Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Revision as of 23:52, 30 June 2024 by FlyingAce (talk | contribs) (Mark a discussion as resolved (EasyResolve v1.4))
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
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 2024/08.

Requests for deletions

high

~143 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.

Report concerning JMagalhães

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

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

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.

 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)[reply]

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.
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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

+ 2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+2 days of impunity. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ 5 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another attack in front of all admins, and nothing is done. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing they have said here appears particularly like an attack, particularly given you have dragged them before this noticeboard. What I see, reviewing items like Wikimedia Commons (Q565), is you making a change, and someone else reverting. You should stop edit warring to re-add your content in and discuss on the talk page. See w:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - make a change, it gets reverted, then you discuss. You are being more disruptive here than the other user. Please step back and discuss, preferably on the relevant items' talk pages. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz:, first thing, do never remove a comment from another volunteer.
Second thing, "Nothing they have said here appears particularly like an attack." I will call you delusional and see how long it will take to be blocked.
Moreover, after years, since 2019 of him removing again, r e m o v i n g content, not only from my edits but from a wide variety of content, you say to me that I am the one wrong, enter in the provided links to make a comment at least.
And this is not wikipedia, a Wikipedia rule, especially from a single language, can never be used here.
Of course, I am "disruptive here." No one is taking care of that, and I and other volunteers have had to deal with this for years, so I am done. Do something, enter, and see that they are removing information from Wikidata and that no one is taking action.
You are more worried about "+2 days of impunity" than a person removing content from Wikidata; this is very problematic. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ 2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
ArthurPSmith suggested limiting the use of the tool to confirmed users. Not sure this would help making sure the merges aren't careless. The tool already displays a notification to users urging them to be careful making sure the items are the same, does it not? Maybe there should be an example or two to new users showing what to look for to make sure the items are the same? A graphic or video demonstration would probably be ideal. Time might be better spent on this than on cleaning up after the fact. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnus has disabled this tool for now. I don't understand much about the tool itself - it's probably been years since I tried the "distributed game". Treating merges as a "game" for new users seems always likely to be fraught with risk. But if somebody could provide some help for new users on this maybe we can risk it. It certainly does some good in cleaning up duplicates, but right now it's just far to easy to merge things that shouldn't be. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on reverting by hand where I can see these are wrong. For the 500 edits from 01:26 to 02:56 there were 215 merges, of which I have now reviewed all and reverted 81. So that's about 38% error rate, roughly in line with how this has gone in the past. The tool just makes it far too easy to cause trouble here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI this review work is finished, no need for mass reversion. This was a lot of work over a few days but I think I caught it before any bots moved redirected values to the merged ones, in the cases of bad merges. Overall of 702 merges made by this user on June 20, I reverted 325, for a roughly 46% error rate. ArthurPSmith (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:000yosaf

000yosaf (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism-only account ? ―Mykhal (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for now, we'll see. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Q49077449 has the same meaning (in Vietnamese) as Q467056, so I request to delete the first one. Amelia (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

→ ← Merged We merge items, not delete them. Already merged by user:Wüstenspringmaus Estopedist1 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Mas-que-na'

Mas-que-na' (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) I strongly believe this is a sockpuppet of OppsMetal (indef blocked & globally locked): both speak Spanish, both use #quickstatements, both like to play with changing Wikidata properties a lot, often by adding redundant things. For example, by location (Q56042075) should be used only for metacategories, but this user inserted it in thousands of irrelevant items. I remember well that OppsMetal did the same. I also hope some admin can revert all that. I'm quite sure that yet other sockpuppet did the same things a year ago (can not remember user name), and also got indef blocked, but was not recognized as OppsMetal's sock. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot make a CU request as this data is only available for 90 days. However, I can also see many similarities between the two accounts. Pinging the blocking administrator of OppsMetal @MisterSynergy: and the locking steward @AmandaNP: What do you think? --Wüstenspringmaus talk 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is kinda far away in the past for me, thus I cannot tell much for the account in question.
I do remember though that I considered User:OppsMetal to be a follow-up account of User:Hey80'Q, which in turn followed User:&beer&love (all indefinitely blocked by me). They all had plenty of batch-editing experience particularly with the QuickStatements tool; regularly, their jobs were problematic at least, and the willingness to communicate on their user talk pages or to clean up their own mess was pretty much absent. So, if you need more data to compare the user in question to, these connections might be useful. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering editing, certainly the same person. @Wüstenspringmaus: do you think this one should also be blocked & locked? --Orijentolog (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:213.41.252.10

