Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2020/04

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please protect Percy Jackson (Q3899725)

Many vandalism. Thanks. 轻语者 (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Mobile Mantra Mobile Training Institute Agra

Mobile Mantra Mobile Training Institute Agra (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Promotion-only account. --Trade (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q1111411

Rodolfo Walsh (Q1111411): persistent vandalism. --Trade (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for one month; please report again if vandalism continues after this protection expires.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q36215

Please semi-protect Mark Zuckerberg (Q36215) - persistent IP vandalism from various IP addresses, living person, popular theme.--Jklamo (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected indefinitely due to persistent vandalism and long protection history. --Kostas20142 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:74.215.106.197

74.215.106.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: sTiLl removing contents. Please extend the block. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done re-blocked for 2 months --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning user Matlin

Matlin This user have created a batch that duplicates a large number of logo images (example), which should remain in the logo image (P154) property instead of image (P18) property. I tried to talk to him, but zero response. Can someone block this user to stop this edits and see if he is responding? Regards. Kirilloparma (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted by me. The bath was still runing, when you reverted it... Matlin (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now it seems like you undoing the incorrect edits, thanks for your reply and next time make sure that you doing correctly before start similar batch. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems resolved for now, no block needed. Please be careful with the batch edits, and maybe check a few after the batch has started to confirm they are fine. Regards, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties

Is it possible to do something about MediaWiki_talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties#More_logical_sorting_for_chemistry? This section is open since March 11th and I really don't know how to put this in simpler words. It's just 'replace A with B, delete 18 properties from different sections, move 1 property to different section'. It's about 2-3 minutes work. Or at least, could I get an explanation why it can't be done? Wostr (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wostr (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yasmani Acosta

I created the page Yasmani Acosta in enwiki. I can’t establish a link to wikifsta as I don’t have enough permissions.

@Mmagrappling: I have linked the enwiki page with the WD item. --Trade (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Esteban16 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please block WeBPiT (talk • contribs • logs)

Spam only account. 轻语者 (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Globally locked --Esteban16 (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Nedim Jahić

Nedim Jahić (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki spam. According to @~riley: this person have been globally blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedim Jahić (2nd nomination) for more information (DavidBEKT (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))) --Trade (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q303

Please semi-protect Elvis Presley (Q303) - persistent IP vandalism from various IP addresses, popular theme.--Jklamo (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. Thank you for reporting! --Sotiale (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please semi

To limit block evasion, please semi-protect:

If the user has been deblocked since, it isn't need. Other users would have to comment elsewhere or log-in to edit. --- Jura 19:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Mind giving us a short explanation on what's going on? @Jura1: --Trade (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1:  Not done absent an explanation of who's block evading and why this can't be solved by blocking the supposed sockpuppets instead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge Q89611151 into Q89564475 please

Merge Q89611151 into Q89564475 please. Because it's the same person.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge or elimination needed

Hi:

I wanted to link Commons Category:Camanchaca with interwiki articles and created Q89628528 but there is a conflict with Q2891688 which is for articles to Commons. Could someone eliminate Q89628528 or merge it with the other?

Pierre cb (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Feedback re potential adminbot

Before filing an RfA and request for bot permission, I wanted to get some feedback on a proposal.

  • Problem: when new properties are created, they are not automatically added to MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties. Property creators cannot add new properties there, and while admins can, they may not remember to. If a property isn't listed, it is sorted at the bottom and admins don't know to put it in the relevant section
  • Proposal: My bot will, periodically
    1. Retrieve a list of newly created properties
    2. Check the highest numbered property currently listed at MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties
    3. For higher numbered properties (i.e. newer ones), retrieve the label and put the property in a bottom section of unsorted properties

This will allow admins to see that there are properties that need to be sorted, ensuring things don't slip through the cracks. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I instead propose:
  • Create a page in Wikidata namespace with content like this
  • Use an adminbot to sync these two pages:
    • Read the page in Wikidata namespace
    • Extract individual Pids from pages via regex ^\*\h*(?:\[\[(?:d:)?Property:)?(P\d+\b) - all other lines may be treat as comments and ignored
      • However we preserve two keywords, here named "{DEFAULT}" and "{DEFAULT-ID}"
    • Remove all non-existent properties (optional)
    • Remove all duplicates (optional)
    • Fetch labels of all Wikidata properties and order them alphabetically
    • Remove all properties explicitly listed above
    • Replace {DEFAULT-ID} with alphabetical list of external identifiers, and {DEFAULT} with alphabetical list of all other properties; After the work the page may look like this
    • Copy it back to MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties
  • If it is required, we may use an abusefilter to only allow property creators to edit them, but I don't see such a requirement

--GZWDer (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That would split where the order is controlled from the mediawiki page to a new wikidata namespace page, and, since we only need to add new properties, seems like more trouble that it would be worth - allowing anyone? to edit the order --DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
To prevent vandalism it may be recommended to semi-protect the page, or (less perferably) use abusefilter to prevent non-property creators to edit them. When new properties are created, the Wikidata namespace page does not need to be updated unless a non-default order is required.--GZWDer (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
But we should always have a non-default order for new properties - they should be sorted according to topic, etc. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Users may still add new properties to the Wikidata namespace page, but this time property creators are able to do that. Alternatively we may use some additional markers like {PROPERTY-Q19833835} (I don't like such solution, as we may also need to introduce a priority system as a property may have multiple topics).--GZWDer (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Q22959230

Please undelete this item. Sources can be found easily.--GZWDer (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer:, the sources would be easier to find if i knew the label of the deleted item. --Trade (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Trade:, @GZWDer: the label was "Charlotte Gerson". --Kostas20142 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
A number of sources: [1] [2] [3]--GZWDer (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Help needed

Please add zh:霍纳尔·布莱克曼 in Q232840, thanks. I try to add, but it reports "Could not save due to an error. The save has failed." --El caballero de los Leones (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Added by User:GZWDer.--Super Wang (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Super Wang (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

How to work against vandalism? I have experience in en.wiki and ta.wiki against vandalism. However, I do not have much expose here. I do change when I randomly found vandalism. eg: Q54073499 --AntanO 09:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Check the Abuse filer log from time to time. @AntanO: --Trade (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (Q82122)

Hi! Semi-protection requested for item Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (Q82122), vandalised since 29th March, possibly the same user with different IPs. Thanks. --—d—n—f (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for another year --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 08:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:94.249.236.229

94.249.236.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Two occurrences of protective mask selling spam (in Croation, according to Google Translate; and containing a phone number that for all I know might not be the spammer’s but just belong to some poor innocent soul who’d be very confused about getting calls) at Wikidata:Contact the development team. (I could block the IP myself, but I don’t think I’m supposed to use my staff powers for that.) Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for 3 weeks. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 08:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Extend semi-protection of Fang Zhouzi (Q633818)

Still excessive vandalism. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 08:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Yug technology udaipur

See AbuseFilter log, spam-only account. Please block. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey. User:Chouannage is doing limited but certain vandalism. Please consider action. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wholesale P21

MrProperLawAndOrder (talk • contribs • logs)

The user sets sex or gender (P21) as “male” whichever gender the person has.

Moreover I smell a sock puppet. Please, block the waste-maker now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If anything as incorrect happens again without a response to this complaint, then I will put in a block (other admins, of course, may do so beforehand if they wish); right now I am hesitant to block solely on the basis of sockpuppetry until this account's activity can be tied to that of other accounts. Mahir256 (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the four errors. I fixed these four now. I will never ever again edit P21 (except where I added a wrong value) if you wish so. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I will now review my edits maybe I find more. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a bug somewhere...

that is causing the wikidata link on certain wikipedia articles not to show up. Which is causing many duplicates to be made. And they are causing, as example, the same en.wp to be linked to multiple wikidata items. You can find examples numerous examples on the RFD page occurring overnight. Quakewoody (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Quakewoody: please see

User:世界首都环游 needs several eyes to follow

This user added clearly-than-god wrong descriptions to items for the identifier system e.g. Japanese Local Government Code (Q646425) by "列表" (lit. list). I tried to revert but 98% failed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ARMENTOVMASYAN95

ARMENTOVMASYAN95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, all spam deleted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q187447

Pablo Escobar (Q187447): excessive vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 13:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Considering the previous protection record, it is semi-protected for a year. --Sotiale (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 13:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

create tags: wikibase-edit and wikibase-cli

Currently, WikibaseJS tools tag their edits by adding a hashtag in the edit summary:

I would like to replace that with proper Tags, respectively wikibase-edit and wikibase-cli, could an admin create them? cc @Pintoch: -- Maxlath (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maxlath: what description do you want for the tags? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: the descriptions could be something like the following:
- wikibase-edit: A JS library to edit Wikibase (code, issues)
- wikibase-cli: A command-line/shell interface to wikibase-edit that can be used to do single or large batches of edits (code, issues)
-- Maxlath (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Given that the software for this site is called "wikibase" as well, I'm concerned that the tag names, specifically the first one, are very generic. Is there a more unique name that can be used? --DannyS712 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: we have been using the name WikidataJS to talk about those different libraries and tools, and that then became WikibaseJS to be more agnostic. Maybe the names WikibaseJS-edit and WikibaseJS-cli could be used instead? -- Maxlath (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I've created the tags WikibaseJS-cli and WikibaseJS-edit --DannyS712 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Socialpulsar

Socialpulsar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Self-promotion and shared account --Trade (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is self-promotion, but shared accounts are not outright forbidden on this project. I'm having trouble finding any evidence of notability (beyond 2a). Bovlb (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
2a? --Trade (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, 2a is my shorthand for identifiability. Looking at WD:Notability, it does not meet criteria 1 (at least one valid sitelink) or 3 (structural need). It kinda-sorta meets the first half of criterion 2 (clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity), but not the second half (can be described using serious and publicly available references). Bovlb (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
'shared accounts are not outright forbidden on this project.' Weird, that's not what i can read here. @Jasper Deng: --Trade (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
See the discussion above under "User:Grantham University" where this point is explored in more depth. Bovlb (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

