Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidataconnect
Translate this header box!
Start a new discussion
If you are requesting the restoration of a deleted item, please be sure to explain how the item meets our notability criteria. If you are claiming that the item "can be described using serious and publicly available references", please list some of those references in your request.
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/07.
Attention administrators: This message is appearing because there are more than 100 open requests at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Please consider helping with the backlog.

Requests for deletions

high

~128 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.


Norwegian Wikipedia

See also: Wikidata:Project chat#Norwegian Wikipedia. Also Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q32176383, but I don't hang around here enough to realize at that moment a merge would be more appropriate.

Norwegian Wikipedia has two items: Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769) which is falsely stated by Jon Harald Søby to be dissolved and Norwegian Wikipedias (Q32176383) which I guess can't be deleted as long as that poor stub on nowiki exists. Instead, it should be converted to say something like "Description of changes to nowiki after a vote in 2005" or whatever. Q32176383 should not be listed as an internet encyclopedia.

If I revert Jon Harald Søby it'll probably end in an edit war, so I ask here. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 11:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you once (well, several edits, but you know what I mean), what makes you think I would start an edit war? o_O I don't see why this would need admin intervention of any kind.
Anyways, could we please keep the discussion in one place? It is now spread across three pages for no apparent reason. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon Harald Søby: What I sense is something that appears to be zealous behaviour. It's obvious to anyone that nowiki never ceased to exist. I added an end date for "Norwegian" as the language on Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769), but that's all that happened. It didn't vanish. It was de facto already Bokmål/Riksmål, it kept its articles. It didn't cease to exist.
You reverted me without discussion and I suspect we still don't agree. So if I revert you back while we still don't agree, you're saying you wouldn't do anything? Well, that is possible, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But apparently, this thing is sensitive and other users may get involved if I revert you. Getting an admin involved is probably not a bad idea. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 21:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Jon Harald Søby: That said, please consider merging both articles on nowiki, this way, statements can be much better maintained. --117.15.55.91 05:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I just reworked both items. Hopefully no reverting this time. Norwegian Wikipedias (Q32176383) is now described for what it is: a description of a part of the history of nowiki. Not a Wikimedia project. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jura1 is now very shortly after my edits "advising" me to revert myself, I won't be surprised if these items end up needing protection. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 14:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating the invalid claims would be a very bad idea. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261) is appropriate, I removed it as Jura1 complained about it. I don't know what Q Norwegian Wikipedias (Q32176383) is an instance of, it's just a Wikipedia article that describes part of another Wikipedia article. It's like an article that describes why Pikachu is yellow. The corresponding Wikidata item shouldn't say it is a species of Pokemon. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 14:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comparison misses the historical perspective. In any case, even that wouldn't be Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261). --- Jura 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: removed all qualifiers without reason. They should be restored and improved if needed. Eurohunter (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: There's nothing to improve. All were invalid. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: You are wrong because instance of (P31) with Wikipedia language edition (Q10876391) for sure was correct thats why I restore previous content. Eurohunter (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: No, it's a description of a part of the history of Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769) (which is a Wikipedia language edition (Q10876391)). Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I don't know what you want to say but you removed everything like standard vandalism. Item need to be described. Add right qualifiers instead of pointlss removing of everytging. Eurohunter (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean by "diescription"? it doesn't makes sense. It need to be somehow named. Eurohunter (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: I never said "diescription". I had added a statement. I added Wikipedia stub. Jura1 thought that sucked. So I removed it. The whole item is nothing but w:no:Wikipedia på bokmål og riksmål. And that stub, what even is that? It's a stub. It's a Wikipedia page. It's a description of a part of the history of Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769).. What qualifiers would you use for that? It's basically nothing, it has no more content than a Wikipedia redirect. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Article on NOWP say something different and it's not named "history of Norwegian Wikipedia". Eurohunter (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter: Article on nowiki is wrong. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enirely sure what these latest edits by Alexis Jazz are meant to accomplish. Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769) is a now defunct trilingual edition in Bokmål, Riksmål and Nynorsk. Norwegian Wikipedias (Q32176383) is the current bilingual Wikipedia edition in Norwegian Bokmål and Riksmål. Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) is the current edition in Nynorsk. The latter two supplanted the former. Norwegian Wikipedias (Q32176383) has kept the no. prefix, while Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) now has the prefix nn. They are clearly three different entities. This may all sound complicated for a non-Norwegian reader, and it would seem to me that Alexis Jazz has got this all mixed up, probably due to not mastering the language(s). Asav (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asav: Nobody is arguing that Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769) and Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) are the same thing. But Norwegian Wikipedias (Q32176383) is Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769). Norwegian Wikipedias (Q191769) is not defunct. Seriously, is https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/ unreachable to you? Are you unable to see https://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=info was created in 2003? The creation of West Frisian Wikipedia didn't cause nlwiki to stop existing, and the creation of nnwiki didn't cause nowiki to stop existing. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 15:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, this is completely nonsensical. It's obvious that you dont't speak or understand Norwegian. The original trilingual edition did not work out, so it was abandoned, which is the crux of the whole situation. That you're trying to convince native Norwegian speakers that their articles about the Norwegian editions are wrong, as you did at the Norwegian Village pump, is beyond the pale, to put it bluntly. I don't intend to use any more time on this absurd initiative of yours. Asav (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Asav:Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) has also Høgnorsk (Q1420587) pages, so the nn.wikipedia one is also bilingual under your consideration. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly wouldn't know. I'm far from proficient in either of those languages. (My German is better than my Nynorsk. Høgnorsk I don't know at all.)
And I reckon it's a matter of definition anyway. Are British and American English different languages? Austrian and German? Let's imagine for a moment that the British and American speakers counldn't agree to a common Wikipedia edition anymore, so they started one UK and one US edition. The US edition kept the prefix en., while the British was named uk.wikipedia.org. That's essetially what happened in Norway. Now, you wouldn't claim that the US Wikipedia edition was the same as the previous common English edition, would you? As far as I'm concerned, that's the nitty-gritty of the matter. Asav (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please block user Freebald

