Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2016/11

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

Block request

Can you please block the vandal User:DataMcArda2156 and the sockpuppet, User:Emir of Wikidata. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Globally locked. Do you know why this user is impersonating you, someone whose account is only 3 months old? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that I don't know. I primarily edit on the English Wikipedia, with a few edits here and on Commons. I looked the at the Global account information for both and they've only edited here. I however I theorise that it could perhaps someone who has conflicted with me on the English Wikipedia, 94.207.182.106 (talk). They state their birth name is Arda Kara and the word Arda is in the username. Perhaps they created their other account as I reverted their edits on the original account. Wikidata logs suggest that they created the second account. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
They are active on more wikis than that I'm afraid. I locked about 12 sockpuppets of theirs earlier today, which combined were active on four wikis. Thanks for some of the background though, maybe that is the reason. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned this conversation at their userpage on the English Wikipedia, so hopefully if anyone who is watching that page has any information they'll be able to help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixing your archives, substituting labels

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T98052

Would an administrator please go back and fix the labels at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2016/Properties/1 as the deletions have removed all the data, and the conversations become pretty well useless to the general community as a record without these labels. It has been asked at Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions for this to occur and it seems reasonable, though not done.

To also note that when we have WD:RFD listed at Special:Watchlist it highlights the issue when you cannot step through to the pertinent discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Q17091275

Q17091275 is a Good Article in the English Wikipedia, but the badge has not been added yet. Can someone do it? Thank you so much. --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much . --Paparazzzi (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please block User:EloBot

Per discussion at Property_talk:P1087, the operator insists on adding ratings for which there is no consensus and doesn't plan or prepare for fixing it. Please block it until this is sorted out. @Wesalius:.
--- Jura 08:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully anyone before blocking my bot will get familiar with the case, which is being build on Jura's personal opinion on which ratings should and which shouldn't be added to wd. Also the fact that I am not preparing for fixing anything is solely because there is nothing to fix now. --Wesalius (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
FIDE published those ratings, so there is no hard reason to not include them here. It's just a question of cosmetics, which can be dealt with after the import of all data is done. Steak (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What you call cosmetics are 2600+ statements that seem imaginary and the bot keeps adding more.
--- Jura 10:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
What you call imaginary are statements that are published in FIDE databse and are clearly sourced as that. --Wesalius (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please respond to Multichill's request at Property_talk:P1087 for a source for justifying post-mortem ratings with the rating system. Merely insisting that a likely defective source includes them isn't helpful.
--- Jura 10:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Apparently there wont be such a reference. It's merely a defect in the database dump the bot is using for the import. So please stop this bot.
--- Jura 10:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I think running a bot against the editor consensus as seen in Property_talk:P1087 should be enough to ban the bot. ChristianKl (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything there which suggests that the bot is running against consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Properties ready for creation

There is again a backlog at Category:Properties ready for creation; while not as large as it has been, it includes some items which have had consensus since September, and in one case August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I closed a few yesterday. I'll have another run through later. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Currently there are 20 items ready for creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

special page links

Hello.Please delete these items because they are not useful (Do not work and there is no need for them because of the possibility of using the English label "special:" in all sites):

  1. Q27115316
  2. Q23840898
  3. Q6293548
  4. Q18962461
  5. Q19844599

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

They meet WD:N at least nominally. I don't think they're hurting anything by existing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
These items useless --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Q16864 protection

Please semi-protect Horacio Quiroga (Q16864). Frequent IP vandalism, as it is popular theme in Spanish speaking countries.--Jklamo (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done for three months. Jared Preston (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Isaac Newton (Q935)

Please semi-protect Isaac Newton (Q935). A lot of IP vandalism. --Succu (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done for six months. Jared Preston (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Foto by Hockeyplayer Frans Fiolet Olympic Player 1960- 1964

The foto placed is Wim Veentjer and not Frans Fiolet. Please replace this fot a.s.a.p.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.132.131.95 (talk • contribs) at 14:00, 7 November 2016‎ (UTC).