EmausBot

Due to phab:T249565 this bot starts creating a lot of duplicated items.--GZWDer (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like something is seriously broken, right? The duplicated items contain sitelinks that are already linked to existing items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, something was indeed seriously broken. I blocked the bot indefinitely, until the issue is resolved and the database table is rebuilt (likely at least a week) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Mr. Ibrahem is creating duplicated items.--GZWDer (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have since unblocked the bot per discussion on the task, and this seems to be resolved --DannyS712 (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ZI Jony

This user just went completely rogue with their rollback rights[4]. For about past two hours I have been correcting erroneous identifiers (mostly VIAF, Worldcat), and also removing some machine translated labels that apparently are the reason why identifiers have been added to non-matching Wikidata items. I've been trying to make my edits clear in edit summaries. And then suddenly got accused of experimenting/vandalism and all edits reverted by ZI Jony without any further explanation. I tried to explain my edits further to ZI Jony here and here, but for an unknown reason these explanations also got just reverted. Please reassess if this user should have rollback rights and help repairing the damage. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:61F9:B57C:27F0:A12 08:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed ZI Jony's rollback rights. The fact that they have a custom summary, and chose to specify revert (vandalism) as that summary, despite no evidence that the edits were vandalism, is bad enough, but using rollback at Special:Diff/1154952622 and Special:Diff/1154944317 to remove valid discussion from both their own user talk page, and the IP talk page, when the IP was responding to a warning ZI Jony sent, is unacceptable. @ZI Jony: please explain yourself --DannyS712 (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Clear and blatant misuse of rollback, which per policy should only be used to revert vandalism or test edits. Good-faith edits are not vandalism, so regardless of the merits, the fact that the edits were in good faith means using rollback on them is improper. I thus concur with DannyS712 (talk • contribs • logs)'s removal of their rollback privileges. Before regranting it, I'd like to see clear evidence of understanding that policy, and also consensus that ZI Jony can be trusted with the permission again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712, Jasper Deng: First of all I apologise for using mass rollback! There was unexplained content removal and that's look like good faith, I agreed with Jasper Deng that was improper and was my mistake. I'm extremely sorry for that and shouldn't use mass rollback. Regarding IP's talk that also was part of mass rollback. I'd like to request to restore my rollback rights. Hope you will do so. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@ZI Jony: I am not comfortable regranting it without a discussion here demonstrating consensus in favor of you receiving rollback again. Other admins are free to do otherwise, but I strongly urge that this not be done unless and until such consensus emerges. I'm not sure you understand why the usage of rollback was not proper in this case, though I'm glad you have acknowledged that your actions were in error.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: I understand that, I should check each edits individually, and take necessary action. Regarding acknowledge when I've done something wrong, I should do so. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
"unexplained content removal" is simply not true as I explained every single removal in edit summaries. While you imply that second talk page revert was unintentional as part of mass revert, then your first revert and further explanation about it on your talk page (also reverted) were not part of this later mass revert. If you acknowledge that your actions were in error then you might want to clean this up now. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:58B8:EAD5:92F1:E19F 11:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Should we start patrolling ZI Jony's edits, by temporary removing their autopatroll right? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This is technically impossible.--GZWDer (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Aldnonymous: may know how to do so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you speaking of the removal of autopatrol from you in meta over SE period, in that sense, meta works differently from wikidata in the sense all edits are patrolled (unless having autopatrol), but here in wikidata we have autopatrol build into autoconfirmed, so it's per GZWDer, not possible.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Lymantria, Vogone, Ymblanter: I'd like to request to restore my rollback rights with your final review. If community has decided that i lost community trust and now I`m no longer TRUSTED user any more! then as per community decision can take any further action even can revoke my remain rights. Thanks! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
My preference would be that you spend several months without a flag and in the meanwhile address the concerns about your editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am sure that ZI Jony didn't do this in bad faith – all people make mistakes and they have recognized it. I don't think that there is any reason discussing whether it is technically possible to revoke autoconfirmed status – this would be useless and highly inappropriate. @ZI Jony: I would advise you to use undo and restore for some time to address any concerns and demonstrate that you are indeed able to distinguish good faith edits from vandalism, and after some time, file a new request for rollback. --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your conversation. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Summary: multiple other admins endorsed removal of ZI Jony's rights. @ZI Jony: please keep the advice given above in mind over the next couple months. When you choose to request rollback again, please make your request here, rather than at requests for permissions, and ping the users involved in this discussion (myself included) for better visibility so that we can assess if you should be regranted rollback rights. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:JosephMoubray

JosephMoubray (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: I believe he might be a spambot. --Trade (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done with deletion of spamming item. Thank you for reporting. --Sotiale (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Nickjames1989

Nickjames1989 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Aggresive spam/vandalism at Q22080762 Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

indeffed Bovlb (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. DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q22080762

Chaturbate (Q22080762): Someone keeps changing the their official website. Im worried that it might be malware or spam. --Trade (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I indeffed the user, and semi-protected the item for a week. Bovlb (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should add that domain name to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Bovlb (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Good idea --Trade (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm adding it. It doesn't seem to have any legitimate use.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:77tunes and 197.211.61.56

Reasons: Spam, possibly malware. We should blacklist the website as well. @Jasper Deng: --Trade (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely; the autoblock of the account should cover the IP since they are so similar, feel free to report again if the IP happens to not be covered, and tries to post the link again. As for blacklisting, I'd like to see another admin agree with me that it should be blacklisted first. It's not a malware site per se but rather a bootleg/pirated records download site, and normally, domains do not get blacklisted unless they are repeatedly abused.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for block

Please block 148.3.116.103 for vandalism (death-related nonsense)--Dr Zimbu (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The ip has been globally blocked by Tegel.-BRP ever 12:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Grantham University

Spam-only account, please block. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I found only three edits of the user page. Deleted that one. I think a block is not needed, unless more spam edits are made. Lymantria (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Lymantria: Blocks are almost always warranted in this kind of situation, especially as the username implies shared use. I've blocked the account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't think it was needed. Lymantria (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: "Blocks are almost always warranted in this kind of situation, especially as the username implies shared use. " I'm not disputing the spamminess, but can you please point me at any guidance on shared use beyond that at Help:Usernames and accounts, which says "Some other Wikimedia projects, notably the English Wikipedia, forbid usernames which imply shared usage or usage by different people at different times, for example "Communications Department at XYZ Company", "Secretary at ABC Foundation". Note shared accounts are currently allowed in Wikidata, as long as they comply with Wikidata:Alternate accounts. (emphasis added)? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That should be removed, because of attribution reasons. While most of our content is under CC-0, non-content pages like this page and user talk pages are still under CC BY-SA 3.0, which requires attribution. This page does not have the force of a policy or guideline in any case; we should work on a local one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Thanks. In the absence of a local policy, we fall back on foundation:Terms of Use, which does not seem to address this issue, beyond explaining how you agree to be attributed. Attribution policy seems to me to be a thin reed to lean on in forbidding shared use accounts. The help page seems to arise from this RFC, where (as you summarized at the time) there was significant opposition to adopting the ENWP username policy, but I see little specific discussion of shared accounts and none of attribution. The sentence permitting shared accounts was not in Deryck Chan's original, but was added shortly after by GZWDer. I'm sorry to belabour the point, but I feel it's good to the admin corps to have a shared mindset on details like this. (I note that the ENWP username policies, rightly or wrongly, cause a lot of friction for organizations attempting to interact with the project.) Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
For why I have added this, see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/11#Wikidata:Alternate_accounts_and_shared_account.--GZWDer (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks GZWDer. I see that I commented on that thread, so I really have no excuse for not remembering it.  :) So there seems to be at least weak consensus that shared accounts should be permitted. Pace Jasper Deng, I don't think we can use attribution as a backdoor way to forbid them absent a new discussion. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I still disagree with that interpretation and still think attribution requires one person, one account. For now, I won't block for that, but we need a bigger discussion about it, especially as Wikidata in particular often is approached by organizations willing to donate data and some might think they want to have a role account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Commons has some precedents for the attitude to role accounts, though not a policy.--GZWDer (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
That could be used as a starting point, but it opens up other cans of worms, such as the authenticity of an account. If someone creates an account named Acme LLC then how do we know that account is operated by someone authorized to speak or edit on that company's behalf?--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
They may request the authenticity be verified via OTRS.--GZWDer (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
We don't require that at this time. Maybe we should require that for role accounts. Either way, I think an RfC might be in order sometime.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me. I don't feel strongly either way about this issue, though my understanding of current policy is that usernames implying shared usage aren't forbidden by policy. That said, if an account is being purely promotional, it should be blocked for that reason, not for being a shared account. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Sotiale

This is a notice directed in accordance with the relevant policy for requesting CheckUser. Thank you. --Sotiale (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Jasper Deng

In accordance with the policy, here is a notice of my candidacy for CheckUser.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for a merge of Q42567406 into Q8151515

Hi:

I've transferred the interiwiki links from Q42567406 to Q8151515 as they are related. Could an administrator now merge the two items?

