Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2020/05

User:MER-C

User deletd today some links to articles at the en:WP, claiming they are deletd. They were'nt. Maybe an Administrater should talk to him about such behaviour. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What happened is actually MER-C doing history merges on the English Wikipedia, I assume they have never visited Wikidata. History merge includes the article deletion, which results in a removal of sitelink here. Subsequently, the article gets restored, but the sitelink does not. Most people just do not know about this. I am doing my share of histmerges as a English Wikipedia administrator, and I just know that aftere every merge I need to visit a list my Wikidata contributions and to roll back the edit. It is a best practice to do it, but most people on the projects are not aware of this best practive, and some do not even care - Wikidata does not have the best reputation in the projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata does not have the best reputation in the projects Are you saying that other Wikipedians hate WD?--Trade (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen multi-screen discussions on the English Wikipedia about Wikidata? I once had an ArbCom case filed against me because of my activities as Wikidata crat.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No i have not seen them. What's the deal? Andbwhy did ypu had an ArdCom case?@Ymblanter:--Trade (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

[1]--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: Have you considered talking to this user rather than marching straight here to get an administrator to admonish them? --Rschen7754 06:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No. And I had my causes at this moment. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Rschen7754 18:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure of topic on Wikidata:Bistro

Can someone tell @Hsarrazin: not to close discussions on Wikidata:Bistro? Each time I try to respond to her comments I find the topic closed.

Given that she feels harassed by users mentioning that (and other things) on her talk page (Topic:Vllfc770i2b8h9ws), I don't want to re-open it once more myself. --- Jura 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

considering the initial subject of the topic (Topic:Vlhf7zu9q53g55ss) was answered very early, I summarized it with answer to the question : P2754 was not created for written works, which is my main subject of interest.

after that, Jura1, who was the initial proposer of the property, came discussing it very late, to explain, but not very clearly, how it was to be used.

however, statistics prove that (for now) this property is clearly overwhelmingly not used like Jura intended it https://w.wiki/Pfi - which I mentioned in the summary.

after long discussion, as the discussion was deriving on how it was used by other contributors, on other kind of elements, I asked him politely, when he derived on yet another property (P1436) without direct connexion with the initial subjet, to create another subject to allow people concerned by this to discuss it, and closed the discussion.

he repeatedly re-opened to continue discussion on matters without connection with initial answered question...

and then came on my talk page to force me to go back to this discussion that does not concern me anymore.

this is a repetitive pattern with Jura1 to derive discussion this way, and it is really tiring, and does not allow productive exchange, because noone knows what the subject is anymore...

can someone please tell him that opening another discussion to discuss other problems about a first discussion is NOT censoring him, but trying to sort problems so that people can understand what is the subject of the discussion ? Thanks. Hsarrazin (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's a topic started two days ago and someone pinged me to participate ..

Not sure why I shouldn't address elements Hsarrazin inserted in the summary that haven't even be mentioned in the discussion or edits Hsarrazin references. --- Jura 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Afin d'appaiser la situation, voici ce que je propose. Comme Jura1 considère que la discussion n'est pas close, on réouvre le sujet et quelqu'un la fermera lorsque la discussion n'évoluera plus (probablement d'ici quelques jours). J'encourage Hsarrazin a prendre du recul et à ne plus contribuer sur ce sujet durant cette période. Pendant ce temps, Jura1 peut exposer ses arguments sur la discussion et d'autres personnes pourront intervenir. Lorsque le sujet sera cloturé, il faudrait que cela soit fait ni par Hsarrazin, ni par Jura1 pour qu'on puisse passer aller de l'avant. Pamputt (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Personally, I haven't tried to close the topic nor insert a summary with points that haven't been brought up in the discussion. Obviously, a discussion is off topic if a user changes the topic after a point was raised. Accordingly, I don't think Hsarrazin should be allowed to close any discussion on Wikidata:Bistro nor edit topics of discussions elsewhere than on her user page going forward. As a sign of good will, I wont address other comments made in the discussion about me. --- Jura 18:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Je recommande uniquement que Hsarrazin ne cloture pas ce sujet. Il n'y a jamais eu aucun autre « incident » à propos de la fermture d'un sujet donc je ne vois pas quelle raison nous pousserait à forcer Hsarrazin à ne plus cloturer aucun sujet. Pamputt (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

