Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/02

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Abuse filter(s) for languages

We do have abuse filters for adding a language as description, adding a language as label and adding a language as alias (the latter ones created in the course of this discussion: Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2013/08). They all are built the same way, including a long list of language names, so every time a change is made to this list or the filter itself (as User:Techman224 recently did to repair those filters, which have been broken for a long time, only sporadically catching some edit), three filters have to be changed. Having three different filters would allow us to configure them differently (like forbidding adding languages as labels, while only warning for labels/descriptions), but we don't do that currently. Is there any other reason those are three separate filters? Merging them should be easy, just replace "wbsetdescription" in filter 8 by "wbset(description|label|aliases)". --YMS (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As nobody opposed, I merged all three filters into filter 8 now. I already tested it on test.wikidata.org, seems to be all fine.

As I forgot to ping User:John F. Lewis, the creator of filters 26 and 27, I'll do that now. In case you didn't see this before and have some serious concerns about it, feel free to revert me. --YMS (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw. I was going to say I don't object but forgot. A single filter is actually better for it in my opinion anyway. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This relatively recent example didn't seem to be caught by the original filter. Not sure why. It's the most common culprit. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The filters did not catch the addition of new descriptions until last week. --YMS (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok! It's great that it has now been fixed and is catching them. I also see that Benebot is automatically removing descriptions that are languages. This is good, as I can't think of any time that a description would be solely the word for a language. Del_♉sion23 (talk)

This is great. Keeping all the languages on one filter will prevent some languages being caught on one filter and not the other. Techman224^Talk 00:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

New filter needed

There should be a filter for when people add EN descriptions and labels in non-latin scripts. The vast majority of cases this is a mistake.

Examples in quick search: [1], [2], [3], [4]

Aliases can be in non-latin scripts, so they are fine. Labels are rarely non-latin (e.g. Q16335), and descriptions are never non-latin. I think there needs to be a filter to tag the addition of English labels and descriptions in non-latin scripts, so we can check them. Is this possible? Thank you. 130.88.141.34 14:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would ignore labels and aliases completely, but for descriptions I'm with you. However, single Non-Latin characters may occur (e.g. Greek letters, maybe names that are refered etc.). So I guess the filter should only catch descriptions that don't contain any Latin character at all. Then there's the question to what languages we should apply this. Sure such insertions are most likely for English, as it's the default language. However, some multi-language user well may insert an Arabic text into a German description accidentally, and I often see Englush texts being inserted into Hindi descriptions (though I'm not sure whether Hindi descriptions may allow Latin characters under some circumstances). --YMS (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I now implemented Special:AbuseFilter/33. For now, it only logs (no tagging, no warning, ...). It only inspects descriptions (not labels, aliases) in various Latin-script languages. The logic is like I proposed: Any description not containing any A-Z character will trigger the filter. --YMS (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Will be interesting to see what kind of things this new filter catches. I see that you've already used it to revert an English description being added in Georgian script here. I think it is correct that it only works on descriptions for now. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom

Hello, per m:Global bans, a general requirement of a global bans request for comment is notify all projects where the user subject to the ban has editied. DanielTom is either an active editor or a past editor of this wiki and therefore I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Copied from original post at WD:PC. --Rschen7754 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

New feature on RFD

Hey admins, since there are often items on WD:RFD that still have are linked from other items, I created the tool move links which allows to automatically move all links from one item to another. Now this still requires some steps to add the items to the page so I worked on combining this feature with the rfd bot. The result is that you can simply delete the item on rfd and if the bot can find out with wich item the deleted one has been merged, it moves the links automatically. You can see if the bot can move the pages when the Isn't this item still in use? is followd by a small m linking to the tool's page. If you are interested in this beta feature, you can add your name to the optin page to test the feature. Best regards, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Could this tool be modified to remove links to properties (this would make PFD work easier; properties wouldn't have to be marked "obsolete" for months). --Jakob (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This would rather be a new tool but it's possible. However I'm not sure if statements should be removed when the property is deleted. Maybe we don't want to loose the data? -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's apparently considered frowned-upon not to remove links to properties before deleting them. --Jakob (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

URL in item tag

Is the URL in item filter broken? There seem to be a lot of things being tagged. 130.88.141.34 18:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, will stop and fix it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Now it's broken again, and doesn't catch edits like this one: [5]. What was wrong with it in the first place? I already had reverted your last change before this notification here (sorry for not telling you), but I don't see what your intentions were. --YMS (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@YMS: It also catched some false-positive edits like [6] (log). I wanted to prevent this but it seems I will probably need someone's (maybe your) help. (I have got an idea: to use count x > y). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look on it later today. --YMS (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge Q6293548 to Q20582