Pierre cb (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour Pierre cb, pas besoin d'être administrateur pour fusionner. Voir Help:Merge pour plus d'infos. Je te laisse faire pour t'entrainer :) A noter qu'il n'y a pas besoinde déplacer les liens interwikis avant de faire la fusion ; le gadget le fait automatiquement. Pamputt (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Pamputt OK. C'est fait. Pierre cb (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Unprotection Request

Can this page be unprotected? The 11:51 revision got taken down this is the 12:25 revision. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:6F 12:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify which item you're talking about. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: the protection policy page. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:66 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is protected. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I know @Ajraddatz: can it be UNprotected? So anons can edit it? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:66 16:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not feel confident to let IPs edit this page. You can let a comment on the talk page to propose a modification. Or write down it here. Pamputt (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pamputt: why? What reason? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:66 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Because it concerns Wikidata policy and so should be modified by confirmed users. So far, it is common to contribute using an account when one contributes a lot. So I think that if we let this page be modified by anyone, we would have more vandalism than constructive adds. For contributors who do not want to create an account, there is still the possibility to add a message on the talk page. Pamputt (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ok so here is the conscientious. IPs must use the talk page for Wikidata policies. Anons CAN edit the talk page to ask for a request. @Pamputt: is there any talk pages that TOO are protected? Also did you see my talk page-both users here are in the same range. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:66 21:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I gave you my opinion. Maybe another sysop may have a different opinion. Anyway, it appears it takes less time to explain what you want to change instead of debating here... Pamputt (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

ok so basically @Pamputt: the page is protected for a reason. I understand now, it took like 9 hours to debate this so yeah it definitely takes time there WERE some gaps but I filed the report local time at 8:25 AM and now it is 5:18 PM, and my old thread that got deleted was at 7:51 AM. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:66 21:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:66 21:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Melobit

Melobit (talk • contribs • logs)

Hello. This user is a sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh; a long-term abuser which has been locked globally (and some of their accounts are currently blocked on Wikidata as well). I have requested global lock, but please block it to prevent further disruption. I can send the evidence privately, if needed. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 21:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and nuked --DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: first off I want to apologize as it is 8:05 PM local time but could be drastically different where you live. Anyway, what do you mean by the fact that he was “nuked”? Does that mean he instantly had TPA and eMail revoked. Did it mean his edits were instantly rollbacked? Please tell me. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:7A 00:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I blocked, and then used mw:Extension:Nuke to delete the pages created. I separately manually rolledback the edits. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
ok. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:6B 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Romaine

This is a notice directed in accordance with the relevant policy for requesting CheckUser. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A little attention

I started a thread and it looks like there's a thread from a couple days ago at the bottom of MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition that could use a little feedback. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Wikichecked00

Wikichecked00 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sock puppet of Mmdsanei (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) --Trade (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Kostas20142 (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q3884

Amazon (Q3884): excessive vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 00:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256. — Mike Novikoff 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism from 62.20.62.208

As far as I can see _all_ edits from 62.20.62.208 are pure vandalism. Please consider blocking this IP and revert any not yet reverted edits. / Anhn (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked one month; all edits seem to be reverted. Given that this vandalism has been going on since 2018, a much longer block is warranted if they come back (please report them in that case).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your action. FYI the corresponding WP-IP-"account" is blocked with a duration to june 2021, see https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:62.20.62.208 . This account has all time since 2017 been "läsårsblockerat", i.e. "school-year blocking", which means that due to bad history the account is every autumn, at the first occurrence of vandalism, blocked until june nextcoming year or even june _next_ nextcoming year. In this case a WD-blocking until june 2021 would be "in harmony" with the svwp-blocking, but you decide which strategy you consider effective. Thank you for your action. Best regards / Anhn (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I also thought a long (year-plus) block was in order as well, but am hesitant to go with that long of a duration without the support of others. I'll amend the block to use {{blocked school}} as the reason though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Active vandal

Nodobotoke kiete sine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits reverted, user blocked indefinitely. Since this is a cross-wiki LTA, I've requested a global lock, which was carried out. Thanks for reporting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I have reported the threat of self-harm to the appropriate channel. Bovlb (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:133.155.74.70

133.155.74.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Afaz (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As Japanese speakers, Okkn/Penn Station could you have a look? Pamputt (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pamputt: The edited contents seem not vandals, but they are written in broken Japanese... --Okkn (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Vikrant582

Vikrant582 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This User is Marketer. This user did create more non notable persons wikidata item create. This user did brock wikidata notability police. This user is social media promoter. Please check. Aziz979 (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q274388

As some news articles in Vietnam claiming this islands belongs to their sovereignty, many people coming to Vietnamese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia to make false edit about administration and other aspect of sovereignty. They also making false edit here on Wikidata. Vietnamese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia already semi-protected their corresponding articles, so sysop may do a similar action here. Thank you very much. --minhhuy (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 months because of the recent news about this territory. Pamputt (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q20740678

recurrent vandalism since 2018. --Sealle (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not protecting the item; six instances of IP vandalism over two years is not enough to justify protecting the item. I did revert two other instances of subtle IP vandalism too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

global sock

user Mahdisanei5 is a sock of user Mahdisanei , who is globally blocked. Quakewoody (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The sock has been blocked; I filed m:SRCU#Mahdisanei5@www.wikidata since this is a cross-wiki case and it seems there may be more socks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi bot is destroying my work and the operator is not responsive

Can someone please stop Pi bot immediately? I'm getting desperate, now that days of manual work seems to be destroyed by a bot. Please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Peel#Unwanted_moves_by_Pi_bot. Eissink (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

I've replied there (I just woke up). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

borderline not constructive edit or straight cut vandalism?

Reason:: For the context please read this RfC and User talk:Adamant1#Name

Or for short summary, the user keep on changing the English item label from proper noun that use by English media and press release for the bank itself, to his (hoax) self-translated literal translation. Matthew hk (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Looking at their contributions, they all seem to be edits of English labels and sometimes description. The vast majority appear to be for items that didn't previously have an English label; I haven't checked many of them, but this seems useful. On the other hand, this user's response to you has been definitely borderline abusive. An admin should probably take a closer look. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
You seem overlook the edit and vandalism in Banca Carige (Q3633695), Credit Agricole Group (Q590952), which they already have an English label before his edit. Except Cooperative Credit Bank of Rome (Q25060394) he dig out source for his literal translation . I never heard of " Credit Agricole" was called Agricultural Credit Group. Matthew hk (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: Thanks for the accusation of borderline abuse based on . He was being verbally abusive and making accusations right out the gate the first time he messaged me and never showed a willingness to actually work out the issue. Right off the bat he only told me what to do based on his opinion, ignored my attempts to work it out, and then reverted me repeatedly. As you can see by the first message he left on my talk page he said "As i observed that you invented new hoax English transliterated name." Then he kept calling me a "language hoaxer" repeatedly in subsequent messages even after I asked him to stop multiple times. What's not abusive about that? I ran out of tolerance for it now, but it's 100% for not stopping the personal attacks when I asked him to, bossing me around, and ignoring what I say.

Him reporting me here when he just opened an RfC about it that is still being worked out is a good example of it. There's zero reason he couldn't have let the RfC play out to see what other people's opinions where and then accepted the consensus, which I would have been 100% willing to do, instead of opening it and then reporting me right afterwords for the same exact before things can actually be figured out. It was in extremely bad faith to open the RfC in the first place if he was just going to then ignore it and continue escalating things. As it also was to accuse me of being a language hoaxer in his first message, continue doing it, and then open the RfC instead of actually working things out with me in a civil compromising manor. Which he was more then capable of doing. Even here he's falsely accusing me of vandalism based on the fact that he hasn't heard of Credit Agricole being called Agricultural Credit Group. Which isn't a good justification to make the accusation. Even if it's not the proper name, me adding it might have been totally innocent on my part, but he doesn't care if it was or not because either way I'm a language hoaxer. Whatever the hell that means. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I agree the word "hoax" is inappropriate here - maybe something more neutral like "invented" was intended; however, I don't find your responses to Matthew hk have been very friendly. On both sides we should be assuming good faith. I'm not an admin here though, I was only trying to provide some context. Perhaps letting people discuss on the RfC page would be good, but you seem to have been flooding the page there with nonresponsive commentary. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
If there is no English source called the bank as "Agricultural Credit Group", then it is a hoax. "Agricultural Credit Group" may qualified to put it in P value literal translation, but not label as per proposed guideline Help:Label.
More to show it is a vandalism. Since English media quite often called the bank as "Banca Carige" and sometimes "Cargie Bank" and google ngram show the full name also used in English (Carige was an abb, then became the name, just like now IBM is IBM, but before that it was an abb.)
Why it is not a vandalism that the vandal insist to wipe the English label Banca Carige (Q3633695) for eligible parameter value: "Cassa di Risparmio di Genova", "Banca Carige"? Instead of admit that they also qualify for the English label (which supported by reliable source), and start a good faith discussion on what is the primary value and what value should put it in "Also known as"? Matthew hk (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk the word "hoax" in English explicitly claims deliberate lying or deception - see hoax in Wiktionary, so your use of it is clearly immediately accusing the other person of bad faith from the start. Please choose your language more carefully. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
So, simple yes no question. Every news agency and English newspaper called the French bank as "Credit Agricole", putting "Agricultural Credit Group" as primary English label is appropriate or not appropriate? "Agricultural Credit Group" don't even have ANY citation that to prove it appear in reliable source.
Another yes no question. Banque Dupuy de Parseval (Q2882897) , "Banque Dupuy de Parseval" has appeared on English reliable source (Bloomberg, thebanks.eu), "Dupuy Bank of Parseval " did not have citation to prove it appear in English reliable source, use which one as English label? French proper noun as loan word as English label or literal translation came from no where ?
Another yes no question. ngram show "Banca Carige" is more common usage while the usage "Cargie Bank" is not found. The user prevent other editor to add "Banca Carige" back to the label, is a vandalism or not?
The point is that user refuse to follow the proposed guideline and declare he did not care what common usage (Reuters) is . Matthew hk (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: It's pretty clear you don't understand the difference between a proposal and an actual guideline. We don't have to follow proposals. Also, you can dig through anyone's history to find labels they changed that you can't find sources for. It doesn't mean anything though. That you continue to do so, instead of having a discussion about what the actual policy is or what the best way to do this is, is exactly why this a witch hunt and not an actual good faith attempt to resolve things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: I'm pretty sure there is no intent on Matthew hk to be neutral here. Personally, I'm not claiming my response was friendly, just that it was instigated by his behavior. Take that how you will. I am assuming good faith on Matthew hk's part though. Which is why I attempted multiple times to explain myself and discuss the issue, despite his repeated attitude and dismissiveness. Maybe I could have been shorter in my responses though, but in no way do I think I flooded the discussion with none responsive commentary. People pinged me, I explained myself. I also asked a number of questions that where never answered. Questions are not commentary.