She repeatedly closed this topic after inserting a summary with elements that haven't been mentioned in the discussion. Can you also restore the original topic and remove her summary? --- Jura 06:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Non. Comme indiqué, j'ai réouvert le sujet. Si quelqu'un d'autre veut modifier le résumé qu'il le fasse, sinon c'est que ça ne dérange pas grand monde. Pamputt (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't noticed, but she changed the topic. --- Jura 09:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I havn't touched this topic since 2 days ago...

but Jura1 tries to bring people here, to have me on trial ! do you think this edit] is correct, considering I did not touch anything since Pamputt recommandation ? this is confining to harassment, and inciting other contributors to harassment... --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from such accusations. As a favor on my side, I have overlooked such accusations, but, if you persist, I will not do that. --- Jura 22:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comme indiqué Hsarrazin n'a pas touché au sujet depuis que je l'ai réouvert. Je n'ai donc pas donné suite à ton dernier message Jura1 car j'espérais qu'on allait passer à autre chose. Vu la teneur des derniers échanges, je pense qu'il est préférable de ne plus intervenir non plus sur ce sujet pendant quelques jours, y compris pour indiquer un comportement non souhaitable de l'une ou l'autre des parties ; je jetterai un oeil par moi-même et interviendrai ci besoin. Sur ce, je vous souhaite à tous les deux, de bonnes contributions. Pamputt (talk) 06:37, 4 May 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. Pamputt (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How to change wiki data entry name?

Unfortunately, I did choose wrong sitelink. How i can be change and proper sitelink in wikidata entry's? I hope you co-operate to me. Thank you.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by কাজী মুহাম্মদ হোসাইনুর রশীদ (talk • contribs) at 10:25‎, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

@কাজী মুহাম্মদ হোসাইনুর রশীদ: আমি দেখতে পাচ্ছি যে ওই আইটেমটা ঠিকই পরিবর্তন করেছেন। অন্য সাহায্য লাগলে দয়া করে মূল আলোচনাসভায় (অথবা তার বাংলা সংস্করণে) জানাবেন। ধন্যবাদ। Mahir256 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 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. Mahir256 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User: 2605:6000:120A:87AC:759D:44BF:639E:83C4

2605:6000:120A:87AC:759D:44BF:639E:83C4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam@DannyS712:--Trade (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the middle of something (broke mediawiki, again :( ) but I'll take a look if I have a spare minute --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I warned the IP, if it continues will block --DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 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) 01:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

KineMaster

Bahasa Indonesia: Hai Para Admin Tepercaya. Saya yang buat halaman KineMaster Lalu di Wikidata itu Masih Halaman pindahan yang di Alihkan oleh (Vid241). Minta tolong untuk memperbaiki saja. Terimakasih.

English: Hi Trusted Admins. I made the page KineMaster Then at Wikidata It was still a moving page that was redirected by (Vid241 ). Ask for help to improve it. Thanks. Translate by Google

Fixed. Stryn (talk) 10:18, 1 May 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)

Problem of setting sitelink

There is a problem to link a enwiki page: en:First Shot (1993 film) to a zhwiki page: zh:廉政第一擊, I guess there are some unknown reasons inside, would you help to fix this? Thank you.

 Merged, they both had an own item already on Wikidata. Stryn (talk) 10:16, 1 May 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)

Report concerning User:113.253.249.46

113.253.249.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandal. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Short block. --Sotiale (talk) 13:27, 1 May 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)

Semi-protection for Q17122705 and Q17122854

brown (Q17122705) and green (Q17122854) persistent vandalism, higly visible items --Trade (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 05:25, 2 May 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)

Report concerning 198.14.241.90

This IP is continuously creating items about Bob Singleton, an American arranger and composer. I told them not to do so, but they continue to create duplicate items. Ahmad^talk 04:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 3 days, will now delete all their contribution--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 2 May 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)

Q7462794

Die deutschsprachige Bezeichnung diese Datenobjekts konnte ich abändern auf Haltepunkt Shakespeare Cliff Doch gelingt es mir nicht, den Websitelink zum gleichnamigen Eintrag auf dewiki anzulegen.

