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: #wikidata^connect

If you are a user who has a request for removal of non-public personal information, please note that details should not be posted in public. Email oversightwikidata.org or a local oversighter privately.

If you are requesting the restoration of a deleted item, please be sure to explain how the item meets our notability criteria. If you are claiming that the item "can be described using serious and publicly available references", please list some of those references in your request.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/06.

Attention administrators: This message is appearing because there are more than 100 open requests at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Please consider helping with the backlog.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~179 open requests for deletions.}

Requests for unblock

empty

_{0 open requests for unblock.}

Unblock request for TheBellaTwins1445

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

This is a checkuser block so only checkusers are allowed to handle it. Their Commons user talk page paint a picture of someone who years ago repeatedly disregarded rules, blatantly lied in their unblock request and evaded their block. Didn't dig that deep into the sock drawer, but they have lots of contributions on spanish wikipedia and also a clean block log there. I noticed a comment from Madamebiblio on their spanish user talk page 27 Jan 2024 about them editing Wikidata as an IP-user whilst blocked here. The timing of the Wikidata unblock request relative to this comment seems, shall we say convenient. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The block reason does not explicitly state that it was a checkuser block. I am unable to find it right now, but I seem to recall a discussion a few months ago where Jasper Deng specifically stated that we should not consider their blocks to be checkuser blocks unless they explicitly say so.

That's useful background information, and I'm certainly not entirely convinced myself, but I'd entertain an unblock in this case per en:WP:ROPE. Bovlb (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm familiar with the user's work on eswiki and consider them to be productive there. IIRC, the unblock request came about because they asked for assistance with a Commons picture (to be used in an eswiki article they were working on), and the responding admin suggested they appeal their blocks instead. I would be inclined to unblock per ROPE as well. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original block reason on Wikidata was for replacing images with their own work using several accounts. Seems reasonable they should be given a second chance, since issues were localized to Commons or Commons-related. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's an user who historically used sockpuppet accounts and has evaded his block until this year on different projects (See 1 and 2). On Wikidata he continued to edit from IPs until after my January message. I can make an infinite list of IPs used here.

His editing behavior: he tries to impose his editions, generates edit wars and has a lots of warnings from ESwiki administrators.

In particular, I still don't trust him enough. Madamebiblio (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is not a CheckUser block. CheckUser blocks are always marked explicitly as such. Therefore, any admin can review it. However, given Madamebiblio's comment, I am not in support of an unblock without explicit concrete examples of constructive contributions they wish to make (their existing comment is too vague, and conflates "articles" with items and properties).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One week passed after application. Application rejected by me Estopedist1 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems premature, given that discussion here is ongoing and does not clearly show a consensus in that direction. Bovlb (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur, the request had been open for a week but discussion here had only been going on for 3 days. –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb@FlyingAce: if an user in question has used over 20 alternative accounts (see Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of TheBellaTwins1445), then I don't think there is much to discuss Estopedist1 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: if we are going to take into account their status in other projects, then I think we ought to consider that they are a user in good standing on the Spanish Wikipedia. More to the point, is there evidence of recent socking? I see that they were warned regarding logged out editing earlier this year, so that is a point against unblocking now, but I don't think it is fair to state that an unblock will never be possible in the future. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in general, such kind of human types do not change, but given the huge contributions in eswiki (besides a lot of discussion also in eswiki at his talk page) I am open to withdraw one's unblocking refusal and to apply en:WP:ROPE Estopedist1 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to wait to unblock him (if he doesn't end up blocked on ESwiki next time: last messages on ESwiki talk page are warnings from admin and he's already blocked in two other projects). Will any sysop going to be responsible for monitoring his activity on Wikidata? One possibility is to invite him to request a new unblock in the course of the next six months: if his record is clean he'll be unblocked. Madamebiblio (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not propagate unblocking. User has had many sockpuppet accounts on various Wikimedia projects. Many of the socks, for instance among the ones mentioned at Commons, have made edits here, while their socking here remained unnoticed. In view of that, their user talk page message does not really convince me. I would expect them to reveal all socks they have used, in order that those can be blocked here, also ones that escaped our attention. That might yield some trust in seriousness of their future behaviour. --Lymantria (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. I now think it's best to not unblock now, but the possibility of a future appeal should be left open; however, any future request should address the sockpuppetry. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question we have to answer is: Is this block necessary to prevent disruption to the project? I don't mean to encourage socking, but I don't think this block is really preventing them from contributing here; instead it's preventing them from contributing in an honest and straightforward way. Keeping the block will not prevent socking; it might even encourage it. If we unblock, and it results in disruption, then that will resolve the question simply and clearly. We can block, revert, and move on.

