Open main menu

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from Wikidata:AN)

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidata connect
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 2019/09.

Requests for deletions

medium

69 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.


Norwegian WikipediaEdit

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 Wikipedia (Q191769) which is falsely stated by Jon Harald Søby (talkcontribslogs) to be dissolved and Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (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)

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)
@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 Wikipedia (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)
  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)
  Comment I just reworked both items. Hopefully no reverting this time. Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (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)
Since Jura1 (talkcontribslogs) 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)
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 Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (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)
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)
@Alexis Jazz: removed all qualifiers without reason. They should be restored and improved if needed. Eurohunter (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: There's nothing to improve. All were invalid. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@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)
@Eurohunter: No, it's a description of a part of the history of Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) (which is a Wikipedia language edition (Q10876391)). Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@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)
What you mean by "diescription"? it doesn't makes sense. It need to be somehow named. Eurohunter (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@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 Wikipedia (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)
@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)
@Eurohunter: Article on nowiki is wrong. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 13:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not enirely sure what these latest edits by Alexis Jazz are meant to accomplish. Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) is a now defunct trilingual edition in Bokmål, Riksmål and Nynorsk. Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (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. Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (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)

@Asav: Nobody is arguing that Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) and Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia (Q2349453) are the same thing. But Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (Q32176383) is Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769). Norwegian Wikipedia (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)
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)
@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)
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)
@Asav: "Now, you wouldn't claim that the US Wikipedia edition was the same as the previous common English edition, would you?" .. actually, I would. Unless they translate/delete a substantial number of articles, it's the same ongoing project with a modified scope. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 14:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
And that's exactly what's been done here, which you'd know if you understood any Norwegian at all or had any knowledge whatsoever about the project's history. Asav (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Asav: No, understanding Norwegian wouldn't help much. I would know if someone could be bothered to provide some proof that any such thing happened, but so far nobody could be bothered. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Asav, Alexis Jazz: FWIW, here are examples of Høgnorsk (Q1420587) articles on nn.wikipedia, though, many of them are stubs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Thanks, but the main issue is the (non-)existence of a substantial number of articles on nowiki that would have been deleted/translated after the vote. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 00:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As I predicted, now it's turning into an edit war. Alexis Jazz please ping me if you reply 15:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Norwegian Wikipedia (Q191769) was and is the description for the project, Wikipedia in Bokmål and Riksmål (Q32176383) is only describing a slight historical change in which language variants are allowed at the project. Ie “Nynorsk” was dismissed, and “Riksmål” added. Riksmål is historically an unofficial minority language version, but has gained a kind of half-official status later years as “Moderat Bokmål”. The user Asav is a very vocal advocate for Riksmål at the project, one of the last of them. An other user created articles in Riksmål with a bot, so many I doubt it is possible to clean it up, so we are probably stuck with this mix of Bokmål and Riksmål. There will probably not be any consensus for a merge of the two pages. Jeblad (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Jeblad: Wait, I can confirm that zh:挪威語維基百科 mentions both sites, maybe call Q32176383 as Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sapphorain (talkcontribslogs)Edit

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

It seems you already get an explanation by Sapphorain at least for one example here. So why do bring this topic here withtout talking with him/her before? Pamputt (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I did my part. Why couldn't I ask an admin to explain it to them? It's not really my function to ensure that users don't go through Wikidata deleting stuff .. we have admins who volunteer for that. --- Jura 06:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(1) When an exact birthdate has a correct reference + Gemeinsame Normdatei, I erase the latter, since Gemeinsame Normdatei provides only the year of birth. When it has only the Gemeinsame Normdatei reference I erase the exact date and leave only the year.
(2) When a so called « reference » is a wikipedia or wikidata page I erase it: a wiki cannot be a reliable source for another wiki.
(3) When a page contains unsourced assertions I tend to erase them, especially when these unsourced assertions are directly imported through an infobox template into a wikipedia page which is also mostly unsourced. Sapphorain (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I think there may be a misunderstanding of references that are in Russian or German.
If you feel this novel approach is important, maybe you could bring it up for discussion on project chat.
In general, instead of manually adding always the same tertiary reference, adding a secondary or primary reference is preferable. That last part is my POV. --- Jura 02:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Block of bot EdoderoobotEdit

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)

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)
@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)
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)
Thanks! Edoderoo (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Next time whenever you block a bot like this, please block with autoblock disabled so it doesn't affect the operator or worse, the entirety of WMF Labs. --Rschen7754 07:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will remove autoblock the next time. I wasn't aware that it blocks the user account as well from acting when I block a bot. ChristianKl❫ 10:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Important information regarding User:جوادEdit

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)