Hintergrund: Ich hatte auf dewiki die Weiterleitung Haltepunkt Shakespeare Cliff Halt verschoben nach de:Haltepunkt Shakespeare Cliff, siehe auch https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haltepunkt_Shakespeare_Cliff&oldid=199411911

Ob diese Weiterleitung überhaupt sinnvoll ist? Sie taugt nur zur Kategorisierung und eben der vorliegenden Interwiki-Verknüpfung aus der enwiki.

Biite um Lösung und gerne auch Aufklärung, was schief gelaufen ist. --KaPe (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please semi-protect iCloud (Q283469)

Excessive vandalism. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 1 year. Pamputt (talk) 15:45, 2 May 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)

Hoax additions by 148.3.196.108

148.3.196.108 has made many likely hoaxed additions of biographical info to many entries. All of them have no references and sometimes include completely inappropriate information (such as killing (Q844482) for cause of death (P509), or false death dates). They have also created false entries including Q92928964, Q92929386, Q92931231; all biographical information is not real and has no source, let alone any sitelinks to projects to pass WD:N. For example, the IMDb ID (P345) for Q92928964 links to nm1958226 (David Lazaruk), a completely unrelated person. For reference, the IP has also been conducting similar behavior on 6 other projects and has been blocked on eswiki.– Aranya (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I wrote here --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and several items deleted. I am also finding many similar hoax edits from multiple IPs in the block Special:Contributions/148.3.196.108/16 going back at least a month, and spanning many different projects, related to Marina d'Or (Q3490113) and cartoons like SpongeBob SquarePants (Q83279). I have also found a small handful of good edits from this /16 block. Still digging. Bovlb (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to take a break, but I'm considering a three-month softblock on that /16, and a report to meta. These seem to have soaked up a lot of volunteer time and don't seem to be slowing down. Bovlb (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Softblocked and reported to meta. Bovlb (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Now globally blocked. Bovlb (talk) 21:20, 8 May 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)

Report concerning User:Gauravchhabra25

Gauravchhabra25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam/Self promotion @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Could you please explain more? They have an article, even if just a stub, on Wikipedia, so they meet criterion 1, and I don't see overly promotional text or statements.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at the changes this user made to the item. I don't think that the person here is the same person who the item is about. I think that he hijacked the page--Trade (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If i remember correctly this user used to have a user page with spammy content before it was deleted--Trade (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On another look, one of their edits brags about having SEO skills. Blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:44, 2 May 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)

please block 2804:D45:8E16:3300:482D:44E2:5B37:B30A

2804:D45:8E16:3300:482D:44E2:5B37:B30A (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Ongoing vandalism. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scs (talk • contribs).

@Scs: rangeblocked for a month based on longer-term pattern of vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:14, 3 May 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)

Extend semi-protection of Project:Bots (Q4048867)

Still excessive vandalism. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Done for six months.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:28, 3 May 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)

Semi-protection requested

Hi! This item (Q317521) is too often vandalized (see history). Can you do something please ? Many thanks in advance. --—d—n—f (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for a year. Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 13:51, 3 May 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)

Semi protection of COVID-19 (Q84263196)

Reasons: Vandalism, higly visible item --Trade (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for three months.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 3 May 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)

Semi protection of Rosa Parks (Q41921)

Reasons: Vandalism @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for 3 months --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 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)

User:Vincent Lefèvre

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)

Report concerning User:Sirmhdi

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

This account is a sockpuppet of User:مهیار مهرنیا, a globally locked LTA; they have created items about Q93300287 (a long-term interest of this LTA), Q93152544 (same), and edited Aliram Nouraei (Q17174932) (same; see the history of the page where User:Chogok, a globally locked sockpuppet, has edited the item). Some history can be found here. I have requested global lock, but after one or two days, the request is still open, so I'm bringing this up here to stop further disruption. Thanks. Ahmad^talk 04:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sirmhdi --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 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) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:PIXMAY

PIXMAY (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP--Trade (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indef blocked on both Wikidata and ENWP, and all changes reverted. Bovlb (talk) 15:00, 5 May 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)

Semi-protection of Abraham (Q9181)

Reasons: Vandalism @Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Jasper Deng--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 7 May 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)

Report concerning User:5.108.249.74

5.108.249.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism, probably in the case of every one of this IP's edits. Star Garnet (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 7 May 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)

block vandal

Marcusarg spamming an email address. --99of9 (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days by Jasper Deng. Pamputt (talk) 19:45, 7 May 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)