For keeping the lowest Qid, probably Q20582 should be restored and Q6293548 should be deleted. see Wikidata:Requests for comment/Interwiki links for special pages.--GZWDer (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, these contents are on item Q6293548 since March 2013 now, which is almost a year (with minor interruptions, as it had been deleted and restored twice), as opposed to the three months Q20582 existed. While there may be occasions where it's reasonable to keep the lower item on a merge (or maybe even restore a recently deleted item and delete a newly created one instead) to preserve (possibly external) links, I don't think we should move items just in order to follow some "keep the lower ID" rule. If there are any references to our Recent-changes-item, they most likely link to Q6293548. --YMS (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of items to be restored

Per notability change, these items should be restored if:

1. It doesn't link to /doc, /sandbox, /testcases or /TemplateData subpages.
2. It doesn't have only one sitelink to a subpage of a template.
3. Portal subpages are still non-notable.

If sitelinks are used in other items, please merge these two item.

---

and 4000 items in [7]. --GZWDer (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please hold off on this until an uninvolved admin has an opportunity to review the close, per thread below. --Rschen7754 06:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dcirovicbot (talk • contribs • logs)

is probably an unapproved bot running by Dcirovic (talk • contribs • logs). see Special:CentralAuth/Dcirovicbot.--GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Dcirovic: see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Dcirovicbot. Please don't make more edits before it's approved.--GZWDer (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will stop data entry. Please feel free to comment my request for bot permissions. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. --Dcirovic (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

KrattBot1 (talk • contribs • logs)

is an unapproved bot and evasion of block.--GZWDer (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I warned the operator of the bot. Please in future also write something on his/her talk page instead of only notifying the admins here. Best regards, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 12:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the second account and blocked further account creation. It is absolutely inappropriate for the user to use a new account to avoid the block. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Fusion interwikis request

Sorry, I don't speak English (only portuguese).

See, please, this case:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6506788#sitelinks-wikipedia and
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1999070#sitelinks-wikipedia

Thanks, André Koehne (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Merged, thanks Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Block request

Please consider blocking 5.150.100.61 (talk • contribs • logs) or semiprotecting articles he is editing (PC1 would be best). He is not only vandalizing, but also violating personality rights. |FDMS 15:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked and hid some revisions. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 15:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why am blocked?

I am editor of Wikidata since march 2 2013 with some thousands edits. Now I am editing the MEP-s as part the "Wikipedians in European Parliament" project, but without any warning my edit right is blocked, I could not upload the properties? Why? --Texaner (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Which item is the one you are having difficulties with? --Rschen7754 19:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was adding the lacking Statements to the MEPs Wikidata records. It was working well up today, but now I can only read this records! --Texaner (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Texaner: perhaps the IP you're editing from has been blocked? In that case, you can request IP-blocked exempt. --Jakob (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's that, because then you wouldn't be able to edit this page... --Rschen7754 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you edit other items? Can you make a screenshot of the page please? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is the screen shot: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-%C3%81d%C3%A1m_K%C3%B3sa_-_Wikidata_-_Mozilla_Firefox.png . Every wikidata pages are in "only read" status! See up right! --Texaner (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

They are greyed out until you actually make a change. Point your cursor into one of those text fields and type your edit. If you were blocked, the blue edit links would also be greyed out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I could make changes, but I could not upload new properties(statements). This is my problem.--Texaner (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Are the "add" buttons below the statements grayed out? Or not there at all? If this is the problem, could you post a screenshot of the relevant area? I don't see what in the top right of your screenshot you're referring to, everything visible there seems to look as it should. --Yair rand (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam Revdel

I revision deleted spam on this edit. However I'm been getting reaction against this on IRC, so I posting it here and I'm going to revert so that the community can decide. The reason I rev deleted was because the edit contained a website, which I considered spam. Since there is no policy on revdel (or deletion for that matter), I decided to rev delete the edit, just like I would I done if it was created on a regular page. Could we clarify this? Techman224^Talk 07:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Basically we need to create a revdelete policy (it's funny how we have an oversight policy but no revisiondelete, or even a deletion policy). For transparency purposes I was the one who disputed the action on IRC on the grounds that that was not a valid reason to revdelete.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We do have one: Wikidata:Deletion policy; while it is "proposed", it was decided upon in one of our earliest RFCs. I personally do not think we should be using revdel for this purpose: we should not be hiding material unless absolutely necessary, with either revdel or suppression, because the community cannot review the material that was hidden. --Rschen7754 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes; to be clear I meant a policy that was ratified. One also has to wonder how we are going to fix our broken RfC system so it could be truly ratified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The same thing can be said with regular page deletion. Techman224^Talk 07:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes to a policy, no to the revision deletion. Spam like that is not really worth revdelling, I mean we leave worse vandalism than that visible which may have BLP repercussions. John F. Lewis (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• I redision deleted similar edits in the Russian Wikivoyage, since the site being promoted is an attack site, which distributes incorrect information (basically personal attacks) about Wikipedia users (including myself) and, what is much worse, logs in IPs and user agents of all visitors.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • .... crud. On those grounds (linking to a harassment site) I've gone ahead and reinstated the revdel, after browsing through the content on my VPS. --Rschen7754 20:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Still, that's a revdelete for vandalism/attack, not spam. We need an RfC on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Why do you think we need an RfC on this? Do you disagree with the application of WD:UCS in this case and think the revdel should be undone (and similar revdels in the future should be prevented by a pontential new policy decided in this RfC)? Vogone talk 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
        • If it was just some non-Wikimedia-related spam, it would not be revdeleted. UCS clearly failed to produce a consistent result among administrators, and that's where policies step in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I do not see any admin opposing this action after the intention was explained further, or did I miss something? -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 20:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
            • If it were not ultimately vandalism/attack, I'd have opposed it and I did so initially. There are other cases of revdelete use that weren't exactly using valid reasons, but I'm not about to go searching for them. I find UCS to be an insufficient safeguard against misuse of this tool.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
              • What I think Jasper Deng is getting at is that he thinks revision deletion should only be used in certain situations, while I think revdel just complements regular deletion. Techman224^Talk 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
                • As I've said elsewhere, that is a very liberal interpretation of revdel. That is a tool that obscures the page history of pages that we intend to remain live, and because on Wikimedia we value transparency, the tool (and of course OS) should be used sparingly. --Rschen7754 21:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • I oppose using revdel on spam. My understanding is that it's only used to hide such content as copyvio and libel (which are illegal), not spam (which is legal, even though it's obnoxious). --Jakob (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's also used for hiding gross vandalism/attacks, which might be legal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

True. --Jakob (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• So here's what I get out of this discussion. In general we don't revdel spam, unless the content is gross vandalism/spam or links to an attack website such as this. I think that pretty much sums up this discussion. Techman224^Talk 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorting request: Police

Is there an administrator around who can help me sort a few things out? Specifically, how to resolve the differences between several Commons categories "Category:Police" @ Q6494145, "Category:Law enforcement" (according to enwiki) @ Q6163581, and "Category:Forensic science" (according to translations of Q6494145 entries) @ Q7481111. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Forensic science should definitely remain separate from Category:Police and Category:Law enforcement. They seem like two different things to me. --Jakob (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

They are, but the current setup is such that, if you take a look at Q7481111 it will be "Category:Forensic science" in English, but Q6494145 also has several entries for sitelinks translating roughly into "Category:Forensics". Also because a) the associated Commons category at commons:Category:Cops was recently redirected to commons:Category:Police officers, and b) the associated English Wikipedia category at en:Category:Police was redirected to en:Category:Law enforcement, leading to the ensuing confusion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WD:PFD#taxonomic rank properties

Hi there! Just a brief question: is this discussion definitively closed as it seems to be? If so, can anyone please mark it with {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} giving an explanation of the closure? Thanks in advance, — TintoMeches, 13:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Jakob (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! — TintoMeches, 15:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete template at RfD

Is there a reason why pages tagged with {{Delete}} caught by this tag are not showing up at the top section at WD:RfD? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess it is because the categories are now "subcategories" of Category:Wikidata:Deletion and thus are not visible through {{#categorytree}}. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There did not seem to be a dedicated RFD discussion process here on Wikidata, and it seems most of the deletion decisions here are done ad hoc by the administrators, on the fly. So I had to use the {{Delete}} tag to draw their attention. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Property:P273 and Property:P75

are orphaned and can be deleted.--GZWDer (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks. --ValterVB (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! is Wikidata:Requests for comment broken?

