Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidataconnect
Translate this header box!
Start a new discussion
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

~150 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.

More removal of valid references

@Yupik: might be dissatisfied to learn that @Gymnicus: is continuing to remove references from identifier properties, at the very least in direct opposition to the notions presented by Arthur and Andy in the previous discussion that 1) "references on identifiers can be really useful" since "a database [may] provide[...] both its own and one or more other identifiers" "which may be otherwise hard to pin down" and 2) that in some cases "it is only possible to verify [an] identity [...] by reference to third-party sites". The notion that such references are "projects just want[ing] to increase their "reach" through a high number of links here in Wikidata, so that they can be found more easily and, as already said, that is promotion" was a particularly dishonest characterization of what Marco's bot is trying to do (and should have been called out as such then); proceeding only with that notion, without regard to the project being considered, aids neither anti-spam nor anti-self-promotion efforts at all. While I have previously blocked the user from editing namespaces containing references for a week due to this behavior, and out of an interest in my composure had opted not to continue talking to the sea lion, I suspect that further sanctions against the user may be necessary. Mahir256 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the block. - Nikki (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Egads, we haven't even gotten the previous mess fixed. -Yupik (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: Should I now say thank you for not commenting on your completely exaggerated action after the ban, but for keeping quiet? That you pronounced the ban was scandalous anyway – to put it a little exaggerated – because you have problems with me. And because of these ominous circumstances, you no longer spoke up and not because of your serenity. That's why you should actually be grateful to me that I was so nice that I didn't have your completely excessive lock checked again here. That would have earned you sanctions. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{section resolved|1=Lymantria (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

@Lymantria: Why should the discussion already be resolved? --Gymnicus (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because sanctions have been restored. So the request is dealt with. This is not WD:RfC. Lymantria (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: I don't see it quite the way you do. Firstly, I have lodged a complaint against the ban, as you already know and I would be happy to hear from you there again. In addition, I do not see it in such a way that the references shown by Mahir are valid references, which is why I would talk about them again here. That I currently see the unlocking as more important and only want to comment on the topic afterwards should be understandable. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's leave it open here then. But this is not the page for policy discussion, nor for unblock requests. Lymantria (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unblock request is an independent issue which is not even discussed on this page. Here, the original request has been processed and there is nothing else to do for admins at the moment.
  • Personal advice, since I am not acting in admin role in this case any longer:
    • In general, you seem to be underestimating the seriousness of the situation. The onus is on your side to proceed the situation; you want to become unblocked, so you need to convince an admin that there is no future drama to expect; as of now, you seemingly try to convince us that the block is indeed correct, so in some sense you are sabotaging yourself.
    • Thus, consider making substantial consessions here. Currently, no admin can seriously consider to unblock you based on what you have said. We need to be sure that you understand the situation and that you will unconditionally act along project consensus with your editing.
    • Re. references on identifier claims: there *is* consensus about the situation—it is you who has a different, incompatible position. I think that you misinterpret this drastically. While it is okay to have a different position than the project consensus, it is of course nevertheless important to act according to the latter. Even if you have no clue why it is like that. If you want to change the consensus, please do not try to achieve that via your editing—start discussions instead, and try to convince editors.
  • You can contact me for further advice on my user talk page if you think this would help. It would of course be a public discussion, but out of context of the other ones which might be helpful. Yet again, be aware that I am not going to decide the unblock request again.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring with no justification

Hello. User Лобачев Владимир has been reverting me without giving any rationale at Q36392 (Moldovan language). They have been restoring the parameter "different from" marked with Romanian only backed by Russian sources. See the edit history [1]. This user has always failed to prove any of his POV regarding the Moldovan language if not through Russian sources. To give some context, the Moldovan and Romanian languages are the same (I am Romanian, I understand everything that a Moldovan person says, any other Romanian will say the same, it's not my personal POV), and the former only still exists due to political reasons. It is universal in the academic world of all the countries of the world that Moldovan and Romanian are the same except in Moldova and Ukraine (partially) and in Russia. That Moldovan and Romanian are not the same is only a POV held by sources coming from this country, the difference between both languages cannot be proven with international sources.

I also must mention the lack of previous careful cold-headed thinking by this user and how they are just reverting for the sake of reverting me, Q36392 has the parameters "subclass of" and "said to be the same as" marked with Romanian (backed by non-Romanian sources), yet they don't dispute them, they want the item to mark Romanian as both different from and the same as Moldovan. They have also been reverting me at Q9506034 (Category:Moldovan language) for removing the parameter "different from" marked with Category:Romanian language even though such a parameter serves no technical purpose for a category. I explained it to them and they stopped reverting me only after the third time.