Report concerning User:Elyasdavari

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

Reason: This user is a sockpuppet of مهیار مهرنیا; they create and edit items about same people that sockpuppets of مهیار مهرنیا were interested in; see Q17991993 or Aliram Nouraei (Q17174932). I have requested global lock, but since LTA global lock requests sometimes take some time, I think a local block is a good idea. Thank you. Ahmad^talk 07:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 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)

Report concerning User:臺南市

臺南市 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Inserting nonsense to description. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:25, 7 May 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)

Report concerning User:2804:14C:1B0:9171:E97E:28D2:C277:6A3E

2804:14C:1B0:9171:E97E:28D2:C277:6A3E (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: highly suspicius-looking edits Scs (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've warned them, can be blocked if they continue to remove references. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:34, 7 May 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)

Report concerning User:Bella Aria

Bella Aria (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sock puppet of Rujon Gupto (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)).

Whenever the item about Thomas Coffman is deleted, he recreates it under a new user account. You are welcome to perform a CheckUser (is this the right term?) if you wish to do so.@Jasper Deng:@Sotiale: --Trade (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bella Aria --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 9 May 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)

Report concerning User:2603:9000:e000:d000:7dbd:69b8:e3fc:792f

2603:9000:e000:d000:7dbd:69b8:e3fc:792f (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism WhitePhosphorus (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 31 hours.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 8 May 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)

Assistance cleaning up old accounts requested

Hello. @GZWDer: asked me to come here to have an admin help sort out my old account. I am requesting the following:

• Replace the contents of User:Sven Manguard with #REDIRECT [[User:The Squirrel Conspiracy]]
• Replace the contents of User talk:Svenbot with #REDIRECT [[User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy]]
• Delete User:Sven Manguard/Best practices guide for video game items, User:Sven Manguard/Sets, User:Sven Manguard/common.css, and User:Sven Manguard/common.js
• Indefinitely block User:Sven Manguard, User:This is also Sven Manguard, and User:Svenbot with the block rationale: "User request - inactive former accounts of User:The Squirrel Conspiracy"

Proof of identity is here.

Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Doing… --DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done

1. Redirect #1 - Special:Diff/1176314232
2. Redirect #2 - Special:Diff/1176314489
3. Deletions: Special:Redirect/logid/663327838, Special:Redirect/logid/663327839, Special:Redirect/logid/663327842, Special:Redirect/logid/663327843
4. Blocks: Special:Redirect/logid/663327846, Special:Redirect/logid/663327847, Special:Redirect/logid/663327849

--DannyS712 (talk) 03:39, 8 May 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) 03:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Khloé Kardashian (Q231270)

— Reasons: Vandalism@Jasper Deng: --Trade (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalized by only one account and one IP, likely the same person. Better to handle by blocking than protection. Bovlb (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: For future reference, one report would have been just fine. We don't need three separate reports for the same incident.  :) Bovlb (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Mya-nee

Mya-nee (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP--Trade (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bovlb (talk) 16:43, 8 May 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)

Report concerning User:177.232.80.242

177.232.80.242 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP--Trade (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Bovlb (talk) 16:43, 8 May 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)

Report concerning User:Muhammad Farazzi

Muhammad Farazzi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP@MisterSynergy:--Trade (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I see five ms description edits which are surely not ideal, but where should I look for vandalism or BLP violations? —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The YELLING caught me off-guard. Nevermind, just forget this one --Trade (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Hey80'Q

Please monitor edits by this user, this is either death date vandalism or a Bot job made under a user account gone horribly wrong. Most (if not all) reported as dead are still alive. --Denniss (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Denniss: Hi! It looks like you haven't raised this issue directly with the user. It is often better to do that first. Can you give us some specific diffs? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

April 22, May 4 --Denniss (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The first one is wrong, but correctly represents the content of the (temporarily vandalised) page on IDWP. The second one correctly represents what is stated on the German Wikipedia, which in turn is sourced to AVn[3], but this death does not appear to have been reported elsewhere. So these seem like good faith errors, and something to take up with the editor in the first instance. Did you check these references? Bovlb (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have used RecentDeath and HarvestTemplates.