@Matthew hk: I didn't "wipe" the English label. Hoaxing and vandalism more generally requires knowingly inserting bad data. Which I didn't do. I never intentionally did anything to disrupt Wikidata. A few you claim are hoaxing I even provided sources to show they where correct. Also, even if the translations were "wrong" the Italian titles were still present in the Italian label section and would still come up in searches etc. So it wasn't "wiping" or destroying anything. I told you before I'm involved in a project that uses Wikidata and it's easier with the project for the English labels to be in English. Which is why I changed them. There is no bad intent to damage Wikidata behind it. The project is completely dependent on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You still did not understand.....The primary English label is selected when using Template:Q (or other language if your UI language is not English).....thus that primary English label should use most common name of that item in that language.....Matthew hk (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Adamant1, Or please just read and get what User:Jura and User:Esteban16 are saying in the rfc. Matthew hk (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
So what? That sounds like an issue on Wikidata's side to me. no where have I seen anything saying not to translate things into English because of it, and if it causes a problems with English speaking people being able to have the label in their language, then it should be fixed by them. Instead of having to harass users every time a label is changed to compensate for a software side problem.
I read what they wrote. Jura was talking about statements. Which isn't relevant. neither of Jura's none label related suggestions would solve the problem either. Esteban16 didn't say anything except that you need to provide sources for a label, but I have yet to have answered where exactly Wikidata says that or how someone would even add a source to the label if it did. As there's no field to enter one and you can't write changeset comments.
It doesn't work if the answer is just "provide sources when someone questions you." Otherwise we could all go around deleting labels and harassing each other every few weeks, because people don't save sources. Plus, using a translation service or "language knowledge", neither of which have sources, is a perfectly valid way to translate something. It's probably how most of the Chinese labels are translated. Including for proper nouns. I also have yet to have answered what the point in labels for different languages in the first place is if there is just one "popular" or "proper" language to put everything in. The assertion that there is a proper popular way to do things negates why the different language labels even exist. There's English, Chinese, Spanish, etc etc etc labels and not just "a label" for a reason.
Otherwise, why even have them? Who or how would we reliably determine those things anyway? Just cherry picking a few magazine mentions like your doing doesn't cut it. Neither would me providing a single source to "prove" I'm right. The only workable way to resolve this, that doesn't lead to a bunch of protracted arguing like this or edit warring, is to take the English label at face value by assuming it's intended for English and entering labels into it that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


Ok, the issue keep on running in circle. Instead of showing you won't follow proposed guideline, did not accept other people advice (their wording in Rfc is "it would be better if you abstain from such actions") and prefect example of borderline disruptive editing. Please answer the following:

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • 北京, capital of PRC, mean Northern Capital (analogue to Nanjing in the mouth of Yangtze River ), historically know as Peking, it is now officially and commonly known as Beijing.
So, Adamant1, Which of the following you will add to the entry's English labels (can choose more than one): Northern Capital (assume its had citation ), Peking, Beijing
Also, Adamant1, among Northern Capital, Peking, Beijing, which one you choose as primary English label so that it show up when using English UI in wikidata and Template:Q.
  • Question 2. 北京大學 official English name is Peking University, means Beijing University or Northern Capital University .
Among Peking University, Beijing University, Northern Capital University, which one you choose as primary English label?
  • Back to the bank, Banca Carige was known as Banca Carige and sometimes Carige Bank. Google ngram also stated that the usage " Banca Carige" is way more common than Carige Bank.
Among Carige Bank, Banca Carige which one you choose as the primary English label. Or do you accept Banca Carige at least qualify to fill into alt English label parameter.
Ping admin User:Ymblanter to have a look at this issue if User:Adamant1 keep on showing disruptive . Matthew hk (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Matthew hk, sorry but I don't do off topic theoretical whataboutisms (it's easy to cherry pick examples that fit your agenda), But especially not when you keep deflecting from answering even the most questions I've asked you and continue attacking me and being dismissive of my opinion. Every time you have asked me a question and I have answered, you've accused me of canvassing or being disruptive. So, there's zero point. It's pretty clear you don't care what my answers are and are just using the questions as a way to continue attacking me. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
One last time, it is you threatening to report me as edit war for adding "Banca Cargie" back to the English label. But since Reuters, The Economist , NYTimes use this term and it is support (and not supported, since ngram rank it as second while the historical name Cassa di Risparmio di Genova was ranked 1st) by google ngram. Also more than 2 editors are not supporting you move. What move you should show you don't need a block to understand? Matthew hk (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't a threat. I 100% still plan to do it. Especially if you do it after this doesn't get worked out, like it looks like it's not going to, because it fully could have been resolved pretty simply if you hadn't of had a massive attitude and dismissed everything I said from the start. You can't treat me the way you have or be as unable as you are to actually work it out and then cry foul. If anyone needs a block it's you to understand it's not OK to repeatedly make false claims of people being vandals. It's pretty you clear the only thing you would accept from the start was me shutting up and doing it your way. You never had any intent to compromise or actually work it out. If I get blocked because of that, it's not on me. It's pretty clear you have nowhere else to go with it anyway since both this and the RfC failed. More then likely trying to get me banned will fail to. I would have been more then willing to meet you half way if you had of been civil about things. So, my conscious is clean. Also, there wasn't two editors in the AfC that said anything about how I shouldn't edit labels and you know it. Nor do two people in an RfC dictate policy anyway. I could just as easily find two users that would agree with me and in fact one of them did. Although, you ignored them. I'm done with this. Either report me, or let it go. I'm totally fine talking to an admin about it if that will actually resolve it. At this point the whole thing is seriously bordering on harassment though and I'm 100% done with your bullying crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Please keep your responses briefer. Are you asserting that the long-standing (though yes never made official) document Help:Label, specifically where it says "labels should reflect common usage" is simply something you can ignore? Many commonly used names are not literal translations of the native language name - (Germany (Q183) for instance). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Sorry, IMO these aren't simple matters that can be dealt with in a couple word sentences, but I do agree I could be more concise.
  1. No I'm not. I use it that way all the time.
  2. There's a difference between globally common and regionally/linguistically common though. Unfortunately "labels should reflect common usage" doesn't specifically speak to language variations and I'm not into tea leaf reading. That doesn't mean I totally disregard it though. Just that it takes more thought then it's being portrayed to.
  3. I'm sure everyone here agrees that a proposal (long-standing or not) should be used with a less strong whip and more nuance, both in how we apply it and hold other users accountable for not doing so, then we would an actual guideline though.# In the RfC Matthew hk wanted a hard and fast rule that is applicable in all situations. I'm am asserting that there isn't one because this is a more nuanced topic then he seems to have the brain power for.
  4. Many common names are literal translations. So what? What is flawed here is Matthew hk's method of retroactively digging through people's (or more specifically my) changeset histories to cherry pick literal translations that he can then use as pointing devices to build a narrative of "language hoaxing", just because he wasn't personally able to find the literal translation being used anywhere.
  5. I'm not saying his points or questions are invalid. The way he went about it by working backwards from his own conclusions is. These issues should be dealt with on the systems level though (adding a source entry box to labels, fixing English being the default, turning the proposal into an actual guideline, etc etc). Not through singling out individual users.
  6. If he actually wanted to work this out, instead of just going on a personal campaign to get me banned, he could have posted about this on Help:Label where there could have actually been a conversation about it. Which he won't allow for here, because clearly his only concern is getting me blocked and having a wider discussion wouldn't lead to it.
  7. IMO there are major issues underlining most of this that makes it impossible to apply in any workable way, that doesn't mean I won't follow a guideline if there is one or that I don't consider the proposal when modifying labels though, just that in the least it makes this whole thing a worthless campaign on Matthew hk's part. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Your past history with Matthew hk is completely irrelevant to my question, and your rehashing of it and casting aspersions on the other user is not a positive indicator for your own case. You say "I'm not" regarding whether you think you can ignore the "labels should reflect common usage" rule, but then you say it should be used "with more nuance". What is the nuance here? If there is a name commonly used in a language, but you replace that label with a name NOT commonly used, that is both clearly a violation of that rule, and it appears to me to be making Wikidata a less useful resource, as the rendering of the name here becomes an unfamiliar form of the name. Why would you insist on this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: How are the problems with Matthew hk in the past or not relevant? they are the reason this conversation is even happening and he's involved in the current discussion. You aren't messaging me about a completely different issue on my talk page. Also, what "aspersions" am I casting? It's not casting aspersions to say this would have been resolved better on the Help:label talk page, where there are users that have specific knowledge about this and can modify the guidelines. FYI, The nuance here is not automatically assuming someone is a language hoaxing vandal because your not able to find a translation for something when you do a Google search, and to approach this in a way that doesn't involve digging through people's changeset histories to find things to call them out for.
Also, the nuance is not going with a fundamentalist "applies in every situation" approach to this just because of popularity. "World Health Organization" is also officially called "Organisation mondiale de la santé." Which is way less common. There is nothing wrong with using it in a label though. We don't change it to "World Health Organization" because it only has 73 million Google hits and the other has 3 billion. Or because it is only said that way in "less popular" sources like Dossier Familial or Lov Du Nord, but Fox News and CNBC say "World Health Organization." Again, that's where the nuance comes in. Just so we are clear, I'm not advocating for anything like changing the label for Walmart to Wally's World just because some people call it that. Which IMO is what Help:label is talking about. Translations are different though and are rarely that clear cut. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism in Björn Ironside

[5] I ask you to do something, they are constantly vandalizing.--Юрий Владимирович Л. (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected fro 6 months by Mahir256. Pamputt (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2409:4042:2EA4:D088:6149:8A7E:5972:DAA7

2409:4042:2EA4:D088:6149:8A7E:5972:DAA7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Please block this IP. Marketer. Vandalism. Aziz979 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Rezaabbaszadeh1

Rezaabbaszadeh1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This user did create wikidata item for self. Self promoting. Advertising. Spam. Block globally. Aziz979 (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per RfD. Bencemac (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for a blockade

Hi! I'd like to request the lowest blockade on TVP Info (Q1724518). Their description has been changed many time in the past to say "Government propaganda machine" or "TV station urging to vote for the government". There is a hot debate in Poland about TVP's loyalty to the current government, but it should not reflect on Wikidata or Wikipedia. Meanwhile, people using the mobile version see Wikidata's description right below the article name. Thanks! Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist, will protect later if it is necessary. Bencemac (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Dr.Desemer

Dr.Desemer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Reasons: Looks like a LTA or its sock, repeatly removing contents from WD:RFD even the header, without any reasons. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indef --Esteban16 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, is it possible to protect Taha Bouhafs (Q55749245) ? The page has been vandalized for few days. Thank you ! -- tyseria 12:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protégé pendant 2 semaines. Pamputt (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, can you please block 186.6.145.49 for his work ? Thanks. --—d—n—f (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 31 hrs. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Gregor Mendel (Q37970). Frequent vandalism. It's need protection. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 6 months. I decided a long period because this item has already been protected two times in the last year. Please reduce if you think it is too much. Pamputt (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

WikibaseJS-cli and WikibaseJS-edit tags missing link and description

Hi, following a previous discussion, there are now WikibaseJS-cli and WikibaseJS-edit tags, which is great! But both appear without link or description on Special:Tags, could the following be added?