Regarding the two recent admins warnings on ESWP, at least one seems to be concerned with them asking others to help them make presumably constructive edits to Wikidata on their behalf. This is a violation of policy, but one that wouldn't exist if we lifted this block. Bovlb (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been people blocked for a good reason before who made useful contributions. If you go looking for reasons to keep them blocked I'm sure you will find them. Fortunately the ROPE philosophy doesn't require trust, it simply asks if the possibility exists that the user in question can become a rule-abiding contributor. Rather than a lengthy unblock ordeal it rests on the user to prove that they belong. For the kind of users this is applied to it should be evident soon enough. I'm kind of ambivalent but I do think this is a ROPE candidate. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to have petered out, and there's not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, so in an effort to reach a concrete resolution, let's try a !vote.

Unblock per ROPE and evidence of constructive editing on Spanish Wikipedia. Bovlb (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. After some consideration, I am leaning towards an

unblock since the recent logged-out editing was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, but rather to fix issues arising from their regular editing on eswiki. –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock and monitor, happy to give a second chance here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I as a blocker. I am out of this discussion, unable to analyze Spanish-language edits--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: edits on ESwiki affect only that project, what happens on Wikidata affects all Wikipedias and this project. Linking articles and completing the infobox can be done locally on ESwiki; on ESwiki he hoards articles and imposes edits. On Wikidata: for one year he edited with impunity via IPs while blocked until I publicly unmasked him (he ignored reversals and edit messages). And continues to be blocked (without unblocking request) on Commons and ENwiki. Madamebiblio (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not convinced, I've not seen enough reflection on use of socks. I am not a fan of ROPE in this project. A sock alongside neat behavior of the released master account can very easily exist here without being noted. --Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good points have been made on both side. Numerically, there seems to be a slight edge to "unblock", but I'm not seeing a clear consensus to override the block. My advice to the @TheBellaTwins1445 would be to wait at least six months and come back with strong evidence of good contributions on other projects. Sorry. Bovlb (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Reinheitsgebot

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

Should be stopped, often also makes error, a.g. adds Zuck band to Mr. Zuckerberg, or some Timur rapper or what to Timur conqueror of 14th century, … —Mykhal (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked with @Magnus Manske: who runs the bot? I have blocked the bot for one hour.--Lymantria (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnus Manske: This batch obviously have significant quality issues as clearly demonstrated by mr. Mykhal. Can you please revert it in its entirety? Thank you. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Undeletion Q123385584

Hi, This page for Jayesh Bhaware author has been recently deleted. His book Silk and Petals was bestseller on Amazon for many months, and the author has more than 58,000 followers on Instagaram. You can check the Goodreads author page here CursedProtector (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by user:BrokenSegue (original deleter)--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was Q123385584 deleted when it was still linked from Silk and Petals (Q123385514)? Anyways I'm still not seeing coverage of either the book or author. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was self published by the author. So unlike traditionally published books it hasn’t got the paid media coverage. But has done (saw these on two reviewers and author’s insta) 10 times more sales than traditionally published self published books. CursedProtector (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book was also # 1 bestseller on Amazon’s poetry category for months. CursedProtector (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn’t really matter for WD:N purposes, does it? --Emu (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xwiki spam involving userːIvan P. Clarin and User:Dewberry23 (CU needed?)

