Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Referencing common sense information

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

I don't want to spam our superWikipedian user:Florentyna, but after his systematic reverting I have to. Could someone say something about this kind of reverting: Special:Diff/2260003234? For me to prove that someone is human is elementary and almost always infoclutter, and secondly Wikipedias should be not used as references whenever possible Estopedist1 (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice versa: For me it is clearly vandalism what user Estopedist1 does - removing of content without explanation (and of course without citing the source where such removals are described as allowed removals). --Florentyna (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Florentyna: Pointless doesn't equal harmful, though since this is one step away from an edit-war, it calls for a discussion. You called Estopedists comment on your talk page "non-sense", could you please elaborate? Also this happens to be covered in a guideline, see Help:Sources, it does in fact back the claims made by Estopedist1. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrastruktur: Can you please specify, where what is written, the guideline you mentioned is long and I do not find the rule what should be applied. The topics should be Unexplained removal of content and Common sense as source. On the other hand, if somebody approaches me on my talk page with unsourced rules very close for me to POV, then it makes for me not really sense. And use words like mass-reverting is non-sense and very clos the a personal attack. For me it would be simply sufficient, to see where it is written, that all sources from instance human must be removed - means millions of source deletions has to be done. --Florentyna (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @Infrastruktur. Florentyna please read also Help:Sources/Items not needing sources. I would also add there property: sex or gender (P21) unless we are dealing with LGBT case Estopedist1 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is disheartening to see a user with so many edits not interested in reading the guidelines. I don't think it says anywhere that sources _must_ be removed, but edits that make the statements more in line with an existing guideline are an improvement. And since the resason was explained Estopedist1 would be in their right to remove them should they decide to make an example. That said, I don't think that would be wise since the user is clearly upset with the prospect of a mass-removal. Infrastruktur (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this also means, to remove all existing sources (like I said, as follow up this means to memove now millions of sources)? That is the point we are discussing about. Some time ago there stood: Items not needing sources MAY have sources and shouldn't be removed. Even if it's common knowledge, itself is a source, or claims have no sources because it has never been disputed, it's good to add a source to it. --Florentyna (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Florentyna: why is it good to have elementary statements (e.g. human, gender, family name, given name) backed by Wikipedia interlinks or any other source? Isn't it obvious infopollution? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Florentyna: you still haven't answer, why is it good to have trivial statements backed by any reference(s)? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not make the rules. Only wondering, when things are going on I never heard about it. --Florentyna (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Florentyna: please don't use such general and unconstructive wording. What things are going on? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing we are talking about Unexplained removal of content. Content, which was there for years, without source substitution, without explanation. --Florentyna (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Florentyna: it is Wikidata guideline per Help:Sources/Items not needing sources. And yes millons and millions such pseudo- or irrelevant references should be deleted in Wikidata. But we are not in hurry, AI will be helped in (near) future Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning 190.198.0.65

190.198.0.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Possible blocking evasion of 186.94.44.19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and 186.91.122.22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Ovruni (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked fo a year. Wüstenspringmaus talk 17:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edits by 186.94.44.19 are not patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for Đinh Bộ Lĩnh (Q1184365) and Hoàng Cơ Minh (Q5874387)

Vandalism by LTA.-- 逐风天地 (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked LTA instead.--S8321414 (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:176.14.184.37

176.14.184.37 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
User keeps adding info that is not backed by any en:WP:RS.
They were warned 4 times — twice here and twice on enwiki — -kgoodluck- /// ✉️ 15:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked but all edits are not patrolled. Wüstenspringmaus talk 17:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wüstenspringmaus: thanks, I'm not sure though in which wiki project this user makes those changes. I caught them on ruwiki but it seems like most of the changes are made elsewhere. Enwiki is mentioned in diffs, but I don't see those contributions there for some reason; do you know why it shows that way or am I looking at the wrong place? — -kgoodluck- /// ✉️ 17:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wüstenspringmaus — -kgoodluck- /// ✉️ 09:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2003:E1:174E:2FBD:90A7:6457:8206:B7B5

2003:E1:174E:2FBD:90A7:6457:8206:B7B5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Apparently, this IP is disruptively editing porn stars pages. @Blackcat has also reported issues above with other detected IP addresses. Masai giraffe (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KababyZMinsem

KababyZMinsem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: keep adding wrong identifier to wrong person (Q24837095). HanTsî (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HanTsî: You have not attempted to communicate with them before filing this report. Please do so first and re-report them only if they continue being disruptive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] CampaignEvents Extension Now Live on Wikidata - Event Organizer Requests Incoming

The CampaignEvents extension is now live on Wikidata. This allows users with the Event Organizer right to use helpful tools like event registration and invitation lists to make managing events on Wikidata easier. Editors can also view all global events (past, present, and future) on the now available Special:AllEvents page on wikidata, but only events using the registration feature will be listed there. Admins, please expect requests for the Event Organizer right, and note that organizers will likely follow the steps on the Wikidata:Event_Organizers page to apply. Thank you for your support!

cc. @ChristianKl, @Gnoeee - Udehb-WMF (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello admins, could you please help with WD:TN#Translations that aren't translations. Kind regards, Aafi (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by HakanIST and user warnend. Wüstenspringmaus talk 07:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Items usage

