, you will need to address both of these issues — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. ISNIplus block log • ipblocklist • crossblock • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

---

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

I'm declining this unblock request because you show no sign of recognising that your own behaviour was wrong, and you continue to make aggressive comments here. Try to collaborate successfully to other Wikimedia projects, and when you think you are ready, ask to be unblocked after about a year. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

---

беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | svenska | 中文 | +/−

Note:

1. The blocking admin User:MSGJ is in an editorial conflict with the blocked user. In course of the conflict the admin vandalized an item in the Wikidata project space [1] and was asked to please not vandalize ("Please don't vandalise" at Topic:Ybzop0fjyjdnwzgk).
2. The blocking admin User:MSGJ made an abusive thread to block the user before, see details below.
3. On Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard the blocking admin made claims attacking the now blocked user, without providing any link ("I am very disappointed to see the actions and attitude of ISNIplus in this episode. I reverted some of their erroneous edits with a polite edit summary, and I received hostile and beligerant responses") and was asked to provide such links [2] by the now blocked user who provided a sourced and more detailed description of the situation.
4. In the same minute the block was enacted the blocking admin User:MSGJ wrote on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard in a section "Report concerning User:ISNIplus" : "I'm afraid the response above is the last straw for me" [3] - What this "response above" is wasn't stated, but the last edit above by the now blocked user was "Still no answer regarding the outright lies by Dcflyer." - That should be more a reason to block Dcflyer. So, effectively the blocking admin User:MSGJ acted on the side of a user that was involved in harrasment and vandalism. (the vandalism and parts of the harrasment were stopped by intervention of two other admins, details below.)

The block was made providing two unnumbered bullet points, they are:

1. "You are not behaving in a compatible way for this project. Your attiude towards other editors is rude, combatitive and aggressive."
   1. Again, no link has been provided by User:MSGJ.
   2. Nothing rude could be seen from the side of the blocked used. To the contrary, rude behaviour can be seen by User:MSGJ (vandalism, making attacking claims) and User:Dcflyer (harassment, vandalism, lies)
2. "You are not taking responsibility for your edits. When errors have been pointed out, you have not responded properly or made efforts to correct them."
   1. Again, no link has been provided by User:MSGJ.
   2. The initial text of User:MSGJ was: "I have reverted seeral of your edits which introduced a Library of Congress authority ID (P244) with incorrect format." [4]
      1. in the same minute the reply "Please give an example." was posted and the user started reviewing the reversal edits - of which he found three -, and which removed referenced statements, which had been inserted due to feedback by other users. The now blocked user did clean that up properly, by looking up the items in WorldCat Entities and adding the WCE IDs to Wikidata. The user also thanked MSGJ and explained where the values came from and what should be done "Thanks for spotting, they are from P7859, please look up in WCE." [5] The edits by the user during that time can be seen in this list of 20 edits
   3. There is absolutely no evidence that the now blocked user is guilty of "When errors have been pointed out, you have not responded properly or made efforts to correct them." To the contrary, concerns were swiftly addressed, and the reported format violations in Property:P244 - due to a move from Property:P7859 - properly fixed. Not only that:
      1. the format constraint in Property:P244 was false, leading to a false report 2024-04-11 in the constraint violations page [6] that no one fixed until the longstanding underlying bug in Property:P244 was fixed by the blocked user 2024-09-09 [7] (longstanding: format wrong since at least more than 4 years [8])
      2. the now blocked user reported an error related to the P244 format to a tool operator under the section headline "Withdrawn ID value" who changed the software [9]
      3. the now blocked user fixed all format violations reported in the P244 report page - 1) not only three for which the User:MSGJ claimed "I happened to spot" [10] 2) not only those that were caused by the one batch

The blocking admin User:MSGJ:

1. already made a thread to block the now blocked user 2024-09-08 13:03 "I will block your account if you continue to add incorrect values when you have already been advised they are correct" [11] - which was abusive, since the values may have been incorrect, but the were referenced, and the removals by the admin had been reverted using explanatory edit summaries:

   1. 12:56, 8 September 2024 diff hist +786‎ Paul Marius Martin (Q18578924) ‎ ‎Undo revision 2245416319 by MSGJ (talk): add WCE first Tag: Undo
   2. 12:58, 8 September 2024 diff hist +787‎ Ing Hay (Q116111947) ‎ ‎Undo revision 2245416161 by MSGJ (talk): value copied from P7859, please lookup in WCE first

   and the inserted values be removed already

   1. 12:57, 8 September 2024 diff hist −786‎ Paul Marius Martin (Q18578924) ‎ ‎Removed claim: Library of Congress authority ID (P244): n8301977 current Tag: Wikidata user interface
   2. 12:58, 8 September 2024 diff hist −787‎ Ing Hay (Q116111947) ‎ ‎Removed claim: Library of Congress authority ID (P244): n8001252 Tag: Wikidata user interface

   links at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ISNIplus&target=ISNIplus&offset=20240908130327&limit=11

