Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #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 2024/06.

Requests for deletions

high

~105 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

empty

0 open requests for unblock.

Unblock request for TheBellaTwins1445[edit]

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]

Request for undeletion of Oxford Learning Q124034787[edit]

Hey Admins, can you please assist in undeleting "Oxford Learning Q124034787"

We are tracking them in the Name Suggestion Index project. https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/9078#issuecomment-1872440176

The items in NSI are generally retail chains, health clinics, transit systems, or other points of interest which are found in OpenStreetMap. This particular brand is a learning center with over 100 locations (most in Canada), which we believe establishes notability.

Thanks for your consideration! (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant items: Q124034787 (76.64.123.99). CC deleting admins @Yahya
Original item had only an official website towards notability.
I'm inclined to support undeletion, if we treat the OSM as a sister project that satisfies N3. It would help if we could also satisfy N2 by coming up with identifiers and sources. Bovlb (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arch2bot[edit]

This is a highly dysfunctional bot. It tries to align our database with the one at archinform.net - which just happens to be an outdated mirror of ours. It writes claims with the comment "based on archINFORM.net entry", but this produces mostly errors. Talking to the programmer of the bot (User:Arch2all) doesn't seem too helpful either, since his whole talk page is full of the malfunctions of this bot - and the user doesn't seem to take this serious (User_talk:Arch2all). Please stall this bot. -- Clemens 00:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your post here is quite offending! With the bot Arch2bot I have enriched wikidata with tons of architectural information in the last years. And I take this work really seriously. I corrected all the error mesages from other users mentioned in my Talk page and enhanced the bot step by step. And don't forget to compare the amount of error messages in relation to the amount of edits of the Arch2bot (see: https://wikidata.wikiscan.org/user/Arch2bot ). Btw archINFORM is not an outdated mirror of Wikipedia. It uses Wikipedia (and caches the data out of performance reasons), but it has it's own underlying huge database (parts of this database are imported to wikidata by Arch2bot as generous grant of archINFORM). Arch2all (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you explain edits like this one or that one? This has just produced constraint violations, because the claim was placed on the wrong item, which has been split a short time before (to distinguish between the organization and the building in one case, to distinguish between the whole bridge and the listed part in one city district in the other case). The reason for this was obviously (this can be seen by the bot's comments) that this is based on the entries of archINFORM which in turn are based on WD and do not (or very slowly) adopt the changes here, whereas the bot is quick to align - and thus tries to undo the work we are doing here, because it hasn't arrived in its database. This is simply the wrong way to work it. Sorry for appearing offensive, but such things make me furious. I spend my thoughts on how to model items correctly, and then some bot comes along and tries to toss it over for no sensible reason. -- Clemens 09:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete in this case claims with archINFORM reference, deprecate them instead! This is good practice. I check these cases with SPARQL queries on an irregular base.
Or even much better, give me a note on my talk page. Arch2all (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent false positives on abuse filter 52?[edit]

Hi! I was trying to add a few sitelinks to redirects (Q2660152 → w:First-degree burn, Q2303020 → w:Second-degree burn, Q2259438 → w:Third-degree burn and Q2484400 → w:Fourth-degree burn to be specific), but kept getting the following error, linking me to this noticeboard:

  • The save has failed.
  • Warning: You are trying to add/remove badges to this item. At local Wikipedias adding or removing badges are done by consensus. Saving this edit was blocked and should be done only by administrators or trusted users. If you think you are correct, please contact an administrator.

This seems to be caused by Special:AbuseFilter/52 disallowing the addition of the "intentional sitelink to redirect" badge (which is recommended/required by Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects), however given that none of w:Template:R with Wikidata item, Help:Sitelinks or Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects mention any account requirement, the wording of the error message (At local Wikipedias adding or removing badges are done by consensus) implies the intent of the filter is to prevent adding badges which require a consensus (such as "good article"/"featured article"/etc.) and not "maintenance" badges like "intentional sitelink to redirect", and that according to Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects, intentional sitelinks to redirects were only added in October 2022 while the filter has existed since 2014, this seems to be caused by an oversight in not excluding the "sitelink to redirect" badges from the filter when they were added.

Thanks, 2A00:807:B0:1959:A581:23F7:AA6A:855F 00:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


+1-ing this, I receive the same message while trying to add Q3260284 → w:MSN Messenger [1], being a particular case where two different iterations of a same product have separate pages on one language wiki and one singular page on the English Wiki. Thanks, Salvadorp2001 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a recurring problem. CC @Matěj Suchánek, @Pasleim Bovlb (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done The filter will now allow the two badges for everyone. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request intentional sitelink to redirect for Q1456845[edit]

Chinese Wikipedia has an article about both, but the non-Chinese versions are split between Q1456845 (about the software) and Q15915960 (about the company). I can probably add the template required to get the interlanguage links working on the English Wikipedia side, but from what I can see I need to be confirmed to add the link to redirect on the Wikidata side? Not sure if there's another way to do this I haven't considered. Alpha3031 (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:41.116.0.0/16[edit]

