Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Translate this header box! Start a new discussion

If you are a user who has a request for removal of non-public personal information, please note that details should not be posted in public. Email oversightwikidata.org or a local oversighter privately.

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 ~133 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock empty 0 open requests for unblock.

Same user for Nama24Pok, please see [1] and [2].--MCC214 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Most of them don't edit recently except User:Courageous.Contributor.--S8321414 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S8321414, all in list confirmed in zh.wiki (duck or CU), this user used other wiki illegit and abuse restart.--MCC214 (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are global locked, remaining don't have any edits recently, I don't think we should do something locally for now.--S8321414 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S8321414, all in list is same user, SiuMai, also, some edit came from zh.wiki.--MCC214 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you should report them to m:SRG to request global lock.--S8321414 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone make it so this property shows up right below first appearance (P4584) on items? Trade (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be done by editing MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712:, could you please look into it? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NiferO (talk • contribs • logs)

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] — this doesn't seem to be OK. 2A00:1370:8186:125E:356B:CE70:F19D:24A8 13:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user is warned, but I think such kind of edits are actually good faith Estopedist1 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of "good faith edits" lead to very bad results: particularly this edit [10], which went into infoboxes in many Wikipedia language editions, has eventually stated that bread was invented in Australia about 30,000 years ago (despite of lack of definitive evidence for it). No thanks, this is "almost disruptive" (IMHO). 2A00:1370:8186:125E:356B:CE70:F19D:24A8 16:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mass-reverting is possible outcome but maybe we will get some answers from user:NiferO Estopedist1 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problematic case. Several his edits are not wrong but they can be called as "reduction to nonsense", e.g. Special:Diff/2204411587. If the user doesn't feel that his edits are nonsense, then it is probably best (for Wikidata) to block him.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him twice. Possibly a student with little interest to read and follow Wikidata guidelines Estopedist1 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock-blocked for two weeks. Rationale: see his talk page and blocking rationale Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several editors who appear to be both gatekeeping me from removing incorrect linking to Q6495391 and ignoring attempts at discission.

People are effectively engaging in original research, which is clearly a violation of policy.

People need to step in and either acknowledge the problem, actively collaborate or stop refusing me to edit aspects of historiography that I have solid evidence of Wikimedia managing to fib by ignoring sources. Peter Isotalo (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the item is fully-protected for one month due to edit-warring by established users. There is also pending deletion request. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you protect the item with the problematic content intact? The item is clearly violating basic policy by making demonstrably, easily verifiable errors.

Most of the items are either not using the same terminology "late modern" or aren't even referring to the same timespan (20th century until now rather than c. 1800 until now). Not a single established user has lifted a finger to actually help solve the conflict or even tried to reply to the factual issues involved.

The behavior here is ungenerous and in my view clearly obstructive. People are not taking the issue seriously and appear to favor simply grandfathering unsourced claims rather than allow for perfectly normal corrections, as is the normal standard for all Wikimedia projects. Peter Isotalo (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 217.156.4.37 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
• 217.156.4.22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Creating too many promo items Midleading (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Range-blocked for three months. All his creations nuked Estopedist1 (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the items created by the following IP and block:

• 217.156.4.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
• 217.156.4.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Midleading (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: Your rangeblock doesn't cover the latter IP. Consider expanding it to /24.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Range-blocked to /24. Discovered creations nuked Estopedist1 (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It seems it is not possible to add User pages to links "On other projects. May I modify my page "User:Rbmn/Arthur_Constantin_KREBS_(1850-1935):_Military_engineer,_Automotive_industrialist,_Great_projects_manager" as not "User" page ?