When a user detects a loading error, with the reference page, the user goes to the page and it is corrected. I have detected vandal IPs for example in SCOwikipedia [4] and corrected [5]. User:Hey80'Q 4 May 2020

Please restore Q73707267 and Q92453624

Please restore Richard Arthur Norton (Q73707267) and Q92453624. One is my own Wikidata entry, at Project Chat the discussion appears to be that there is no clear rule of which Wikimedians get a Wikidata entry and who does not, until there are objective rules, we should not delete ad hoc. I want to examine entry Q92453624 to see why it was deleted, it was listed as not notable without discussion, but as the child of another entry it has a clear structural role in Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have restored as requested. As I'm sure you're aware, this does not immunize them from future deletion, so please take an early opportunity to make sure their notability is clear. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to some objective criteria that determines which Wikipedians are notable and get Wikidata entries, and which that do not. Telling me "make sure their notability is clear" is not helpful without guidelines. Without guidelines it appears deletion is random and biased. Also objective criteria which lets me know which entries have to go through the standard deletion process requiring consensus, and which ones are exempt, and can be deleted by any individual with deletion rights. Thank you. --RAN (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm probably the wrong person to ask, as I'm pretty inclusionist on the whole. Obviously we do not have "fully objective criteria" that all admins interpret in exactly the same way, but I assume you have seen WD:Notability. We don't have the plethora of type-specific guidelines you find on, say, the English Wikipedia, but our bar for inclusion is much lower. If you find an admin is consistently deleting things you think they should not, please mention it to them. We're all human, we know we have a non-zero error rate, and we all strive to do better. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, some more specific advice, which is perhaps what you were looking for, rather than my philosophical musings. For the two items above, they meet criterion 2a (clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity), so I would focus on meeting criterion 2b (can be described using serious and publicly available references). If you can find an article in a major newspaper (say) that is primarily about each entity, then you can add the links on the item with described at URL (P973), or as a reference on a specific claim with reference URL (P854). Bovlb (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Key problem here is a the lack of verifiability against subject-independent ("serious") sources. User-generated content pages and social networks do not count in this sense. I have no doubt that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) provides correct data about himself, but technically the same rules apply to him and Wikimedians as to any other more external users that create items about themselves or entities closely related to them. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• We have over 5,000 entries in which we have two conflicting dates. That is just for people born after the year 1800. Using reliable external sources does not always mean you have achieved objective truth. We also have between 50 and 100 entries each month with people who died before they were born, based on typos both here, and at the original source. --RAN (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: we need a serious discussion about clarifying "serious and publicly available" for two reasons: one, this vagueness leaves unclear the notability of numerous items that don't satisfy criteria 1 and 3, but potentially criterion 2; and two, surely living people need to have stricter standards for their items due to privacy and other concerns. In general, it is far beyond time that we set standards for verifiability of our information. That would make it much easier to spot wrong edits and correct them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

yes, this indeed should happen asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I partially agree; I am not sure whether there is anything to discuss, as the interpretation of the phrase "serious and publicly available references" can be pretty much deduced from Wikidata's project goals, rather than being the outcome of a community discussion or even a simple vote in an RfC; a discussion/RfC would probably just bring WD:N in line with the current ultra liberal sourcing practice and the various desires of very different groups of editors. However, I agree that the phrase needs to be documented and described much better than it is currently.
As User:Jasper_Deng indicates, we should make clear that WD:N is by far not the only policy page which governs admission here; particularly the living people policy can require to meet much more rigorous criteria, e.g. when we discuss items about minors.
On a side note: the "structural need" criterion has the same problems in my opinion, and needs at least much more documentation. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, in practical terms: Can an item about a living person, not sourced to reliable sources (which sources are reliable btw? In the English Wikipedia this is a big deal of a discussion) be deleted on the spot? If you ask me both items mentioned in this thread are not notable and amenable to speedy deletion, and I am sure that is what I derive from our notability policy, but we clearly see other opinions as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We need more clarification for when someone with a specific occupation is considered 'automatically notable'. Most of the 'rules' i've are basically unwritten --Trade (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no such mechanism that makes entities "automatically notable" based on any of their intrinsic properties. If there is no Wikimedia sitelink, you need robust coverage outside of Wikimedia, preferably but not necessarily in a database. This usually allows proper identification, verification, and being in scope of Wikidata as a secondary database. Consequently, external user-generated content, sources under control of the subject itself, or purely promotional content does not count for notability, and this needs to be assessed individually per source. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those unsourced items as described by you can be deleted "on the spot" without further discussion or listings on WD:RfD. Our policies do not require a discussion anywhere prior to a deletion, but deletions do of course need to be in line with the notability policy and the deletion policy (disclaimer: I am by far the most active admin in this field). It does make sense, however, to judge about cases individually, rather than to make it a black-or-white, yes-or-no, keep-or-delete decision. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I do say the current set of policies, notability included, breaks very seriously and (other the BLP one which have extensive discussion) should be overhauled or rewritten completely. We also still lack many basic policies, like verifiably, naturalty or original research related ones.

