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: #wikidata connect
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 2020/05.

Project
chat

Lexicographical
data

Administrators'
noticeboard

Development
team

Translators'
noticeboard

Request
a query

Requests
for deletions

Requests
for comment

Bot
requests

Requests
for permissions

Property
proposal

Properties
for deletion

Partnerships
and imports

Interwiki
conflicts

Bureaucrats'
noticeboard

Requests
for checkuser

Requests for deletions

medium

74 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock

low

1 open request for unblock.

Semi-protection of murderer (Q931260)[edit]

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent vandalism was caused by a single IP. No need to protect IMO. Esteban16 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you could block the IP?--Trade (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it, at least not this time. The IP wasn't warned, the request was attended two hours later and the IP hasn't vandalized since then. IMO, a block would be useless in this case. Esteban16 (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
'the request was attended two hours later' Uhm, yes why are you bringing this up? Anyways, other than the warning i think your demands for blocking IP's for vandalism is very extreme and unreasonable and it kinda saddens me how overly difficult you are making it. --Trade (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Trade, Esteban16: Warned. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Trade: All the points I stated are here. User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned and Time2wait.svg Stale report. , which includes the last two. If the vandalism would had been more severe, I would have considered blocking the IP, but right now, I consider it useless. But, if the vandal comes back, then I would block it. It is usual not to block vandals if a request was late attended. Esteban16 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It is usual not to block vandals if a request was late attended' I'm well aware of that. I just think you are giving far too little time before you call a report stale.Given the average response time on AN it's nearly impossible for a report not to become stale.--Trade (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
If I might jump in, I would only block an IP if I think that doing so is likely to be effective in preventing future disruption. Most IP vandals pop up for an edit or two and then never use that address again. If the time span of an IP's edits is much smaller than the time since those edits, there is simply no reason to think that blocking would serve any purpose. Here the IP made 3 edits spanning five minutes, and you reported this within 25 minutes (5x edit period). By the time Esteban16 responded, the IP had been idle for nearly 2.5 hours, or 30x the IP's edit period. Bovlb (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16: Why not range block? i.e. Special:Block/95.185.190.0/24? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/95.185.190.0/24 - No other IP from this block has contributed to Wikidata. We only block IP ranges if there is abuse from multiple addresses (and few-to-no non-abusive edits). We do not usually block ranges because of a problem with one IP. This project's policy is to allow anonymous edits, so we can only block them if we can show it is likely to prevent future disruption without significant collateral damage. Bovlb (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexismata7 and Cuatro Remos[edit]

User Alexismata7 (talkcontribslogs) has been adding incorrect descriptions on item Dua Lipa (Q21914464), in languages he does not speak, and has been reinstating them despite being told not to do so. At this moment, they have reverted me three times, but he could be blocked anyway for deliberate vandalism. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can see that just below this thread they've posted a retaliatory post against me, for reversing his "correct" google-translated descriptions. Please take action. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Cuatro Ramos
Section removed to resolve this incident jointly.

User Cuatro Remos (talkcontribslogs) is reversing me correct translations on item Dua Lipa (Q21914464), when he judged them to be incorrect and did not even verify them (that I do not know how to speak a language does not mean that I can make a correct translation). --Alexis Mata (discusión) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider Alexismata7's edits "deliberate vandalism", but lack of common sense. He was firt undid by Miaow, and she told him that the English and Spanish descriptions he added weren't notable. Dua Lipa is mostly known for being a singer, and he added that she is a model and fashion designer, which, as stated by Miaow, is not necessary to add because the descriptions should include only the most notable occupations of a person. Cuatrro Remos considered the rest of his edits vandalism (and lack of languages knowledge) and restored the item. Cuatro Remos, who has been previously warned for the misuse of the rollback tool, did it again. Here he used the tool during and edit warring, and I consider this sufficient to remove his flag. As I was involved in his past disputes, I prefer not to do it myself. And, Alexismata7 shouldn't have continued do edit until consensus was reached. The response I give is that the descriptions added by AlexisMata7 shouldn't be restored, and I highly recommend an uninvolved administrator to review Cuatro Remos' use of the rollback tool. Esteban16 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Restoring wrong changes despite being told not to do so is vandalism, and so rollback tool has not been misused. It was not edit warring (only three rollbacks were performed). I could not resolve the issue myself, so I came here. I thank Miaow's comments on Alexis' talk page, which denote again their lack of common sense, as you Esteban put it. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Cuatro Remos: Alexismata7' aim wasn't to harm to item, he just added data he claimed was right, but his actions weren't good. You did good by coming here, but if an user disagrees you, you shouldn't revert them. Esteban16 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, due to the continuous disputes between the two users, I have imposed an interaction saction between them untill they both agree to collaborate peacfully. Esteban16 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User RusFas[edit]

Offensive username that means Rus(sian)Fas(cist), see his contributions, 4 edits out of total 10 are:

  • [1]: changing Russian description from "form of radical authoritarian nationalism" to "Third Way";
  • [2]: changing Russian description from "form of fascism with elements of racism and antisemitism" to "Official political ideology of Germany from 1933 till 1945."
  • [3]: changing Russian description from "far-right political movement, ideology" to "Official political ideology of Italy from 1922 till 1945."
  • [4]: changing Russian description from "white nationalists' slogan" to "Neonazi slogan"

Wikisaurus (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Two more edits of the same sort: [5] and [6]. Isn't there enough even of fascist pushing, without username, to ban him? Wikisaurus (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Although he is not very active, I see here a general mood for confrontation and promoting a marginal point of view. The observation about the nickname is confirmed by the fact that on his page on the Russian Wikipedia he indicated that he was a supporter of National Fascist Party (Q139596) Carn (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See also en:Wikipedia:No Nazis Carn (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:158.102.162.34[edit]

158.102.162.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: not sure about this one ( am I rusty??) but the IP removed coordinates and height over the sea, on a number of files. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion[edit]

Q95309153 and Q95308807 were deleted without discussion. I presume these to be a social media influencer and her brand. They were referenced to reliable sources, and one of the two entries was linked to an image on Wikimedia Commons. Why were they deleted so quickly? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Pasleim: can you explain why you deleted them? ChristianKl❫ 22:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Given that there seems to be no REVDEL issue here, I have undeleted both pro tem to further this discussion. They don't seem to have any basis for passing our notability criteria, however: No sitelinks, no identifiers, one weak reference, and (apart from a link between them) no structural need. @ Zanimum: Do you believe you can remedy these flaws in the near term? Bovlb (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I deleted these items based on a request of User:Nadzik on WD:RFD. I shared the opinion by Nadzik that both items don't meet our notability criteria. The only reference provided is a list of influencer. --Pasleim (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      • As I was pinged here, I'll chip in my opinion. Both of these items describe not-notable things, I think it is a promo and that is the reasoning I used with my RfD. Camilla Mendini may be an influencer, but I don't think that anyone on the internet has heard about that, same goes for the firm she is linked to. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Neither the OP nor I were aware of the RfD discussion; it was not referenced in the deletion comment. Still waiting on the OP to answer my question above. Bovlb (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism at Pimen Zainea (Q12738081)[edit]

This page Pimen Zainea (Q12738081) (recent death) is constantly edited by anonymous accounts to add incorrect information speculating that the person died from Covid-19. He did have the virus, but the direct cause of death was still heart failure, per ro:Pimen Zainea#Decesul. I request the page to be semi-protected, if possible. Gikü (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Covid-19 is an illness that attacks the heart. The direct cause of death being heart failure in no way implies that he wasn't dying due to covid. A quick googling also suggest that there are sources that suggest he was dying of COVID. To the extend that there are sources making different claims, the custom in Wikidata is to list both claims with appropriate references. ChristianKl❫ 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/83.42.209.71[edit]

Vandalism on Tales of Count Lucanor (Q1324033) yesterday and an hour ago.