Thanks Rbmn (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please move page to appropriate namespace on English Wikiversity, we can't help you moving them on Wikidata.--S8321414 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Прошу поставить защиту на правки от незарегистрированных на элемент Q2034898, ибо какие-то пользователи не один раз добавляли в Место рождения квалификатор "административная единица" и "государство", хотя в случае с городом Львовом это не нужно и даже лишнее. Artur Random (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Почему не нужно? Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Они же автоматически в статье подгружаются. УССР и СССР. Artur Random (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awinsongyababa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Erroneously merging people with the Distributed Game. I left a message on their talk page but they are unlikely to see it if they are using an external tool. Please block to get their attention. ―William Graham (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shock-blocked for one week Estopedist1 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to massiveness, he is likely some LTA. Checkuser case for e.g. user:Matlin? Pinging user:Jasper Deng Estopedist1 (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finished proofing all the merges, took me a bunch of hours. Erred on the side of reverting when there wasn't enough information to compare biographies/publications. William Graham (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @William Graham:! Unfortunately there were 2 other users doing many such merges yesterday - Suglo20 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and Deishini Mariam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). I can review the latter, but User:Suglo20 had hundreds of merges that might take many days to resolve. This is a "duplicate" of the problem we had last month with another new Wikidata user - Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2024/06#Please revert June 20 edits by User:Jephtah Ogyefo Acquah. The error rate there was close to 50%, so I think it would be easiest here if User:Suglo20's were just all reverted. Magnus claimed he had shut down this feature in his "game" but evidently it came back somehow. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the Deishini Mariam merges; reverted 5 for being wrong one way or another. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I had a similar problem recently with Nkpelawuni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)); the problem mainly involved the "Merge items" game; I blocked the account once for 1 day and checked all the merges (nearly all were wrong); then there were a bulk of new wrong merges, so I blocked the account for 1 week and chacked all the new merges (nearly all wrong as the previous time). I fear somehow all of these account could be connected; maybe the same person creating a new one after the previous is blocked; it could be useful a look by the checkusers IMHO. Epìdosis 18:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC) See also Topic:Y8vvrrfnnminerl2 (asking to deactivate the "Merge items" game) and Topic:Y71rogb5cqh25uiw (asking to deactivate the "Duplicate authors" game). --Epìdosis 18:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had been assuming this was somehow just new Wikidata users trying to be helpful. I've had interactions with some of those who've used the game in the past (via their talk pages or undo comments) and they don't seem to act like a LTA person, but I haven't had much interaction with those types so maybe I just don't know. In any case I think there's a fundamental problem here of calling merges in Wikidata a "game" - merges need to be thought through carefully, they have significant follow-on consequences (changing items that refer to them) that become very hard to reverse after a week or so. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also taken care of the Suglo20 merges; I reverted 54 out of 134 of them (40% error rate). So anyway hopefully we're done with this problem for good now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: There's strong technical evidence that this is an (unannounced) hackathon. Out of caution I will not make any blocks related to this without that clarification. Otherwise it is Likely that Awinsongyababa = Suglo20 and Possible that they are Deishini Marium. CheckUser isn't perfect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith@Epìdosis@William Graham: only smart solution here is that new users (without autopatrolled status) are not permitted to merge items Estopedist1 (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support is that something the interface allows setting? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Estopedist1 intended merging items through the Wikidata game - which is now solved, cf. Topic:Y8vvrrfnnminerl2 and Topic:Y71rogb5cqh25uiw (all the merge games in the Wikidata Game have been canceled) -; disallowing doing it through Wikidata itself (using Special:MergeItems or the merge gadget) would probably be possible only through Special:AbuseFilter and would anyway require a wide discussion (probably a RfC). Epìdosis 21:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can someone please check whether the research topics listed at Q59657831 are valid? There's not much material online and it seems like a novel research. --TadejM (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm misunderstand, but are you talking about the statements related to notable work (P800) claims? i.e. "has this person published about gasocrinology (Q127038678) as a notable work"? If that's where you're going here, yes, all of these "notable works" are not works at all and are just subtopics of research or topics of some kind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. These seem like novel hypotheses that have not yet gained credibility in the scientific community (e.g. Q127603341 which is described as a "theoretical hypothesis by S. A."). If there are no secondary references to support them I consider it best to not have them as standalone items and propose that they are deleted. --TadejM (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, calling these "notable works" is inaccurate. Are you suggesting that the individual items like gasocrine signaling (Q127038535) should be deleted or are just crankery? As it stands now, I'm not seeing any of the claims at Savani Anbalagan (Q59657831) being actually problematic except for the official website, which I fixed with an undo because it seems like that was just a typo from the beginning. I'll defer to others who may be more knowledgeable about biology or who can suss out exactly what to do with these claims. