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: #wikidata^connect

Translate this header box!

Start a new discussion

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 2024/12.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~179 open requests for deletions.}

Requests for unblock

empty

_{0 open requests for unblock.}

Request for protection of Q126171758 and Q126047522

Edit-warring. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ericliu1912, @Txkk: enwiki has pending discussion about merging/redirecting related to this Taiwanese event. Please discuss at enwiki (en:Talk:2024 Taiwanese legislative reform protests) or at Wikidata talk page (e.g. at talk:Q126047522) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: They're not trying to discuss. Besides, per discussion in Chinese Wikipedia, the related articles are still in the process of merging, thus the Wikidata sitelink should not be altered further more, unless there are clear consensus among communities. At this point, I kindly request temporary full protection of the status quo for both links. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 22:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

both fully protected for one month. Edit-warring and pending discussions in enwiki and zhwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning JMagalhães

A user has been exhibiting disruptive editing behaviour, focusing on removing aliases and modifying genders. Here are some examples:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• ...

We can also see they are removing terms without including them on the alias in several other moments:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• ...

This behaviour is problematic for the following reasons:

• Information Loss: Removing aliases hinders the searchability of entities with different names.
• Disruption: Edit warring disrupts the collaborative editing process by repeatedly undoing other editors' work.

The core concern is removing information and edits warring, not just modifications. These actions violate established practices and confuse users relying on accurate and consistent information.

• Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The fact that this account has been persistently pushing for controversial and/or blatantly wrong changes through edit warring, and then complains in this noticeboard posing as the victim is absolutely puzzling. The first half of the links are simply controversial changes being undone. That's it. Stop POV-pushing through edit wars and get consensus for the changes. The second half... I'm just clueless about whatever this editor is trying to prove or claim.

Beyond that, I would like to point out to administrators the systematic disruptive use of edit summaries by this account. Among its last 500 edits, 83 summaries are used to engage in personal attacks to users who simply undid one of his controversial changes or made some sort of edit he didn't like, systematically calling them "vandals" and "trolls". And this is not the first time this user opens blatantly nonsense incident reports. For example, last year he opened an absolutely bizarre and nonsense claim against me claiming, with no proof whatsoever, that I was "doing vandalism driven by sexism". Being an administrator myself for 10 years, I've dealt with many bizarre things, but this is hard to beat. I'm considering open a T&S case against this user because his claims are so outlandish and out of touch with reality that I'm afraid there's underlying issues that should be handled privately. JMagalhães (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you attacked me, not defending your actions, says loudly about you. Also, it is not only me that you attack and enter into edit wars. It is not me who is removing information from Wikidata.

• Sysops: after this discussion is opened, they answered it; these are their edits:
  • 18h03min de 9 de junho de 2024
  • 18h03min de 9 de junho de 2024
  • 18h16min de 9 de junho de 2024

It is a clear no-posture when discussing his actions.

Moreover, this "his claims are so outlandish and out of touch with reality" should be enough for a long block. Attacks that no one should receive. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment It has already been explained to this user that when his controversial edits are undone, he should not be pov-pushing through edit wars and should instead engage in consensus building. Yet, not only he keeps pushing unwanted edits and massively using summaries for personal attacks. But, in a bizarre move, he pretends to be some sort of victim and opens incidents reports with completely made-up stuff and claims that are beyond outlandish. Honestly, an administrator intervention would be nice to help this person return to reality. JMagalhães (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, another attack in front of all admins, and nothing is done. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

+2 days of impunity. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

+ 2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

+2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

+2 days of impunity. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:TemirovBot

This bot currently misuses title (P1476) property to add Wikipedia template syntax in Wikidata. This breakes the data for data consumers that use reference properties in proper manner. E.g. see Special:Diff/2176659938. Bot operator apparently does this intentionally, and doesn't intent to fix their bot (see User talk:Игорь Темиров#References not properly extracted from Wikipedia templates). I think this bot needs to be blocked and it's recent edits should be reversed. 2001:7D0:81DB:1480:E417:CFF3:ACEA:C1D8 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah it appears this task was not approved and putting mediawiki syntax into wikidata is not proper. e.g. this edit [10]. I would block but it isn't running right now. @Игорь Темиров: please revert and seek approval for this task. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Today I will start redoing title (P1476) property. Игорь Темиров (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Игорь Темиров: if this is going to be a regular ongoing task with a lot of edits you should probably also seek approval in general BrokenSegue (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