Please protect the page for a bit if appropriate, since there's been some other IP vandals: 95.23.34.217 (talkcontribslogs), 95.19.35.104 (talkcontribslogs), 81.38.76.51 (talkcontribslogs). – Aranya (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Suggest range block, warn posted to every IP addresses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
That item has had problems for quite a while. Semi-protected, and also blocked a couple of IPs that showed repeated history. Others are too stale to deal with. I see no case for a range block here. Bovlb (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Basadre[edit]

Hello there. I would like an administrator to intervene in this Jorge Basadre (Q736566), before there becomes an edit war, which I don't want to happen. I have (re-)added Basadre's citizenship as Chilean because he was born in (then) Chilean territory and was registered as a Chilean national, as seen in a birth certificate available on Commons. However, an user has been constantly removing it, claiming there should not be original research on this project. I don't believe adding a primary source is original research in any way (since it is not my assumption he was Chilean, it is the document which says it all). See this last removal. I told them I was coming here preemptively, as I said, without the intention of getting anyone blocked or anything, just to have the neutral intervention of someone else. Thanks in advance. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. I have been unable to

Special:Contributions/181.73.183.247[edit]

Vandalism. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: Blocked for 31h. Bovlb (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Already blocked on ESWP. es:Especial:Contribuciones/181.73.183.247 Bovlb (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Tamawashi[edit]

Every 6 months or so, we block a series of ips and accounts suspected to be linked to the above user. This is mostly based on their high volume of edits around ISNI, GND, P2580, and project chat comments. It seems to be me that we currently have a return of the same. How would we go about checking this? --- Jura 09:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We are unable to make a 100% proof of identity anyways. I do see that there is some sort of a disagreement about preferred item creation vs maintenance strategies, but I ask all involved parties to sort this out in a civilized manner. Since the current situation has not at all escalated to an unacceptable level yet, I do not see a reason to use administrative tools at this point. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see why we should allow a user to block evade and come back to insult us under yet another account. --- Jura 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I have not seen any insults yet, although I loosely follow the situation. Have I overlooked something? The past follow-up accounts (or IP ranges) of User:Tamawashi have been blocked after clear misconduct. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The user has been globally banned by the community a couple of years ago, I am afraid there is nothing more beyond a global ban we can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
We can make sure it's applied. --- Jura 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.141.93.185[edit]

Vandalism. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: Sorry, too stale now. Four edits to one article within three minutes, now over six hours ago. Bovlb (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mediation between MovieFex and me[edit]

I find myself in an ongoing edit war with User:MovieFex across items and properties that is starting to get quite nasty, even though it is mostly about bagatelles. I know that I have my part in it as I continued reverting even when it got clear that there will be no consensus via communication over edit histories. It seems that MovieFex tends to insulting and/or pejorative comments (unjustified, after checking my points e.g. [7], [8]), stalling and does not seem able to accept other persons positions even when these are backed up by other members of the community and/or guidelines. Incidentally, MovieFex does not seem to be willing to look for advice via talk pages, but does seem to see this as a kind of confession of weakness (if I interpret his comment at [9] and his reaction at [10] correctly). That's why it starts to get quite frustrating for me. I can't stand it any longer, but I can't accept someone getting "his/her way" at the cost of other people's contributions without giving solid arguments and I can't accept to be insulted. There seems to be a general pattern of resentment and I don't want to start a new discussion for every item/property that is affected by our inability to cooperate. So I start a general call for mediation here.

History:

1. Edit war about the use of deprecated rank (since May 20 2020‎):

  • Start of edit war at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), 12:36, 20. Mai 2020: [11]: MovieFex deleted the statement indicating the Dutch title, backed up by the European Film Academy Archive of the European Film Awards. I restored it suggesting to deprecate the statement if one is sure that the French title is really the original title. After doing some research I deprecated the statement with the reason that I could not confirm this with other sources. MovieFex does not agree with the deprecation.
  • I seek mediation at Wikidata:Project_chat#Deprecated_rank. Other participants in the discussion support the deprecation.
  • At the same time we have a discussion about the question if deprecated statements trigger constraint violations (User_talk:MovieFex#Deprecated_ranks_and_constraint_reports) leading to MovieFex to claim that the depreation of statements is one of my "special ideas" and asserting that "I [MovieFex] was confronted with many of your ideas that are absolutely unreasonable and it only shows that there sometimes is a lack in understanding. But for today I've wasted enough time in substantive discussions". When I referred to all the guidelines supporting the deprecation of ranks (esp. Help:Property_constraints_portal/Single_value#Possible_actions, Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank) there was no reponse or counter argument.
  • I restored my edit at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), 20:32, 23. Mai 2020‎, after some days to give time for consideration. He/She reverted me again, in the end because of "monolingual text". I still don't see what a deprecated statement has to do with "monolingual text".
  • I seek mediation, again at Wikidata:Project_chat#Deprecated_Rank_and_constraint_violations. There another user backs up the deprecated statements. MovieFex does not seem to be willing to restore the deprecated statement or answer to the points brought up against his position.

I have no idea what to do after some waiting period without any response by MovieFex: Should I revert, again, and risk to start another edit war? Should I ask some other person to revert or restore my edit?

2. Edit war about the indication of premiere dates of films (since May 21 2020‎)

Several persons including myself add premiere dates to films. In 2017 it was accepted at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies/Properties#Looking_for_right_Properties and documented at Property_talk:P793 to use significant event (P793). date of first performance (P1191) was dropped with the reason that it should be reserved for live performances. significant event (P793) was confirmed, again, at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Datum_der_Erst-_oder_Uraufführung_(P1191)_for_films with the only opposing person being MovieFex. He/she did not provide any alternative way to indicate premiere dates or give his/her reasons for blocking the indication of premiere dates of films in Wikidata altogether. Instead, he/she deleted such a statement at Siberia (Q83954889) with the reason "no consensus" ([12]). I started a new section for discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Deletion_of_statements,_possible_options but MovieFex did not respond there, yet.

Again, I have no idea what to do, as I don't want to risk another edit war.

3. Edit war about the use of name of the character role (P4633) (since today, May 26 2020)

Some background: Even though name of the character role (P4633) was proposed for performing arts productions it is also used on films, which seems to be reasonable to me, as there is often a list of role names in the credits being part of the film which can be thought of as corresponding to the program of a performing arts production. It should ideally be used along with character role (P453). Nevertheless there is a comment in the property proposal by the person who proposed it, Beat Estermann, pointing out that the qualifier could be also used without character role (P453): "[...] it also comes with the advantage that it can be used when the target WD item for the character role is unknown or has not been defined yet; from this point of view, it also functions like author name string (P2093).", admitting the use without character role (P453). In this way the property is often used where the creation of an own item may seem excessive, eg. for very minor roles in films (see Iron Man 3 (Q209538)).

name of the character role (P4633) was proposed with Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick) (Q40289399) in mind, giving "Dienstmann" as an example (Wikidata:Property_proposal/name_of_the_character_role). "Dienstmann" is not a personal name, but a name (Q82799) identifying the role in the context of the play. Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick) (Q40289399) is full with "names of character role" being not personal names but job titles and similar.

I used this property at Life is Beautiful (Q19355) (besides others) to indicate that "Madre di Dora" is the name of the character role of Marisa Paredes (Q235398) as given in the closing credits of the film. MovieFex deleted the qualifier. I restored my version pointing out that this is the way the person is mentioned in the credits. Even though "Dienstmann" is given as an example in the property proposal and Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick) (Q40289399) is full with "role names" being not personal names, MovieFex does not accept that name of the character role (P4633) can be used with anything than personal names (you can see the edit war history at [13]).

