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
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 2021/09.

Requests for deletions

very high

~224 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.

Huynhucc[edit]

Suspected sockpuppet of Mạc Thái Tổ. Unnamed UserName me 19:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Another one, but too stale: Lưu Dụ. Unnamed UserName me 19:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Please file your request at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser, so that checkusers can confirm sockpuppetry. Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Data expired. I would like to request a duck block. Unnamed UserName me 17:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

82.78.75.213 and 86.122.114.47[edit]

Same vandal as Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/08#Report concerning User:86.126.160.106, Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/01#Vandalism by Special:Contributions/82.78.75.241 – the longer you'll ignore the harder it will be to mitigate, Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2020/09/27#unsourced junk/vandalism entries by IP, and many more (some possibly missed) instances. Gikü (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Until this time (last update 19:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)), these are the addresses I could identify:
I'd like to add that parallel to their Wikidata vandalism this person wreaks havoc at Commons and rowiki as well. COM:ANI request link: [1] What I mean to say is that if someone wants to help reverting, please check their cross-wiki edits too. Gikü (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Prolific hoaxing sockpuppeter[edit]

Can somebody please block User:Sibinia and User:$ibinia as obvious socks of User:Kriestovo Nysian? This is a long-term cross-wiki abuser who was globally locked in 2020. All accounts have been pursuing the same hoax agenda. See my report on Commons [2] for some background. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:$ibinia is now indef'ed, after obvious abuse of editing priviledges. It still need some tidying now. I am also going to observe the editing of the other account and won't hesitate to block them indefinitely as well if it appears to be operated by the same person. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the help. Just to clarify, after the recent outburst it's become rather clear that they are actually not the same person. $ibinia is most likely en:WP:LTA/Wikinger, a long-time vandal, who likes to impersonate other problematic users. Sibinia is highly problematic too, but for their content hoaxes, not for their personal abuse. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Just wholly reverted this painful AutoBUSE-r! 46.134.2.244 12:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Update: Special:Contributions/93.131.73.199 is the next sock IP of Sibinia/Kriestovo Nysian. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Special:Contributions/78.48.47.37 is to be listed here in the case of a recurrent vandalism. 46.134.37.98

There is another BAN evasion: Special:Contributions/78.49.48.83. 46.134.189.93 08:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Please stop blind reverts! Almost in all cases (at least in my watchlist) they worsen the content. --Infovarius (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Reverters are editwarring too! Especially IP ones. Admin actions needed. I propose to semi-protect the following items: Sviatoslav II of Kiev (Q469731), Reims Gospel (Q2657399), Vlad III (Q43715), Codex Marianus (Q1968471) and probably more. --Infovarius (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:216.71.230.196[edit]

216.71.230.196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: A known LTA currently blocked until May on enwiki is also active here, deliberately falsifying statements. There, I request a block for this IP. IceWelder (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The user continued its vandalism today and likely will again tomorrow. IceWelder (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The user remains active. IceWelder (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Capitalization of common names of organisms in labels[edit]

Is there a policy somewhere on recording common names of animals, plants, and other organisms in labels? I ask because there is a wide divergence of practice, and when I recently changed some labels to remove uppercase, one insistent editor reverted all of my changes. Commonly used style manuals in English say not to capitalize common/vernacular names of organisms unless there is a proper noun in the name.

For example, The Chicago Manual of Style says:

For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.119. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

  Dutchman's-breeches
  jack-in-the-pulpit
  mayapple
  Cooper's hawk
  rhesus monkey
  Rocky Mountain sheep

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) says: The first letters of words in a virus name, including the first word, should only begin with a capital when these words are proper nouns (including host genus names but not virus genus names) or start a sentence. Single letters in virus names, including alphanumerical strain designations, may be capitalized. ... Examples:

  Isolates of dengue virus 2 were obtained ....
  Detection of West Nile virus in human serum ....
  Salmonella phage SE1 was isolated ....
  Sida ciliaris golden mosaic virus (SCGMV) causes ....
  Aphids transmit potato virus Y (PVY)

Numerous other websites for English names give the same advice, for example https://www.dailywritingtips.com/when-to-capitalize-animal-and-plant-names/, https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/zo150/mozley/nomencla.html, https://mostlybirds.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/should-common-names-of-species-be-capitalized/, and https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/capitalization-of-animal-names.html.

Is there, or could/should there be a written policy on capitalization of common names? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't think this should be a matter for admins? unless you want something done about the user reverting you? FWIW I agree with you. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Korean Wikipedia "Battle of Middle-earth 2" Selected as a good article[edit]

The Korean Wikipedia article 'Battle of Middle-earth 2' has been selected as a good article, so please change it. 멜론트리 (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:TYC[edit]

TYC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: he reuse deleted items in some wikipedia for other things. Afaz (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I made a comment regarding this problem on their user talk page, and I am also undoing quite a lot of the mess created by this user.
Please leave this section here without a "resolved" tag for a couple of days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Vandalism following Google Doodle[edit]

Greetings. We're seeing a flurry of vandalism in Q164797 after it's been featured in a Google Doodle today, marking the 100th anniversary of Paulo Freire. Could you (semi) protect it, please? It's affecting mainly the mobile users, who see the one-liner description taken from Wikidata right below the title. Thank you. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done @Mahir256: thank you for the protection [3]. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning 193.248.62.132[edit]

193.248.62.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is regularly vandalizing French descriptions. I've rolled back a number of them. --Hjart (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. —Hasley+ 14:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:41.37.172.87[edit]

41.37.172.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:82.78.75.246 – known vandal, please block on sight[edit]

82.78.75.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Per 82.78.75.213 and 86.122.114.47 Gikü (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:Akadunzio[edit]

Akadunzio (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: The user is still relatively inexperienced (<1000 edits) and attracted attention yesterday because they boldly removed sourced statements from at least the data items Rodolphe Poma (Q2000747) and Oscar Taelman (Q2544880) repeatedly, while User:Hjart and myself restored the claims in question. The issue was discussed and explained in detail at User talk:Akadunzio#editing in Q2544880. Nevertheless, today they are proceeding with their editing [4][5][6].