Do you mean File:Frans Fiolet 1963.jpg is not showing Frans Fiolet? --Pasleim (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The Dutch National Archives apparently do have three player portrait photos taken in that session, all labelled with two player names, if I'm not mistaken:
Maybe I am misreading this, but if I'm right here, the picture we're discussing here might as well show Mr. Veentjes. --YMS (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

William I of England (Q37594)

I find it very difficult to this edit which claims that William the Conqueror (Q37594) has a child, Alberta (Q27653532), who does not even have an English language label, and who only has an Arabic Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Could you explain why this is related to this board? Thanks. --Succu (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I beleive there is likely to be an edit that is not in good faith (although I'm not sure which edit is the inappropriate one), and there may be a need to delete the item Alberta (Q27653532).
Why is this beyond AGF? --Succu (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I improved the reference. Administrative actions don't have to be taken I think. --Pasleim (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
فعلى الموضوع ألبرتا هي ملكة قشتالة قرينة زوجة سانشو الثاني، ويعتقد حسب بعض المصادر أنها أبنة ويليام الفاتح، وأيضا يوجد دليل في ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية أنظر:sacho ii of castia.--ELAMEEN7 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Google translates this as "On the subject of Alberta is the queen of Castile presumption Sancho second wife, it is believed by some sources as the daughter of William the Conqueror, and also no evidence in the English Wikipedia See: sacho ii of castia." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Idea: items for deletion tool

Hey. I maintain User:Pasleim/Items for deletion/Page deleted. This list is growing every day by around 100 items. There are also other lists and queries around with items for deletion. But with the current number of active admins it seems unlikley that we will be able to reduce the backlog in the future. Therefore, I had the idea of creating a page on tool labs on which also non-admins could help reviewing items. On that page users (maybe only auto-confiremd users) could click through items for deletion. They could vote for keeping or deleting the item. If let's say two users voted for keep the item gets removed from the list. If two users voted for delete, the creator of the item in question would get a message on their talk page. If after a certain time period the item wasn't improved, admins could (semi-automatically) delete it. What dou you think of that? Could it work? --Pasleim (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. --Epìdosis 20:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 Support Nice idea. Pamputt (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hm, some interesting ideas, but I'm not quite sure... For me, the main problem with that page is that actually deleting items is slow work (and removing things from the page which should be kept is a real pain). I think that getting people to help improve items is good but doing it after the sitelinks have been deleted is a bit late, by then, the items which need the most improvement are most likely unidentifiable. Also, the person who created the item is not necessarily the best person to inform, e.g. many items get created by bots or via tools and the people who put the effort into adding information to the item later are more likely to be interested in keeping the item, rather the person who originally created it.
The items generally seem to fall into a few categories:
  • Things which are obviously non-notable (e.g. disambiguation items with no sitelinks) or don't have enough information to be identifiable (e.g. human items with only basic statements like gender).
  • Things which are clearly notable (typically items which are used by other notable items).
  • Things which have enough information to identify the item (often including some identifiers) but are not linked from any other items.
The first two should be easy enough for admins to deal with, if there were something to make going through the items and dealing with the obvious keeps/deletes more efficient.
The third one is where help from non-admins would be really useful, but it would also be useful to get people to help improve items which are potentially going to end up on that page (e.g. items with only one sitelink and no backlinks) while they still have sitelinks.
- Nikki (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protect death of Harambe (Q24284065)

Seems to attract a lot of vandalism [1]. CC0 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for 3 months. Pamputt (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Pamputt! CC0 (talk)

MediaWiki:group-propertycreator/ja

please create MediaWiki:group-propertycreator/ja. the translation of propertycreator is "プロパティ作成者" (Wikidata:Property creators/ja).--Mirinano (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thanks. --Mirinano (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge request

Items Q13111140 and Q6378387 are same. Could not be merged citing tech things.--Vinayaraj (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vinayaraj: it is not possible to merge because there exists ta:காட்டு நாயக்கர் and ta:காட்டுநாயக்கர். If it is really the same topic, it has to be merged on Tamul Wikipedia first. Pamputt (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Merging request