@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)
At this time, the answer is no and no. Huji (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
Seems this was done already. --Rschen7754 04:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I take benefit of this topic to ask you where it is written that undisclosed paid editing are forbidden? Is it a wiki rule or does it come from the WMF? Pamputt (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comes from WMF, see foundation:Terms of Use, section 4. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Slowking4 sockpuppetsEdit

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)

I have blocked all of them, including the master.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Slowking4 has been requesting unblock and has been contesting the block via email (as his talk page is currently broken). However, given that there is a pending investigation into another possible sock on the English Wikipedia and the number of socks here, along with his refusal to acknowledge that what he did was wrong, I strongly oppose unblocking him and urge a fellow admin to decline his request (which you can find in Category:Requests for unblock).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The user has already been indefblocked on the English Wikipedia and I believe on Commons, they are clearly moving towards a global ban. I do not see why we should unblock them here following a clear disregard of our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: If you believe so, then you should decline his unblock request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I was previously involved in my admin capacity with one of their sock on the English Wikipedia. Though it was a couple of years ago, I would better let someone uninvolved to deal with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinese reading admin neededEdit

Please see User_talk:Zyksnowy#Project_chat. --- Jura 03:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Arifur Rahman sockpuppetryEdit

I've noticed over the last few days that items associated with the Bangladeshi-Norwegian cartoonist who titles the name of this talk page section have made it to the list of popular items over the last few days. When looking at their edit history, however, it seems that the accounts which have edited these items exclusively edit such items and operate in very similar ways: for instance, prior to my removing it, the item for the cartoonist had "cartoonist" as an alias, and the item for a magazine edited by this cartoonist had "magazine" as an alias. I suspect that there may have been a large amount of sockpuppetry going on, not just here but possibly on other wikis, and to this end I've submitted a request on Meta to see if the accounts are indeed related. In the interim, however, opinions on further action in this regard are welcome. Mahir256 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

plz protect Glory to Hong Kong (Q67188291)Edit

Vandalism [3]--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

172.96.170.31Edit

Vandalism on Ricardo Rosselló (Q7332181). (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done, though it is unlikely they are going to show up again--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Update on Soweego bot (talkcontribslogs) blockEdit

Quoting Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/08#Please_block_Soweego_bot:

It's unclear why the bot adds "stated in" to value for Twitter accounts it adds.

See updates at Topic:V6cc1thgo09otfw5.

There are three approvals for this bot, but there don't seem to be any about Twitter accounts.

All requests do point to a link with the list of target catalogs, which do include Twitter.

The link is in the Function details section, see Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Soweego_bot, Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Soweego_bot_2, and Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Soweego_bot_3.

Pasting it here: m:Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego/Timeline#August_2018:_big_fishes_selection

Hope this helps --Hjfocs (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I lifted the block of the bot account, and replied over there in Topic:V6cc1thgo09otfw5. We just need to figure out how the references should actually look like. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for protectionEdit

Q6498726, excessive vandalism. Tbhotch (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256. --Okkn (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

ProtectionEdit

Request for protection Figueres (Q6839). Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done, for 1 month. --Okkn (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BochakbekEdit

Bochakbek (talkcontribslogs) appears to be a spammer (I just rolled back their edits on WD:PC). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked. Thanks! --abián 10:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action :) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request Q34Edit

Sweden (Q34)

I have problems editing large items with this browser, and I am not logged in if I change browser.

I would therefor like some help to change the Swedish (sv) entry in demonym (P1549). I would like to add "applies to part (P518)" as qualifier with the value "common gender (Q1305037)".

See P1549 in United States of America (Q30) as reference! 622 017 074 (Hej!) 11:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (Q4196772)Edit

Please protect. Vandalism by IPs & users. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done, for 1 month. Rzuwig 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

VandalEdit

user:192.55.241.100 needs a block, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done for one week by Mahir256. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

please semi-protect Isaac Newton (Q935)Edit

a lot of vandalism by IPs these last days... thanks ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done Ayack (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

„momt dha avangeres“ Q67752893 and „mats“ Q67238381Edit

I am sure, these two can be deleted. Both created from the same IP and both edited by just that IP. --Wurgl (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir. You can just use the "RequestDeletion" gadget from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to list them on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. A very short description of the problem is usually sufficient. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Overdue deletionEdit

An RfD closed as "delete" in June, but LinkedIn personal profile URL - DEPRECATED: Use P6634 (P2035) has not yet been deleted. See also Property talk:P2035#P6634. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

LinkedIn personal profile URL - DEPRECATED: Use P6634 (P2035) is still in use in 6656 statements, 6 qualifiers, and 123 references. Someone has to remove that before we can delete the property page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No answer at WD:RBOT#Remove statements of P2035, unfortunately. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC).