Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Administrators' noticeboard This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. If you wish for something to be deleted, please use Wikidata:Requests for deletions. If you want to report a bug in Wikidata software, please use Wikidata:Report a technical problem or Phabricator. Matters not requiring administrator action should be raised at Project chat. Matters that may involve CheckUser should be raised at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser. To report vandalism on wikidata: please click here. Please add {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} to resolved sections. IRC channel: #wikidataconnect

Translate this header box! Start a new discussion

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/04.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Requests for deletions high ~122 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock low 1 open request for unblock.

Block request

en:WP:ILLEGIT, en:WP:SCRUTINY, zh.wiki LTA, confirmed in zh.wiki, please see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].--MCC214 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Um... Please don't beat the dead horse. They won't be used anymore. How about suggest a global ban in metawiki? 阿南之人 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Only 1 of the accounts (空手而回) has edited in the last month, and they are not blocked on zhwiki where the LTA is from, nor do their recent edits appear disruptive. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This LTA split their editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in their contributions, and switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny (this LTA don't used after zh.wiki blocked, and create new account to split their editing history and switching accounts or concealing in a way that avoids scrutiny) eight years ago, also, zh.wiki will blocked 空手而回 after, more importantly, this list all is same user.--MCC214 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe meta:SRG will be good place for this LTA case?--S8321414 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

41.250.114.135

User: 41.250.114.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Reason for reporting: Vandalism, please restore the original interwiki links in both Q189046 and Q3179385, as they have been mixed up with articles by this IP. -- Riad Salih (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved from Commons (c:Special:Diff/869844774/869852856) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: what is the situation here? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 I don't really know. User:Riad Salih posted this on Commons' AN/V (I presume by accident), and I moved it over. On the two pages Riad mentioned, the IP apparently attempted to swap the two items' sitelinks with each other (so I reverted); Riad appears to believe that this is vandalism (I know nothing about the topics, so don't know if it's vandalism). Riad and the IP also seem to be edit warring on Q112119030 and Q12191312, although it might be permissible if the edits really are vandalism. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 @Estopedist1 I wasn't on an edit warning, but the IP was attempting to change the interlinks of certain articles, merge Wikidata items and articles, all without anyone noticing. It was pure vandalism as they were altering everything to Morocco. I wanted to prevent their vandalism before they caused any significant damage while active editors were sleeping. If you observe closely, you'll notice they were making quick edits, and I was restoring them because they were rushing to merge multiple items.

For example, take Q3514113, which represents Tunisian Tajin. They added the country of origin as Morocco, even though it should be Tunisia.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

IP has not edited since 21 April, closing this as Stale --DannyS712 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (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) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Error not linking to subpages

Hi, In one case, I wanted to link to /styles.css in templates, which warned: Template subpages should not link to each other. /styles.css are very important for updating and improving the templates. Is it technically possible to link the subpages of the templates with the title "/styles.css"? Pereoptic (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WD:N: "To be valid, a link must not be [...] any page that is intended for TemplateStyles (i.e. page names that end with ".css")." --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2024 (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) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Municipalities

A few months ago I asked for an opinion about the situation of the municipalities in Spain because many users started to use a granular values ​​such municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843), municipality of Aragon (Q61763947) o council of Asturies (Q5055981). When I was searching for all the municipality of Spain (Q2074737), the number was increasingly smaller because they were using more specific values. To look for a solution and seek unification @Tagishsimon: indicated "the normal course on WD is to employ the more granular value" and @ChristianKl: that "Wikidata doesn't have a pro-Nationalism policy that would make us prefer to reference Spain over Catalonia". I asked on Wikiproyect:Spain and there was no clear answer, although neither was there a refusal to specify each municipality. Since querys are faster if they are municipalities of autonomous community, today I began to unify everything. User @CFA1877: has started undoing edits without writing anything about it. Seeing that he had had similar problems in his discussion, I wrote him, and although he answered, at the same time he undid the edits. I would like a decision to be made on this. I don't care whether to put granular values ​​or the municipality of Spain (Q2074737), but i want the criteria be unified and the queries are consistent. Now, we have some of the municipalities with one element and others with another in the same autonomous community. Thank you. @theklan: @Olea: @Strakhov: @Pere prlpz:

Strakhov Tiberioclaudio99 Discasto Enladrillado Ivanhercaz Millars Rodelar Abián Tomukas Vanbasten_23 Maria zaos Olea Dandilero Davileci

Notified participants of WikiProject Spain Vanbasten 23 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not the only user who has questioned you today, but I will speak for myself. You don't have consensus, and you know it. In the case of the region of Andalusia and others, you have created a problem where here wasn't nothing. You are changing parameters that have been around for years without anyone raising any problems. And this change that you are making is unknown to many users, and if they were aware of this, they would surely return to its previous state. So, this hardly solves anything, because you are creating another (new) problem.

Now, the technical issues. Article 137 of the Constitution establishes that the State is organized in municipalities, provinces and Autonomous Communities (regions). This article establishes the municipalities as their own administrative unit, within the [Spanish] State, but not belonging to the regions. This is what is being arbitrarily attempted to be done in wikidata by several users, with a clearly political purpose. Just because a municipality is located in a province or in a region does not mean that it belongs to that province or region. Therefore, the category "municipality of Spain" is the one that should take precedence. CFA1877 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that some Autonomous Communities have their own municipal laws, so a Municipality of Catalonia is different from a Municipality of Aragón in what they can decide and what not. I don't know how many Autonomous Communities have such laws, but marking those as different makes sense as the law they use to organize themselves ia also different. Theklan (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, but this can also be expressed with applies to jurisdiction (P1001). —Ismael Olea (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not unaware that there are municipal laws in some regions. But these laws that may exist in some regions do not repeal or diminish what the Magna Carta says, which is the supreme norm regarding the territorial organization of the country. By the way, it's absurd that a couple of municipal laws forces to change everything in the rest of the country, creating problems that did not exist before. CFA1877 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a question about content and thus has no place at the admin notice board, but should either go to the Project Chat or a Wikiproject.

My comment was about the question of what's a nation. One key reason we have items that link the type of municipality to jurisdiction is because different jurisdictions define the terms differently. Some jurisdictions have specific populations counts that are implied by something being a city, other jurisdictions might have other counts or even no specific population count of what makes a city. We also have our properties so that we can set constraints properly. IDESCAT territorial code in Catalonia (P4335) seems to need municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) to work properely. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess those restrictions can be rewritten with applies to jurisdiction (P1001) and/or located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). —Ismael Olea (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion.

• I agree we need to set a convention.
• Conceptually any option is correct, but subclassing is suboptimal in terms of the graph (size, redundancy and ontology management) queries efficiency and data reuse.
• If we flat subclasses we don't loss of information about region/community if P131 is used properly.
• If there are important exceptions (concejos? merindades?), because historical differences supported by current laws, I don't have any problem, but not as a rule of thumb.
• Also, when to stop subclassing? We can do by communities, then by provinces, then by comarcas... I don't see a practical point when we have ways to express all this information with a flatter ontology.
• Not really an argument, but want to say the main reference I'm using is the Geographic Nomenclature of Municipalities and Population Entities (Q95877977) and they use an uniform schema. Now I now this can be troublesome if I import entries for Galicia as I do with Almería, for example. Also I think we should set another standard related with the nomenclátor, like the discussion started here. I wrote about this in the OSM forum.
• Finally, to me is very important to keep a clear mapping between WD and OSM. OSM it's an excellent facilitator of Wikidata information reuse.