Could not be merged as "Conflicting descriptions for language nl." Toddalia (Q21473952) and Toddalia asiatica (Q3595885) Merging requested--Vinayaraj (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like one item is about a genus, and another one is about a species.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking to the ID's in the end of the properties, these items are not the same, but are indeed related. If you're not a biologist, it's often better to not merge any taxons. For making Dutch descriptions I needed help from Dutch biologists. If you're 100% sure these are the same items, then you can freely delete the Dutch description (and the German as well) for one item, if that's the show stopper, but in this particular case I believe they are not the same. Edoderoo (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Toddalia is monogeneric, means there is only one species, means both are same.--Vinayaraj (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
They are not the same: one is a genus, the other a species. The number of species in the genus does not matter. - Brya (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge request

Could someone merge Q7802517 and Q15463158 please? Is denied because of dupe entries on viwiki, the problem is just solved there by merging and redirecting. edithae is the correct spelling. Thank you, --Achim (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done removed redirected sitelink and merged two items.-- Hakan·IST 16:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Q4022417

Please undelete Q4022417. It's a wrong merge. Thx. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done please go ahead and fix the merge.Thanks.-- Hakan·IST 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal matter that may be an attitude problem

@Jura1: Are talks like this compatible to good behavior on Wikidata ? Generally, I noticed that some of the properties proposed by Tomtom remain unused and get potentially messy as users don't have any clear precedents to follow. As for the link to Adam and Lady Diana, it seems to be yet another digression. see Wikidata:Property_proposal/Consort_of.

This arguments clearly points towards my person. The discussion started normally, then it seems the user started to get sick of arguing with me and started to points to me as a person as if I were not here at all and seemed to talk to invisible people like property proposers. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Which parts of the comment seem problematic to you?
  • 1. That some users propose properties that remain unused, i.e. they don't actually put to use and/or ensure that existing statements are convert to their use
  • 2. That you are a user who proposes some properties that remain unused
  • 3. That I comment in another proposal by you that you are such a user
  • 4. That unused properties get potentially messy as users don't have any clear precedents to follow (messy in the sense you used it in the discussion)
  • 5. That I asked for sufficient number of samples to avoid that the property remains unused (not included in the citation).
  • 6. That the mention of Lady Di is a digression
I suppose I could mention that the sample you gave doesn't seem to match your proposal, but I think we discussed this.
--- Jura 12:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A lot of stuffs are wrong. You provided no evidence that my proposals gets messy, but you directed your criticism totally towards me. That some proposals get messy is something else. Your assumption that the proposals gets messy because of the lack of examples is also potentially wrong : there can be a lot of examples but a lack of a proper definition that makes the label provide the meaning and the property be applied way out of scope of the initial example. This is because the definition of the proposal is also very important to limit the potential scope of limitation.
That the mention of Lady Di is a digression => In the name of what do you think this is a digression ? She was cited as an example - oh, but you want examples, you should be happy - actually a negative example, to explore the limit of the definition. In the name of what should this be a digression ? It's totally in the scope.
Last, the position that an unused property is a problem is a peculiar position of yourself. You at first did not seem to find that this was a problem with this property. What made you suddenly change your mind ? Please make this explicit. It seems that you mention an history of arguing towards us, which kind of acknowledge my feeling to be personally attacked ... author  TomT0m / talk page 12:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
For easier reference, I numbered 1 to 6 the points. Can I take it that other than #3 and #6, you agree with me.
--- Jura 12:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
As I argue that is not really relevant, do whatever you like. True or false this is irrelevant. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok. So it's just #6. Sure: the spouse of a non-monarch is a non-consort.
--- Jura 12:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, please then assume good faith : my point is that he may become a monarch one day. Then we must be sure that by our definition one of his exes won't became a consort because we did not take into account the fact that he had a life before beeing a king. That's why we must be careful. Maybe it was an answer because I did not understood your alternative proposals, but here the problem is may be that you was not clear and precise enough. That's why I care about the definitions and not will put everything in the examples. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

