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: #wikidata connect
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 2021/05.

Requests for deletions

high

~183 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.

Questionable deletion[edit]

The administrator Martin Urbanec decided that the data object Q105426831 will be kept. Then there was a renewed request for deletion and the data object was deleted by Mahir256 without an explanation. Do deletion decisions already made here on Wikidata matter? --Gymnicus (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If decisions are overruled, that to me seems an issue between the administrators. This object has been deleted, restored and deleted again. If you state the second deletion was done without explanation, that is not entirely correct. I read "spam / advertising" as deletion reason. Lymantria (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lymantria: The first deletion, which was carried out by Bencemac, was too hasty at the time, and that's why I asked to restore what both he and another administrator found okay, as you can see on the two links [1] and [2]. After restoring and expand the data object by myself, there was another deletion discussion [3] and, as I said, it ended with hold. And now another deletion discussion has been initiated by an IP, whereupon Mahir256 has deleted the data object. Where do you read this reason for deletion? --Gymnicus (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
You can see the deletion reason, by clicking the red link of Q105426831. Lymantria (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Those who have managed to game even VIAF through their self-promotion efforts are the worst kind of spammer. As someone who has spent afternoons cleaning up spam items reported en masse, and in particular who has also deleted previous incarnations of this item, I thus tend to agree with @Quakewoody: that the subject of the item remains not notable even if those who are unaware of the spamming tactics previously employed (such as yourself, Stacy, Ayack, and Martin) manage to somehow perpetuate the promotion through aiding them in their quest for unearned legitimacy by collecting the other identifiers that the item's subject spawned for themselves in one place. Yes, Quakewoody has sometimes accidentally nominated clearly notable things for deletion (which I do not intend to condone here), and yes, some benefit of the doubt must be taken as far as items about some people from some parts of the world in some otherwise SEO-gamable professions are concerned, but this specific item in my view does not warrant treatment under either of these situations. Mahir256 (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Why is he spam? But the thousands of mathematicians and scientists who only have one here in Wikidata a Mathematics Genealogy Project ID (P549) don't? And not much can be found about the person in these individual identifier. In contrast to this, you can describe Ramy Khodeir very well with sources, in contrast to other data objects in request for deletion. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I do not see any serious and independent source in Q105426831, all are or can be (partially) written by the subject themselves, or even say part of the content is "unreviewed". This contrary to Mathematics Genealogy Project ID (P549). I think Mahir256 did the right thing. Lymantria (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In addition to (and perhaps redundant with) what Lymantria noted, it's not like those mathematicians who have MGP IDs are actively promoting themselves across the Internet and collecting all their information in one place to boost their search ranking or something equally sketchy. Remember that the goal of a spammer is to make themselves disproportionately known; what individuals in the MGP are doing, if with respect to that database they may be said to be doing anything at all, is very distinctly not that. Mahir256 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lymantria, Mahir256: Of course, the data in the Mathematics Genealogy Project can also be added by the person described by the entry. I can't say how the transmitted data is checked, but you can't either, can you? In addition, a kind of advertising is also possible for her, namely in the sense of, look when I've already looked after everything and how many I've already helped to get their title. That's advertising too. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: The way it looks, you like to ignore other administrators' decisions to keep. You have also only just deleted the data object Q104815733, which was previously considered relevant in a deletion discussion. That should be mentioned here again, because this deletion is probably also questionable. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: I'm sorry you're having a frustrating time here. I note that you seem to be trying to tackle four very different topics in this discussion: 1) General discussion about deletion process; 2) complaints about the actions of a specific admin; 3) a request that certain items be undeleted; and 4) a proposal that a broad class of items be deleted. If I might offer some advice, this discussion will be more productive if you can decide which of those topics is most important to you, and then focus only on that. For example, if this is a request for undeletion, you ought to explain how the entities in question satisfy our notability criteria. If we assume that these entities are already "clearly identifiable", can you find "serious and publicly available references" that describe the entities? Citing specific URLs that could be added as references would be the most convincing way to do this. I hope this helps. Bovlb (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
For me, points one to three belong together because they led to the deletion in relation to the data object. I would take out the fourth point because I usually have nothing to do with the data objects of scientists. But of course I see it that certain conditions should also be met there so that you can get a data object, and for me that doesn't just include Mathematics Genealogy Project ID (P549). But that's not really the issue here.
Back to the real topic, I still don't see why more identifiers need to be added, and the emphasis on "need" proves that. Several IDs have been linked in the data object. No sources are given for other data objects in the deletion discussion, but they should still be kept. Here Lymantria said: "all are or can be (partially) written by the subject themselves" But as I said in a previous statement, it is the same by Mathematics Genealogy Project ID (P549). But nobody seems to care that it is the same there. In addition, the most important word in the quote from Lymantria is “can”. It could be that he added this data, but it can't be either.
I also see the possibility that he will feel the third point of the relevance criteria. For a long time it could be seen on his IMdB profile that he had acted in the documentary Science Fair (Q65091684). ([4] and [5]) There is thus the possibility of adding the statement Science Fair (Q65091684) cast member (P161) Q105426831 (Ramy Khodeir) / reason for deprecation (P2241) hoax (Q190084) in order to mark this as misinformation. We here in Wikidata should also present misinformation from Internet Movie Database (Q37312) as such and inform the reader about it. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that the Mathematics Genealogy Project is generally believed to be a trustworthy source with minimal risk of spam, advertising or hoaxes. Even the criticism offered on w:en:Mathematics Genealogy Project is just that it’s incomplete. That’s a big difference to so many music-related external identifiers. --Emu (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Emu: “Even the criticism offered on w:en:Mathematics Genealogy Project is just that it’s incomplete.” — I don't quite understand what you're trying to tell us. But there is no criticism paragraph in the German article to the Internet Movie Database either. Is this good for my reasoning or bad for yours? --Gymnicus (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: My point is that there seems to be no evidence that people use the MGP to get into Wikidata. There is a lot of evidence that people create IMDb or similar identifiers to do precisely this. --Emu (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lymantria, Mahir256, Emu, Quakewoody, Bencemac: Ramy Khodeir does not meet notability requirements for Wikidata. He was never in the movie "Science Fair." They had him labeled as a "participant" on IMDb while the rest of correct actors were labeled "Self." [6] They removed him from the Science Fair IMDb. In addition, I can't find anything related in any of Ramy Khodeir's bios nor websites about him being featured in the movie. He is not featured anywhere on the science fair movie website.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dataneter (talk • contribs).
@Dataneter: Thank you for not pinning me and thank you for not signing either, so the discussion was accidentally archived. Now to your actual entry: I cannot see any errors in your entry. The information you are saying is correct. Nevertheless, IMDb managed it, so there must be a source somewhere that led to this error and from my point of view this error should also be displayed in the data object. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Also interesting that someone creates a user account just for this comment. A rogue who thinks bad. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lymantria, Mahir256, Bovlb, Bencemac: After the data object Oliver Smith (Q102205036) has been proven to have a structural benefit ([7]), Ramy Khodeir also believes that it has a structural benefit for Wikipedia. I have already explained this in a previous post and now you can see it using the newly created data object Q106707885 and the expanded data object Science Fair (Q65091684). So I now request that the data object Q105426831 be restored so that I can merge the two data objects. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see any connection whatsoever between the decision in Oliver Smith (Q102205036) and Ramy Khodeir. You can’t use the first decision to argue for or against the second decision. --Emu (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not think so. In the case of the data object Oliver Smith (Q102205036) according to MisterSynergy the relevance comes from its mention as the author (P50) in the data object Youth mental health competencies in regional general practice (Q102205039). It follows logically that for Ramy Khodeir a mention in Science Fair (Q65091684) as a actor creates the same relevance. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Case 1: A person that really is an author of an article in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Case 2: A person that is not an actor in a movie. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we accept this logic, we are encouraging folks to insert faulty data into other databases so that the “correction” of said information makes the person notable in Wikidata? --Emu (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, incorrect information may also be contained here on Wikidata if it is firstly marked as such and secondly can be verified. Both are the case in this case and that's why the relevance then arises for me. Unfortunately, there is no proberty for an actor that can be compared to author name string (P2093). – It is certainly possible that someone could interpret it that way. I can't rule that out. But I don't see any real sense behind such an action. What does a Wikidata object do for you? --Gymnicus (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikidata is seen as an authoritative source of information to a lot of people. So having an item about you or your business does make you seem more legitimate in the eyes of a lot of people. If it were different, we would have less problems with spam and promotional items. --Emu (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikidata has the problem with “advertising” contributions because there are no clear relevance criteria, and the unclear relevance criteria are then applied differently in comparable cases. That is the problem and you can see it right here.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gymnicus (talk • contribs).
@Gymnicus: I'm pretty inclusionist, but I don't think I could argue that a deprecated link satisfies the spirit of criterion #3. Is there really no serious media coverage of this actor or any of their (non-hoax) roles? Bovlb (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
WD:N is unclear in theory, but pretty clear in current practice: For people or organizations, there are basically two alternatives if you want to be notable:
  1. Find a Wikimedia project that is willing to cover you so you can have a sitelink or
  2. find somebody who isn’t yourself, somebody you pay or somebody close to you who writes about you or publishes data about you in a serious way.
That pretty much covers it. Sure, there’s „structural need“ (which in my opinion is more applicable in “conceptual items” rather than items about persons or organizations) but you also need some sort of proof, so in the end most of those cases are covered by #2. --Emu (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Having incorrect information here is only a useful rationale if the information both 1) comes from a seriously regardable independent source and 2) was at one point generally regarded as true but is now generally regarded as incorrect. Unlike PubMed, IMDb most certainly does not satisfy the first point, owing to it being a persistent vehicle for promotion, as @Emu: mentioned in the comment from 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC), where the subjects therein can exert control over their own entries, and even if this wasn't the case there is no evidence that the value was generally regarded as true (no matter what the spammer's view of the claim was—true for promotional reasons only, true due to the spammer's lunacy, or something else completely different—the spammer's point of view cannot be taken alone as the 'general' view). The third notability criterion cannot and should not save this item in such a case absent any recourse to either of the first two criteria, and the current vagueness that seems to be detected and complained about in this discussion should be brought to the talk page of WD:N rather than litigated here. I thus have once again deleted the item, and will consider any attempts to recreate it without the sort of coverage @Bovlb: requests in the comment from 16:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC) as an indication of a connection to the subject himself to be dealt with accordingly (if the statement "Ramy Khodeir also believes that it has a structural benefit for Wikipedia" is meant to imply that you have some actual knowledge of his intentions either by virtue of an actual connection to him or through some serious actual evidence of such intentions). Mahir256 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
For those like me who were confused, it seems that @Mahir256 is referring here to Q106707885, a recreation of deleted item Q105426831 that @Gymnicus made today, while also debating the latter's undeletion here. That seems inappropriate. Bovlb (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
(Squeeze) @Bovlb: Do you mean now my creation of the object or the deletion of the object from Mahir256?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gymnicus (talk • contribs).
@Gymnicus: I was referring to your recreation of a deleted item. It gives the impression that you were trying to do an end run around an undeletion debate that was not going the way you wanted. Bovlb (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: It is certainly possible that this impression was created, I don't think I can deny that. On the other hand, the question would then arise why I continue to discuss here and, above all, why I also mention the data object here in the section, or? If I wanted to avoid this discussion, surely I would not have undone the archiving, but would have simply recreated the data object and would have hoped that you would not notice it, or? --Gymnicus (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

“Having incorrect information here is only a useful rationale if the information both 1) comes from a seriously regardable independent source and 2) was at one point generally regarded as true but is now generally regarded as incorrect.” – @Mahir256: Either your definition is wrong or no one is sticking to it. Just two examples that speak against your definition:

Both statements contain incorrect information or information that has not been proven, which does not meet either of the two points. Especially with the statement about Barack Obama one wonders why this false information is not deleted here when the rules mentioned by Mahir256 apply. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The two examples you cite (which incidentally are not spam unlike the item which is the subject of this discussion) do not by themselves constitute evidence that "no one is sticking to [my definition]", which incidentally do not actually address the first point even if they do the second; I'll let other users who do not defend spammers and their spam speak regarding the (in)applicability of what I stated. Besides this, while I cannot speak to the second example, the first example is in fact oft-reported in sources otherwise considered seriously regardable and independent (noting, appropriately, the falsity of such claims) and (unfortunately) has or had widespread currency within a large fraction of the American electorate, so that the view is or was in fact "generally" held with respect to this very large group (note that the lone spammer here whose item is the subject of this discussion cannot be compared to such a group). Mahir256 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Your reasoning as to why Barack Obama's wrong place of birth meets your definition is incorrect. In your definition you say: “comes from a seriously regardable independent source” – The statement does not meet this point. Because the statement comes from supporters of the Birther movement and from Malik Obama. I would not understand that by reputable and independent sources. Whether the New York Times or the Tagesschau report on it is irrelevant in relation to the definition you mentioned. The statement about the birthplace of Barack Obama does not meet the second point of your definition either. And the false statement about Barack Obama's birthplace can also be described as spam, because Malik Obama is only known through these statements and his proximity to Donald Trump. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
How is this conversation suddenly about Obama? --Emu (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: If you think these Obama-related items should be deleted, please take it to WD:RFD. This is not the right place to raise it. If you want Q105426831 to be undeleted, you should focus on explaining why it meets our notability criteria. I don't believe you are going to get a lot of traction here with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (Q19363258) arguments. I note you haven't answered my question above about media coverage. Bovlb (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Emu: Mahir256 threw in a definition of when faulty or incorrect statements are allowed and when not. Already while reading I noticed that this definition cannot exist at all or that it is not being adhered to. That's why she refuted - in my opinion - with the two examples ([10] and [11]). Based on Mahir256's response, I took me to an off-topic comment. In short, my comment from May 5, 2021 (8:28 p.m.) can be skipped, so to speak, and actually does not belong here. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I don't want to have the data object Malik Obama (Q15982167) deleted. He even has an article in the German-language Wikipedia (Malik Obama). So an application for deletion would be completely nonsensical. So now back to the actual topic and away from the off-topic. I skipped your last media coverage question and a similar previous question. The answer to this is very simple: I do not see it as important in answering the question. Already mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, Martin Urbanec decided to keep it during the deletion discussion. It follows from this that the identifiers contained in the data object were interpreted as sufficient for the fulfillment of the relevance criteria. That's why I don't see any reason to prove new identifiers here. During the deletion, Mahir256 simply ignored the retention decision without prior consultation or exchange with Martin. This shows that Mahir256 is only concerned with his personal campaign of revenge against musicians, actors and freelance artists. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: Those are serious allegations. I don’t believe that you provide any evidence for this accusation. To the contrary: While I do think that the decision of Martin Urbanec wasn’t wrong per se, there are still no independent, non user-generated sources for the item in question. That’s the main problem and that’s not a problem of Mahir256. --Emu (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Mạc Thái Tổ[edit]

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

Last report without resolution: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2020/08#Please_ban_M%E1%BA%A1c_Th%C3%A1i_T%E1%BB%95

Now this folk keeps vandalizing the description of political/historical figures. Since admins here don't know Vietnamese language and are not aware of serious vandalism made by him/her/them, I'd like to tag admins from Vietnamese Wikipedia to confirm this. This folk just deserves indefinite block in all Wikimedia projects.

@Alphama:, @Avia:, @Bluetpp:, @Conbo:, @DHN:, @Hoang Dat:, @Dung005:, @Mxn:, @Prenn:, @P.T.Đ:, @Quenhitran:, @Thái Nhi:, @ThiênĐế98:, @Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy:, @Trungda:, @Tttrung:, @TuanUt:,@Viethavvh:, @Violetbonmua:. Thank you. Greenknight dv (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Greenknight:: When trying to block that user, I received this error message:

"You do not have permission to block this user from editing, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Wikidata staff."