Some entities might be salvageable, but the user's activity on the whole seems to be SEO spam. Arlo Barnes (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, we need discuss this. 17,389 items created, all with same form: companies, some statements, ID from social networks. All without sitelinks or any reference. This account edit only Wikidata, something unnusual for new users. Items well constructed (maybe to cause impression of valid entries?). I have impression of SEO. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 23:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's suspicious. I'd be in favor of deleting everything. Yet we need to check whether Wikidata:Notability takes into account this case. If not, you should probably created a RFC to update the criteria. Pamputt (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this is uniform, but the item I checked had a twitter username and a facebook id. I think this does satisfy our current notability requirements, but I agree an RFC would be useful to see if this is something we want to continue supporting. Also we should maybe encourage this user to supply something more authoritative as a source - Bloomberg Company id for example. Are they checking for duplicates before creating new items? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user seems to have made many useful updates to existing entries too - on August 18 at least. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if Facebook and Twitter can supply WD:N, see: "[...] can be described using serious and publicly available references". Social networks are serious reference? Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Social network handles do not imply notability; if that was the case, anything would be notable. We usually require subject-independent listings in external databases with a Wikidata property. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This account edit only Wikidata" should not be a factor in blocking. Good grief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is a factor to identify accounts created just for SPAM. Thounsands of itens, same structure, same links to social networks. Exist patterns about accounts arround all Wikimedia projects to identify this type of action. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 01:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they were all created uniformly from Quickstatements. But the user has thousands of other useful edits here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data donation page

Please will someone permanently semi-protect Wikidata:Data donation? It seems to be regularly vandalised, or at least used for test edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Ayack (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Rafael (stanglavine) msg

37.119.11.7

This IP recently made suspicious edits: Implausible publication dates, invalid Amazon numbers, invalid quantity (P1114), .... Toni 001 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q63754420

Apparently Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2019/09#editwar in Q63754420 did not help, now I can see that User:אילון גבירצר is doing exactly the same --Ghuron (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Pages Protected

Hello, My name is Jakob Unruh and I am an employee at Sam Houston State University. We are in the middle of a project to use WikiData as an aggregate for our Natural History collections. We believe that data should be open and accessible for anyone to use, however, we don't want people to be able to manipulate the data that is being aggregated by our university. Is there any way that we can have a list of limited access pages associated with our University, or is there a process that we can have only registered, approved users have access to it? I am new to Wikipedia editing and would like help with figuring out the proper course of action.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JakobUnruh1 (talk • contribs) at 16:57, September 5, 2019‎ (UTC).