Quick question from a newly appointed sysop: we have a policy to protect items used in at least 500 Wikimedia pages. Do we have a tool to evaluate the number of pages in which an item is used?  —Andreitalk 08:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few limitations. See User:MsynABot for an explanation. --Lymantria (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request Q3181238

Hi Admins! Was doing a review of a language spoken in Colombia. The language is named after its own speakers: Uwa However, in the colony, the term used to call this people was: Tunebo (Q3181238). This term is not accepted by the community. This is the official documentation of the national institute in Colombia that is in charge of the recognition, revitalisation and maintenance of languages in Colombia[1]. Can we change the name of the item? Change from Tuneboo to Uwa. [1] https://lenguasyliteraturasnativas.caroycuervo.gov.co/uwa/ INikyta (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silesianus disruptive editing

Despite repeated requests (User talk:Silesianus#Japanese family names) and dozens of reversions over the last year, Silesianus has completely ignored me and continues to disruptively edit Japanese, Chinese and Korean name items, rendering the English descriptions useless. See [1] for an example of what they keep doing. I don't know why they're so fixated on changing these but I want them to stop and talk page messages apparently aren't enough of an incentive. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And still it continues, at a faster pace now since I probably annoyed them for daring to question their edits. I appreciate that descriptions aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things, but to completely ignore a simple request and continuing to disruptively edit for 10 months and counting? Something needs to be done. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silesianus: please explain why you did this action: Special:Diff/2264179353? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unification with other item's descriptions. The "Korean/Chinese/Japanese" is not needed in the description, since combination of label and original form in description is enough for uniquely distinguishing the item. Every "name" item has writing system (Q8192) too. Compare this to names using cyrilic, hebrew or arabic (etc.) scripts without need to use "Russian/Ukrainian/Hebrew/Arabic" (which is a standard on WD) in the description. --Silesianus (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said in January when you ignored me the first time, how is a non-Chinese user going to know that 陶 is a Chinese name without explicitly being told? How is changing "undifferentiated Japanese kana male given name (けんじ)" to "male given name (けんじ)" beneficial to the reader? Why would you continue making these edits when I have already reverted you many times already? —Xezbeth (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and talking of unification, there are currently ~15000 items that use "Japanese family name" as a description. Unlike Cyrillic, a Japanese kanji name is unambiguously Japanese, there's no reason to be vague. But there is a need to distinguish it from a Latin script equivalent of the same name (Tanaka (Q61121245) vs Tanaka (Q12159869)). —Xezbeth (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silesianus will you stop these edits until/unless you have consensus for them? I am very concerned that you did not respond to the post on your talk page, but continued to make these contested changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning 181.66.147.51

181.66.147.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. --Ovruni (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plexci disruptive behavior

User Plexci provokes an edit war in film adaptation (Q1257444). I removed a statement that I consider erroneous and that is not supported by any information from wiki articles or any other sources, but Plexci keeps returning it despite the fact that I asked them to add sources to this statement and provided a link to the rules where this requirement is stated. They refuse to do so and keep reverting my edits without any valid arguments, calling my behaviour destructive. P.S. It's worth saying that at the moment there is a associated discussion about whether films based on a particular media can be called film genres, that I don't think is relevant to this case, for the same reason that film is not film genre, but subclass of film is film genre. In that discussion only they were in favour of posting "film genre", against me and three other people with different opinions, and even there they wrote that this discussion would not affect anything. But still I wait for more opinions there to start making changes there. Solidest (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First let's be said that Solidest removed a statement that was consensus [2]. The same here , here and here. These versions have been stable so far and I asked him to seek a consensus and not to run me or someone else over. But this is what he does now. And it was him calling my behavour disruptive [3] by threatening to report me here, after he waged an edit war to get his way. That's not the way different opinions should be handled. -- Plexci (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I forgot that I also included the main subject film adaptation (Q1257444) in that discussion, which I should not be doing, since the discussion is about its subtypes where I'm still willing to consider options for fitting them into the scheme as genres, but not regarding the general item. My request here remains the same - provide reliable sources for this statement and then it can stay. There is no consensus on not sourcing statements on Wikidata. Solidest (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plexci, Solidest: I have protected one of the involved items. If either of you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. There is no right or Wikipedia:The Wrong Version (Q11756077). I have restored the status quo on the protected item. Since this dispute seems intractable between you two, it's about time you two seek a third opinion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Movies or the project chat.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming by Mibsamkhan1

Mibsamkhan1 (talk • contribs • logs) has over 3,000 edits, all of which appear to be creating a walled garden of family members and the non-notable companies they run. To me it looks like all of it should be deleted as spam. Mibsamkhan (talk • contribs • logs) appears to be their previous account. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems so. Strange that no-one hasn't paid attention earlier. And now, if all his creations are not notable, then deletion can be only one-by-one, mass-deletion is not possible anymore Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Blocked and all created items deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request semi-protection for Q22816861

Please protect Template:Masashi Tashiro (Q22816861). Controversial Alias for living people have been added by IP user. Kokage si (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Semi-protected for 1 month. --Wolverène (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:81.177.127.82

81.177.127.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam, removing deletion requests on Talk:Q130642417 ―Samoasambia ✎ 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 3 days, deleted both the item and its talk page. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=2265012655"