I started a new discussion at Property_talk:P4633. There was no response, yet, so I don't know where this will lead, but I wanted to include this case for completeness. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MovieFex: Please answer here or at Property_talk:P4633 before continuing your deletions of name of the character role (P4633) (such as at Little Tony (Q1627206) [14]). "vriendin" is how the role is mentioned in the credits of the film. You give no evidence at all that your interpretation of that property is right. [15] should probably be one. But your reference does not support your claim. The property proposal, the use in relevant items created by the proposer of that property and the example at the property page oppose your view. Please give evidence that supports your view that personal names are allowed only. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@MovieFex: I'm going to restore my edits in the course of the next week if there is no reply by you here or at any of the discussion sections. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Faraday (Q8750)[edit]

Ongoing IP vandalism. --Succu (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Only one IP vandalized the item. Esteban16 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I count 4 Ips that vandalized in May alone. MisterSynergy (talkcontribslogs) protected the item. ChristianKl❫ 12:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Siswo11[edit]

Siswo11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

vandalism. item TCL Electronics (Q29468800) is hijacked and the original content is forked to Q95350993 by User:RVFA and User:LucianoLucho[edit]

-- As title. Matthew hk (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

update. Content now restore but the user need a block or not? I can't find any warning message template for this wikiproject. Matthew hk (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's vandalism. In cases like this, it is best to leave a personalized message explaining what they did wrong (likely two people, possibly employed by the company, trying to make changes but not understanding). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted some more repurposing of the redirect, and left each of them a message. Bovlb (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Still having some problems. I have semi-protected both items for a week, and tried my best to explain matters to RVFA. Bovlb (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Spambots[edit]

Can someone please block the spambot who's appearing at the Spam blacklist log?--Trade (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: This would get a swifter response if it included necessary details. Bovlb (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You know what, they are soo similar i think a CU would be a better fit. --Trade (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

semi-protection for Gabriel García Márquez (Q5878)[edit]

Hi,

The item has been vandalized every day for a week, 3 ip today.

It was protected in 2018 and 2019, until 13 days ago... — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for another year. Bovlb (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Q14403681 and Q4309738. The merge tool no longer works. --В.Галушко (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

One is a template, the other a mainspace article. Please do not merge or request merger of items from different namespaces. - FakirNL (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Q32453095 and Q9092083 --В.Галушко (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Merged and blanking user warned. People are reporting problems with the merge tool today. Bovlb (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Undid first merging. Templates and mainspace should not be merged unless I'm unaware of a big change of policy. - FakirNL (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See discussion on merge tool problem on Wikidata:Project chat#Merge gadget issues?. Akela (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.123.104.23[edit]

2.123.104.23 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) He have been adding unsourced birth names to a lot of items about adult actors. Since i can:t find any of the birth bames on Google it's unlikely to be pu lc knowledge and as such believe his edits are violating our policy regarding the privacy of BLP.--Trade (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Some names have to be real (e.g. John Strong doesn't hide his real name). However I guess that the main source of birth names were now-closed PornWikiLeaks, which was leading the "wh*re hunting" (c) and used the information that has been stolen from a clinical database, so it's not that situation when a person disclosures the name by his/her own, or when a person wasn't careful to hide the personal data making it easily googled.
    I've heard what was happening to adult actors who have been unmasked on e.g. imageboards - they were harassed, they lost regular jobs and such. This shouldn't be encouraged so it's better to block the anonym for some time. --Wolverène (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have emailed a oversighter to take care of this. --Trade (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is somewhat urgent.@Ajraddatz:--Trade (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW I haven't received an email about this, or any notification until now, so if by your ping you meant to say that you emailed me then I'm afraid it didn't get through. As to the case, I'm not sure how best to handle this -- I looked through a sample of eight, and was able to easily find the real name of the individual for five of them. It's not clear to me that all of this qualifies as suppressable content. That said, if these people are all notable for being porn actresses/actors, then maybe it's best to just remove their real names from the alias column? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:184.146.206.155[edit]

184.146.206.155 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). A number of edits removing and changing content. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 81.255.79.86[edit]

Hello, IP 81.255.79.86 has committed targeted item Q3176091 multiple times as can be seen here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.255.79.86. Probably a schoolchild having fun. Thanks for your consideration -- RSVartanian, 29-05-2020

 Not done IP has not edited since 10/12/2019. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Peque, Zamora (Q744207)[edit]