2. failed several times to provide references to claims they made
   1. and when providing a link it does only show the opposite of what was claimed [12]
   2. but others they ask to provide references [13]
   3. and assumes things, for which they as an admin and user registered since 2013-02-18 should know better: "I assume there are likely to be many more, because these were just the ones I happened to spot." [14] - the proper place to look up format violations in P244 is Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P244#Format (the SPARQL query linked from property talk timed out)
      1. last before end of batch run : Data time stamp: 7 September 2024, 11:09 (UTC) : 35 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P244&oldid=2245474194#Format
      2. first after end of batch run : Data time stamp: 8 September 2024, 11:09 (UTC) : 54 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P244&oldid=2245790064#Format
      3. the clean-up could only start after the report was written, that was 11:53, 9 September 2024
      4. the now blocked user within 24h after publication started and presumably also finished the clean-up work using that list from 11:53, 9 September 2024 - fixing not only their, but *all* errors listed, several for several weeks or months
3. after enacting the block, abusively edited content by others users on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard [15], turning a report section named "Vandalism and harassment by User:Dcflyer" concerning User:Dcflyer into a subsection named "User:Dcflyer" inside the section ‎"Report concerning User:ISNIplus". The section "Vandalism and harassment by User:Dcflyer" [16] was already edited by others users, including the admins User:Wüstenspringmaus and User:Lymantria who each agreed that the reported behaviour of Dcflyer was sanctionable.
4. failed to show that they understood that removal of referenced statements should not be done in the way they did

There was an ongoing discussion between the now blocked user and a third user in the section "Vandalism and harassment by User:Dcflyer" [17] where claims by the third user misrepresented reality. Edit [18] states: 1) "The links provided in the summary did not give a reason why the deletion of my comment was necessary." - nobody claimed that the links did that 2) "That was your given reason (see your first comment under this subheading) for deleting" - no, it wasn't.

The block should be lifted since it was enacted abusively by an admin using false claims and on top of that, the admin acted abusively before, vandalized and was involved in an editorial conflict with the blocked user. The claims regarding the behaviour of the blocked user are true.

The block severely disrupts:

1. ongoing discussions on the Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard
2. work to improve Wikidata
3. last but not least: further clean-up work on external identifiers including P244 "Library of Congress authority ID"

The block contradicts the Wikimedia Foundation mission statement: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Source: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/

The block falls under https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3_%E2%80%93_Unacceptable_behaviour

1. Harassment
2. Abuse of power, privilege, or influence
3. Content vandalism and abuse of the projects

ISNIplus (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think a indefinite block is a too much, as ISNlplus is (IMO) allowed to move (or remove sections on their own talk page) to other pages. What Dcflyer did is clearly an edit war and the only mistake I see is that ISNIplus continued it instead of reporting it immediately to WD:AN. But I agree with Martin that you shouldn't just ignore warnings or comments and continue with potentially problematic edits. And it would be nice if you could make your comments a little friendlier and more de-escalating. If you promised to do that, I'd support unblocking. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the edit warring incident does not form part of my reasons for blocking, which are solely the two bullet points I have written — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I will be leaving this request for other admins to review, which is proper. But I would just suggest that some reflection and introspection would be appropriate here, rather than more of the agression and belligerence which got you blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

At this moment I do not support unblocking. I agree with MSGJ that ISNIplus is reacting to criticism in an unnecessary escalating and rude way. The wording of this request are a good example of this: big words and pointing to others, but no reflection on own behaviour. I agree with Wüstenspringmaus that their removal of content from their user talk page be permitted, it is however a pity that it seems that the content is not only removed but also neglected, while serious. --Lymantria (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wüstenspringmaus, Lymantria: Did you read the text above by me completely?

Wüstenspringmaus wrote:

1. "But I agree with Martin that you shouldn't just ignore warnings or comments and continue with potentially problematic edits." - I explained several times that I didn't do that. What else do you want? Each of the three format errors that MSGJ reported were immediately fixed by me, not only that, I explained the reasons for the errors to MSGJ, and tried to fix all existing format violations, those from my batch and others that existed prior to that for weeks and months, maybe years:
   1. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P244&oldid=2243280341#Format there were 25 format violations before the batch did run
   2. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P244&oldid=2246658937#Format there are now 5 violations, one due to an edit by Dcflyer on P244, and four which I am prevented from fixing since I am blocked. The block was enacted 10:09, my last edit prior to that was made 03:14, in the list of my contributions at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=&tagInvert=1&tagfilter=OAuth+CID%3A+1776&target=ISNIplus&offset=20240910031500 it can clearly be seen how I worked on fixing P244 errors before being blocked. Since the related SPARQL query timed out, one would need to wait for an update of the report page, to see if each was fixed. The update happened today and shows 5 format violations, of which two are from the batch which moved the values from another field. So far neither Dcflyer nor MSGJ worked on fixing the remaining format violations. And I am prevented from fixing by the block. ( https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3_%E2%80%93_Unacceptable_behaviour 3 Content vandalism and abuse of the projects: "hindering, impeding or otherwise hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content")
2. "And it would be nice if you could make your comments a little friendlier and more de-escalating."
   1. What comments exactly? Please exactly link to any edit that you think is problematic from a behavioural point of view.