—Ismael Olea (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Olea: It's clear that a change is needed, okay. Also for me any option is correct, as long as it is coherent and is not like currently, with a municipality that has one element and the adjacent municipality a different one. You indicate that subclassing is not optimal in terms of query efficiency, but I believe just the opposite. If you want to consult only the municipalities of a community, it will always be faster with the more specific elements. And when it comes to taking out all the municipalities, the result is the same. When to stop creating subclasses? I don't know. Someone could create by province, I suppose, but we must think of a way to unify, just one, and adjust to it. You talk about the Geographic Nomenclature of Municipalities and Population Entities (Q95877977), can you give an example of what the proposal is based on its use? --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the users who have maintained the specific municipalities in their communities I call @Isidre blanc: @Tamawashi: @LMLM: @Cruzate1492: @Maria zaos: in case they can give their opinion on the topic. Only with the intention of reaching an agreement that allows us to unify the situation. Thank you all. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "concejo" in Asturias, "concejo" is the official name of the municipios in Asturias. Included in the Estatuto de Autonomía, article 6: "El Principado de Asturias se organiza territorialmente en municipios, que recibirán la denominación tradicional de Concejos y en Comarcas." LMLM (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• It's true that there is no need to create problems where there aren't, but municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) exists from 2017 and at least tens of automated lists have been created using that property since then. Changing or deleting municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) would create a problem. On the other hand, any query that uses P31/P279 municipality of Spain (Q2074737) (like any query that deals with all municipalities of Spain in recent years) will keep working if any other subclass of municipalities. Therefore, creating more granular subclasses is not going to create problems.
• It has been claimed that this question doesn't belong to the Administrators noticeboard, and it may be true. However, there is a question that does belong to it: the unilateral removal of subclasses of municipalities of Spain in random articles. I don't know if such behaviour should be called vandalism, but it's clearly a kind of disruptive editing that breaks queries and automated lists in Wikipedias. For example, this automatic edition that deleted a large part of a list in cawiki was triggered by a disruptive edition in Sant Celoni (Q15441).
• The content issue was already addressed and closed in Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2023/12/28#Q123754112.
• Wikidata lacks a uniform policy about granularity of instance of (P31) that could be applied to all domains. We use minimum granularity for human (Q5) and a few other domains but the general tendency is to maximum granularity, as can be seen for example in buildings or in countries.
• And again, although different ontologies could be adopted, the real problem are the random disruptive editions.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree with @Pere prlpz:. We don't want to create problems, we want to solve those that already exist. I agree also with the disruptive editing with the municipalities. That's why I wrote here and I would like there to be a solution and for users to stick to it, whatever it may be. The main argument for not making the changes is a political reason? The motive is uniformity. I don't care about an option but I want Wikidata to be clean. municipality of Spain (Q2074737) cannot have two instances that say the same thing. Just as there cannot be users who are constantly making changes to a few elements because of their different opinion. Changes must be made that improve the project in general, not those that suit one or the other. Is it so bad that each municipality indicates that it is the municipality of a community? If there are differences in several communities, we could adopt that they all have the same granularity, right? But I would like to know your more general opinion, not only about @LMLM: in Asturias and Pere prlpz in Catalonia, but in general for all cases. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since they are not the same thing (they are different elements), they do not say the same thing. And you know that perfectly well, Vanbasten. I admit that 6 months ago I was not fully familiar with this issue, but today I do not see that it is a problem for the two items to coexist, so I do not understand this ¿obsessive? interest to eliminate an item.