Dear admins, the page history of Q126414350 suggests that there is an ongoing xwiki spam activity to advertise userːIvan P. Clarin, which is done by User:Dewberry23 at fr/he/hi/warwiki (Please see Special:CentralAuth/Dewberry23. Also, I have already deleted the simplewiki version). userːIvan P. Clarin has no edits in these projects (Special:CentralAuth/Ivan_P._Clarin), so it is unreasonable to assume that he is known by these communities. My questions are "Who would choose to make Ivan P. Clarin and their interwiki counterparts except for Ivan himself?", and should I alert your checkusers?. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed links. MathXplore (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Please see w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#User:Ivan_P._Clarin for simplewiki CU results. MathXplore (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873 on simplewiki you reported that Dewberry23 is confirmed to another locked account - can you tell us who that was so we can evaluate this report? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Sure! It was confirmed to John19192. Operator873^talkconnect 16:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TemirovBot

No real big deal but it seems TemirovBot is (was?) massively adding statements with wikicode in the title of the source, a wikicode formatted reference with a template, entirely in the title property field. See for example this edit : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q19642583&curid=21244550&diff=2174354453&oldid=1756748655

@Игорь Темиров: author TomT0m / talk page 11:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm migrating the population database from Ruviki to wikidata. About 600 thousand observations. Output supported by template Population. I have not found a single way to correctly display links in articles, other than placing templates in the title field. Other language sections may handle in their own manner. Игорь Темиров (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Игорь Темиров: This cannot work like that, this would mean that, say on frwiki, the templates you use does not exists, so trying to display the reference for the statements would display an error.

There are ways to display Widata statements as references on Wikipedias, the "Cite Q" module is one Module:Cite Q (Q33429959)  

— you can create an item for one (or all) very cited reference in your list for example, add the relevant statements to the item, use it in a reference with "stated in (P248)

". The "cite Q" module should not be very hard to import.

You can also adapt functions like this one (of the Wikidata frwiki lua module) that uses the relevant properties of a statement reference to add display it. author TomT0m / talk page 13:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: Yes, thanks, I know about these modules. But, unfortunately, none of them correctly displays information about links if they include, for example, an archive on the Internet and the like.

(you forgot to sign) @Игорь Темиров: This can be solved, you should import the data correctly anyway, and deal with the problems with templates afterward. See the enwiki cite Q Module includes code to deal with archive url Search, for example, if there is a bug you may discuss it in the talkpage for help on how to solve this. author TomT0m / talk page 13:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to do what you are talking about after migrating the data Игорь Темиров (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Игорь Темиров: You mean, import the source data all in the title field for them to be displayed OK on ruwiki and avoid seeing errors or display issue on ruwiki, at the expense of having errors or display issues in all other wikis and external data reusers. There may be many many over reusers than the "population" template, infoboxes for example, also the "article placeholder" extension, see Q19642583  

on nnwiki for example. There is an open list of problems where this can go wrong. This is very bad practice.

Then parse the template to extract the field and put them properly on Wikidata and setting a correct title, a correct external url and so on, so correcting the errors everywhere else only afterward ? I don't think it's an acceptable thing to do. It seem easier to import the data correctly in the first place, that to re-parse the template afterward and redo a whole bot run.

It's more work to do in the end the way you do it, what's the rush ? author TomT0m / talk page 14:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Naturally I would think so. But, again, due to poor display of reference, I went this route. But even in this case, Q19642583  

on nnwiki does not look fatal. Игорь Темиров (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side-notice: also related problem in this noticeboard: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:TemirovBot--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning ListeriaBot

Hello, ListeriaBot has been out of control for 24hrs now. Can it be temporarily blocked until Magnus can find time to look into it, so as to limit damages as possible in the meantime. Thanks Nono314 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nono314: blocked for one week. This massive data removing is questionable? Estopedist1 (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 Thank you. Yes you can see there was a behaviour change on June 7th around 3PM: before: mostly positive increments, after: massive data remooval. For all pages I checked there was no change in source data that would explain it. See also those reports Nono314 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nono314, all, apologies for the bug. I believe it is fixed now. Please unblock the bot and check that is is working as expected; I will monitor it as well. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: can you give it a try? Nono314 (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nono314: unblocked Estopedist1 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had to fix a few more details, running now, seems to fix its previous issues. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection of Q126171758 and Q126047522

Edit-warring. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericliu1912, @Txkk: enwiki has pending discussion about merging/redirecting related to this Taiwanese event. Please discuss at enwiki (en:Talk:2024 Taiwanese legislative reform protests) or at Wikidata talk page (e.g. at talk:Q126047522) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: They're not trying to discuss. Besides, per discussion in Chinese Wikipedia, the related articles are still in the process of merging, thus the Wikidata sitelink should not be altered further more, unless there are clear consensus among communities. At this point, I kindly request temporary full protection of the status quo for both links. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 22:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Yarkovesh - personal attacks

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

User:Yarkovesh - personal attacks [1] . Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filter entering and I can't finish.