Dear administrators,

The item Peque, Zamora (Q744207) has been vandalized for several IPs since May 27, I think it should be semi-protected so just registered users could edit it. The items is not very edited (the last editions before the vandalism are from bots), so I think it may be semi-protected for some weeks. I leave this to your criteria.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As a note, IPs involved: 95.121.20.54 and 95.127.150.178. And there is one user, Wiiiiikiiiii, with just two edits, the same as the ones made by the IPs, that presumably may be another vandal. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Another IP involved: 95.127.150.98. The vandalism in the element persists. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 15:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The situation of this item and the battle of the IPs involved are being really exhaustive... Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked the last IP involved in edit warring, and semi-protected the item for six months. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Sannita. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ELSONRICS[edit]

ELSONRICS (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: All his edits are involved in the deletion or modification of statements in current items without any reasons; including the creation the of promotional items that does not comply with the Wikidata's notability policy. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User has not edited since first warning. Blanking and repurposing is (regrettably) a very common first interaction for users. In many cases, the user is redeemable. See also Wikidata:Project_chat#Américo_Castro. Bovlb (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I hope you are right, Bovlb. And yes, I fixed the one of Américo Castro. I will be careful, due in Commons it just persists in Américo Castro and in the upload of photographs (probably of himself): check his contributions. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

KrBot[edit]

Four users have now complained about behaviour of User:KrBot at User talk:Ivan A. Krestinin#GND ID replacement of redirected ids. However the bot owner is not responding to our comments. Shouldt the bot be blocked until the user is able to respond? Ping @Kolja21, MrProperLawAndOrder, Raymond: Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I now blocked the bot--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: See response at User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin. BTW next time partial block should be used instead.--GZWDer (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
As far as I see, there is still no consensus at that page. When there is consensus, of if it converges to a situation where only one person is unhappy and nobody else cares, I will unblock the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has switched to removing the IDs manually... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It's a process working for years for these ids. If it's not appreciated by a globally banned user, please don't post or intervene on their behalf. --- Jura 06:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocking User:Alain Serhal[edit]

User:Alain Serhal vandalized speed of light (Q2111) and did not participate in any other form. Should it be blocked? MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Helo Dear it is Alain Serhal. I didn't delete anything in the page, except changing the number of the speed and if yes it is because it is my first time using wikipedia. I though that it will be update next to the original information and someone go and check the status before publishing the final draft.

Second of All, let me tell you that the speed of Light is not correct "sorry to tell you that" and I will speak it in front of all people on earth. Everybody used to use the C=300 000 km/s as speed of light and it is not exactly 100% in absolute vaccum because from the simplest think that Velocity of the gravity of earth while moving around the sun in 1 closing 1 year circle is more then 309 000 km/s. Velocity = Time of (earth moving around the sun in 1 year) x Gravity=365.25 x 24h x 60min. x 60sec. x 9.807g = 309485383.2 km/s So how is 300 000km/s is correct? How is Gravity more then speed of Light? it is impossible because the speed of Light propagate in gravity and it is the faster thing by nature. Beside I have a book of Proof I couldn't upload it yesterday on how I discovered the speed of Light in Absolute emptiness which is equal to C=π MegaMeters / Centisecond C= 3.141592 MegaMeters/Centisecond which is equal to 314 159.2 km/s it is more of about approx. 14 thousand of km instead of 300 000 km/s only. and this is the absolute reality of Light. I discovered this through 25 years of Science and Quantum Mechanics Study and from the total eclipse of the Sun. and i am the one who discovered this. Beside I couldn't write well in the Wikipedia editor because it is my first time i use it, so I apologies if I misunderstood the concept of wikipedia editor.

In the end it is a matter of time to let people believe Me.

Based on the above response, I blocked the user indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I blocked indef on ENWP, deleted pages, and also nominated pages for deletion on Commons. Bovlb (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please semi protect Leaning Tower of Pisa (Q39054)[edit]

I fixed some of the vandalism, but more might be needed. --- Jura 13:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)