Lymantria wrote:

1. "I agree with MSGJ that ISNIplus is reacting to criticism in an unnecessary escalating and rude way"
   1. Please say where exactly I was "reacting to criticism in an unnecessary escalating and rude way", please link to exact edits and maybe tell how I should have reacted.
2. "big words and pointing to others, but no reflection on own behaviour" - how is the representation of what happened, giving lists of my contributions and links to specific edits "no reflection on own behaviour"? Of course I pointed to edits of others too, since this is a collaborative project and my edits don't exist isolated, especially if the edits take place in discussions and editorial conflicts.
3. "it is however a pity that it seems that the content is not only removed but also neglected, while serious" - it wasn't neglected, I explained that several times.

I think next time I would contact WD:AN earlier, I think this time I only reported Dcflyer after their edit warring spread from my talk to a project page.

It hasn't been stated in the block, why this block was suddenly enacted by an involved admin, when a discussion on WD:AN was ongoing.

@Kolja21, Epìdosis: fyi, I am sorry that I, while blocked, cannot continue my fruitful collaboration with you in the area of Wikidata content curation. Long lists of errors related to ISNI, VIAF, GND, LC, IdRef etc. ISNIplus (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that your account have been blocked. You've done a good job cleaning up outdated IDs. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. (the thank you link is disabled, probably due to the block) ISNIplus (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I never intended to state that your work in general were a poor job. I do not intend to throw with quotes either, like you ask to several times. But let me give examples of what I mean by big words: reacting to a block with "Harassment", "Abuse of power". Even at this stage of the escalation I do not see you act in direction of reaching consensus, you keep fighting and escalating instead. I'm glad you write that in retrospect you think you'd contact WD:AN earlier about Dcflyer, but it would even have been better if you'd have tried to find agreement with someone who criticizes your work (even if you think it is unjustified) and look for a broader audience if that doesn't work out. Please, think of Wikidata users as a community. --Lymantria (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lymantria: I understand the reason why this account has been blocked. But why "with an expiration time of indefinite"? It's the first block and the first block should be a warning. Otherwise users get motivated to open new accounts and we lose track. Kolja21 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lymantria:

1. "I never intended to state that your work in general were a poor job." - did I claim that?
2. "I do not intend to throw with quotes either" - I didn't ask for that.
3. 'But let me give examples of what I mean by big words: reacting to a block with "Harassment", "Abuse of power"' - OK, you call that big words, now, the thing is, I quoted these from https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3_%E2%80%93_Unacceptable_behaviour - do you think the WMF UCoC should not be respected?
4. "Even at this stage of the escalation I do not see you act in direction of reaching consensus" - I provide reasons, I quote, I explain, I ask. What else would be needed for you to see a blocked user to "act in direction of reaching consensus"? Shouldn't reaching consensus start with agreeing on facts? Shouldn't these facts be presented by linking to evidence (e. g. edits and policies)?
5. "you keep fighting and escalating instead" - Where? Another claim without citation.
6. "... about Dcflyer, but it would even have been better if you'd have tried to find agreement with someone who criticizes your work (even if you think it is unjustified) and look for a broader audience if that doesn't work out."
   1. I did exatly that. I did try "to find agreement with someone who criticizes [my] work [...] and look[ed] for a broader audience if that doesn't work out." [19]
   2. And when I tried "to find agreement with someone who criticizes [my] work [...] and look[ed] for a broader audience if that doesn't work out" it was Dcflyer that vandalized the project page several times [20] [21] [22] [23], claiming I was falsely quoting [24] and even vandalizing "rvv", thus sabotaging the process that you propose that should have been done, until User:Wüstenspringmaus reverted Dcflyer "Not vandalism, stop this.". But Dcflyer didn't reply at the project page at all.

Still not a single edit done by me has been presented by the proponents of the block that would justify the block. ISNIplus (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"I do not intend to throw with quotes either" - I didn't ask for that. (...) Where? Another claim without citation. No fun. --Lymantria (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

For the part that concerns me ("the third user"): I have not claimed that "[someone] claimed the links did that". If you read carefully, I stated only the fact that they did not do so. In my opinion this style of argument is not helpful for you right now. What might be helpful is you explaining the motivations behind your actions that led to the block. I do not intend to continue this discussion, so if you have any questions, I will leave them for your own reflection. Thank you. Samoasambia ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)