No, this is a one-time task. Игорь Темиров (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The day before yesterday I started replacing the templates in the “Title” field with the “Stated in” field. Игорь Темиров (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Make edits to protected entity Project:Administrators Q4039395

I made a request onthe talk page to edit Project:Administrators to associate it with Q4656150 (and provided a reference), but cannot make the edit myself because the page is protected. Can someone with rights please make this edit? Thanks! Zarinek (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: disputable, answered at Talk:Q4039395 Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Still  Done by user:Benjamin Mako Hill. Now, I am at neutral position--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the conversation here and thanks for updating things here Estopedist1! —mako๛ 00:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning Twofivesixbot

Twofivesixbot from Mahir256 is currently making edits to replace property P7859 (P7859) with WorldCat Entities ID (P10832). But there is no consensus for this migration. Which is why I asked Mahir256 on both his talk page and the delete discussion page to suspend this task of his bot immediately. Because he allowed the deadline that I set in the deletion discussion to pass unused, I hereby demand administrative intervention. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid you seriously misrepresent the content of User talk:Mahir256#Twofivesixbot deletes statements. Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

To what extent am I misrepresenting the content? --Gymnicus (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

In the discussion, two users objected to you. You are portraying it like if you gave a warning and then nothing happened. Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also issued a warning on the deletion discussion page for the property. Mahir let this warning or ultimatum pass and the Twofivesixbot is still processing it today. I also don't understand why you mention the rejections of my request by Mahir256 and Epìdosis. Because it is clear that the two advocates of migration are defending them. But this section is about whether the keep camp, to which I belong, was included in the discussion about migration or whether the delete faction is pushing for deletion indirectly and has not included the keep camp in this consideration. And since I, as a supporter of the complete retention of the property, was not once pinched in the discussion about migration and there was no new vote on migration, I consider my demand here in this section to be correct. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What is problematic about replacing a deprecated property with the current one? --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that, as already mentioned, there is no consensus on these edits and there was no vote on whether a migration should be carried out. A smaller group of deletion advocates have simply come up with a detour on how to delete the property, even though there is no consensus on this. And then in these considerations they didn't even include the group of people who are against the deletion of the property and to which I also belong. --Gymnicus (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this right: You basically object to the deletion of the values for the old property, and you have no objection to the migration plan that was proposed in March this year? If you do object to the migration plan, please post a specific objection in the property deletion discussion. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have objections to both the deletion and the migration. And I complain that the group that wants to keep the property was not included in the planning of the migration and was not asked for its opinion. In addition, there was basically no vote on the migration idea. At least I don't see any section where I could cast my vote. For this reason, I demand that the migration be stopped until it has been properly discussed and voted on. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning Olea