Avia (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Though, I confirm the changes to the descriptions made by that user are so serious that he/she deserves block. Avia (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Greenknight dv, Avia: Thanks for bringing this to our attention and sorry that we did not manage to resolve this earlier. The issue here is that it is very hard for non-Vietnamese speakers to see the details of this problem clearly, which makes it difficult for admins to act. I can run the descriptions through Google Translate, but I am clearly missing a lot of the nuance. I see this user does a lot of editing of Vietnamese descriptions, relatively few of which have been reverted. Does this suggest that most of their edits are acceptable? I also see that there have been few complaints on this user's talk page, and none in Vietnamese. If we were to block this user, I believe we would need to provide a clear explanation of what the problem is, with examples, preferably in a language they understood. CC @Arkanosis, Nghiemtrongdai VN, Alphama, Prahlad balaji Bovlb (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Thanks for your response. Most of their edits on pre-modern figures are not very good. In fact, they are too long for a concise Wikidata description, and I would like to fix all of them if I have time. But anyway, the point is that this user abuses the unawareness and inaction of other users, and keeps vandalizing on more recent, controversial figures. The last report also showed some complaints on the Vietnamese Wikipedia's Facebook group. His vandalizing edits may be not many, but they are seriously harmful, particularly in the context of a very politically polarized Vietnamese language Internet environment where communists and anti-communists are fighting each other so bad. If we continue to ignore this abuse, sure thing this dude is gonna vandalize again, scorning that no one will ever stop him. Please see the old examples in the last report and his recent vandalism at Q192502, Q20025852, Q10788142. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Just to expand those three latest examples with Google Translate to save others the effort:
The first sounds bad. The other two are mysterious to me, and just make me wonder if the translation is off. Could someone please leave them a message in Vietnamese that explains the problem and asks them to respond? Bovlb (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. But I don't think trolls and w:public opinion brigades would like to join the discussion. Btw, that Vietnamese word is a slur, with a strong negative connotation, worse than using nigger toward Africans, or ching chong toward Chinese. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. vi:Ba que is of little help, but I assume this is an explanation of sorts. I'd really love to see them warned really specifically about which of their many edits are problematic and why, but let's consider them warned. No offense intended, but I am reluctant to take administrative action against a user solely on the word of other users when I cannot see the evidence for myself, which is why I have been trying so hard to get more input here from Vietnamese speakers. Bovlb (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Bovlb "Ba que" is a pejorative used to refer to people with connections to South Vietnam or supporters of South Vietnam (a reference to the three horizontal lines in the flag of the Republic of Vietnam). It seems that most of their edits are low-quality, with vandalism thrown in once in a while.DHN (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bovlb. I'm not active here anymore so I probably won't participate. Thanks. Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 01:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this issue should not be closed without a resolution like the last time. If anything is not clear, don't hesitate to ask Vietnamese editors. Thanks. Greenknight dv (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Their editing has been light, but on the basis of Special:Diff/1413246297 I have given them an indefinite block. Bovlb (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Photoshoper97[edit]

Photoshoper97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Many (most?) edits are vandalism, e.g. nonsense social media accounts on Donald Trump, Gérard Depardieu, Fidel CastroChrisahn (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this user's talk page, they appear to be confused about why we want to keep facts (such as social media identifiers) that were once true, but are no longer true. Explanations have been made in English, but they appear to be more comfortable communicating in Russian. In particular, the last item on the talk page is them asking why we would want, "when clicking on old links, we get to non-existent pages.". It does seem as if this user had been making good faith edits, has them reverted, and is unable to understand why. This does not explain or excuse the items linked above, of course, but it would be nice if we could continue the dialog we started with this user. CC @Ymblanter Bovlb (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I replied to them in Russian and added their talk page on my watchlist. However, if they indeed add inexistent social media accounts (basically make them up), then they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I look at Special:Diff/1410869054 and I see a spoof "tramp" account, but the content looks plausible and that vowel shift may be less obvious to someone working outside their preferred language/script. Likewise the Gérard Depardieu (Q106508) links look plausible, except that the Instagram one says "Je ne suis pas Gérard". Special:Diff/1404045079 clearly has posts made long after the subject's death, but maybe it was once offical. I'm not trying to make excuses for sloppy editing but, even if these were deliberate, the cycle of "makes good faith but misguided edits" → "reverted" → "asks for explanation" → "does not receive/understand explanation" → "makes sloppy/incorrect edits to prove a point" is one that we really want to break in a better way than the block hammer. Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The user seems to continue deleting statements from Wikidata. --- Jura 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concering Man77[edit]