You say you don't want to create problems, Vanbasten, but you are creating an artificial and forced situation in regions where no one had raised this request until you starting changes this morning. As I said this evening, in most regions the elements of "Municipality of Spain" have not been a cause of dispute, so it is not justified to change it just for the sake of it. And even worse, it will be a cause of conflict because there will be users who will encounter it and say no. CFA1877 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If "the two items to coexist" means, for example, the same item having instance of (P31) municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) and municipality of Spain (Q2074737), that is clearly redundant because the former is a subclass of the later. Leaving both of them is just avoiding to feed the troll that replaced municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) with municipality of Spain (Q2074737). municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) says the same things as municipality of Spain (Q2074737) just by saying it is a subclass of it, and it also says a few additional things. I'm not eager to remove redundant claims and I prefer not to waste my time in arguments to remove them, and there are situations where I think a redundant item doesn't make much harm or can be even somehow useful, but I must admit that I'm quite alone in that regard and that the general rule in Wikidata is to delete redundant claims.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not redundant, Pere, for you I am sure they are neither the same nor redundant. CFA1877 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are. All municipalities of Catalonia (as defined in the item) are municipalities of Spain, and therefore municipality of Catalonia is a subclass of Municipalities of Spain. They are as redundant as saying that something is a house and saying that it is a building, or saying that something is in Zaragoza and saying that it is in Aragón. If there existed a municipality of Catalonia that wasn't a municipality of Spain, they wouldn't be subclasses and they wouldn't be redundant. Pere prlpz (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That is, being redundant doesn't mean being the same. It means that the most specific one implies the less specific one and therefore adding the less specific one just duplicates information. In Wikidata language, subclass of (P279), in mathematical language, subsets, and in linguistics language es:hiperónimo and es:hipónimo.--Pere prlpz (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@CFA1877: as you indicated, you don't seem familiar with databases, I understand. The way to work on them is to reduce the information as much as possible so that access is faster, without losing the ability to search it. It is not about putting the municipality of Catalonia, the municipality of Spain, the municipality of Barcelona and the municipality of Vallés Oriental inside Sant Celoni. This is totally redundant. When I indicate that they are the same, I mean that with a query I can group the municipalities of each community and the result will be the same as having "municipality of Spain" in all cases. This is not Wikipedia, we need data to create right queries. It´s not the same concept. With this query we will arrive to the same place, which is the important thing here. I repeat again, what I want is to solve a problem that already existed and that the rest of the users also agree that it should be talked about. The fact that Andalusia or Extremadura did not have this problem does not mean that I have created a new problem. I repeat, we must have a slightly more global vision of the project and not focus solely on our region. It is an open knowledge base, and the most correct decisions must be made for everyone. Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As much as possible, please do not manipulate my words. Some time ago I wasn't familiar with this question, not with wikidata. I am a regular wikidata editor since 2021 at least. And not, it is not redundant, no matter how much you repeat it, since they are not the same thing. Another question is the fixed idea that you have of eliminating the item in regions where no one has raised problems in more than a decade. You are creating a problem where there is one, you, exclusively. You're obsessed with it and you can mask your intentions in pretty, technocratic language, but it won't change the situation. If you want to find a solution, please leave that point out the question. CFA1877 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please @CFA1877:. I'm going to ask you to stop focusing on problems with me. I have opened this topic to try to solve a problem. If you want to contribute something, do it, you are welcome. Discussions should be made regarding the topics being discussed, not the users. No matter how much you put it in bold, you won't be more right. Remember es:Wikipedia:Cómo mantenerte calmado en un conflicto, above all es:Wikipedia:Presume buena fe. Thanks. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A los participantes de esta discusión se les solicita si pueden continuar su intercambio de opinión en el Café o en el Wikiproyecto:España para no seguir inundando este tablón. Una vez acordado el consenso, se dejará establecida aquí la decisión correspondiente.

Dejo constancia de que en 2022 dos administradores no mostraron objeción a utilizar valores granulares en la propiedad objeto de este intercambio.

Por favor @CFA1877: te invito a leer y respetar el Código Universal de Conducta de la Fundación Wikimedia que rige en cualquier actividad o interacción en los proyectos Wikimedia. Se considera un comportamiento inaceptable dirigirse a otro usuario sin presumir buena fe: tus comentarios y adjetivaciones en las PD sobre conspiración política e incitación a una guerra de ediciones no tienen lugar en ningún proyecto. A disposición de todos para que logren un consenso óptimo para Wikidata, un saludo. Madamebiblio (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:HeminKurdistan

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

Reasons: He insist to delete infomation about this page Q28149908 that belong a famous person with milions folowers.he didnot any reason for this act and just didnt like him. Poig97 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Poig97: his last edit (@HeminKurdistan) was made on 8 April, so contacting with him is problematic. I agree that this edit on Q28149908 was vandalism-like. But in general, he seems to be an established user with over 19,000 edits Estopedist1 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Protection request for "Karine Arutiunova" (Q26776766)