A few years ago the user @Olea: added a dataset to Wikidata about Digital Guide to the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia (Q5758805). This file, in many cases indicates elements with ambiguous terms in a table, such as house, when in reality what it is talking about in the text is more specific buildings such as a town hall. The source clearly explains that it is a town hall, the term house is very general and not very precise. Furthermore, the source itself indicates that it is a town hall, there is no doubt about it. A few days ago Olea undid here my edition, because he says that the source indicates that, but it is not really a house, nobody lives in it. I have also indicated to him that it was not relevant to put "Contemporary Age", as he has put in all the elements of Digital Guide to the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia (Q5758805), because he is already adding the specific year. It seems that he would like to add more editions because it is not important information. Another error with the source is to interpret that the years that appear in the table of links such this are really the beginning and end of the use of the building, as here has indicated. In this item I deleted the incorrect year because the source indicates it was built in 1929 and he has undone me again, even though I added the referenced year just below. All the elements he added are created like this, and after telling him it refuses to modify them correctly because he says the source says that. The problem is not exclusively this. When he added the dataset, I indicated that he had duplicated hundreds of elements, and I had to merge many of them. He told me he was working on it, but at no time has he responded to my messages about its completion and I have recently found several more, so he is not dedicating himself to solving these problems. He also duplicated property values ​​and I sent him a query with 826 duplicates that I had left there over the years. This problems are added to other datasets that he also added on other topics, use Mix'n'Match and leave the names as indicated by the tool even if they are in capital letters and without more data to identify the elements, other duplicates issues, etc. I ask that the user be told that he cannot add datasets without making prior queries, that he has to review the veracity of the source data before adding them, that he has to review the data after inserting it to erase all those errors from the tools introduce, that he cannot move on to other tasks until he has correctly left the added data and that he answers the messages that are written about it, solving the errors and not hindering the tasks of the rest of the users. Thank you. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have asked Olea to respond here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @MSGJ, but I don't think I have nothing significant to respond here :-) —Ismael Olea (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have created items containing errors, then it seems reasonable to ask you to fix those up, or to provide a timescale for when this might be done. Are you willing to do this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ It is 2024 and I'm fixing any error I'm finding since that data load in 2020. I'm still updating when I find updates at the source. You can check my edits at 10th of June or before as an example. Other users could confirm I'm actively curating all the Andalusian heritage in Wikidata (more than 24k items) since then. Not just that, some months ago I wrote a retrospective about my experience with this data set I presented in Wikidata Days 2023. So yes, I'm willing to keep and enhance the dataset quality and integrity. —Ismael Olea (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I think that in the two answers you have given here you do not provide clear solutions as we are asking. "I'm willing to keep and enhance the dataset quality and integrity" you said it several times, what is going to change now? You say you started in 2020. Shortly after I started writing to you about the matter. After 4 years we continue here. Do you understand the frustration of a user when he does not see solutions to problems, and also does not receive a response to his messages? I had to merge many elements and I told you that there were other problems to solve. You told me you were on it. You made other insertions, you fixed some problems that arose, and you still didn't spend any time on it. I wrote to you again, you were still at it. In June 2022 you proposed other different jobs and I told you again that you were not paying attention to these problems. I have let it be, but now I change a property and you revert it saying that it is fine, when it is not, thereby preventing others from solving your errors. You say "other users could confirm", am I not another user? What do you call "willing to keep and enhance" when you have not yet deleted all the end dates of the instances? That data has been wrong for 4 years and you keep letting it pass. The same as the query I sent you. I dedicate my time so that there are no solutions... Also, I don't think it's appropriate that you give us a link to promote the work you do outside of here, while you are not respecting the rest of the community. I think I am always available to help people, but if there is an intention to do things well. We all make mistakes, but you have to be a little sensitive with the rest. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

To be cristal clear:

• You talk about sensitivity but you always address me in an imperative way. I'm not into this.
• You don't manage how I spent my time.
• You describe a partial/subjective view of my work: ok, you have the right to ignore the rest but then don't bring accusations of wrongdoing.
• It is insulting how you describe the link to a document presented in a Wikimedia community event.
• Outside Wikimedia I would say you are harassing me, but here I would not make an accusation so serious because I don't have interest spending my time in awful non productive discussions.

In brief, I'm tired how you talk to me. —Ismael Olea (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Olea: I'm not going to play into your games so as not to answer the topic that has been opened here. I think you are confusing yourself with someone else, outside Wikimedia I don't know you at all, so I can hardly harass you. I repeat what I have told you other times, if you need me for something here I am, but since you don't answer my messages I have to ask an admin (@MSGJ:) to take action. All the best. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Block request

Nama24Pok (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Continue this, continue en:WP:ILLEGIT and en:WP:SCRUTINY, zh.wiki blocked.--MCC214 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked indef per request. All edits reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Estopedist1, also, please block all list in extended content, this user continue illegit and scrutiny eight years ago.--MCC214 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi protection for Q29574353

Please protect Q29574353 from regular vandalism. Chouette bougonne (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This does not look like vandalism to me. Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Protected for six months. Edit warring Estopedist1 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Add Romani article for the state of New York to Wikidata.

I created the article in Romani and I can’t add it to Wikidata because it’s protected.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(stato) 2600:6C50:7E00:20C:4934:5CFA:B9CC:146D 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the /40 for for now. This should be handled by someone who can place a global block and handle cleanup on romani and simple wiki. Infrastruktur (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2024 (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. Lymantria (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Kaiman Lee wikidata entry

Please undelete the entry for Kaiman Lee on wikidata (Q126734059). More editing needs to be done. Ninakp (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Question Have you consulted the notability policy? If yes, could you elaborate a bit how you believe it meets the notability requirements? --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

courtesy pinging: user:Bovlb as a deleter--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have undeleted the item. Please add some claims soon to prevent it from getting deleted again. You may like to read User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted. Bovlb (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Abuse filter/Revert bot against LTA vandals

On Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/LTA vandals we have confirmed some persistent LTA vandals, of which I have yet to find a common pattern. Do you have any ideas for an abuse filter or a revert bot? Pinging some active admins who have edited abuse filters multiple times. @Matěj Suchánek, DannyS712, Ajraddatz, Bovlb: What do you think? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is already more than one abuse filter which deals with this specific LTA (just check Special:Log/block). They have even got their own "callsign", and there is a publicly accessible page somewhere where all information about their activity is collected (I'm not sharing it here for obvious reasons). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

From a quick look at the contributions, I see three abuse patterns: text in IMDB id; inappropriate images; inappropriate text in aliases.