Thanks in advance! -- Maxlath (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, --Esteban16 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16: thanks, but while the description is now appearing, it still seems that the "Appearance on change lists" values on Special:Tags still aren't links, at the difference of other many tools -- Maxlath (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Maxlath: Done, --Esteban16 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:96.232.123.25

96.232.123.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The IP has stopped, but the item has been protected. Esteban16 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q25714026

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Done 6 months; since the above IP was only vandalizing that particular item, I think this should be enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

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

— Reasons: Vandalism of BLP --Trade (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Already done by 1997kB --DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Bragh Tech

Bragh Tech (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam --Trade (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Globally locked--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: in order to be locked you have to have engaged in cross wiki abuse or have a Sockpuppet who did. Did he? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:BE 13:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea, I just see that the account is globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

K. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:BE 15:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:177.241.42.170

177.241.42.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: weird vandalism (random binary garbage, including, apparently, a Portable Executable header?) in labels and descriptions (I’ve reverted them all for now) Galaktos (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galaktos: I notified them of the thread. Don’t be surprised if they respond here. In the meantime, wait for them to respond. Give them a chance. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:BE 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That is strange, but probably unintentional and stopped a number of days ago. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: no punishment necessary. Mind if I take this down, it is pretty much useless now. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 4:32 pm, 19 April 2020 (UTC-4)
Nah, it'll be archived after a while. No need to erase it yet. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

New Policy for WD: AN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

If you want to propose a new policy, please use Wikidata:Project chat.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I propose a new policy where we make it so that you HAVE to warn the editor you are bringing here that there is a thread here so they can defend themselves. Please use Support and Oppose and give reasons to my proposal. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 00:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User: CentralTime301

CentralTime301 was globally locked. I removed the contents of his talk page, can we delete his user page though? 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 01:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

P. S. I did add a warning. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 01:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Celetokers

Celetokers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam, Marketing person. Please check then Block this user. Aziz979 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aziz979: At first glance, this is not spam, and conflict-of-interest editing isn't as proscribed as it is on other projects. I suggest talking to the user first about your concerns (post a message at User talk:Celetokers).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but such expressions and mass nomination of articles by the user for deletion are looking like borderline bullying. The COI editing (which should be proven in this case, but even if true) is never welcome but in fact not forbidden. How exactly the contribution by Celetokers contradicts with the Wikidata goals? Do his/her items contain an unjustified number of external links, glorifications, an information that's hard to prove by sources?.. --Wolverène (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wolverène: That is why I would like the OP to not start out by hauling the user here, and discuss with them first. There's nothing more intimidating to a new user than being threatened with a sanction on day 1; Wikidata can only grow by helping new users ease into the project, especially with the steep technical learning curve.
With that said, however, I'm suspicious that they, along with Pothwar (talk • contribs • logs), are a sockpuppet of Vikrant582 (talk • contribs • logs) based on the similar pattern and area of editing (there are some items in common). I will stop short of actually accusing them of that until I investigate more deeply. Sockpuppetry is bad for accountability and transparency; however, I would probably refrain from indefinitely blocking the master in this case even if it did end up being sockpuppetry, unless the user turned out to be here in bad faith (absent clear evidence of that, it's best to assume good faith).
More generally, I sometimes worry that it's not well-communicated that reporting a user here is not a substitute for first trying to discuss and resolve the situation without sanctions, except obvious vandalism and spam or highly egregious situations. --Jasper Deng (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, seems that the situation is more ambiguous than I expected. I agree with you, better to check the account and then see. The mentorship may be a better decision than blocking, anyway. --Wolverène (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Aziz979: @Wolverène: @Jasper Deng:, I hope you all are doing well, given the current global context. Please note I actually got mentorship from an admin before I started my contribution journey. I personally do not endorse anything that is against the set guidelines. @Aziz979: I see you have nominated a vast amount of entries for deletion, please note all these people are notable, and also @Wolverène: please note, I have no connection with any such person on this platform, and I have no idea who the user Vikrant is. @Jasper Deng: please investigate all my entries. I can assure you there has been no such entry that is not notable, if you find anything then please do contact me and I will assure you the credibility. Please @Aziz979: allow new people to join the platform, don't set barriers to entry, I can't see any contributions from your side, all top 500 of your entries are deletion requests. @Jasper Deng: Please do look into that for me too. Thanks, hope you all stay safe. --Pothwar (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Pothwar: @Wolverène: @Jasper Deng:, See my User talk:Aziz979. User:Celetokers Threatened me. I don't know him. I saw that he/She created items for non notable person, spammed social media, did not use relabel source. Which proves he/she is a Marketer. and also he / she said in my User talk: Aziz979 "We are not a marketer, btw you are a marketer and want to delete our work, just wait & watch" we already do something for you ". I think he/she is not alone. He/She has more Partner who do wikidata's marketing. And you can check these User: Vikrant582, User: Viapicante users. I think He/She is not new User. Also after my reply he / she did blanked my all user talk page contributions. Please Check Carefully. Aziz979 (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello i don't know why Aziz979 is trying to block my account, i am just normal contributer here,& try to put some item

On wikidata ,you can check i created pages are all notable, you can search on google, but i Don't know why this User: Aziz979 want to delete my pages, Admin please investigate on this issue, i don't know what going wrong here, & i see User Aziz979 just contribute on wikidata for only deletion user pages. Not created any item, if i research & create someone page please don't delete it, i will invest too much time to create items on wikidata, Thanks - Celetokers


Block 2600:100D:B012:2FF:61F1:C8D6:D21B:AC11

Hello,
Could you block 2600:100D:B012:2FF:61F1:C8D6:D21B:AC11, who is vandalizing Amazon (Q3884), like this, after warnings on his talk page. This vandalism has begun with 68.78.104.87 (who could be blocked too).
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: could you block this vandal please? --NicoScribe (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mahir256: thanks! --NicoScribe (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked second one too since it was still active. - Nikki (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Nikki: why didn’t you first warn them of a discussion here and leave them blocked? Morally that is against my philosophy as that means they are affected by something they have no control over. It is a moral evil. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:86 15:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Because it would be pointless and I care more about stopping vandalism than your crusade. People are responsible for the edits they make and a one week block of a single IP address which has only made a few edits is very unlikely to affect anyone else. - Nikki (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Longer-term block of wide IP blocks for LTA POV Chinese descriptions

Regarding Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/10#Persistent_vandalism_on_China_politics-related_items, Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2020/03#LTA_on_items_related_to_China_politics, and Topic:Vkqokk527p3u4cnp, I am about to place one-year softblocks on several /16 IP blocks that: have been used recently for vandalism, specifically POV descriptions in Chinese and English (and also edit warring and harassment of other editors); from at least two IP addresses; with no recent non-vandalism edits. I'm placing this notice now so I can link to it. I'll follow up with more details. Bovlb (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Here are the ranges I blocked: Special:Contributions/220.169.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/124.228.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/113.218.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/61.187.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/118.254.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/222.243.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/106.19.0.0/16
Here are some other ranges that I did not block, because they did not meet my criteria: Special:Contributions/106.18.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/59.51.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/106.17.0.0/16, Special:Contributions/106.16.0.0/16
As always, I would be glad to receive feedback and to have the assistance of the community in taking such drastic action. (CC @WhitePhosphorus, 虹易) Bovlb (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: The one and only concern I would have is possible collateral damage, but since most anonymous edits seem to be bad, and the blocks are soft, it shouldn't be that much. For this reason, I'd still be hesitant to block these for so long, but I also don't exactly oppose this action.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Yes, I share you concerns, and I appreciate the feedback. As you can see from the historical discussions, I have been very hesitant to pull the trigger on this. I have been attempting to contain the problem with Special:AbuseFilter/131, but seem to have run afoul of a bug. It seems like it is time to stop wasting the time of our Chinese-speaking editors with this. Bovlb (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:186.170.212.35

186.170.212.35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism @Jasper Deng: --Trade (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Blocked 24 hours. This would ordinarily be a borderline case for an immediate block, but the items in question are on living people.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Rquest for block VNpolic

False political edits after news articles about sovereignty, check #Semi-protection for Q274388. Account only for politicals propaganda. --minhhuy (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy: could you let him/her a message in Vietnamese on his/her talk page to explain him/her the Wikidata rules about neutrality before going further. Thanks in advance. Pamputt (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I just added warning and welcome as well, hope that him/her will understand and do no more false edit. --minhhuy (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@VNpolic: --Trade (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Lil baby12338

Lil baby12338 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Blocked indefinitely; in the future, do try to warn the vandal as quickly as you can first. Again, blocked immediately because the vandalism was of a living person's item.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll be nice if the 'vandalism warning templates' were accessible from the user page like it is on Wikipedia. Another thing you think it's time to semi protect Logan Paul again? @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Done for 3 months. Maybe we should outfit a version of Twinkle for here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Twinkle?--Trade (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Twinkle is the main gadget used on the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) to deliver user warnings (mostly vandalism warnings).--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That would be pretty great to have on WD. --Trade (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a script for warns, see User:Bene*/userwarn.js. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Vincenzodaus

Vincenzodaus (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Vandalism or test edits. I don't speak italian well enough to leave him a message. Please also consider Semi-Protecting semen (Q9715) -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