Many years ago, I think Wikidata should have a speedy deletion policy, and we should replace the current deletion process to the regular/speedy (like commons) or regular/PROD/speedy (like enwiki) ones. therefore I collected and compared the speedy deletion policy among wikis and plan to create a draft of speedy deletion policy in Wikidata which I never completed. For notability, after a proposal which I thinks very naive, silly or verbose today, I had the idea for "verifiably-based notability" - which is, an item is considered notable if it is the subject or object of a sourced non-trivial statement, but I also never completed this proposal.--GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer, MisterSynergy, Trade, Ymblanter: I've started Wikidata:Project chat#Verifiability and notability based on the amount of shared concern. Let's keep further general conversation there; here should only be for more discussion about this specific case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

update OAuth application

Hi, for the needs of inventaire.io (Q32193244) development, I requested a specific OAuth application back in 2017, which was set to have callbacks starting by http://localhost. At the time, it seems that by not specifying the port, we could use any port in our development. But now it fails with a mwoauth-callback-not-oob-or-prefix error, which could be due to a change to the OAuth extension, which now expects an exact port match, which now breaks our development setup. Could my application be updated to have callbacks starting by http://localhost:3006 instead? Regards. -- Maxlath (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If anyone can change that, only an OAuth admin. This is the list of active OAuth admins. Otherwise you can register a new consumer which are in my experience processed very quickly. --Pasleim (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I could be wrong, but I think it may be necessary for you to apply anew. Being able to change an application's permitted activity would effectively allow you to change what existing users had authorized. You may get a better answer if you ask at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:OAuth/For_Developers . Bovlb (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hi,

Serveral IP-users try to vandalize item Jean Quatremer (Q3174182), both on fr.wp and here. Can you semi-protect this item for a while? Many thanks in advance. --—d—n—f (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done J'ai semi-protégé pour 2 semaines. Pamputt (talk) 17:37, 9 May 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) 14:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Pyshistiu

Pyshistiu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Two of three edits are clear vandalism, the rest one is just commonly useless. I propose to block the user. --Wolverène (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• The same guy, or his friends - Musli Klichka (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), 178.140.203.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Wolverène (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Wolverène: I cannot read Russian, could either you or another Russian-speaker explain why it is vandalism?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "бубонная чума, чего бубнить-то?" = "bubonic plague, is it worth babbling?", "российский пропагандон, телесрущий и пешка Путина" = "Russian propagan-d#ck, TV sh#thost and Putin's henchman", "царь США" = "tsar of the USA", "Просто Обычная болезнь, Бубонная Чума" = "Just a regular disease, bubonic plague", "полный отстой Кореи." = "Korea's complete suck."

So we learnt some Russian, I think the desicion should be made. :) From the other side, these three aren't active for now but who knows. --Wolverène (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, now it has no sense. --Wolverène (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Could you perform a CU since you think it's the same guy?@Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Trade: Please formally submit a request at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser; I don't want to establish the practice of having requests here and that page only serving as an archive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 11 May 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. --Trade (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser#BRPever

In accordance with the policy, here is a notice of my candidacy for CheckUser.-BRP ^ever 01:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Marcusarg

Marcusarg (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: automated spamming of an email address 99of9 (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: thanks. Strangely the first edits appear correct. This could be a case of a misfiring attempt at using an automated tool. Marcusarg you may want to explain what happened on your talk page. --99of9 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@99of9: All the other edits are finally cleaned up. Yes, this is clearly an attempt using OpenRefine gone wrong. Since it's in good faith I'll adjust the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 7 May 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. --Trade (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

P94 = P4004 ?