Hi! are there "orphaned" requests at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikidata:Requests for comment? The instructions at Wikidata:Requests for comment are misleading. Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Tool1235

Vandalism, please block this user. Difflink--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but IMO it's a bit too late for a block. Also, he/she didn't even receive a warning... — TintoMeches, 16:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TintoMeches here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I sent him/her a warning. We may consider further actions if the user continues adding vandalism. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Block request

178.85.152.107 (talk • contribs • logs) has in my eyes made a bit too many ((to be) reverted) removals ... |FDMS 23:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Gave it a 31 hour block. --Izno (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Interwiki links for special pages

Could an uninvolved admin review the closure of the above RFC? The result is ill-defined, and upon having discovered that GZWDer voted in this RFC, I think the close was improper. --Rschen7754 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ditto for Wikidata:Requests for comment/Interwiki links for subpages. --Rschen7754 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have reverted both, per Rschen. Both were inappropriate because User:GZWDer commented on both, and was the initiator of the latter RfC. Also, these both need more comment to form a stronger consensus and I'd suggest that these RfCs be completely relisted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's my proposed outcome:

Some of them have strong consensus. Others which marked as ?? (or ??? when I think there're no consensus), should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin, or be relisted or reconsidered (especially those marked as ???).--GZWDer (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already taken the action of extending these RfCs in their entirety. Again, since you are not uninvolved, you should not be involved in closing these RfCs (and I would caution you from doing any such closes in the future).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, please collapse all large tables or lists on this page. Secondly, I think you're missing the point - see Jasper's comment above. --Rschen7754 08:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I won't close any RfCs if I have voted there. Any uninvolved admin are welcome to review.--GZWDer (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reclosed the RfC. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Funnily you are even less uninvolved in that RFC than GZWDer was as your participation in this discussion shows. It seems like your and my action caused the whole thing, so we should probably be the last users to close it. Furthermore, I don't understand what you mean by "passed proposal" regarding "Special:RecentChanges" as there was never consensus in favour of implementing it, neither back then nor now. It only seems to be an attempt to "justify" your revert of my action and that's, as I already explained, probably the reason why you shouldn't have closed this either. Vogone talk 20:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You know, there are some admins who aren't involved (cough). Maybe you should be suggesting admins as well as criticizing his action.... --Izno (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make a decision look influenced and thus I abstain from recommending any admin for closure (as I consider myself clearly involved). Furthermore, I don't think this has any urgence and sooner or later an uninvolved admin would probably have closed it, anyway. Vogone talk 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You could have walked down the list of admins and said "which have a good mastery of English" and just listed them, or even pinged them... (@John F. Lewis: You too. Why did you think you were an appropriate closer in this situation?). --Izno (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because to my knowledge I was not involved until I think Rschen pointed out I made the undeletion. Even then, I don't believe I can be classed as being involved if I revert an action because it was not based on policy. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You were involved from the point where you stated an opinion about whether the item should be deleted or not, regardless of whether the deletion itself was in or out of policy... Comments like "Plus this deletion has a significant impact on all wikis hosted by Wikimedia and enabled with the Wikibase client." especially. Quite frankly though, there are enough admins around that you could have poked one of the ones who was explicitly not involved in any way to ask to close the request. --Izno (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Any update?--GZWDer (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The subpages RFC has been closed. --Jakob (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we are still waiting for John F. Lewis to admit a mistake and to revert his RFC closure (or for one of these users who reverted you for the same reasoning). Vogone talk 20:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vogone: So why not just revert the closure and let someone uninvolved close it? --Jakob (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm involved and thus will not undertake any action. Vogone talk 22:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I admitted I made a mistake. I also stated I did not 'know' I was involved until I was reminded on IRC about 2 hours after I closed it so... revert if you want. I'm not going to do because all I see is a user (sorry, admin) who disagrees with the outcome and wants to try and 'win' it back by forcing someone to reclose it. If someone disagrees with the closure itself, feel free. If someone has a serious 'life or death' issue with me closing it, hey feel free again to revert. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't find any admission by you on this page but rather the opposite ("I don't believe I can be classed as being involved"). Vogone talk 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Accayip & P24513436

What are these users doing here? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks.  Hazard SJ  22:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dedi irawan.s

is using his user page and his talk page to promote his own App. They have also created User:Walls Apps, a non-existant user. Has also tried to promote his App on ITC Roxy Mas, but reversed this themselves. Please investigate and take action if needed. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

All deleted and user blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please restore Q6242015

And merge Q15780590 to it.--GZWDer (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