I'm trying to save discussions on the Wikidata Portuguese village pump from 2020 to 2023 (link). However, an anti-spam filter is blocking my edits. I initially removed YouTube links to bypass the filter (Wikidata:Esplanada/Arquivo/2020-2023), but now it's also catching Facebook and Twitter links.

It's unclear why this filter applies to established users (autoconfirmed) as well. It seems unreasonable. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton you don't seem to have tripped any abuse filters since April - it looks like this is the spam blocklist based on some of the links you are trying to add. See Special:Log/spamblacklist/Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton for the details about what links are blocking you from saving --DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712, yes, I am trying to archive, so this links are already on the Village Pump, they are links to social media of a Brazilian Wikimedia User Group and links to workshops events on YouTube. And as you can see, I can't simple copy and paste. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: the problem seems to be specifically with one "shre(.)ink" link – link shorteners are usually blocked globally, so I would suggest you modify only that link when moving to the archive. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyingAce there are many. Can't administrators bypass the filters? It is a 2-minute edit that, for me, would take probably an hour or so. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton admins cannot bypass that either, but if you use something like https://www.regextester.com/ you can do a batch find-and-replace to surround the link with nowiki tags --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712 so how the original poster could bypass the filter? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton it must not have been on the list of URLs that get blocked back when it was originally posted DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection of Vita Zaverukha (Q30961105)

Edit warring and (likely) BLP violations --Trade (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editors performing the edit war are autoconfirmed and won't be affected. --Lymantria (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could you help, Ymblanter? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs to be full protected, I do not think they are going to stop. Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Protected for three months because of the long-time editwarring. The protection may be removed earlier if the consensus will be reached, or may be prolonged if even such a radical decision will not work. Sorry for an inconvenience. Both parties are welcomed to keep on discussing on the item's talk page. --Wolverène (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning JMagalhães

A user has been exhibiting disruptive editing behaviour, focusing on removing aliases and modifying genders. Here are some examples:

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
...

We can also see they are removing terms without including them on the alias in several other moments:

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
...

This behaviour is problematic for the following reasons:

Information Loss: Removing aliases hinders the searchability of entities with different names.
Disruption: Edit warring disrupts the collaborative editing process by repeatedly undoing other editors' work.

The core concern is removing information and edits warring, not just modifications. These actions violate established practices and confuse users relying on accurate and consistent information.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that this account has been persistently pushing for controversial and/or blatantly wrong changes through edit warring, and then complains in this noticeboard posing as the victim is absolutely puzzling. The first half of the links are simply controversial changes being undone. That's it. Stop POV-pushing through edit wars and get consensus for the changes. The second half... I'm just clueless about whatever this editor is trying to prove or claim.

Beyond that, I would like to point out to administrators the systematic disruptive use of edit summaries by this account. Among its last 500 edits, 83 summaries are used to engage in personal attacks to users who simply undid one of his controversial changes or made some sort of edit he didn't like, systematically calling them "vandals" and "trolls". And this is not the first time this user opens blatantly nonsense incident reports. For example, last year he opened an absolutely bizarre and nonsense claim against me claiming, with no proof whatsoever, that I was "doing vandalism driven by sexism". Being an administrator myself for 10 years, I've dealt with many bizarre things, but this is hard to beat. I'm considering open a T&S case against this user because his claims are so outlandish and out of touch with reality that I'm afraid there's underlying issues that should be handled privately. JMagalhães (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you attacked me, not defending your actions, says loudly about you. Also, it is not only me that you attack and enter into edit wars. It is not me who is removing information from Wikidata.

Sysops: after this discussion is opened, they answered it; these are their edits:

It is a clear no-posture when discussing his actions.