41.116.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: long-term vandalism (but also a very small number of good-faith edits); already blocked on enwiki. ―Janhrach (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South-African /17 mobile network. Doesn't appear to have had previous range blocks either globally or local. The amount of recent vandalism isn't big enough for a block that big to be advisable at this point in time, but if that changes let us know. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour by User:Wostr[edit]

Three month ago I came to your Noticeboard about the behaviour of user Wostr regarding chemical subjects, see here. Nobody bothered to respond and the topic got archived without any reaction, but Wostr stopped their behaviour at the moment I brought it here, so I assumed this to be resolved. Until today, when all of a sudden dozens of Wikipedia pages reappeared in maintenance categories, because Wostr restarted their compulsive removal of P18 claims. See e.g. here. What could we do about this? In February I have tried to explain to Wostr why their actions are counter productive, see here, but I somehow failed. Jcb (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: if this is chemistry-specific, then you should ask for opinion here: Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry or enwiki en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry Estopedist1 (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is more behaviour-specific. Three months ago Wostr threatened repeatedly to take me to this noticeboard. Then I came to this noticeboard and Wostr stopped their disturbing behaviour immediately, so they know they are on the wrong end. After waiting three months, yesterday they started their behaviour again all of a sudden. They have been unwilling to justify their actions and apparently they try to enforce some personal opinion, inexplicably undoing other peoples work. Jcb (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: he is super-Wikipedian (also admin in plwiki), so he definitely are doing only good faith edits. In the case you mention ([2]) it seems OK to remove duplicate image, like user:Wostr did. However, I am not familiar with chemical compound-related data structure in Wikidata Estopedist1 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to avoid discussing this issue here, because after Jcb stated that Wikidata is a project inferior to Wikipedia and that WD only purpose is to serve other Wikimedia projects, I felt that any further discussion is pointless. I'll try to summarize this problem here, but I have to say that I don't have time to watch his every edit and I didn't stopped any actions – I simply check some queries every few months and correct any encountered problems, I don't do such things on a daily basis.
We have several properties related to images in Wikidata that are in fact subproperties of image (P18). In chemistry-related field we have chemical structure (P117) and image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224), but we use also more general properties like related image (P6802) or schematic (P5555). chemical structure (P117) was created many years ago in order to separate chemical structure diagrams from other graphics. Such distinction was made mainly because of Wikipedia – thanks to this re-users of our data (like Wikipedia projects) are able to easily import files that they want to have (e.g. in infoboxes). The same motive was behind the creation of image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224). Thanks to separation of image (P18), chemical structure (P117) and image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) re-users (mainly Wikipedia projects) are able to import our data with a lot of confidence that they are importing the right images – most Wikipedia projects use chemical structure diagrams (→ chemical structure (P117)) in their infoboxes, some use also other images like 3D models (→ image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224)) or pictures of samples (→ image (P18)), but in some projects use of 3D models is discouraged and wikipedians in these projects wouldn't use WD for this purpose without separation of image (P18) into chemical structure (P117) and image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224).
The main problem with Jcb's actions is that he is unwilling to see that the problem may be on the nl.wiki side. He uses some maintenance category on his home project and tries to empty this category. I tried to explain that it is a problem on the nl.wiki side and they should correct it themselves by using other properties than image (P18). But the response to that was clear: we (WD) should adjust to the nl.wiki needs. His edits resulted in creating a mess as he inconsistently added some images to chemistry-related items (like adding two 3D molecular models, one in image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) and the other one in image (P18); sometimes he added duplicated images as image (P18) which were already present in image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224). Such edits were problematic for projects that are following the existing data model, e.g. in Wikimedia Commons where duplicated images was shown in infoboxes, or it was very unintuitive when 3D model was shown after clicking the normal image, and other 3D model was shown after clicking the right button.
There were also problems in some items, because Jcb obviously lack necessary competence in the field of chemistry. He added some images that were clearly incorrect (e.g. wrong spatial configuration of a molecule) or images that were not directly relevant to the item (e.g. synthesis scheme as an image of a substance). It gives the impression that his main goal is simply to empty the maintenance category on nl.wiki, but in WD some items just don't have proper images (and some will never have an image)
During our discussion a few months ago I pointed him to the image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) property creation proposal as a basis for placing all 3D models in this property and not in image (P18), but that wasn't a sufficient argument for him. I also pointed him to WikiProject Chemistry discussion page, but I get a response that his edits were correct and that I should discuss this problem if I want to use chemical structure (P117) and image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) instead of image (P18). Something that we are doing here for years and many Wikipedia projects are using this model to import images to infoboxes.
So I'll make it clear so that no one is surprised: until another data model for chemistry-related items is discussed, I will periodically (a few weeks, months) correct all inconsistencies. I still insist that the problem here is simple: nl.wiki should adjust their infoboxes to use other properties than image (P18), like any other Wikipedia project. Wostr (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the discussion in February on my talk page (readable for everybody) is so blatantly wrong in many ways, that I don't know where to start. Maybe language proficiency (not on my side) is a problem here, I don't know. The sad fact is that maintenance categories in several language versions of Wikipedia are flooded with chemistry articles, of which Wostr seems to be the sole cause. As pointed out previously, there are many pages where you can see in the history that over the years a handful of different editors from different language backgrounds, did the same edits, just to be reverted by Wostr. Jcb (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the discussion on your talk page, and Wostr's characterisation appears to be broadly correct. He explained a consistent scheme for using these properties using appropriate specificity and avoiding duplication, and how this scheme is intended to support client projects. He also pointed out that, if you want broader input into such questions, you should raise it at an appropriate forum. Both of you were more abrasive and less respectful in your communication that would be ideal. You are correct that it would have been better to (be able to) point at a guideline document that codifies this practice and explains how client projects might best exploit it. Bovlb (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is planned to be created under Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry/Guidelines/Illustrations, but it's not my priority right now, especially that I'm working on a complicated case in the Polish ArbCom. Wostr (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New request for oversight (2)[edit]