Man77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Purely deletion account that does not check whether the object could be relevant. I ask that he be admonished. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. I see that many of their edits have been to delete sitelinks to the "Article Workshop" on German Wikipedia. As a general matter of policy, do we want to have such sitelinks? Bovlb (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
No, we do not want to have these sitelinks. It is sort of a draft namespace in German Wikipedia (they do not have a dedicated draft namespace and move problematic content to "Artikelwerkstatt" where usually nobody ever touches it again). —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: OK, thanks. If that is our policy, then perhaps we should have some technical solution to prevent/remove such links. (I see some small benefit in retaining links to draft articles as it avoids duplication if they later become regular articles, but I also concede they have costs.) @Gymnicus: Can you give specific links for problematic edits? Bovlb (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
It would have been justified if Man77 was notified of this before posting here, he is beyond a newby with almost 14,000 edits. I think the removal of links was correct, but I have rejected quite a few of his nominations at RfD. The subjects of those items were notable despite of not having an article at dewiki. Gymnicus has put quite some effort in repairing, so I understand their frustration. Lymantria (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Lymantria got it right. It's not my concern that he removed the links to the German Wikipedia. My concern is that he simply suggested the data objects for deletion without a relevance check. I don't understand that by helpful collaboration here in Wikidata. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
So Special:Diff/1411005940 is the "problem" here. You don't need to worry about those requests, we get them sorted. No need to "admonish" anyone here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like we're done here then, but I have a few thoughts to offer: As Lymantria says, it's usually worth talking to a user before bringing them here; reports here are much easier to act on if they contain specific diffs; and we have a gap in our process when client projects restore deleted/draftified articles such that we cannot readily restore the corresponding deleted item. Bovlb (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: It is interesting that when I make a request, it is said that you can address the other user first. I learned here on this page that this is not the case. If you just look at the request under my request, you can also see there that the user in question was not contacted by the other user, but there is no indication of the customs there. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: You raise a good point. My personal preference is that we never see a user conduct issue brought here without prior discussion with that user, but I cannot claim that is a hard and fast rule of this page. A more nuanced rule might be that prior discussion is unnecessary if the behaviour in question is so obviously wrong that the user: need not be told it is wrong; could not plausibly have any hidden justification; and is not likely to change given feedback. Vandalism-only accounts meet that test, but it would seldom apply to an established account. My experience (and this is not directed at you) is that editors are not always good judges of what constitutes vandalism. New users often do astoundingly wrong things out of sheer ignorance and are glad to be redirected. Bovlb (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Firstly: Thanks, Lymantria, for sending me a notification.
Secondly: I think that calling me a "purely deletion account" is rather an insult than somewhat close to reality.
Thirdly: My impression so far has been that Wikidata does not long for items that lack any kind of useful information. To be honest, I do not want to spend five minutes per item looking for basic information that should have gathered from the start in order to have this item here, and I am not going to do that in the future, unless I have some level of interest in the topic of the item.
I will certainly continue removing these "workshop area articles" from the sitelinks in Wikidata items, but I hope that a script or some other kind of technical solution can handle this automatically in the future. If Wikidata wishes to retain the then empty shells, so be it. If my deletion requests are considered harmful, I can stop. If somebody wants to fill these empty shells with information, so be it. But I'm not going to be said somebody. This is, with all due respect, not how I want to spend my time. → «« Man77 »» 09:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Review the keep decision[edit]

I had already discussed with Lymantria on the discussion page ([12]). The conversation ended with our disagreement. That's why I would like to ask that another admin take a look at this case. Lymantria decided during the deletion discussion on the data object Oliver Smith (Q102205036) that it will not be deleted. She gives structural reasons for this. I do not see this because there has not yet been another article by this scientist. Thus the structural reasons put forward by Lymantria are all purely hypothetical. In addition, the object does not contain any further information apart from the name, since the ORCID iD (P496) is also empty and does not contain any freely available information. That is why the object does not meet any of the three relevance criteria and in such cases the property author name string (P2093) can also be used. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

And as I argued, changing into author name string (P2093) would mean a loss of the ORCID identifier, which would mean that a second publication by this author would not be recognised as such. That is not structured data keeping. Lymantria (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1: A conversion from author name string (P2093) to author (P50) is only an option if the author is also relevant, and in this case that is not the case. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think in Wikidata, the author is always considered relevant. --- Jura 19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1: Why? As already explained, it does not meet any of the three relevance criteria of Wikidata. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
It's WD:N #3. --- Jura 20:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not think so. The data object Oliver Smith (Q102205036) currently contains four statements:
So you can see that there is no structural benefit. Everything else that Lymantria describes is purely hypothetical and if you keep this object because of purely hypothetical structural use, then you actually have to keep all objects, as they can still get a theoretical structural use. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think I had understood your point of view when responding to your initial question. --- Jura 21:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

problematic import by User:Matlin; request a block[edit]

