Looking at dystonia (Q906492) I see three bad edits on the MeSH property P486. Two are recent and by ProteinBoxBot, and one is by User:Andrawaag from earlier in 2020.
The edits are all technically incorrect, from the point of view of adding incorrect IDs.
See also the previous discussion above. All those edits are sourced to Disease Ontology. Two relate to the MeSH term "Dystonic Disorders" with ID D020821. This is distinct from "Dystonia" which is ID D004421. I thought we had discussed exhaustively why DO referencing should not be used to introduce this sort of database constraint violation here.
A couple of hundred such bot edits with the ":" prefix have appeared.
I would like to comment also that there is a WikiCite e-scholarship that has been given for work on the MeSH statements. To support the developer working on that project, I have been bearing down on the P486 constraint violations, because the project will rely on there being no avoidable duplications. The number of duplications applying to the D-numbers and logged at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P486 had been reduced to about a dozen. It is really not acceptable, after the discussion above, and the one I had with Andra in Berlin last year, that this issue should recur. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As per https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#MeSH_descriptor_ID_(P486)_edits_again (diff)
Looking at dystonia (Q906492) I see three bad edits on the MeSH property P486. Two are recent and by ProteinBoxBot, and one is by User:Andrawaag from earlier in 2020.
The edits are all technically incorrect, from the point of view of adding incorrect IDs.
See also the previous discussion above. All those edits are sourced to Disease Ontology. Two relate to the MeSH term "Dystonic Disorders" with ID D020821. This is distinct from "Dystonia" which is ID D004421. I thought we had discussed exhaustively why DO referencing should not be used to introduce this sort of database constraint violation here.
A couple of hundred such bot edits with the ":" prefix have appeared.
I would like to comment also that there is a WikiCite e-scholarship that has been given for work on the MeSH statements. To support the developer working on that project, I have been bearing down on the P486 constraint violations, because the project will rely on there being no avoidable duplications. The number of duplications applying to the D-numbers and logged at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P486 had been reduced to about a dozen. It is really not acceptable, after the discussion above, and the one I had with Andra in Berlin last year, that this issue should recur. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)