He/she stopped after 4 edits. I think we do not need to do anything so far. We will see what to do if he/she comes back. Pamputt (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning Bedo Abdo

Bedo Abdo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) mass reverts to ancient revisions. User aparently speaks arabic, which I'm not able to. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@علاء, باسم: as Arabic speakers, could you have a look? Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dr.üsenfieber, Pamputt: i just asked him if there is any reason for what he was doing. Let's see what he has to sayباسم (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Q91183632

Hello,

Could someone delete that thing, which has been created by a crosswiki spammer? Thank you in advance DLXXXIII (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you. Reporting on Wikidata:Requests for deletions would be enough. Pamputt (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This one was also heavily spammed. Could someone delete the spammed versions? Thank you DLXXXIII (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

another spam

Heavily spammed, by the same spammer as above. Could someone delete the spammed versions? Thank you DLXXXIII (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@DLXXXIII: If you're talking about revision deletion, could you please cite which of the four criteria apply here? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Q213330

Infovarius (talk • contribs • logs) keeps reverting the object ›Nicolas Flamel‹. There are many sources that prove, that Nicolas Flamel was not an alchemist and that this is just a legend, but he ignores that and after unexplained reverts he only provides one shady russian source [6]. The legend of Nicolas Flamel as an alchemist is already given. Sivizius (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sivizius: Please open a discussion on Talk:Q213330; this is not a matter requiring administrator attention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

5.125.50.235

This IP is a block (and lock) evasion of مهیار مهرنیا (the main account is not blocked locally, but some sockpuppets are) and has been active creating items about Mahdi Rajabi (Mh6ti). Please block them for a reasonable amount of time to avoid further disruption. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 17:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done via global block. Ahmadtalk 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ahmadtalk 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

protection

please, protection page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4056016. The changes about the death of a person were displayed on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. But the person is alive and well https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3109000869152198&id=100001269456163. Thank you in advance.Flavius1 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Flavius1: One wrong edit made in good faith does not warrant protection; if this happens again, we can then think of it. Pinging @Hsarrazin: who said this was imported from the Russian Wikipedia. This information is not found on that Wikipedia now, and such information should not be added without good referencing (Wikidata:Living persons).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: okay. I understand. I hope this does not happen again. By the way, note that the added date of death is 14 May (!) 2020. Flavius1 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Flavius1: Yeah, I just noticed that too. @Hsarrazin: please be more careful in the future. Also, I would think that date of death should have a constraint that it cannot be past the present day Anywhere on Earth (Q614092).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Some fictional people have death dates in the future, e.g. Q16341#P570. Bovlb (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello ! sorry for not checking the date by itself. I work with this tool and I usually go on other project to correct wrong dates much more than I import wrong ones, sometimes having to fight with bots in foreign languages I cannot write to prevent those wrong dates to reappear ;)
I must have been very tired to not see that the date was after present day. I will suggest Pasleim to add this constraint to the tool :)
Thanks for catching this one - obviously this article has been the object of a lot of vandalism this past month :( --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/CheckUser#علاء

In accordance with the policy, here is a notice of my candidacy for CheckUser. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Q86231456

Could you please undeleted this page so that I can update and meet the notability policy  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by A3 SEOa (talk • contribs) at 14:02, 23 April 2020‎ (UTC).

Please see Topic:Vkzq0qwut7nzw6f7. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This item weakly meets the first part of criterion 2 (clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity) via CrunchBase, LinkedIn and Twitter. The three references ([7], [8], [9]) don't make a solid case for the second part of criterion 2 (can be described using serious and publicly available references). Do you have better references, say from a major newspaper, that you plan to add? Bovlb (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Block request Special:Contributions/Lugnuts

@Lugnuts:

The user seems to have activated a script that overwrites Wikidata descriptions by default.

Despite several reversals, yesterday and the day before, and a note on their talk page, the user doesn't stop doing that [10][11], possibly due to them being unaware of the edits being done.

Please block the account until this is resolved. --- Jura 17:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 24h. At the time of the block, he/she was not editing anymore. Yet, he/she may start again tomorrow. Pamputt (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Old Alton Bridge" (Q7083385)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Old Alton Bridge (Q7083385), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses? This bridge is used in an Internet meme.
The item has been semi-protected already, several times.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for another year. The next time it'll probably be indefinite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P7777 : request for closure

Hello,

This request dates from 3 months and this seems to conclude towards a conservation of this property. Accused of being biased as the creator of this property (while I'm just following the community), I ask you to close this old request, one way or the other, by an administrator external to the discussions, please. The situation has been frozen for a long time.

Reminder of the opinion count: 2 delete, 5 keep, 1 neutral.

I ping the protagonists here for this request:@Jura1, Mbch331, Jklamo, VIGNERON:, @WikiSyn, Vive la Rosière, Liuxinyu970226: (and me).

Best regards. —Eihel (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

+1, I support the closure, enough has been said and the only person blocking the closure is reversing the burden of proof. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 Support the closure, too Wink --- ʂɤɲ ✉ 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to 1997kB. For the next time, don't forget to remove {{Property for deletion}} from the Property talk page with a summary (i.e. Consensus for conservation). —Eihel (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Eihel (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:113.20.22.XX

113.20.22.XX (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This user has added meaningless contents in several pages for months. You can see the records in 113.20.22.67、113.20.22.71、113.20.22.89、113.20.22.94、113.20.22.96 、113.20.22.99、113.20.22.103. I have reported this in March, 2020 but no one answered and dealed it. Now there are more meaningless contents but I don't have time to fix them. Please help.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pamputt:、@Jasper Deng:Please help. This situation seems to be ignored twice.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment 113.20.22.0/24 is stale for now. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple errors

I ask you to influence this editor so that he corrects everything. On April 14, he put down the place of death for many, but there is no such data. Today, these erroneous data are available to be. What I just saw today: Lars Lagerbäck (Q316026), Vladimir Lukarić (Q7938463), Luka Modrić (Q483837).--Юрий Владимирович Л. (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

We appear to be talking about Hey80'Q (talk • contribs • logs) here. The death dates listed above are all sourced to the Croatian Wikipedia. It does not appear that OP has attempted to communicate with this user before bringing the matter here. That might be a good starting point. Bovlb (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
They wrote to him, there were no reactions and corrections.--Юрий Владимирович Л. (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
They appear to be responding to Dennis Radaelli on their talk page. Bovlb (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Undelete 91362860

I found a site link for this deleted item Q91362860 on WikiQuote, the page Q91362860 has been deleted before adding the Notable citations and References. Could you please undelete it? Thank you. Axymakofficial (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It will be deleted anyway because it is pretty clear spam. If you continue creating spam you will be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for new abuse filter

I'll like if we could get a abuse filter for new editors changing the number of children a person have or changing a official website. I've noted these to be a common type of vandalism --Trade (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Protect Sanni Kurkisuo (Q10577548)

Somebody keeps on editing the Finnish description with non-sense words, therefore I request a protection against non-user edits --★ → Airon 90 12:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for a month. Thanks! --Sotiale (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sotiale: They now are vandalizing Sanni (Q27144904) --★ → Airon 90 21:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Airon90: The corresponding IP user was blocked, and the item was semi-protected for 2 weeks. --Sotiale (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Block request Special:Contributions/148.3.15.20

This IP has been doing excessive vandalism. He also created the item of Q91762891 and I can't find information of him, so it's probably a fake, I request it's deletion.--BugWarp (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. --Esteban16 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Londonparkour

Londonparkour (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Idp24 India (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Maggiealtman1117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

— Reasons: Spam --Trade (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: All blocked. Note that for the last account, Bradcopper01 (talk • contribs • logs) was the one who most recently created that talk page. The original account was still a promotion-only account, though, so in total four accounts were blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Requests for protection and blocking

Requesting protection for vandalism and spam magnets BongaCams (Q39057054) and Chaturbate (Q22080762). Trivialist (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, if someone could block 2600:100d:b064:8fb3:54c:2f75:cc34:daa3, who's the most recent spammer of those two items. Trivialist (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Since he's the one who did the last protection of Chaturbate @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I protected one for a week, and blocked the IP for 31 hours. The other was already protected by Kostas20142. Bovlb (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please block Special:Contributions/KC_Roosters

@KC_Roosters: ==


There seems to be another issue with an enwiki-user of @Galobtter:}'s w:Wikipedia:Shortdesc_helper, possibly unaware of edits being done on Wikidata by the script.

The user continues to overwrite descriptions with caps [12] despite reverts and a message on their talk page.

Please block the account until this is addressed. --- Jura 20:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The user would've had to explicitly enable sending all changes made on enwiki to wikidata. I don't think the user needs to be blocked as I've disabled that option for all users as it doesn't really make sense for anyone to automatically edit wikidata descriptions when editing enwiki descriptions. (I really don't know why I added that option, I should've seen these sort of issues coming, apologies for that). Galobtter (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Galobtter: the problem is the overwrite option. Filling in empty ones even with suboptimal descriptions is generally useful. --- Jura 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Connie Glynn

Please semi-protect it due to persistent vandalism from an enwiki troll. The same IP-hopping editor is currently posting BLP violations on the Today's Featured Articles about Glynn and her friend for the past few days. JavaHurricane (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: ✓ Done for a week.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks JD! JavaHurricane (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone please revert the vandalism done today by several IP-accounts to Halfdan Rasmussen (Q961924)? I don't have any idea how to do it efficiently --Hjart (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semiproteced Halfdan Rasmussen (Q961924) for a week. Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible socking

Both have an interest in interstate edits and asking questions about blocking policies (for the suspected sock). Their userpages are almost the same. I hope can be ducked. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Completed
  • Confirmed Gale5050, Steven1825andrew2044
  • Gale5050 is locked account

I think I need to edit the quote template :( --Sotiale (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sotiale as usual :) I think we may use meta CU quote template?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: We already have {{Talkquote}} template! --Sotiale (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Englishwritere

Englishwritere (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Please Check this user Countributions. He/She did make 7 Wikidata item. All item not notable, Advertising, Social media Promotin. I think this use is marketer. So please check then Block. Aziz979 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indef --Esteban16 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war on years