As both speakers are French, I propose to continue in French. If you want to take part of the discussion, we could switch to English. Pamputt (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jura1, TomT0m: je ne comprends pas pourquoi votre discussion a lieu ici. Il semble que vous ayez un différent éditorial et ce n'est clairement pas des administrateurs qui peuvent trancher pour un camp ou un autre. Le mieux à faire est donc d'en parler sur le projet concerné et de recueillir les avis d'autres contributeurs. En attendant, je vous suggère de ne discuter que du fond et de réfléchir à ça à tête reposer autant que possible. Ce n'est pas une affaire qui vaut le coup de se prendre la tête dessus. Pamputt (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pamputt: Euh non c'est plus éditorial, sinon j'aurai pas spécialement éprouvé le besoin de venir ici. Il se trouve que l'argumentation de Jura ne porte justement plus sur la création de cette propriété ou pas mais sur l'historique de MES propositions de propriétés. Avec un schéma argumentatif que je pense complètement fallacieux pour les raisons exposées ci-dessus. Étant personnellement mis en cause de manière non pertinente, je juge que ça a tourné à la mise en cause de moi-même et de mon attitude, et plus de ma proposition. C'est d'autant plus étonnant que la discussion avec Jura était partie sur des bases complètement différentes avec des discussions sur le meilleur moyen de modéliser cette relation, et qu'il a brusquement changé de registre. Ce qu'on peut interpréter comme "la discussion me saoule, je la clos avec un raisonnement douteux qui met en cause mon interlocuteur". Il semble que quand je demande des explications, je n'arrive pas à en avoir. Donc si la discussion a effectivement un fond éditorial, le problème ici ne l'est pas. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m, Jura1: Oui, je comprends. C'est pour ça que je vous ai dit de faire entrer d'autres personnes dans la discussion. Lorsque l'on est que deux, les choses peuvent partir de travers et une fois que c'est engagé, c'est mal parti pour corriger le tir. Il faut donc essayer de prendre du recul sur l'affaire et les choses repartiront correctement. Bien sûr ça suppose que Jura1 revienne à des arguments qui ait rapport avec la discussion. Si la discussion est bloquée parce que vous avez des points de vue divergents alors ça ne sert à rien de continuer, il faut trancher le débât grâce à l'avis d'autres contributeurs. Pamputt (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Tu as l'explication sur pourquoi on a la discussion ici. Mais j'ai bien peur qu'on ne discute pas réellement, en pratique. Ce qui n'est pas bon parce que quand on se recroisera rien du tout ne sera réglé. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Je comprends bien mais je ne vois pas du tout en quoi une requête ici pourrait améliorer les choses. Ce n'est pas en bloquant l'un de vous que les choses vont s'améliorer à son retour. Bref, ce que je vous conseille me parait être la meilleure solution. Bien sûr, comme je l'ai dit, ça suppose que Jura1 revienne à des arguments de fond et que d'autres contributeurs participent à la discussion pour apporter d'autres points de vue. Pamputt (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
J'ai pas fait une requête de blocage :) J'ai juste cherché un endroit ou il y avait une chance que le message ne parte pas dans les lymbes ... author  TomT0m / talk page 11:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete Q27838049 and Q27838057

Me and another (newbie) editor (editing as IP users) created these yesterday, as individual items for what is listed on en:Yellowstone River oil spill. (before we just had Q19929903 for the disambiguation page) I think each item is notable and we want to further improve them. Aude (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ping @ValterVB: Aude (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Aude: Restored, but if you don't add source they will be deleted again. --ValterVB (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. We will improve these more, including sources. Aude (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Also any idea what property to use to indicate amount of oil spilled in an oil spill? We didn't figure that out yesterday. Aude (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Would volume as quantity (P2234) not work? (Wikidata:Project chat would probably be a better place to ask anyway). - Nikki (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That might work. Thanks. Aude (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@ValterVB: A notification of the creator that its item risks to be deleted might help. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Aude said that he/she has created as IP and I notified him with my replay here, or you mean something of different? --ValterVB (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary linking