 No. Wikidata is published under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication 1.0, which allows people to copy, modify, distribute and perform the data, even for commercial purposes, without asking for permission. Esteban16 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/91.138.19.104

Vandalism. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User has stopped, and vd seems to have been reverted already. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphorain (talk • contribs • logs)

Can someone explain to the user or stop him otherwise from deleting references in statements. [1][2]. --- Jura 11:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please block user Lovemanbd

Sock of a blocked user Skh sourav halder --Ahmad Kanik (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Ahmad Kanik: ও তিনটি আইপিগুলো এক সপ্তাহ ধরে বাঁধা দিয়েছি। @Ibrahim Husain Meraj: এই আইটেমটা তৈরি করেছেন কেন? Mahir256 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
বাংলা উইকির কিশোর সম্পাদক, পারসোনাল রিকোয়েস্ট করেছিলো। -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ahmad Kanik (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube channel ID and "possible vandalism" tag filter

Being a rollbacker and constantly watching for the recent changes with "possible vandalism" tag filter, I always observe some amount of changes to Property:P2397. I never check these, but I guess that (most of them) are marked as vandalism erroneously, just because of addition of what looks like a random string. Could this be fixed? I guess (feel free to prove me wrong) that this property could just be an exception to the filter that checks for addition of random strings and garbage. — Mike Novikoff 07:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little risky, IMHO, but could be useful. This could be tested for a while and based on results the exception can be added indefinitely. But I have poor knwoledge of filters, therefore I ask another administrator to do so. Esteban16 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. I think blacklisting this and other YouTube properties is the best I can do. Please remind me if I forget to do it when it's possible. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or no?

Seems like backing vocal (Q60396389) can be merged into backing vocalist (Q798487) but I'm unsure of how to do it. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@大诺史: No. backing vocal (Q60396389) is the profession exercised by a backing vocalist (Q798487). They are related, but different. And you can learn about merging on Help:Merge. Esteban16 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ebolamebola

Ebolamebola (talk • contribs • logs) vandalism on various items. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Blocked indefinitely. -- Fuzheado (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 07:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constant vandalism at FCSB (Q179658)

I suggest semiprotection. —Andreitalk 09:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one month. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of bot Edoderoobot

Sunday night my bot got blocked for a week due to an "edit war"??? and "vandalism"??? ... As the sysop also blocked all corresponding ip-addresses with it, I can only make edits with my regular account when I'm at my work, and because all talk pages are blocked with it, I can not discuss about the block either (except when at my work). On top of that, the blocking sysop is not available for any talk, which makes me feel like the whole block is a punnishment, but I don't know what for. Is this the way blocking a bot is meant to be done, and what is the purpose of blocking the user with it??? Edoderoo (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I sent the sysop an email yesterday afternoon, but without any response. If I could not edit on my work, I would have to wait for a full week without any communication. I'm not sure how this will help the project in general. Edoderoo (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: could you give here your opinion? Meanwhile, I remove the contrain on the latest IP address. Pamputt (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I lifted the block for User:Edoderoobot completely, as User:Edoderoo is available and responsive. I am sure he takes care that the edits in question will not happen again. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Edoderoo (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important information regarding User:جواد

I wanted to bring this to your attention; we have evidence that User:جواد, who is a sysop here on wikidata, has engaged in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) both on fawiki and enwiki. Indeed, given his previous blocks (for other reasons) on fawiki, I have blocked him indefinitely there. While I strongly believe that a user's contributions (and mistakes) in one project should not independetly determine their access and status in another project, I still feel obligated to let the wikidata community know. Respectfully, Huji (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: Thanks for letting us know. Is there any evidence of either a) using multiple accounts or b) undisclosed paid editing on this wiki? --Rschen7754 00:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, the answer is no and no. Huji (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Huji: It turns out that he was desysopped for inactivity in 2014, so that resolves that part of this. Given the low activity over the last year I'm not inclined to support any further action locally. --Rschen7754 00:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware; thanks for letting me know.
I report this here only on an FYI basis, and not to request or recommend any specific actions. Huji (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, may I suggest that you edit User:جواد (which is edit protected at the sysop level) so that it does not falsely advertise him as an "Admin"? Huji (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo Arena (Q5812704)

Vandalism by IPs. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 02:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slowking4 sockpuppets

User:Slowking4 has been making edits on Wikidata using undeclared accounts that have been confirmed at ENWP to be sockpuppets: User:Arcituno, User:Beetstraw, User:Brianfairfax, User:Gordonflack, User:Henryshirley, User:Marthacustis, User:Marthadandridge, User:Muleshoemoment, User:Nelliejellie, User:Opelroved2, User:Sherwoodhall, User:Sudowoodoo, User:Vernonchernon, User:Voidessen, User:Widowswail. (These have already been blocked on ENWP and Commons.) Seems to be a violation of WD:SOCK. --Yair rand (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked all of them, including the master.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1011355576"