First attempt failed since the sitelinks are duplicates of those in Q157... --- Lavallen (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Had to delete Q157... first. No statements, no labels or aliases so nothing is missing. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

ViktorPedorovich (talk • contribs • logs) done a vandalism in Viktor Yanukovych's page. I have set back this vandalism. --Sphenodon (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Vogone. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

000

Check out how many items we have with the English label "000" and "empty000". I think one of our editors thinks this is how to request deletion? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen "merged Q#####", see [8]. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a bunch of ways that people use to request deletion. I think something needs to be done differently - linking to WD:RFD on every page perhaps? Some JS that allows for easy deletions? This will be largely unneeded once merging of items is done by redirecting one to the other instead of moving all the info over and deleting the old one. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I know that some users (even good ones) have been warned many times but it seems to me they keep on doing what they want... — TintoMeches, 17:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote some users where I should have said Makki98. — TintoMeches, 17:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

True, I'm not sure what more we can do than request at their talk page but it doesn't seem to make a difference. I'm currently cleaning up loads of items that have "merged Q####" as their label.... most are from 80.29.25.39. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I found difficulty understand/working with the way indicated in my talk page. I have no experience in working with .js files here. Until I figure that out I will continue working the way I know. The other option will be not to merge at all. RegardsMakki98 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Makki98. You do not need to use .js. Simply go to "Preferences". Then "Gadgets". Tick "Merge" under Wikidata-centric. Then click "save" at the bottom. This will then give you a simple merge tool at the top of every item in the drop-down menu next to the star. When you use this to merge an item just leave "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" ticked and it will automatically send the request to RfD for us admins to deal with. Hope this helps. If you need any more instructions please ask. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That works well. Makki98 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I just queried the database, the only items with English label "000" are Q2272740 and Q2806478 (both valid), and there are none with "empty000". However, I searched for "empty" and found 9 pages to be deleted, coincidentally by Makki98.  Hazard SJ  22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I found all pages marked with "EMPTY". Don't worry Makki, I'm glad you learned how to manage the merging tool! That's the most important thing. :-) — TintoMeches, 23:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I located and deleted all the items with "000" and "empty000" as a label. Glad you now know how to use the merge tool, it is easier for both you and us admins. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot editing logged out

User:10.4.1.65 is a bot that is editing logged out. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 00:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be User:Bene*'s bot [9]. --Rschen7754 00:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I normally block logged out bots (at least, the IP they're editing from), regardless of who's bot they are. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, that is my fault. But why didn't you block it? I strongly recommend to block bots if they edit while being logged out. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 05:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Normally yes, but I'm afraid that we today cannot manage RfD without Bene*'s bot, logged in or not. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't the RFD function, though I don't remember if it is on the same account or not. --Rschen7754 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I generally don't like to block bots so long as they are still performing their task correctly, even if they manage to get logged out. The contributions are still beneficial, even if they are filling up the recent changes for a bit at a time. But, if others think that blocking the bot would somehow prevent abuse per the blocking guideline, go for it. Just please don't use autoblock :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Q781387

Страница подвергается воздействию русскоязычных вандалов: 94.233.131.52, 109.169.192.132. Dm121 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's happened a long time ago. No need to do any actions. --Stryn (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Isn't this possibly a privacy related issue calling a specific girl a whore (Шлюха)? I'd opt for oversighting these revisions. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. It's vandalism, right, but it's not any specific person, they are just given name articles, so nobody can identify any persons. --Stryn (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Techman224 (talk • contribs • logs)

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 61893

This user created a lot of items and properties with no label:

1. Property:P1175
2. Property:P1176
3. Property:P1177
4. Q15818089
5. Q15818090
6. Q15818091
7. Q15818092
8. Q15818093
9. Q15818094
10. Q15818095
11. Q15818096

I don't know what they mean. Other admins please deal with them.--GZWDer (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly didn't personally create those items, my account might have been compromised. I've changed my password and logged out. Snowolf should be doing a checkuser in a few minutes. Techman224^Talk 05:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I deleted all the items, Snowolf is looking into it now. Techman224^Talk 05:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Snowolf hasn't found any suspicious ips. I don't see how this is possible, you can't create empty items in Special:CreateItem or Special:NewProperty. Techman224^Talk 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello all. The account does not appear to be compromised and the situation seems similar to the one discussed at User talk:S Page (WMF)#.22My.22_contribs (thanks Rschen7754 for that). Was it ever figured out what happened there? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Snowolf:. Does the User agent tell anything about what have happend? -- Lavallen (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the ping. I cannot disclose UA information but when I stated that it does not appeared to be compromised I relied on UA information as well. Thankfully the actual bug has been located since. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please report a bug.--GZWDer (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

bugzilla:61893 --Rschen7754 06:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

From the bug. We have just reproduced it :)

The issue is that test2.wikipedia.org has wikidata.org specified as its wikibase Repo.