Not an admin issue.Moved to Wikidata:Project chat#Edit summary linking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Draco Malfoy (Q179641)

Long-term vandalism. Please protect. --Infovarius (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected permanently. Lymantria (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Q1537037

Please update. The article en:The Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary at present has no interwiki links. It belongs to Q1537037, but that includes from the English Wikipedia the article "Holy Name of Mary", which is now only a redirect to en:The Most Holy Name of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Theodoxa (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done removed link en:Holy Name of Mary and merged two items.-- Hakan·IST 20:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-factor authentication now available for administrators

See Special:Preferences. In light of the compromised accounts on enwiki and foundationwiki, I would recommend that all admins enable this immediately. --Rschen7754 20:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks nice. However I have no such phone able to scan QR-code, so I will stay as now Pamputt (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Another equally useful thing you can do is change your password! Make it something new that hasn't been stolen from some hacked db like Adobe. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
We still don't know for sure how those hackers got into the accounts. Likely, they tried reused passwords known from other hacks. Then changing your reused password will secure your account against this attack. But if there is a vulnerability in MediaWiki that allows to hijack accounts, changing your password does not help at all. In no case, just changing your password is "equally useful" as introducing two-factor authentication. A one-factor password can always be phished or guessed using brute force much more easily than a two-factor one. --YMS (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
To the best of the dev's knowledge, there is no vulnerability in MediaWiki that is leading to this. But, they don't have a definitive answer. So better safe than sorry probably :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Using 2factor is often the best against passwords steals. I did switch this on for my account, but hopefully there's a way around when I loose access to my phone (and thus to my installed Google Authenticator). Edoderoo (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: if you lose access to your phone but still have access to your scratch codes then you will be able to maintain access to your account. If you lose both then, unofficially, I have seen it suggested that if you can prove to a developer that you are the rightful owner of the account they have the ability to let you back in, but (a) I do not know if this is true, and (b) I do not know how one would go about proving their ownership. So, look after your scratch codes (personally I have them on my PC, on a backup harddisk, and on two different email accounts). Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I asked this, because I lost access to Phabricator in this way, that used SMS for 2-factor, and after I left the company I lost access to my phone as well. Claiming back your account is then a real hassle (and I'm still not able to login there). Edoderoo (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bergius process

Please add the "featured article" badge to the German article. Thank you. --ZdBdLaLaLa (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Good article

please, add the good article badge to this https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_(can%C3%A7%C3%A3o) Love on the Brain (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. I'm wondering, why this gets keeping asked here, not on for example Project chat? --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: you are right. Maybe we may ad a message saying that at the top of this page. Pamputt (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Because the edit warning suggests to do so. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh... OK, thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Doublon

Bonjour, En créant un article dans le Wikipedia français sur Domingo de Iriarte, je me suis aperçu qu'il y deux pages correspondantes dans le Wikipedia polonais https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Domingo_d%27Yriarte et https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domingo_de_Iriarte_y_Nieves_Ravelo Je ne parle pas le polonais et je voudrais savoir si quelqu'un pourrait fusionner ces deux pages.

Fortelle65 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fortelle65: J'ai fait la fusion. L'un des liens vers pl.wiki était une redirection. Pamputt (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Fusionar

Buenas tardes:

He creado una entrada, Maba (Q27893030), pero creo que se podría haber integrado con Maba man ¿es posible fusionarlos?.