Hello! Please explain the difference between the properties coat of arms image (P94) and escutcheon image (P4004)! Doc Taxon (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You probably want to ask at the WD:Project chat or the people who participated in the property proposal. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:17, 8 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Nitinphotographer

Nitinphotographer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeatedly spamming themself on talk pages. See Talk:Q4980478.@Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Already blocked by DannyS712, but I find this request a little confusing. Unless I'm missing something, this user appears to have spammed exactly once, so not repeatedly, although that talk page was also spammed by four apparently unrelated spammers. Bovlb (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Technically, Trade (talk • contribs • logs) was right. Nitinphotographer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate) is Confirmed to be the same as Techcrunchapp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate), the other recent account which made spam on that page, so they technically did "repeatedly" spam that page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:55, 9 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Cross wiki abuse

Hi Wikidata admins, we've been having a problem on enwiki the last few weeks and it's started to spill over onto this wiki. A vandal has been ranting about w:en:Connie Glynn and because of our edit filter, has been posting links to old revisions which contain the rant and are not yet revision deleted. On enwiki, we've been pretty good about finding these revisions, so the vandal has started linking to vandalism they have performed on this wiki (those who are also enwiki admins can see an example in this revdeleted edit). I wanted to let you all know what's going on. It would be helpful for us if you could protect Q55510399 and revdelete the vandalism. If you want to import our edit filter, it's at w:en:Special:AbuseFilter/1050; though it's hidden from public view so you'll need a wikidatan who is also an enwiki administrator or edit filter manager to do that. Thanks for your help! Wugapodes (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Or edit filter helper, like me :)  investigating --DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Revdelled, extended the project from ending in June to ending a year from now. Don't think the filter is needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see that the IP was able to edit the page at t05:00, 3 May 2020 after it had been semi-protected. How is this possible? --Trade (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It expired almost exactly an hour before that IP edit (03:58, 3 May 2020).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 9 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.63.239.156

95.63.239.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism contributions. Ytha67 (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 10 May 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) 14:15, 11 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:14.139.185.114

14.139.185.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Hijacking another persons item--Trade (talk) 11:47, 11 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:82.132.236.218

82.132.236.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism@Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: --Trade (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

He's back again under the IP address 82.132.238.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). For obvious reasons the defamatory vandalism should probably be deleted once again. --Trade (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kostas20142:, might wanna consider semi-protect if he continues to change IP--Trade (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Block request

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

Vandalism-only account with obscene username (in Russian). — Mike Novikoff 22:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by DannyS712, see also a checkuser case. — Mike Novikoff 23:40, 11 May 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. --Trade (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Ed Sheeran (Q47447)

Reasons: Frequent target of vandalism--Trade (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 1 year because this item has already been semi-protected 1 year and 1 month but vandalism always comes back. Pamputt (talk) 08:55, 12 May 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. --Trade (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protect Q15924626

A dynamic IP is overwriting this item with information about the same non-notable person with a similar name, likely a self-insertion. This item has been protected in the past for this. Vandalism on item is persistent and long-term vandalism by the same person that started April 1, 2016. This IP is adding that name to other projects usually by overwriting some other persons article as creation of articles in that name generally get deleted fairly quickly. Not a notable person, just someone trying to create a fake presence. Last protect was in October 2019 for 6 months, resumed. The IPs are socks of 1 chisper who has been blocked for this elsewhere. See also this enwiki SPI archive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:  Done for a year.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:22, 12 May 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. Trade (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Japanese555

Please block the sock puppet Japanese555. He has biasedly changed Vietnamese descriptions of many articles. He has been blocked in Vietnamese Wikipedia, see vi:Đặc_biệt:Đóng_góp/Japanese555. Greenknight dv (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Greenknight dv: Of whom are they a sockpuppet, and what evidence do you have?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tuanminh01: could you please confirm this. Thank you. Greenknight dv (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is related to Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2020/03#POV_description_vandalism_in_Vietnamese and m:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2020-03#Japanese555@wikidata. CU reported a technical match, but also advised also looking at behavioural patterns, which did not clearly match. The conversation petered out at the time, which is probably my bad. Bovlb (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This user is not clearly bad, but his political stand is quite strong that when he edits some descriptions, he brings his own political view into it, making them biased. Tuanminh01 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. My problem with the behavioural patterns was that the edits by the other users were all outrageously bad, whereas this user's appear to be mostly good, with errors and biases that mostly fall within the usual range for new users. Bovlb (talk) 18:30, 10 May 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. --Trade (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:117.136.93.252