213.41.252.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism ―Mykhal (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked for 1 month.--S8321414 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism user blocking request

Hello @Do2112 The user named persistently Q160077 This page is committing vandalism. The page must be protected and the user must be blocked. Wikipedia is also committing vandalism. Selamiben (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit-warring is happening at the Turkish Wikipedia, and the issue must be solved there. Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ymblanter It will be blocked there anyway, the user constantly changes his name here, either a temporary block should be given or the page should be temporarily protected, at least it cannot be vandalized. Selamiben (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What looks like the name changing here is in fact page moves on the Turkish Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Ymblanter Selamiben (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hi! Please block Special:Contributions/93.182.105.236 who has been vandalising articles about far east gastronomy for more than a month. Thanks. —d—n—f (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked for 3 months.--S8321414 (talk) 06:56, 28 June 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. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Exceltemplate

Exceltemplate (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Advertising/spam ―Ruy (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User warned, maybe that's good enough for now. --Wüstenspringmaus talk 05:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends really. Warning is suitable when someone creates a new item that appears to be promotional in nature. For cases of blatant spam and insertion of unrelated external links we tend to delete, maybe even block the account even at a single edit. Don't feel shy about reporting the latter to WD:AN, the former should go to WD:RFD. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Deleted by Matej. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:21, 29 June 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. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filters go wrong

I create some pages in Italian Wikipedia and i want to link it in wikidata, but any changes I make are blocked as "spam". I want to add Britannica link but say block-spam, i want to add name and description in Italian but prevent blocking by spam. This is crazy. Please fix, because is an abuse to block prevention of good contribution. 109.114.27.56 08:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anyone answer? It's very serious, there's a false positive from the anti-spam filter that's gone crazy and no one is doing anything? I want to put Britannica Encyclopaedia in the external links of an entry and it gives me "spam". See the message "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. Your action has triggered the Abuse Filter This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Spam". What abuse with Britannica link or add Wikipedia page link or description on incipit? Please correct urgently. 109.114.2.212 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just temporarily suspended the filter. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me permission. Thank you.

I create some pages in Spanish Wikipedia and I want to link it in wikidata, but I can't seem to add or remove badges on Wikibooks unless an administrator gives me permission. That's why I ask you to please give me permission. Thank you. Kenneth Adrián Jiménez Granados (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenneth Adrián Jiménez Granados, you must have the confirmed flag to be able to add/remove badges. You must request this right here. Regards --Wüstenspringmaus talk 06:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they could merely edit constructively until they gain the "autoconfirmed" flag??? Isn't this the normal means of granting permission? This user account is less than a month old, but already editing on multiple wikis; should be able to gain autoconfirmed status without any trouble, and then automatically gain rights to add badges. Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We frequently grant confirmed status to users in good standing in other projects who are just starting to contribute to Wikidata, so Wüstenspringmaus correctly provided the link for such requests. I would agree that in this particular case it is better to have a more established track record of contributions, though. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Steeloncalltmt

Steeloncalltmt (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam-only account. ―Ruy (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked indef by KonstantinaG07 and global locked.--S8321414 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 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. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning 186.95.174.103

186.95.174.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism --Ovruni (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User was notified about problematic edits. Didn't spot anything that suggested these were not done in good faith. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:31, 30 June 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. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning 102.88.71.97

102.88.71.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think it's worth the effort for me to continue reverting this person's edits Trade (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Blocked 2 weeks. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:04, 30 June 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. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Coddlebean

Coddlebean (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism - This user delinked a slew of Wikipedia links from Wikidata items in apparent acts of vandalism on 25 June 2024. On the same day, the user committed some juvenile vandalism over on Wikipedia. - Amigao (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=2192555373"