User:Matlin is running a problematic import batch. I have meanwhile tried to get in contact with them via their user talk page twice, but apparently they are not attending the import. Can someone please block the account until they have stopped it and engage in a discussion? (I have editorial interest here, thus I am considering myself as "involved" and do not do this by myself.) Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy, Matlin: Blocked the user from editing the main namespace for a week. Willing to prolong if the issue is not resolved by then. Mahir256 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
BTW i can't run a query, that adds statements in infinity, I'm not a bot, also blocking me makes me impossible to undo this query, so the reason of blocking me is strange. I am open to discussion, but it's hilarious, when everyone can report to block someone for "problematic" batch. I will see, maybe it is, maybe I am wrong but I can't see it clearly. Matlin (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Since you are now responsive, I see no problems if User:Mahir256 unblocks you immediately. I do assume that you do not continue with the import in question until the discussion is resolved. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I said my boyfriend to turn off the PC with this query xD Matlin (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy, Matlin: Unblocked for now. Mahir256 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:16B8:2A65:6800:604F:906B:DF9A:ACD4[edit]

2001:16B8:2A65:6800:604F:906B:DF9A:ACD4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: intentionally wrong edits in German of Q2301077: [13] and [14] ThT (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Warned for self-revert. Bovlb (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning user: 66.206.35.106, it is same globally blocked user as 193.106.92.212[edit]

user 66.206.35.106 never contributes just like blocked user 193.106.92.212

user 66.206.35.106 is also permanently blocked on: pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/66.206.35.106

requesting global block of user 66.206.35.106, this guy is administrator on en.wikipedia too and is abusing his powers, he never, ever contributes here & elsewhere except reverts good edits!!!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 179.6.47.173 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what to make of this. Reviewing 66.206.35.106's edits, I see them removing crazy-conspiracy-theory spam from talk pages and restoring deleted comments. The PLWP block is a year old and is for "open proxy/Tor". Is this a Ljupco thing? CC @Antandrus, Lymantria, Mediacatcat. Bovlb (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done I cannot make much of the edits either. I stopped some edit warring by semiprotection. But what I do understsand and see is a clear reappearing of the globally blocked IP. Blocked for block evasion until the block of 193.106.92.212 ends. Lymantria (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Q106236053[edit]

Hello Admins, can you please assist in undeleting the following items.

We are tracking them in the Name Suggestion Index project. The items in NSI are generally retail chains, health clinics, transit systems, or other points of interest which are found in OpenStreetMap.

  • Q106236053 Nelson Alexander

Nelson Alexander is an Australia based real estate agent that has been around since 1971. They have 16 offices, which is on the low side for NSI, but I still think it would meet Wikidata's notability requirements.

I will improve the page with references about the company from https://www.zoominfo.com/c/nelson-alexander/74646654

Thanks for your help and for all you do!

--Bhousel (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bhousel: I have restored Nelson Alexander (Q106236053). Please make sure you add substantial references or it may be deleted again in the future. See also Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2021/04/26#Q106236053, CC @Emu, Lymantria. On a related note, would it be useful to somehow flag items at WD:RFD that have a OSM Name Suggestion Index identifier (P8253) identifier, since there is a project dedicated to improving/rescuing them? Bovlb (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Yeah, it might (maybe with a bot). However, the main problem remains that OSM is user-generated data (although frightfully well curated), so items with that property aren’t necessarily notable in Wikidata. But if the project is able to provide additional sources, this would be a good thing – especially since I myself am leaning towards inclusionism in Wikidata. --Emu (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Do you think this is the sort of thing that DeltaBot could take on? Should we compose a bot request? Would we set this up as a mapping from specific identifier properties to specific Wikiprojects? Bovlb (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Good thing @Bovlb:. I have encountered however a couple of items with OSM Name Suggestion Index identifier (P8253) that were at least doubtful. This one I must have underestimated, and if there is improvement, that's only the better. Lymantria (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 07:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandal NEW pages[edit]

There is instance of new pages such as User:Sdkluber LTA spam.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.134.28.112 (talk • contribs) at 15:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

Was deleted --DannyS712 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating Template:Watchlist summary[edit]

Not urgent, but can someone action the edit request there, removing some old RFCs that have since been closed? Vahurzpu (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User Block Request Tanug426[edit]

Tanug426 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotion only account , please check all items created as well Rockpeterson (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. Lymantria (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 07:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Questionable edits by XiaoMing[edit]