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in the position to reliably judge whether they are crankery or not. I wanted to point out that these concepts (unlike some others in this field) are new to me and on the first sight they seem like an eager scientist pushing hard for their hypotheses to gain ground. In my opinion we should only have items on scientific topics that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources independent from the researcher. There is no such source cited and I also haven't been able to find it online. --TadejM (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bergenblues, Praveenarasurajan: You seem to be behind a lot of these edits. Can you please comment here? Have these topics been discussed in multiple sources? Can you at least cite one source for them? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangential note, @Bergenblues, Praveenarasurajan: have you seen Wikidata:Conflict_of_interest and the related sources there? We do not have a policy exactly equivalent to w:en:Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, but there are still some possible concerns with sponsored editing or being particularly close to a topic. Do you have a relationship with this person? Have you engaged in any paid editing here on his behalf? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soufiyouns asking other users (Jsamwrites, Lionel Cristiano and Clemens Dulcis) to support property proposals! I found the following property proposal Pocket Oxford German Dictionary: English-German ID, Pocket Oxford German Dictionary: German-English ID, and Pocket Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary: English-French ID. Please see Soufiyouns's contributions, Topic:Y9059pujcdduhzcr, and my user talk page for reference. As Wikidata:Canvassing not implemented yet, I raised the issue here. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZI Jony: I invited users involved in the creation and editing of lexemes and interested in French and German languages, and I considered this to be beneficial for Wikidata. I hope that notifying and informing users about the presence of proposed properties is not harmful but rather beneficial. I therefore invited several users to comment on my requests and creative proposals because they are already involved in the subject. I think that my requests were not aimed at my personal interest and that I did not request permissions or privileges, but these are subjects linked to bilingual dictionaries and contributions of an encyclopedic nature. Regards. Soufiyouns (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soufiyouns, I saw messages on their talk page, it's not an invitation, it's canvassing! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no explicit rule against canvassing, but I believe it is followed de facto. I would say it's more serious if it happens in a request for permissions or a policy vote. The question is then if it becomes spammy and disruptive. I would say that asking unrelated users on their talk page to vote in support is not something we would want. It also calls into question the validity of the consensus, which arguably does harm to the process. But to be fair, a number of property proposals would fly under the radar these days if we didn't poke people somehow. I don't think anyone would mind if you used Template:Ping project or Wikidata:Project chat or any of its localized pages for this. You should also avoid language that could be interpreted as soliciting votes. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrastruktur: Thank you for these valuable details regarding the property proposals which would have gone unnoticed if we did not contact the potential users involved in their theme. I take for example the bilingual English-Italian proposal Pocket Oxford Italian Dictionary: Italian-English ID which was going to be archived without favorable approval because of the absence of a positive vote. I then contacted the user Luca.favorido who is active on lexemes in Italian, and he thanked me for notifying him about it and strongly supported this proposal which was then created (Italian-English Dictionary ID (P12885)) and will be very useful to him in his work. Regards. Soufiyouns (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soufiyouns, the best way is to ask their opinion (not to support) by ping them in property proposal discussion, talk page of lexicographical data, or related project pages. You have done the same is wrong way! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZI Jony: I thank you for allowing the entire Wikidata community to open the discussion on this type of incident, and I will try to ask users' opinions on topics of general interest, and I will avoid using the crude word Support which can create ambiguity and nuance constructive debate. Regards. Soufiyouns (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency reasons, I have precised this in the support message. John Samuel (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsamwrites, I noticed your remarks, and I appreciated you for that. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, restore my revision, proper revision. Unrelated-directly to this, also revert for Q551335 to Special:Diff/2206576640 and for Q20877009 to Special:Diff/2206578084. --5.43.65.30; 14:34, 23. july 2024. (UTC) [e]

 Not done You can request and discuss necessary changes at the item's talk pages, of course explaining on what source(s) changes are based. --Lymantria (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (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. Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apex512 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam ―MathXplore (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted, blocked indef as it appears they tried to do the same in mediawiki (see Central Auth. –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:43, 25 July 2024 (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. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Vidalista (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam-only account XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, account locked. --Hoo man (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (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. Hoo man (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2803:C180:2102:85F8:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked for three months. And vandalized item is protected Estopedist1 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahu.sahu888 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam-only account XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, account locked. --Hoo man (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (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. Hoo man (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]