Hi. There is an ongoing edit war on year items around Wikinews links. This, this and this show the scale of it. There was an unsuccessful discussion attempt at User talk:2001:268:C0E0:4DDC:BDF6:588A:8FFD:4DA8. I am concerned by this war as I keep receiving notifications that a page I created was linked to Wikidata every few hours — NickK (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid we can not protect all these items, certainly not long-term, and we can not block every dynamic IP because they only last for 10 minutes. It looks like an edit filter is the only solution. Probably something like an IP removing sitelinks from a year item. Can someone help with this?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Blocked the /48 for edit warring. Sounds like we need to codify this linkage between Wikinews categories and mainspace items in WD:N somehow. Mahir256 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought it is even codified somewhere, but I am not sure where it could be.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It's at Wikidata:Wikinews/Development#Interproject links. --- Jura 05:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, it's helpful to point to the next time a new user doesn't understand this logic. - FakirNL (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Block request or semi-protection

Hi, can you stop 2A01:CB22:905:7200:455:727B:8341:245C editing on Q747? Only vandalism. Thanks. --—d—n—f (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's going on. Anybody here :) ? --—d—n—f (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It has stopped, but the item has been protected. --Esteban16 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Archiving and CU

Hello,

old discussion: @MisterSynergy, Ajraddatz, Fralambert, Jura1, Jasper Deng:, @Trade, Succu, Mike Novikoff: I was interested in badly archived pages and I also saw the post of Mike. It seems to me that on all the pages present in {{Discussion navigation}} are made up of 2 archiving methods. For my part, none of the ways of archiving disappoint me.

On another note, I called @Sotiale: on User talk:Sotiale/Wikidata:Requests for checkuser, but no one seems to react. Is there another page where this aspect is discussed? I wanted to participate in the development of this page and its translation (as TA). Otherwise I was about to modify {{Discussion navigation}} in 4x4 for a new future "CU noticeboard", is it problematic for someone? I look forward to reading your constructive comments. Best regards. —Eihel (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's odd. I receive ping you sent me here, but now I know that you pinged on the talkpage. I'll read what you left on the talkpage. Thanks for letting me know! --Sotiale (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sotiale: Anyway, shouldn't you downgrade {{Confirmed}}'s protection to be semi-protected? Because I see no reason the semi-protect can't avoid it from spams, and such templates should be welcome for translators. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: It seems to have been protected since 2013. I just lowered the level of protection. --Sotiale (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.232.110.224

190.232.110.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Creating an endless stream of nonsense pages. Please nuke him. @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done; the user might be looking for lexeme creation instead, judging from the structure of their edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
How come i can't see anything in the deletion log? --Trade (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: See Special:Log/delete/Jasper Deng; I used the flood flag since this was a large deletion (over 50 items).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Please check users AbercrombieModel2 and Macarennaaid. They have both created similiar non-notable items related to businesses. And BTW, shouldn't we have a CheckUsers' noticeboard now that we have local CUs? Esteban16 (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Esteban16: See User talk:Sotiale/Wikidata:Requests for checkuser: we are still trying to decide on the design of it (subpage for each case, or threads like SRCU?).  Doing… the checks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16: They appear to be Unrelated. Meatpuppetry, at most, is what's going on here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry? --Trade (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: Meatpuppetry is when multiple people collude (usually off-wiki, usually due to canvassing of new users) on a common (often disruptive) purpose. By ruling out these two accounts being operated by the same person, I'm essentially saying the worst case here would be meatpuppetry, without explicitly alleging that to be the case, since there isn't really much evidence suggesting one party recruited the other, besides the one item they have in common.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16: While these two particular accounts are unrelated, further investigation found two socks of Macarennaaid (talk • contribs • logs), namely Moneyballer123 (talk • contribs • logs) and Fried10897 (talk • contribs • logs) (both of which are Confirmed to Macarennaaid, but not AbercrombieModel2).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/EMSRUS

Vandal: all contribs is blatant hoax (maybe about himself). MBH (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be no government ministry he claims in Poland. Considering the age and the year of attendance at the university, it was judged to be false information, and the link was deleted from all Wikipedia, so the item was deleted. If he adds the information again without giving evidence that his edits are correct, it will be blocked. --Sotiale (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q17122834

Reasons: Vandalism, high visibility item--Trade (talk</spain>) 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for six months.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

request for closure

I want to request closing deletion discussions that I started. These were easily fixed as the pages are accessible from another URL.

Thanks. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Zaid S. Al-Abedi"

Zaid S. Al-Abedi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam --Trade (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@علاء:--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Globally locked and edits reverted --Alaa :)..! 08:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe still SP User:أبو السعد 22

On each of the problematic أبو السعد 22 modifications, IPv6 seem to be present for the same kind of modifications. I consider CIDR Special:Contributions/2001:16a2:9400::0/40 (a WHOIS indicates a wider range, Riyadh if that tells you something) in relation to this user. Could you confirm this fact, please? Thank you in advance. —Eihel (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eihel: If this is meant to be a CheckUser request, Declined. We cannot and will not reveal any connection between a user and their IP addresses (m:CheckUser policy#Privacy policy). You will have to go off behavior alone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Behaviorally, they do look similar, but have not edited in over a month, so no action taken either way, unless you have other more recent suspected socking. Thanks for the report though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It's noted, so no research on the "suspicion of blocking bypass" —Eihel (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eihel: I don't think you understood me clearly in English so I will repeat in French: Sur le sujet des comportements, les IP's semblent fortement le compte, mais les deux n'ont pas fait des modifications pendant le mois précédent, alors maintenant je ne bloque pas les IP's. On ne peut jamais utiliser vérification d'adresses IP pour établir une correspondance entre un compte et ses adresses IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Abdul Bazeet

Abdul Bazeet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Bitcoin spam @Jasper Deng: --Trade (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: I thought so too at first, but they are in fact technically Unrelated to the Bitcoin spammer, and in addition, the m.o. of it is not the same (space in username, and based on a Google search Tatcoin may actually be notable under criterion 2 due to some token press coverage). Please let me know if, after being warned, they continue promotional editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeated user vandalism

Repeated user vandalism: LolaMiller95 here, thanks, --Ytha67 (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bovlb (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

block vandal

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.238.133.18 -WikiBayer (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for 2 weeks --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Restore semiprotection of Aslaug (Q732678)

The vandal or looney or whoever it is is obviously persistent. Maybe semiprotect for a longer time? --Mormegil (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: why not make it indefinite? Clearly the vandalism will continue. 47.16.99.72 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Because many good-faith users in the projects are not confirmed on Wikidata and will not be able to edit the item, for example, to add new sitelinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: What do you mean by confirmed? Do you mean that it is ten edits and four days? In that case, all they need to do is wait! If that is not the case tell me what it is. 47.16.99.72 21:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protection is protection against non-confirmed users. I am not going to extend the protection, indefinite protection will make more damage than good.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for conduct warning Cycn

Cycn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
This morning, User Cycn started reverting (starting here) my edits on newly created pages concerning Mayors of the Netherlands, on which I have created hundreds of new Commons Categories that I linked to Wikipedia lists. While the construction I choose might not be very usual, as my discussion with Mike Peel shows, it is – as far as I am aware – nowhere near controversial. When I asked Cycn to, basically, stop destroying my work, user accused me of bullying, then even for a short time went on editing the Mayors pages, and removed my reaction on user's Talk page with the edit summary 'opbokken' (~ 'fuck off'), leaving me unanswered. Because it involves different pages on three platforms, it is a bit of a trouble to restore what had been undone, it's time and energy consuming, but I did and thought that was it. But tonight Cycn started again undoing my edits (here etc.). Again I asked: why?, and the only answer was in the edit summary of the removal of my question: 'daarom' (~ '[just] because'). While I have the impression that Cycn might not start over again, I still have the unpleasant feeling that when I wake up tomorrow I encounter an enormous mess of destroyed work, and that's why I ask here for a formal warning at the address of Cycn, requesting that Cycn be blocked immediately if user again starts undoing my edits just 'because'. I am not amused, twice today this totally messed up my work and mood; this is not a way to treat each other. I have the impression that Cycn has a lot of respect on this site, but I hope you'll see that user's hateful conduct towards me can not be accepted. Eissink (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC).