Be aware this is not the first time, in July 2021 we already discussed the situation of the Moldovan language in a report they did to me [2]. It ended up in Moldovan being deprecated as a statement in a few items (Q218134 and Q10957559) as Лобачев Владимир could not prove the existance of the Moldovan language previous to the Soviet brainwashing of the Moldovan nation (that is, before 1924). I am confident that Лобачев Владимир will again not be able to prove their POV. The July 2021 report was mediated by Emu, so I am pinging them in the case they want to participate again and mostly because I am worried that this report would otherwise be ignored as many other times by other users.

I want to note that Ethnologue does NOT have an entry for the Moldovan language and says that Moldova's main languages are Romanian and Russian (which is true, it is used for interethnic communication) [3]. Here are a few more sources: [4], "experts from Romania and the West have regularly argued that the eastern Moldovans are indistinguishable, historically, culturally, and linguistically, from their Romanian cousins" (written by a non-Romanian/non-Russian author); [5], "President [of Moldova, Mircea] Snegur himself articulated the position that Romanians and Moldovans are distinct peoples who share a common language. Only in Transdniestria does anyone still argue that Moldovan is a different language from Romanian" (again, non-Romanian/non-Russian author). I can give way more sources if asked to. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I fixed Moldovan (Q36392). As I said before: Wrong, but sourced information should generally stay in Wikidata. And it’s true that some say that there is a difference between Moldavian and Romanian although the international linguistic community mostly disagrees.
As for Category:Moldovan language (Q9506034): The different from (P1889) claim doesn’t seem to make much sense in a category item. @Лобачев Владимир, Infovarius: If you disagree, please explain your reasoning before reverting. Emu (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • РEГUЛAMENTUЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Romanian language)
    РEГUЛAMENTUЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Romanian language)
  • РEГЛЕМЕNТꙋЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Moldovan language)
    РEГЛЕМЕNТꙋЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Moldovan language)
  • Constitution of the Moldavian Republic. 1978. In Moldovan and Russian languages
    Constitution of the Moldavian Republic. 1978. In Moldovan and Russian languages

The constitutions of 1832 indicate that in the Wallachian principality the official language is Romanian, and in the Moldavian principality – Moldavian.

Here is the cover of the 1978 Constitution of the Moldavian Republic. Most Romanians will not be able to read it as it is written in Moldovan Cyrillic.

In the 1994 Constitution of Moldova, in Article 13, there is an entry that “The state language of the Republic of Moldova is the Moldovan language”.

After 1993, the Romanian Latin alphabet was introduced in Moldova, and in schools everywhere the subject "Moldovan language" was replaced by "Romanian language". But until 1993, the Moldovan and Romanian languages were, although close, but legally separate - they had a different alphabet, the pronunciation and lexical composition of words were different. The languages of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are even closer to each other. But they are also considered separate languages for political reasons. And it is wrong to say that Croatian is part of Serbian just because they are 98% mutually intelligible.