Muchas gracias, --Nachosan (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hola. He hecho la fusión. Pamputt (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Spam

Q27806787 and Q27808416 are spam (the former's description includes "We help our customers to ..."); they constitute the only edits by User:Colemin. Do we need a separate spam noticeboard? And do we have a template or templates like en:Template:Uw-spam1, to notify users that such content is not welcome? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Both deleted but unfortunately I do not have time now to look into user's contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

More spam

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've taken care of these items and these two accounts by deleting and blocking them, respectively. I also warned Colemin to refrain from further spam. The reason why I blocked the two other accounts is that their usernames also implied shared use, whereas Colemin doesn't seem to fall under that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Hello.Please protect Q4026300 like Q16503.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete Q19842759

Nakhon Chai Si (Q19842759) was deleted in March already, but unlike the reason given in the deletion log it can't have been empty as it was created by User:TambonBot. Reason might have been that the linked article on Thai Wikipedia was deleted, but that does not say anything about the notability of this local government unit. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin wannabe

Devin-Henrickson (talk • contribs • logs) claims to be an administrator, which of course he isn't. He has also created Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Devin-Henrickson, which is yet to be transcluded. What shall we do with him? On a side note, I'd like to point out that he is already banned indefinitely over at the Commons; see here: Special:CentralAuth/Devin-Henrickson. Jared Preston (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait, My brother did the change not me. He went on my computer and changed it. Devin-Henrickson (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes is always the brother. --ValterVB (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and furthermore, your new account shouldn't be that easily compromisable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
What Can I do to fix this? Devin-Henrickson (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
What about changing your pw? Csigabi (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I will do that, Thanks. Devin-Henrickson (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jared Preston, ValterVB, Csigabi: The new account Armyboy2 (talk • contribs • logs) showed up today and created Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Armyboy2 on their first edit, which in light of this, raised suspicions. I thus filed a request for CheckUser for the two users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: Since the CheckUser confirmed the two to be the same, I blocked Armyboy2, tagging him as a sock of Devin-Henrickson. The check also found another, seemingly unrelated account (User:Digital Sofware Development).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
RfA closed by me as well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Q27924294

Please delete Q27924294 - confusing, result of the dispute with Succu (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q486672&action=history and talk) - Geochelone nigra is name for vurnerable complex of turtle and Geochelone nigra is extinct species of turtle. --OJJ (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note the discussion over there. I think we will need this item. --Succu (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
OJJ, I extended the item to describe the species complex around Chelonoidis nigra. --Succu (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Now merged with Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035). So nothing is to do. :) --Succu (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Flow talk page manager

Flow talk page manager (talk • contribs • logs) has created a talk page: User talk:Fábio L. for a user that doesn't exists (yet)! Malfunctioning MediaWiki-bots are very annoying, who is responsible for the bot? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User existed at the time of creation of a talk page. The user was later renamed, but the flow page was not moved. --Stryn (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Swineposit

The "contributions" -- both here and across a lot of Wikipedias -- of Swineposit merit extreme skepticism. Or more concretely, a block. I'll first demonstrate this via two examples.

First, a prime minister of Greece, Dimitrios Maximos. I draw your attention to this edit to Wikidata of 12 November 2016, in which Swineposit claims that Dimitrios Maximos was born (on an unspecified day) in March 1873.

The previous day, Swineposit added a birth date of 27 March to the English and to the Greek articles about this person. Four days later, he did the same (plus a bonus) to the French article.

(Does something sound familiar about 27 March? You may wish to Jog your memory.)

But on the same day (11 November) that he claimed Maximos was born on 27 March, Swineposit added a birth date of 21 March to the Portuguese and to the Russian articles; added a birth date of 17 March to the Italian article; added a birth date of 3 March to the Dutch article; and added a birth date of 27 February to the Spanish article.

Thus within a few days, Swineposit has left Wikipedia/Wikidata saying that Maximos was born in March, 27 March, 21 March, 17 March, 3 March, and 27 February.

Now for a tennis player, Evangelos Rallis. On 11 November, Swineposit added "1870s-date of death unknown" to English Wikipedia.

The next day, 12 November, Swineposit changed the precision of the date of birth in Wikidata from a decade to a year; and changed 19th century to 27 March 1874 as the date of birth in French Wikipedia. In a series of edits on the same day, Swineposit changed "1874-date of death unknown" to "March 27, 1870-possibly 1940 or 1950s" in English Wikipedia.