Eissink is bullying anyone who he feels is working against him. Initial contact is very aggressive[13] and even though there might be a point in the position he takes, there is no way to discuss it because Eissink is coming in so aggressively. There is no way to know for previously uninvolved people to know that this is Jürgen's live work and that he will go berserk if you against it. It forced me to uninvite him (for now) from my talk page, and I really hate to do that. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 22:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] I will say that anyone can read how I initially approached you, mainly worried and not bullying at all, on which Cycn nearly instantly answered "your works doesn't seem to be a very good job, now does it?". After my reply, Cycn thought it wise to say "you're messing things up and then bully people with a different opinion into agreeing with you on ground that you put a lot of work in messing things up". I think it is good to say that I don't recall ever hearing of a user named Cycn before today, yet it shows that Cycn has build quite an opinion on me. Since I have hardly had a discussion on Wikidata, Cycn must here be referring to other projects, where a faction of users had me blocked over practically nothing (only the personal hate that surfaced here today also) for at least a year, and because I think I should be free of persecution, I request Cycn to be blocked for openly persecuting me here for something that supposedly – in user's mind at least – happened elsewhere. I get so tired of these people, always I'm credited a point, but oh my conduct. Every aspect and affection of the autistic spectrum is shielded on Wikimedia projects, but somehow I'm expected to silently undergo the psychological horror of zealots who despise the freedom of my mind. Please block Cycn, this has to stop. Eissink (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
Why should I have to accept that someone openly states that it is my "live work" to be "bullying" and "come in so aggresively" and that I "will go berserk"? Why? Where's the proof of all this, and why should I allow this judgment to be openly made? Isn't it as slanderous as slanderous can be? I cn't believe what's happening. And how come I am suddenly addressed by my first name, that is not part of my user name? Is that suddenly not private anymore, because I am a non-human, a bully, a lesser person? I have been blocked for at least a year for less! Come on! Eissink (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
You've been blocked before? Why? You are a bit aggressive in your communications, but you do try to contribute... - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] Moderators, please stop this user, who in sheer hatred even lost the ability to write intelligible sentences. I did not and do not deserve this user chasing me for his or her own fantasmagora. Eissink (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
I said "a bit" but I was wrong about that, but still till I think Eissink could be a productive, just with a few pointers before he's set loose again. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried over ten minutes to translate your sectarian gibberish, but it's impossible. If you really meant to say something like "Eissink could become a usefull force if he accepts a few of my norms", then I can only enforce my request for a block. You still seem to talk as if from a fictive position in which you could, should and somehow have the right to lecture and subdue me, but I am not the problem here: you are. You are totally out of your mind. Eissink (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
You could be right there, and I suspect that at least one of us is part of a global conspiracy, that would explain the "sectarianism" you just invited into the conversation... 00:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You are deluded, I pity you. I uphold my request for a block, because you need to realize what bunch of unasked trouble and work you have deliberately choosen to deliver to me, but I will no longer react here. You have made me sad, you don't even know how sad. Eissink (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
You take thing very personally, I've seen you lash out at bots and to unknowing contributors (like I was, before I checked a few things) that you think might have other views than you have. I think you're a it fed up explaining your reasoning, so you don't bother any more and just keep to your own "right". I might have agreed with you but I was not in it for the whole ride, so I'm a heretic...v
Stop accusing me of this and that without giving proof! This is unheard of! Where did I "lash out at bots and to unknowing contributors"? WHERE? What are you talking about? What things did you "check"? And what do you mean "I might have agreed"? You deleted my comments almost instantly! MODERATORS, PLEASE STOP THIS USER !!! These vague accusations are far beyond the ordinary. And, by the way, your use of language is terrible, and it's a reflection of your mind. Eissink (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Moderators, please get Cycn of my back. I'm nearing the point that I can't bear it anymore. I'm just contributing to Wikidata, yet I get totally harassed. I don't even know this user, yet he or she is using my private name here and somehow has studied my behavior and from prejudice decided I am worthy to be attacked for who he or she thinks I am. It is not acceptable, not even close. Eissink (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Can anyone explain to me how Eissink is being harassed? I could accept that we have a different opinions about something (seemingly relevant) that Eissink seems to have a very intense opinion about. But, I did not harass Eissink on this, why should I be taken of the person's back that accuses, and by doing that, engages me?'сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You say you did not seek a confrontation? (Cycn removed that remark.) You started last morning, then started some sort of psychological research into my personality and then you start in the evening to again undo my edits, edits that you say you even might agree with, although you deleted our conversation immediately and refused to further answer. You are sick. I am disgusted. I only tried to save my edits and you just go on. I am really disgusted. Eissink (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
I would ask "why on earth", but I don't actually want to go into this... (by сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 02:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC))
From your tone, from your repeated deletion of my edits, from your refusal to answer me on your Talk page, from your instant removal of my reactions on your Talk page I had and have all the reason to "accuse" you, if you mean by "accusing" me being so worried about you messing up days of my work that I felt I should get you a warning (yet unfortunately no moderator even sighs here), and then here you go on making vague mentions of how my personality according to you works, that my "live work" is to be aggressive etcetera etcetera and then you ask how I am being harassed???? Eissink (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Yes, my talk page, so mine, I appreciate you respect that (now) I cannot harrass you from my talk page, even if would have wanted to... - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 02:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The point is that you refused to conversate yet kept on going "fixing" what wasn't broken. And instead of taking my worries, here on this page, serious, you started to deploy some sort of self found blue print of my "live work" to continue harassing me, implying that you have all reason to undo edits that are not wrong, forcing me to reply and defend myself here. The sun is about to come up, I'm clear awake, all because of your unbelievable arrogance. And it's my fucking birthday, for god's sake. You ruined nearly a complete day of my life with your unwanted edits and attitude. And still you behave like you just might continue deleting my work and yet no moderator even comes close. It's depressing, but that seems exactly your intention, so congratulations. Eissink (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Somehow it seems accepted that some user comes in, deletes my work, goes around saying "Eissink is bullying anyone who he feels is working against him" and other completely unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks. And all this seems to be retrieved from observations of alleged behavior elsewhere, but no sources are given, so no defence can be made. I feel sick, for hours already. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC).

Why is there not a single moderator that steps up to tell that Cycn's behavior is unacceptable? Cycn is frustrating my work just 'because', because it's his or her distorted opinion that I am somehow an enemy, a lesser human, someone who you don't talk with, but only frustrate. And not a single source for the accusations, it's complete slander. It's totally sick. If this is a glimpse of the work atmosphere on Wikidata, then I suddenly understand why this site is so outdated and user unfriendly. You people need to grow up, else you will be your own demise. A good start would certainly be to speak up against the screwed up behavior of Cycn. Eissink (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC).

I'm generally not interested in mediating/arbitrating a dispute, but let me tell you two things: One, if you create a hell of a thread fighting each other, admins will run away, because you're in the middle of a fighting and nobody wants to get into a dogfight. Two, admins not stepping in and judging for you is something "you need to grow up"? This is aggressive, and I can see why you are blocked (comment 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC) and nlwiki). — regards, Revi 13:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Very stylish to refer to two users as 'dogs', while wanting to maintain something of a better ethics. This thread has become so long, because Cycn keeps on harassing me, any moderator could see that. And my block on the Dutch Wikipedia has NOTHING to do with this, you have really no clue what has happened there, so your opinion is worthless and nothing but an offense. And for your interest: the two bureaucrats involved in my block in the Dutch Wikipedia have both left, maybe you want to give that a thought, before you start judging. Spare me your regards, if this is all you have to offer. Eissink (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC).

Just now I see that Cycn has even exported his personal crusade to the Dutch Wikipedia, where he or she tries to lecture me (see the edit summary) on how to do something, thereby showing how he or she is in complete lack of understanding of what is the purpose of my edits, since his or her 'example' has no influence at all on how to approach the subject from Wikimedia Commons, which was my main purpose. So the self proclaimed sheriff-psychologist / inquisitor doesn't stop at anything to show how he or she is above all project laws by enforcing stupity at the expense of undersigned user. Again: please block this person. Eissink (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC).

  • I'm sad to see this thread. @Eissink: you've been making good edits to Commons, and our discussion on my talk page has led to some positive changes to the way that interwikis from Wikidata are displayed on Commons. However, @Cycn: seems to have been saying the same thing I've been saying, just with less patience. Eissink, I think you need to take a step back and listen to what we're both saying, making sure you understand it, and giving concrete examples of the issues you're finding (you may want to share screenshots or better explain the specific issues). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, Mike Peel. All I want, is to have the direct link from Commons to the Wikipedia lists, and with direct link I mean the interwiki links in the lefthand sidebar. I did establish those connections, but either Cycn or Pi bot deletes them in favor of a interwikilink to the Wikipedia category. Yesterday I thought you had created something of bypass, which was fine to me, but today the actions of Pi bot apparently do not work that way anymore (and Cycn's edits were destructive to begin with). I am so tired of this, I will not react anymore today. The beginning was: I created something that worked, and then others came by to disturb it. And yes, you have been helpfull, for which I am grateful, but today you don't seem to understand anymore what I am saying. I will take a break now. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC).
Hallo Mike and Eissink. I think I can try explain how we got of at the wrong foot: thus contains "you have no right to destroy my work" - I find this aggressive, let me explain: I did not make any edits with the intent to "destroy" anything, but to (in my view) improve things. Stating that "I have not right to destroy your work" suggest I was intending to do so. And how do you mean "I have no rights", on an open Encyclopedia? Also using the word "immediately" in the first sentence reads as someone giving an order. I think that (at least at the moment) Eissink didn't think any of this to be aggressive, but I felt (and still feel) it was. I don't want to go into the rest of the discussion, I already removed it from my talk page because it escalated, but I was not out to get you, or something like that, even though it seems you thought I was. I just, as Mike said, reacted without patience. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

BotMultichillT

Please block BotMultichillT unitl we are sure that it won't repeat the same edits that the bot's owner had claimed to cease. The reason for this request and the underlying discussion are here. — Mike Novikoff 23:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support To me it looks like a spambot, no good memories about it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To fill in some background here, this bot (among other tasks) copies alternative names from ULAN into Wikidata aliases. This has caused a number of problems, including:

  • All names are copied as English aliases only regardless of language notations or provenance tags.
  • There is no limit on the number of aliases that can be added, and items can end up with hundreds of aliases. This disrupts UI display and, potentially, other downstream users of aliases.
  • The aliases often do not comply with our guidance for good aliases (see Help:Alias), often being references to related concepts, alternative word orders, misspellings, or unlikely references.
  • The bot edit wars with human editors who attempt to remove poor aliases.

These issues have been raised repeatedly over the last five years by many different editors and, while the botop has made some accommodations, there has been a general trend of dismissing them and refusing to participate in any remediation.

In the latest discussion of these issues, the botop undertook to cease this task, saying "No way to please people and I'm done with the unconstructive comments, nasty remarks and demotivating comments. Zero motivation to spend any more time on this so I'm abondoning it. I hope this makes you all very happy and proud of what you achieved." One week later, the bot performed a run of 168 ULAN alias updates, including reinserting an especially egregious error that had been called out specifically in the most recent discussion. The botop does not appear to have responded further.

Reviewing the relevant bot approval requests (BotMultichill, BotMultichillT), I see no mention of either ULAN or aliases.

I'm not going to take direct action on this request at this time, partly because I am arguably involved, having been one of the many who raised issues about this bot in the past, but mostly because the bot does not appear to be performing further ULAN tasks at this time.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Another big tranche of changes, including some of the same errors, and still no response from the botop, so I have blocked the bot. Any admin can unblock as soon as the botop gives us an assurance that the problem has been properly resolved. Bovlb (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Botop reports the problem is resolved, and the bot is unblocked again. I'm hopeful this issue is now resolved. Bovlb (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please hide these edits

Reasons: Harassment of a living person --Trade (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2020/04&oldid=1438579880"