In Transnistria, they still study Moldovan (not Romanian) in schools and write in Cyrillic, incomprehensible to Romanians. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Лобачев Владимир: Okay, but that’s all beside the point. We generally don’t deal in matters of correct and false in Wikidata. To put it bluntly: If the general international consensus of experts was that Earth is indeed flat, that’s what would be Wikidata’s position on the matter. We would still record that some think that’s not the case but we would probably deprecate such statements. --Emu (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
but we would probably deprecate such statements – I would not make my own conclusions. Is it better to note that some researchers identify modern Moldavian and Romanian languages, and some consider them to be separate languages? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about today, not 1978 or 1832. Soviet inventions or old documents that you interpret the way it benefits you can't challange academic works (international ones, mind you). "Most Romanians will not be able to read it as it is written in Moldovan Cyrillic". Yeah. So? "In the 1994 Constitution of Moldova, in Article 13, there is an entry that “The state language of the Republic of Moldova is the Moldovan language”." Please read the following article [6]. The independence declaration has legal priority over the constitution. And guess what language is stated to be that of Moldova in there? Romanian. Moldovan and Romanian are anyway considered two different names for the same language by the Moldovan Parliament since 2003 [7]. "Moldovan and Romanian languages were [...] but legally separate". Yes. This holds no value for linguistic sciences. "they had a different alphabet" so? "the pronunciation and lexical composition of words" no, it is not. The situation hasn't changed ever since 1989 (I don't know what are you referring to by citing the year 1993). It isn't like some laws were passed and schools now started pronouncing the language of Moldova differently. You will find 0 documents for such a thing. That means, they have always been the same, before and after the linguistic laws emitted by the Moldavian SSR. The situation of Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia is very different. They are 4 languages with a similar number of speakers which has never had a common designation. Romanian always did, and that's "Romanian", until 1924 in Moldova that is (and it will change soon [8]). "write in Cyrillic, incomprehensible to Romanians" yeah, so what? Languages are not differentiated by their alphabet. Kazakhstan is not going to change its language in 2025. By the way, any Romanian can understand this [9].
I will repeat it again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your arguments are based on historical documents that you interpret by yourself (original research) and which you keep spamming everywhere you are challenged, ignoring what the academic world or the people you have been talking about so confidently say. You couldn't prove your POV in July, and you will not be able to here now. So keep disrupting, keep doing so to keep proving you wrong and to keep building up incidents. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Лобачев Владимир: I blocked you from editing Category:Moldovan language (Q9506034) for two weeks. Please adjust your behaviour. Please don’t insert controversial statements without a source or more severe admin action will be taken.
@both sides: Kindly refrain from repeating the same old arguments. It won’t help your case to further use WD:AN to explain your content disputes, regardless of merit. Admins aren’t here to judge whether something is a language or indeed not. --Emu (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I originally made this report on behavioural basis, but I can see that we derived the argument into the content again. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now want to note Лобачев Владимир and me edit-warred too on Category:Moldovan language at Commons, which was protected for one month today, with the category "Languages of Moldavia" that this user supported not being restored. I am stating this to let evidence build up both for others to see and so that I don't have to visit too many pages in the future if I need to write a report again, so that all relevant info is at as few pages as possible. For anyone interested (probably nobody), I recommend reading the talk page of the category [12]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

212.35.232.216

Vandal 212.35.232.216

The user Special:Contributions/212.35.232.216 is obviously a vandal. May be it is better to stop him for a while and revert the deletions he made. ~~  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a00:20:9026:cd:d038:de1a:1692:236e (talk • contribs) at 15:00, October 4, 2021 (UTC).

212.35.232.216 is still vandalizing

212.35.232.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is still vandalizing and should be blocked now, see also report from 4th Oct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:20:9025:9400:b92b:7748:649d:443 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Urbanec: 31h block for more than 1 year ongoing vandalism is quite cheap, isn't it? ~~
@Martin Urbanec: May be you'll get a better impression when checking his talk page. ~~

31h block has expired and vandalizm goes on

212.35.232.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) 31h block has expired and vadalizm continues (see this report). This is my favorite. Well done. ~~

I have blocked for a month and tidied up a mess of vandalism. I note this IP is blocked for two years on ENWP. Bovlb (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:193.207.195.207

193.207.195.207 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Hasley+ 00:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:193.207.208.191

193.207.208.191 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. --Ovruni (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Hasley+ 00:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:94.177.118.0/24

94.177.118.0/24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Open proxy. SCP-2000 (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q449908

Please protect Chayanne (Q449908), vandalism spread out through the past two years. Aranya (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year. No IPs worth blocking. Bovlb (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empty project-wide CSS pages

Both MediaWiki:Mobile.css (since 2015) and MediaWiki:Vector.css (since today) are empty. Is there any reason not to delete these pages? Would it even be a performance gain if they were not existing? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:XamicoX22

I'm trying to modify item Q47517949 with the up-to-date informations (the company changed name, logo, official website and Youtube channel denomination back in April 2021), annotating the old data as obsolete and providing the new ones, but for reasons I don't entirely understand (they didn't provide an explanation) User:XamicoX22 keeps restoring the outdated information. -- Rojelio (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the user kept reverting Rojelio in this page. This is unacceptable behaviour, and I noticed the user that keeping doing this will result in a 24 hours block.
I'd like to take some time to check what's happening, and to understand why @XamicoX22: is doing so. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Sannita blocked the user for 24h.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ymblanter, I forgot to note it here. It was a partial block on Welcome Italia (Q47517949) for 24 hrs, because he kept reverting edits despite being told not to do so. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it might be another instance of Special:Contributions/GM-27IT (previously blocked on WikiData, and then globally): entirely identical edit-pattern (both here and on 'pedia) including the continuous edit-wars. -- Rojelio (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poupin McCueefer