When running the qunit tests on test2.wikipedia.org the calls to the api during these wikibase tests create these items! ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I just suggested to create a testwikidata client...--GZWDer (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a test repo does exist - here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam bot account?

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 61987

Just noticed this new account User:HildredAmb. Looks like it could be an automated sign-up by a spam bot. Danrok (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the user page and blocked the account as an promotion only account. Not sure if it's a spambot yet. Strange that when I blocked him, it always wants to put "Removing content from pages:" at the beginning. Techman224^Talk 06:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I saw something slightly related to this problem (MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown). --Stryn (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hardly an egregious spammer. If you ask me, deleting his userpage would've been enough, unless he did more spamming. --Jakob (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's clearly a spambot. While it's not exact the same scheme of the typical "Nothing to say about me really" spam we get here several times everyday, it resembles it closely, you'll find thousands of spam postings of that very scheme when just googleing the introduction sentence "Let me first begin by introducing too". So the block was totally justified, even if it won't have much effect (spambots usually make a single posting only, in order to avoid being detected with their second one while the first would have survived unnoticed). --YMS (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. --Jakob (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Reusing empty items

Isn't our policy not to do this? Only I've found quite a few examples that look like this is happening here by User:Dɐ. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We always have had (when we have had rules) a policy to not allow to reuse items. I notified the user. --Stryn (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought so. Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I corrected some of those items which were edited by User:Dɐ. I also made a list of items which still needs fixing (make a new item for these and then delete the item):

• Q1323627 (replace into Q15838894)
• Q1323578 (replace into Q15838898)
• Q1263613 (replace into Q15838899)
• Q56632 (replace into Q15838901)
• Q1290263 (replace into Q15838905-subtemplate does not meet WD:N)
• Q1076429 (replace into Q15838908)
• Q1289954 (replaced)
• Q482049 (replace into Q15838911-subtemplate does not meet WD:N)
• Q4586632 (replace into Q15838913)
• Q4585743 (replace into Q15838916)
• Q1289793 (replace into Q15838917)
• Q1292856 (replace into Q15838921)
• Q1290481 (replaced)
• Q1290515 (replace into Q15838920)
• Q4505277 (replace into Q15838922)
• Q1290737 (replace into Q15838923)
• Q1290787 (replace into Q15838925)
• Q1287935 (replace into Q15838927)
• Q1287647 (replace into Q15838929)
• Q1287638 (replace into Q15838931)
• Q1287611 (replace into Q15838932)
• Q306537 (replace into Q15838933)
• Q1287569 (replace into Q15838934)
• Q1260207 (replace into Q15838935)
• Q1016104 (replace into Q15838937)
• Q15730512 (replace into Q15838938)
• Q15714770 (replace into Q15838940)
• Q15714853 (replace into Q15838942)
• Q15730477 (replace into Q15838944)
• Q15729969 (replace into Q15838947)
• Q15730897 (replace into Q15838949)
• Q15730901 (replace into Q15838950)
• Q15732412 (replace into Q15838951)
• Q15216821 (replace into Q15839246)
• Q15217199 (replace into Q15839249)
• Q15220774 (replace into Q15839250)
• Q15223541 (replace into Q15839245)
• Q14851841 (replace into Q15839369)
• Q14912915 (replace into Q15839371)
• Q14912866 (replace into Q15839372)
• Q15020866 (replace into Q15839374)
• Q14974012 (replace into Q15839375)
• Q14979841 (replaced)
• Q15318621 (replaced)
• Q15722549 (replaced)
• Q15722627 (replaced)
• Q15722648 (replaced)

If someone has time/patience to fix those it would be appreciated. --Stryn (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For this point, How we care about these items? We need to create new item and replace these?--DangSunM (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

1) make a new item

2) move all content from the old item to the new item

3) delete the old item as "merged to" the item where it's first merged --Stryn (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Some doing...--DangSunM (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys! I know that we should have some easier and faster way to do this, but we don't :/ --Stryn (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done All replaced by Jakec(last 4 items), styrn (Q14979841) and myself (all exapt last 5 items).--DangSunM (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)