Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:AN)
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 2024/06.

Requests for deletions

high

~182 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.

Unblock request for TheBellaTwins1445

[edit]

I invite wider review of the unblock request at User talk:TheBellaTwins1445. We've been awaiting a response from @Jasper Deng, the blocking admin, but they seem to be taking a wikibreak. Bovlb (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a checkuser block so only checkusers are allowed to handle it. Their Commons user talk page paint a picture of someone who years ago repeatedly disregarded rules, blatantly lied in their unblock request and evaded their block. Didn't dig that deep into the sock drawer, but they have lots of contributions on spanish wikipedia and also a clean block log there. I noticed a comment from Madamebiblio on their spanish user talk page 27 Jan 2024 about them editing Wikidata as an IP-user whilst blocked here. The timing of the Wikidata unblock request relative to this comment seems, shall we say convenient. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The block reason does not explicitly state that it was a checkuser block. I am unable to find it right now, but I seem to recall a discussion a few months ago where Jasper Deng specifically stated that we should not consider their blocks to be checkuser blocks unless they explicitly say so.
That's useful background information, and I'm certainly not entirely convinced myself, but I'd entertain an unblock in this case per en:WP:ROPE. Bovlb (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm familiar with the user's work on eswiki and consider them to be productive there. IIRC, the unblock request came about because they asked for assistance with a Commons picture (to be used in an eswiki article they were working on), and the responding admin suggested they appeal their blocks instead. I would be inclined to unblock per ROPE as well. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original block reason on Wikidata was for replacing images with their own work using several accounts. Seems reasonable they should be given a second chance, since issues were localized to Commons or Commons-related. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's an user who historically used sockpuppet accounts and has evaded his block until this year on different projects (See 1 and 2). On Wikidata he continued to edit from IPs until after my January message. I can make an infinite list of IPs used here.
His editing behavior: he tries to impose his editions, generates edit wars and has a lots of warnings from ESwiki administrators.
In particular, I still don't trust him enough. Madamebiblio (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, this is not a CheckUser block. CheckUser blocks are always marked explicitly as such. Therefore, any admin can review it. However, given Madamebiblio's comment, I am not in support of an unblock without explicit concrete examples of constructive contributions they wish to make (their existing comment is too vague, and conflates "articles" with items and properties).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One week passed after application. Application rejected by me Estopedist1 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems premature, given that discussion here is ongoing and does not clearly show a consensus in that direction. Bovlb (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to concur, the request had been open for a week but discussion here had only been going on for 3 days. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bovlb@FlyingAce: if an user in question has used over 20 alternative accounts (see Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of TheBellaTwins1445), then I don't think there is much to discuss Estopedist1 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Estopedist1: if we are going to take into account their status in other projects, then I think we ought to consider that they are a user in good standing on the Spanish Wikipedia. More to the point, is there evidence of recent socking? I see that they were warned regarding logged out editing earlier this year, so that is a point against unblocking now, but I don't think it is fair to state that an unblock will never be possible in the future. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in general, such kind of human types do not change, but given the huge contributions in eswiki (besides a lot of discussion also in eswiki at his talk page) I am open to withdraw one's unblocking refusal and to apply en:WP:ROPE Estopedist1 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to wait to unblock him (if he doesn't end up blocked on ESwiki next time: last messages on ESwiki talk page are warnings from admin and he's already blocked in two other projects). Will any sysop going to be responsible for monitoring his activity on Wikidata? One possibility is to invite him to request a new unblock in the course of the next six months: if his record is clean he'll be unblocked. Madamebiblio (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not propagate unblocking. User has had many sockpuppet accounts on various Wikimedia projects. Many of the socks, for instance among the ones mentioned at Commons, have made edits here, while their socking here remained unnoticed. In view of that, their user talk page message does not really convince me. I would expect them to reveal all socks they have used, in order that those can be blocked here, also ones that escaped our attention. That might yield some trust in seriousness of their future behaviour. --Lymantria (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds good to me. I now think it's best to not unblock now, but the possibility of a future appeal should be left open; however, any future request should address the sockpuppetry. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question we have to answer is: Is this block necessary to prevent disruption to the project? I don't mean to encourage socking, but I don't think this block is really preventing them from contributing here; instead it's preventing them from contributing in an honest and straightforward way. Keeping the block will not prevent socking; it might even encourage it. If we unblock, and it results in disruption, then that will resolve the question simply and clearly. We can block, revert, and move on.
    Regarding the two recent admins warnings on ESWP, at least one seems to be concerned with them asking others to help them make presumably constructive edits to Wikidata on their behalf. This is a violation of policy, but one that wouldn't exist if we lifted this block. Bovlb (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been people blocked for a good reason before who made useful contributions. If you go looking for reasons to keep them blocked I'm sure you will find them. Fortunately the ROPE philosophy doesn't require trust, it simply asks if the possibility exists that the user in question can become a rule-abiding contributor. Rather than a lengthy unblock ordeal it rests on the user to prove that they belong. For the kind of users this is applied to it should be evident soon enough. I'm kind of ambivalent but I do think this is a ROPE candidate. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion seems to have petered out, and there's not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, so in an effort to reach a concrete resolution, let's try a !vote.
✓ Unblock per ROPE and evidence of constructive editing on Spanish Wikipedia. Bovlb (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. After some consideration, I am leaning towards an ✓ unblock since the recent logged-out editing was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, but rather to fix issues arising from their regular editing on eswiki. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock and monitor, happy to give a second chance here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral: I as a blocker. I am out of this discussion, unable to analyze Spanish-language edits--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose: edits on ESwiki affect only that project, what happens on Wikidata affects all Wikipedias and this project. Linking articles and completing the infobox can be done locally on ESwiki; on ESwiki he hoards articles and imposes edits. On Wikidata: for one year he edited with impunity via IPs while blocked until I publicly unmasked him (he ignored reversals and edit messages). And continues to be blocked (without unblocking request) on Commons and ENwiki. Madamebiblio (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Not convinced, I've not seen enough reflection on use of socks. I am not a fan of ROPE in this project. A sock alongside neat behavior of the released master account can very easily exist here without being noted. --Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2001:448A:50E1::/48