The first would be easy to exclude with a filter that required IMDB ids to be correctly formatted. We could do the same thing with most identifiers. This sort of filter might be a net gain for the project as we see a lot of malformed identifiers (usually complete URLs). Historically we have tended to avoid such filters, presumably on the grounds that it's better to get the information in there and fix the format later. Alternatively, we could just keep a closer eye on Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P345#"Format"_violations.

It's harder to write a filter against inappropriate aliases. There's already a lot of variety in what good faith editors consider to be reasonable aliases. We could probably train an AI to do this with some reasonable level of accuracy, but I don't think we could run that as an abuse filter. Still, it would help us to react faster when there's an attack.

Identifying inappropriate images would be quite hard. I'd hope that if an image is appropriate for an entity, then the entity is referenced somewhere in the image's metadata on Commons, but I'm sure there are a lot of valid exceptions. Again, we can't check that in an abuse filter. Bovlb (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please revert June 20 edits by User:Jephtah Ogyefo Acquah

Jephtah Ogyefo Acquah (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) I just spent two months of my life fixing problems with badly merged individual records almost entirely caused by naive users using Magnus Manske's distributed game - duplicate authors tool. I've asked Magnus to fix it and it may be slightly better than it was, but it is still recommending far too many merges of people who are NOT the same person. Anyway, I checked my watchlist and recent changes just now and found the above user has made over 1000 edits this morning that are merges using this tool. If I really have to I'll spend another few weeks fixing these, but I'd prefer this just to be mass reverted if possible. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note this is somewhat urgent because Krbot will be moving links to the merged items in the next few days, which makes things much harder to revert. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few of this user's merges that were done after your recent warning, and they were all either good merges or the items had too little information to say either way. If there's evidence that the high error rate is continuing despite the warning, we should block them from mainspace until we get some resolution. Bovlb (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bovlb: The error rate has been 30-50% in recent weeks, and I don't think this person is being more careful yet. For example this merge from earlier today is clearly wrong, the names differ significantly. The ones that are "ambiguous" have to be sorted out by looking at the "What links here" relations - these are authors of articles. Considerable care has been made to disambiguate for example authors of high energy physics papers that can have hundreds of authors, some with the same first initial and family name; usually it's based on affiliation. These edits are wholesale throwing out this work. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more examples of clear errors from today: Kunhong Kim vs Kyung-Sup Kim, Heon-Jeong Lee vs Hyang Woon Lee, Fuyi Wang vs Feng Wang, Young Kee Kim vs Young-Min Kim. That last one is especially egregious - Young Kee Kim is the current president of the American Physical Society! ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately those specific bad merges were before your warning. I realise that you're seeking mass reversion here, but I was focussing on a narrower issue: whether we should use a partial block to prevent even more problems and encourage communication. Bovlb (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bovlb: A block is not really what I'm asking for. I need to know soon whether a mass revert will happen, because if not I'll be spending my next few days trying to fix as many of these as possible before Krbot hits and complicates things. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I do understand to errors some of my edits had. It wasn't intentional and I do understand the work loads those errors bring. Offen at times I do edit and realise there isn't anything/button to undo what I have sent already because the moment a click is made it automatically records. Once again sorry for this mistakes. I will be more careful when editing next time. 102.176.66.185 23:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This addresses the symptoms and not the underlying cause. Unfortunately it seems there is no rollback link for items that were merged _from_, which makes cleanup much harder to do than it should be. Is there any chance at all to add some functionality to this tool or add functionality externally that would aid in any cleanup that has to be done? Infrastruktur (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:194.51.248.97

194.51.248.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA XReport --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 1 week. --Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2024 (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. Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.200.65.224

212.200.65.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA; massive harassment XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, globally blocked. --Hoo man (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2024 (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. Lymantria (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.200.181.52

212.200.181.52 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Lock evasion XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 10:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done also tried a /16 partial range block that will hopefully help (but may need to be adjusted accordingly) --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)