Since I have editorial interest in the affected items, I am not going to act in admin role here, of course. Thus I am requesting a thorough warning of the user in order to stop their disruptive editing/edit warring against project consensus. MisterSynergy (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

In both cases the data on Wikidata are completely false. This can be validated in their birth certificates which can be read in the State Archives of Belgium. Everyone has only and just only one birth date and therefor every information which is not the same as in the birth certificate is false and should be removed. Apperantly Hjart and MisterSynergy are not able to register and the proceed with their undoing of the correct information. I think Administrators should act against them. Akadunzio (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, they continue with the edit war [7][8]. Please also have a look into the corresponding item page histories. Anyone, please? —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Formal warning posted on User_talk:Akadunzio#Removal_of_sourced_information. --Emu (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I formally disagree with this warning. MisterEnergy continues with an edit war and should be warned. Sports-reference and Olympedia are unsourced and therefor their data are to be considered as not verifiable. Birth certificates are verifiable and correct. Correction of birth certificates is only possible over court, not over Wikidata. Akadunzio (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Duly noted. Just to be clear: Deleting the same or similar information would be grounds for a block.
On a more informal note: I think it would be a really good idea if you try to understand why we store “wrong” dates: It helps with identifying people and avoiding duplicates, in some cases it reflects a developing understanding of people’s biographies. Even and especially if the references are less than stellar. It’s not that uncommon for birthdays to have several conflicting values for one person. --Emu (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As far as I know someone has only one birthday and not several ones as you think. Oscar Taelman is only born the 5th of October and not on the 6th. And the rower Rodolphe Antoine Pierre Thérèse Poma, sun of Oscar Poma, a tailor from Gent, Veldstraat/Rue du champs is born the 12th of October 1885 in Gent. Rodolf Jozef Poma is born in Pittem the 26th of November 1884, but he was never a rower. I think it is not a great idea to store "wrong data" which are taken over in several Wikipedia pages. I have personally never seen a biography of a person with different birth days, so you are pioneers in nonsense. Akadunzio (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I also looked in the rules of Wikidata and I didn't found the rule that false information should be kept. I think this is a false interpretation of a rule which alows different values for some characteristics. Akadunzio (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Semi-protection of Katyń (Q714713)[edit]

Persistent IP-hopping vandalism. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done by MisterSynergy. —Hasley+ 12:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Semi-protection of Q4055782[edit]

Please. --Infovarius (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. —Hasley+ 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

rating of Peerage ID[edit]

How is the The Peerage person ID (P4638) actually rated? So is it more like a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320)? An explanation of why it is so would be nice for me personally too. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't really think this is a matter for the admins. But my understanding is that historically all of the peerage was imported so someone thought the identifier implied notability. I think many people happen to disagree. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@BrokenSegue: Why shouldn't that affect the admins? You are, so to speak, the guardians of relevance. So if I suggest a data object with such an ID for deletion, then ultimately you decide whether it will be deleted or not. That's why you as admins have to have at least a tendency as to whether this property makes you relevant or not. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Some remarks:
  • Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) and Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) are liberally being added to properties by users and do not have any binding effect. These two items have not even been created based on community consensus, it was (apparently) more like a spontaneous attempt that works to some extent. But you shouldn't really rely on it—admins will probably not even look for these values.
  • TP is a bit of a special case here. We do not really have consensus to which degree genealogical databases imply notability here due to the difficulties related to them.
  • So it is up to the admin's discretion how to handle a given request. As much as I am aware, many admins are rather careful and do not delete when there is no clear consensus, unless other issues (e.g. BLP-related) matter as well.
MisterSynergy (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@MisterSynergy: Ah, I was not aware of the fact that the two aforementioned data objects were simply added like that. I thought the addition was based on consensus. But I also have to admit that I hadn't looked for it either, just assumed that there was a consensus for it. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There is consensus in so far that their existence is widely accepted and the values are in line with the actual practice in most cases so that they do provide some guidance to users and admins. However, their creation have not been discussed in advance, and they are not part of any policy here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@MisterSynergy: Good to know, thank you! --Gymnicus (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:186.169.59.84[edit]

186.169.59.84 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Regards --Masegand (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. —Hasley+ 17:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Semi-protection for Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (Q2908)[edit]

17 vandalism today, has been protected 4 times before. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. —Hasley+ 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Semi-protection request[edit]

Q97666474 has been the subject of recent vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done, 1y semi. It's unfortunately not just a recent problem. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:193.207.145.88[edit]

193.207.145.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: BLP violations and vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. —Hasley+ 23:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Report concerning User:193.207.202.99[edit]

193.207.202.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Block evasion and vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done. —Hasley+ 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]