[edit]

2001:448A:50E1::/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Same as 2001:448A:50E0::/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). ―Kokage si (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but does anyone know is it possible to see concrete IP edits, so these can be patrolled as well? We cannot patrol edits given via IP-range Estopedist1 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Q15967616

[edit]

Excessive spam. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 3 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour by User:‎Poig97

[edit]

The user mentioned above not only evades discussion by blanking the talk page but also tries to intimidate me by calling me "a pest (آفت) of Wikimedia Projects who manifests prejudices (اغراض) and diseases (امراض)... and threatening to give me "a lifetime of regret" (یک عمر حسرت). I tried to solve the dispute by adding reliable references in my edits and asking them to explain the reason for removal but this was what I saw. HeminKurdistan (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this guy have personal problem with this Q28149908 and his edits are counterproductive about 2 years. recently I report this issue but he continue to sabotage this page and other page about Q28149908. probobly he taking a bribe to sabotage this page for some political contests with false information and resoure. so please banned this user to could not sabotage this page. earlier edits are https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q28149908&diff=prev&oldid=2108045736 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q28149908&diff=1709517539&oldid=1666564308 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q28149908&diff=2083986055&oldid=2050423732 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q124694737&diff=2172129602&oldid=2137013232 and others. Poig97 (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"taking a bribe to sabotage this page"? This is the third time you are violating Wikidata:No personal attacks. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P12778

[edit]

Please delete Norwegian prisoner of war camp ID (P12778) as author's request, its duplicate of Norwegian war prisoner detention camp ID (P11576), we also had a discussion here. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 08:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct venue for this proposed deletion is Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P12778. Bovlb (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:141.91.210.125

[edit]

141.91.210.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism also IP 141.91.210.30 ―Nobody (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should just block the range 141.91.210.0/25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Wüstenspringmaus talk 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Dataport ist der Informations- und Kommunikationsdienstleister der öffentlichen Verwaltung für die vier Bundesländer Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Bremen und Sachsen-Anhalt[3] sowie für die Steuerverwaltungen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Niedersachsen. Must have been a bring your kid to work day. -.-; Blocking 141.91.210.0/25 for 2 weeks based on frequency of vandalism. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:34, 6 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) 12:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Reinheitsgebot

[edit]

Reinheitsgebot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: please check correctness of mass adding some Polish site as "discribed at URL", which often has empty content. ―Mykhal (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be stopped, often also makes error, a.g. adds Zuck band to Mr. Zuckerberg, or some Timur rapper or what to Timur conqueror of 14th century, … —Mykhal (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked with @Magnus Manske: who runs the bot? I have blocked the bot for one hour.--Lymantria (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnus Manske: This batch obviously have significant quality issues as clearly demonstrated by mr. Mykhal. Can you please revert it in its entirety? Thank you. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for Q1929688

[edit]

Please semi-protect Q1929688. Reason: Excessive vandalism XReport --Wüstenspringmaus talk 12:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Semi-protected for 1 week.--S8321414 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:123.16.239.190

[edit]

123.16.239.190 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism ―Sugar2024 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=2173600367"