Please block Poupin McCueefer (talk • contribs • logs) as a vandalism-only account. They are already blocked in multiple different wikis. --Shinnin (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done BrokenSegue (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2600:387:F:4635:0:0:0:1

2600:387:F:4635:0:0:0:1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2A01:E0A:35A:D5E0::/64

2A01:E0A:35A:D5E0::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done A month this time. Lymantria (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2021 (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) 06:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:TERYAKY.edit

TERYAKY.edit (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandal account Darwin Ahoy! 17:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q10829234

Please protect Trấn Thành (Q10829234), lately it has been vandalized quite a lot. Thank you. Bluetpp (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:83.233.12.6

83.233.12.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Infrastruktur wdt:P31 wd:Q5 (T | C) 10:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2021 (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) 20:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:160.32.235.0

160.32.235.0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2021 (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) 20:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer IPs

151.21.111.59 (but also 151.20.23.121, 151.20.7.234, 151.21.194.219, 151.21.138.187 etc same guy) is a IP related with the global-banned italian user Alec Smithson (en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson); now he is spamming about Como Lake, particularly about restaurants, villas, and other leisures, linking also websites renting and selling real estates. Check for notability and for spamming please. --AttoRenato (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q2055778

Item has been vandalised several times this year. Please, semi-protect windewrix (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning 37.11.112.130

After the protection of 2021–22 La Liga (Q105770426), the quite persistant 37.11.112.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) who apparently earlier was 37.11.186.68 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has now gone on to vandalize other items every few days. Please block.--Hjart (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P373 again (but with news!)

Hi all. The discussion about what to do with P373 still continues. I've just started Part 3 at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Part_3 with some good news - phab:T232927 has been fixed, the links to Commons in Wikimedia project sidebars now use the sitelinks! It would be really good if this discussion can be closed soon, one way or another, so that we can make progress either with maintaining P373 or removing it - two years really is too long for such a discussion to last! If there's any neutral help I can offer to a fellow admin to close this, please let me know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q60 flooded with 584 postal code (P281) by User:Justin0x2004 batches

Can someone stop the users batches .. they aren't responding to comments on their talk page. --- Jura 19:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1 I've stopped the batch.
For anyone following along please see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Justin0x2004#Zip_codes Justin0x2004 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert undo your additions as well, preferably in one edit per item.
Going forward, do not run batches that edit items hundreds of times. --- Jura 19:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1 "do not run batches that edit items hundreds of times"
Isn't that what batches are for?
I don't think the issue of postal code (P281) is settled. The intended use of postal code (P281) is a single code as an object. Justin0x2004 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not settled. The original intent seems to have been to map areas to a single code. So adding all possible codes to NY state or NYC city isn't really it.
Doesn't the addition of 584 statements in 584 edits to single item (Q60) somehow convey to you that your proposed approach isn't really working? --- Jura 20:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to add 584 statements as you've done in a single edit--hence Jura's comment on batches.
This information is not particularly meaningful on an item like New York City (Q60); it is likely more useful on items such as Marble Hill (Q1373472) or Broad Channel (Q62484) which do correspond to individual postal codes among those you've added (or at least a few of them which can be reasonably enumerated). On this basis I am reverting this batch and would suggest that you instead add postal codes to items for neighborhoods in New York City if they are not already present. Mahir256 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 Doesn't a range imply enumeration? What do you mean by "reasonably enumerated?"
10001 (https://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/10001/) is one of the zip codes in New York City (Q60) but this SPARQL query doesn't return results:
```
select * where {
?s wdt:P31 wd:Q1093829 .
?s wdt:P281 "10001" .
}
``` Justin0x2004 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit group KrBotResolvingRedirect/Q1340643_Q98714302

Summary разрешение перенаправления / resolving redirect Q1340643 → Q98714302 Author KrBot
Number of edits 1,815 (more statistics) Example edit Q108929213

I reverted the merge master builder (Q1340643) → master of the works (Q98714302) by User:Cruzate1492 since the two concepts are different (I asked on Telegram and my scepticism about merging those items was shared) and the direction of merge would be incorrect anyway. Since this is essentially a content question, I would be using my admin privileges if I reverted this edit resolving edit group. Please consider reverting those changes. Thank you. --Emu (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1519877852"