Moreover, this "his claims are so outlandish and out of touch with reality" should be enough for a long block. Attacks that no one should receive. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has already been explained to this user that when his controversial edits are undone, he should not be pov-pushing through edit wars and should instead engage in consensus building. Yet, not only he keeps pushing unwanted edits and massively using summaries for personal attacks. But, in a bizarre move, he pretends to be some sort of victim and opens incidents reports with completely made-up stuff and claims that are beyond outlandish. Honestly, an administrator intervention would be nice to help this person return to reality. JMagalhães (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another attack in front of all admins, and nothing is done. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request for Q5021602

Please semi-protect Q5021602. Reason: target for LTA XReport --SHB2000 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Butko - personal attacks, edit war

Butko (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) - personal attacks [11]. Pushing link to non-reliable website with edit war [12], while the item already contain links to more reliable sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Manyareasexpert

Manyareasexpert (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism, deleting information by political reasons. --Butko (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC) ―Butko (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a vandalism -- ritual-donetsk.com is a website for selling monuments and providing the funeral services (so, not a reliable source in no way) in the (so-called) Donetsk People's Republic, the link itself also contains typical Russian propaganda parts.---Wolverène (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:103.60.175.15

103.60.175.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: A user goes through (usually category and template) items and repurposes them into completely different items for no particular reason them while simply unlinking the wikipedia pages without further actions with them. Examples: [13], [14], [15], [16] Probably needs massive reverts. Solidest (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, blocked for a year and rolled back their items in a couple of items, but indeed a major clean up is needed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:190.204.223.189

190.204.223.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: deleting ―Mykhal (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… it seems that these may be good will edits (del of duplicates or deprecated statements) —Mykhal (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… i don't know, after talk, did it again, and in addition deleted legit photo cations. —Mykhal (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Hjart for a week. --Wolverène (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:41.116.0.0/16

41.116.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: When I previously reported this range, I was told to wait because there was no recent vandalism. Now there is. ―Janhrach (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, once the range is blocked, please delete Q126426942, a data-less item created from this range. Janhrach (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Not a lot though. It's been a steady trinkle of vandalism over a long period. A normal range block this wide would typically have been set for only a month. Instead I opted to block the range for a year while leaving account registration active. Infrastruktur (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Entranced98

Entranced98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Unresponsive problematic user. After yesterday's warning and another several months ago, the user has not responded and continues to add descriptions that do not comply with Wikidata guidelines. Regards ―Kirilloparma (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for 2 weeks. It seems that a lot of repair work is to be done. I expect Entranced98 to carefully read the guidelines and start with repairing descriptions starting with an unneeded capital or ending with a comma, before adding new ones. --Lymantria (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotect Ernesto Pimentel (Q5104264)

Please semiprotect Ernesto Pimentel (Q5104264) since there are constant vandalism edits by IP users. Thanks. --Ovruni (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TemirovBot

This bot currently misuses title (P1476) property to add Wikipedia template syntax in Wikidata. This breakes the data for data consumers that use reference properties in proper manner. E.g. see Special:Diff/2176659938. Bot operator apparently does this intentionally, and doesn't intent to fix their bot (see User talk:Игорь Темиров#References not properly extracted from Wikipedia templates). I think this bot needs to be blocked and it's recent edits should be reversed. 2001:7D0:81DB:1480:E417:CFF3:ACEA:C1D8 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it appears this task was not approved and putting mediawiki syntax into wikidata is not proper. e.g. this edit [17]. I would block but it isn't running right now. @Игорь Темиров: please revert and seek approval for this task. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Today I will start redoing title (P1476) property. Игорь Темиров (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Игорь Темиров: if this is going to be a regular ongoing task with a lot of edits you should probably also seek approval in general BrokenSegue (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a one-time task. Игорь Темиров (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection

I would like to request the temporary protection of item Tamás Sulyok (Q28599854) against anon edits: it must be restored for the fourth time in 12 days. Thanks Pallor (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for one month. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:82.135.22.139

82.135.22.139 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Blocked for 3 weeks by Hjart.--S8321414 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report 85.192.82.1

Please block this user 85.192.82.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), vandalism inserting non-sense images on items. Rastrojo (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Blocked for 1 week.--S8321414 (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2402:9D80:448:7AF8:0:0:0:0/64

2402:9D80:448:7AF8:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: doxing(?) ―Mykhal (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… see also 113.23.115.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). —Mykhal (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mykhal: appropriate actions, if any, have been taken, however please do not use AN if you believe doxxing is involved, see WD:OS instead. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:85.192.78.62

85.192.78.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Blocked for 1 week.--S8321414 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]