In a series of edits from 12 to 14 November, Swineposit changed 1 January to 27 March for the date of birth in the Italian Wikipedia.

On 14 November, Swineposit added * [[27. März]] [[1874]]; † unbekannt) (i.e. 27 March 1874 – unknown) to the German Wikipedia; and added (ur. [[27 marca]] [[1874]], zm. [[1932]]) to Polish Wikipedia.

On 15 November, Swineposit changed "1874-1935" to "1874-?" (NB no day or month) in Spanish Wikipedia.

Thus within a few days, Swineposit has left Wikipedia/Wikidata saying that Maximos was born in 1870, 27 March 1870, 1874, 27 March 1874; and that he died unknown, "possibly 1940 or 1950s", 1932.

For none of the edits above, and for none of Swineposit's other edits that I've looked at, does Swineposit present credible evidence. When pressed (e.g. here), Swineposit has alluded to other Wikipedias as sources. But even if this were satisfactory (it isn't), it couldn't be true: often those other-language pages either don't exist or say nothing, and often Swineposit has tampered with them so that they contradict each other. Pressed on this, Swineposit is evasive or remorseful (where coherent at all).

I'm one of several people who raised alarms about Swineposit in en:WP. He's blocked indefinitely there, and he's also the subject of discussion here within WP:AN. I don't suppose that the case meets the conditions for a global lock. If a global block could be made for a UID, I'd petition for one; but it can't be (it's only for IP numbers). Whether Spineposit's edits are the result of gross incompetence, mere whimsy or something else, I strongly recommend that he be blocked here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree to block him here as well. We can wait a couple of days in order to get his reply. Pamputt (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have blocked this user, hopefully he will come with a decent explanation, else the block was necessary to protect the contents of WikIData. Edoderoo (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at en:Wikipedia has now been moved here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

SuccuBot

I think that SuccuBot is mixing language codes.

See:

Probably it goes for other language codes, but it should be checked. --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you talked to the bot operator? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The bot stopped, and I will fix the problem of course. --Succu (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
My bot is fixing the issues now. --Succu (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Милан Јелисавчић: Things should be fixed now, but I will recheck with the next available dump. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please block again Guntur

New phony user GunturIrawanSubagiyoShaniaJKT48 does the same edits as Guntur (merges and sitelink swap vandalism). He/she left us a 2-month break, not so bad this time. I will revert the changes. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 23:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked again, thanks for reporting. - Nikki (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Badge request

Could an administrator please add a "good article" badge to the English Wikipedia article at Vinicius and Tom (Q18741248)? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Already done. Mz7 (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mz7: Were you not able to add it yourself? These are meant to be able to be self-managed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
He needs to have more contributions on this project to do that without hitting an abuse filter. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sjoerd de Bruin is right, I believe. Wikidata:Autoconfirmed users states that the autoconfirmed threshold on Wikidata is 50 edits, and I need a bit more. Mz7 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Pechkurov Aleksej

I am writing to let you know that this is self promotion item created by well known sockpuppeteer. See w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777 and c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alex9777. --jdx Re: 09:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted along with Q27309033 . Thanks for reporting!-- Hakan·IST 10:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Q27870314 deleted too. Jared Preston (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@HakanIST, Jared Preston: The spammer is back: Q27887139. --jdx Re: 08:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: , deleted and warned the ip.-- Hakan·IST 10:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@HakanIST: The spammer is back again: Q27903983. --jdx Re: 00:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: deleted.-- Hakan·IST 04:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@HakanIST: The spammer is back again: Q27990589. --jdx Re: 09:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted along with the sitelinks, also nominated for deletion for commons image.-- Hakan·IST 09:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@HakanIST: Pechkurov is back as Vadim vadimith who created Q28030934 aka Lovifm.com. Pechkurov is the founder of this website as he says about himself on his Google+ profile – "Основатель Lovifm.com и 977.by" (Founder of…). --jdx Re: 07:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2016/11&oldid=657459559"