Here's the info again, in case anyone hasn't seen it yet; there is a new request for oversight. Please see (and vote) on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/KonstantinaG07. --Wüstenspringmaus talk 14:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Q117303562[edit]

This item about an Internet phenomena people in Vietnam is getting vandalism every hours. Please protect it or block any vandal accounts made edit on it. minhhuy (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Saroj (talk) 12:59, 31 May 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) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2001:448A:50E1::/48[edit]

2001:448A:50E1::/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Same as 2001:448A:50E0::/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). ―Kokage si (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but does anyone know is it possible to see concrete IP edits, so these can be patrolled as well? We cannot patrol edits given via IP-range Estopedist1 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block User:Its my amazing home that im the big man [edit]

Vandalism only Bennylin (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Blocked indef.--S8321414 (talk) 11:33, 1 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. Lymantria (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Mt.Asahidata[edit]

Mt.Asahidata (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long-term abuse user of jawiki. ―Apple_TD (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

124.13.115.224[edit]

Vandalism, the main space contributions I already reverted, the talk pages must be cleaned, too. A block seems to be reasonable, because the user stated I am back in a minute. Florentyna (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

124.13.115.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
User warned. You could have done this. Bovlb (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP persisted, so ✓ blocked for 2 weeks. --Lymantria (talk) 11:43, 2 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. Lymantria (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Q6892571[edit]

Please semi-protect Mohammed bin Salman (Q6892571) - frequent IP vandalism, popular theme, living person. Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Multichill (talk) 16:18, 1 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. Multichill (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Q76658[edit]

Please semi-protect Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Q76658) - frequent IP vandalism, popular theme, living person. Jklamo (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Multichill (talk) 16:18, 1 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. Multichill (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Jaheim2002[edit]

Jaheim2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

See: Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2024/04#Block request for User:Jaheim2007 and User:Jaheim2010

Returned again after the blocking of others of their accounts. William Graham (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also started creating some more hoax items related to a hoaxes on Simple Wiki that I've nominated for deletion. See Q126275560 and Q126278718. William Graham (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done deleted, blocked, the user has been subsequently globally locked as well. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

block request for מובריטוס[edit]

מובריטוס (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) vandal, active in he wiki (see w:he:משתמש:קאליקאלעס). איש עיטי (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done blocked indefinitely. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 18:29, 1 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) 14:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Q109352798[edit]

There is unproductive edit warring going on at Q109352798. I'm not even sure which version is correct. Could someone take a look at it? - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also abuselog... Seems automated... - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the item for a while (until the user becomes autoconfirmed) to buy us some time. The correct version is probably this one.
Is the activity something that warrants indef block? Given there are some private global anti-spam rules, should this be forwarded to stewards? --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some long-term lock evasion going on so I reported the account to the stewards. The IPs are likely proxies or shared CGNAT, so I don't think any blocking is needed. I'm definitely putting this page on my watchlist though. - XXBlackburnXx (talk)
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) 14:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:212.58.121.32[edit]

212.58.121.32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam XReport ―Leonidlednev (talk) 19:20, 1 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. WikiBayer (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Sb316211[edit]

Sb316211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: lengthy description additions to mainly Israeli politicians, e.g. their claimed crimes, ... should be checked whether it's consistent with Wikidata standards ―Mykhal (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done WD:LP violations. We can rule out good faith editing here. Blocked indef. Infrastruktur (talk) 07:08, 2 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. Infrastruktur (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brody[edit]

Merge or deletion of Adam Brody. Reason : Already exists under this item [3]. 2A02:85F:F08D:758E:CCA9:842B:A48C:2CE6 22:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, different concept, referring to the fictional character. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:38, 2 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Q15967616[edit]

Excessive spam. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 3 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=2171257772"