User:XiaoMing has made multiple edits recently to User:Wiki13 that look to me like blatant, insulting vandalism. However, since I don't know either party, I humbly request the intervention of an administrator other than User:Wiki13. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no other administrator needed here besides me. The user is a WMF-banned user which is not allowed to edit. I have locked the account in my capacity as steward. --Wiki13 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 07:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please, protect Q1632036[edit]

Hi. Sorry if it's not the right page. I'd like to request the protection of this page since some IPs have been trying to change the name of the bridge. During the conflictive situation at Colombia, a young man died there and there may be a proposal to change it, event they're using to say it's the official new name and include the conflict. The Es wiki page has just had to be protected and I just found they had also (besides here) changed the names at the En and Fr. Thanks for your time. :)--Lost in subtitles (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 14:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:194.140.182.188[edit]

194.140.182.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: vandalism (Pitingo (Q6076972)) on two occasions Emu (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, globally blocked (was also vandalizing eswiki). --Hoo man (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 07:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:117.4.88.239[edit]

117.4.88.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Repeated addition of gibberish after warning. – LiberatorG (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 2 weeks block. Lymantria (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 07:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 2409:4050:E1B:17BD:5098:D9DB:C537:2F95 [edit]

2409:4050:E1B:17BD:5098:D9DB:C537:2F95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotion-only ip . Pl check recent edits Rockpeterson (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I see only one (deleted) edit. Lymantria (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lymantria: 2405:204:1304:b452:cda7:582f:6c27:8d69 this ip created the same item which was created by the above one Rockpeterson (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Deleted, IP blocked for a week. Lymantria (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 08:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:85.192.95.9[edit]

85.192.95.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Persistent vandalism Valdemar2018 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for one week. Bovlb (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+ 01:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection request[edit]

Q1317 is receiving excessive vandalism. Tbhotch (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year and one IP blocked. Bovlb (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Hasley+ 01:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:156.204.53.128[edit]

156.204.53.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Mass blanking and deleting pages and interwiki links, vandalism-only account. Koopinator (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. In my experience, blanking is often not vandalism, just new-user confusion, but there is some clear vandalism mixed in there, so I have blocked for 31 hours. Bovlb (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 08:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Request undeletion of Q106729612[edit]

CEO of Odd Molly, a publicly-traded organization which has a Wikipedia page. She has "serious and publicly available references" references like [15] [16]. The item was deleted despite being linked at Q7077415. I request undeletion as it passes notability criteria 1, 2 and 3. 2405:201:D002:3B6F:A9EF:9A07:AB63:1800 18:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sara Fernstrom (Q106729612) undeleted. The references (which were not present before deletion) are a little thin to support criterion #2 as they do liitle more than confirm her appointment as CEO, but Odd Molly (Q7077415) solidly meets criterion #1, and so this item meets criterion #3. (I wish we had good pithy names for our notability criteria.) Please try to improve the item and find more references. (CC @ Lymantria as deleting admin) Bovlb (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Lymantria (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 08:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Block of GeneDBot[edit]

I have blocked GeneDBot from editing the main namespace for three days for creating about 22,000 duplicate items which my bot account is currently merging (the exact problem that this same bot account addressed back in July 2019, for those wondering about my use of my bot account). I intend to prolong this block absent any indication from the operator (on the talk page of the bot where I reported the problem, for example) that any issues with the bot which may have prompted this mass creation of duplicates have been resolved. Mahir256 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

semi-protection for Charles Perrault (Q128460)[edit]

Charles Perrault (Q128460) has recurring vandalism. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected 6 months. Lymantria (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
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) 08:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Agustín Laje (Q55955766)[edit]

An edition war is being waged. I ask for semi-protection protection for a month. --BartocX (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:220.75.148.159[edit]

220.75.148.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Persistant vandalism at Chelsea Clinton (Q229671). --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Globally blocked. —Hasley+ 19:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:201.172.97.127[edit]

201.172.97.127 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: repeated vandalism @ Bárbara de Regil (Q16298750) Emu (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP only made two edits. I once pointed out her wrongdoing to the IP. Hopefully that will be enough for now. At this point in time, I do not consider a block to be necessary. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The Clandestine Marriage (Q7723256)[edit]

Repeated reverts and bad faith accusations by EncycloPetey related to The Clandestine Marriage (Q7723256). ⚊⚊ DCflyer (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)