In Q26776766, an other user persistently has been removing the image claim completely or replacing the image by a suspected copyright violation. Because of this, I hereby request full protection of this item or a temporary block of that user. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I see both of you have been edit-warring without actually talking with each other. Do you feel like that is a fair assessment? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I add a freely licensed image which is surely not forbidden. Neither do I remove images, nor add copyvios. Regards --A.Savin (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oversight candidacy

As per policy, candidacies for oversight here on Wikidata have to be linked to the project chat and administrators' noticeboard; thus, doing so for transparency: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight. EPIC (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:えのきだパペット2号

えのきだパペット2号 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: It is a vandalism. --Apple_TD (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And, please delete the pages he created. --Apple_TD (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked indef. Related to LTA:HEATHROW. Everything deleted, reverted, patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2024 (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) 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Linking styles.css

Please link en:Template:Reflist/styles.css and hr:Predložak:Reflist/styles.css to a new item. --5.43.76.87; 08.44, 27. april 2024. (UTC)

 Not done: out of scope of Wikidata. See Wikidata:Notability--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: It is your task. --5.43.76.87; 09.34, 27. april 2024. (UTC)

Semi-protection for Lexeme:L7

Please protect Lexeme:L7, which is serving as target for several vandalisms. Also block User:1.47.209.42. Horcrux (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Mahir256, thanks! --Horcrux (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (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. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Import of Slovak people statistics

Real, the user Teslaton wanna import the Slovak people statistics as the data from database with license CC-BY SA 4.0 into Wikidata.

More informations:

• w:cs:Wikipedie:Bot/Žádosti#Dušan_Kreheľ_(bot):_Nová_úloha,
• w:cs:Diskuse_k_šabloně:Infobox_-_sídlo_světa#Slovenská_obec:_údaje_z_WD.

Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place for such a discussion (it's not an admin action request), but for the record:

• various data from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic are already here for the long time, e.g. the 2021 census data for all Slovak regions and municipalities, that Pescan imported back in 2022 (sample diff)
• I've tried to fulfill all the licence requirements, i.e.:
  • the "attribution" aspect via proper source citation, see diff and the related "stated in" entry (Q125585954)
  • the "provide a link to the license" aspect via copyright status/copyright license properties on the "stated in" entry, see Q125585954
• also note, that the license is CC BY in fact (see [16]), not a CC BY-SA (as Dušan incorrectly states) => no transitive enforcement of the same licensing of derived works

Under these circumstances, I think the import should be fine. --Teslaton (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• User T. bends CC0 (Wikidata) to CC-BY (CC 0 + author + license info), but a the licence CC 0 expects "only data" and plus none additional data; and,
• mainly violates Sui Generis Database Rights (explained).

Notice: "various data from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic are already here for the long time, e.g. the 2021 census data for all Slovak regions and municipalities, that Pescan imported back in 2022 (sample diff)" Irrelevant argument – in this thinks, the data are not from datacube.statistics.sk (look You the referense n. 1 on Pozsony) and then they are not under CC BY 4.0 licensed. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Dušan, I really can't decode a significant part of your language constructs (even in Slovak, let alone the English). The Conditions for use [17] holds for the whole statistics.sk website (not for datacube datasets alone). The scitanie.sk microsite has the "© 2024 www.statistics.sk", so I tend to treat it as a subsite. But even if we drop this assumption, then the situation is "even worse" related to census data copyright status − it's just "copyrighted" then, not even under CC BY. And yet, here they are... ;) And regarding the "Sui Generis Database Rights", I think you don't understand the point, as several of us tried to explain to you on cswiki already. From such a point of view, it would be impossible to import virtually any non-trivial subset of any data to the WD, unless the original database was explicitly marked as PD or CC-0 by the publisher. Which is non-sense, I believe. --Teslaton (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)