117.136.93.252 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Remove contents without reasonable reason. Xiplus (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

194.239.103.54

Was already vandalizing last September, now seems to be starting again. Discostu (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Only one vandalizing edit today. No need to go further for now. Pamputt (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:2B00:820D:3100:10A1:42EA:D2A2:FC46

2600:2B00:820D:3100:10A1:42EA:D2A2:FC46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Reason: Disruptive editing. --SCP-2000 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2601:43:C202:8050:E5CA:BDFA:474D:2083

2601:43:C202:8050:E5CA:BDFA:474D:2083 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. No cross-wiki activity. Bovlb (talk) 00:46, 13 May 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. --Trade (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:1000:b028:6323:582:45b1:76de:4866

2600:1000:b028:6323:582:45b1:76de:4866 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Xiplus (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours.-BRP ^ever 14:19, 13 May 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. --Trade (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Create tag

Hi! I'm one of the interface administrators at svwiki. Could you please create a new tag with the name svwiki-DescriptionGadget? It is used by sv:MediaWiki:Gadget-WikidataDescription.js. This would allow the Swedish-speaking community to monitor edits made with this tool at [6] and revert any vandalism. Nirmos (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The tag description could be "Description changed with sv:MediaWiki:Gadget-WikidataDescription.js", or something like that. Nirmos (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Matěj Suchánek: Thanks, but note that there's no such thing as "DescriptionGadget.js". The gadget is called "WikidataDescription", and I just made up "svwiki-DescriptionGadget" so that it would make sense from Wikidata's point of view. Maybe it would be best if the label on MediaWiki:Tag-svwiki-DescriptionGadget is the same as the name, that is "svwiki-DescriptionGadget". Nirmos (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid the "artificially" looking svwiki-DescriptionGadget but my bad, there's nothing like that. I deleted the label override. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's good for traceability. If I see "DescriptionGadget" on its own on Wikidata, I would assume it is a gadget on Wikidata, and I would look for it at MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Also, the new label remains unambiguous if other wikis want to have their own description gadgets, so I'm very happy. Thank you! Nirmos (talk) 12:38, 9 May 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) 14:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q18735049

Q18735049 is frequently vandalized. The page is protected in the Wikipedia.

Many thanks in advance for the help.--Bosay (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bosay: Semi-protected for a year. You might want to make the descriptions consistent about whether she is a current or former pornographic actor. Your recent revert may have inadvertently made the Spanish and Dutch descriptions worse. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Thank you. Is "former" or "ex" relevant to mention on Wikidata descrptions ?--Bosay (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bosay: Often yes, especially for office-holders, but not usually for occupations. In theory, someone skilled in some occupation could always return to it. How long can you go without publishing and still be a writer? The key point here would be that this person is said to have "left the pornographic industry", but I don't really know what that means. I did not form a strong opinion on whether it should be mentioned in the description: It was the inconsistency between languages that struck me. When adding a semi-protection, I try to consider the possibility of collateral damage, by looking at whether the article has had any good IP edits, and it seemed to me that those of 2803:2a80:f1:1416:e851:a156:5f2b:9d8c (which you also reverted) were arguably positive. Bovlb (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision delete request

Hi. Can someone delete all the vandalism edits and disruptive edit summaries from [7] (starting April 20). Right now, at English Wikipedia this person has persistently trolled multiple articles (further explanation here). Now, they are recycling non-deleted oldids for example. This won't prevent them from vandalizing again but denies their trolling. I also suggest extending the protection because it's likely this will last for a while. 05:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a valid use of revision deletion; this is just comomn vandalism. The revision deletion may well have the opposite effect, in fact.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So we should allow a troll to persistently spam the same Wikidata link? 187.236.97.231 09:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:82.132.239.95

82.132.239.95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Can someone please hide the edits made by this IP?--Trade (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Stryn --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 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. --Trade (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning Escarbot

Escarbot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeatly added invalid labels, descriptions, aliases and statements, even got several warned. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved at the talk page of the bot owner--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 14 May 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. --Trade (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:TIMES KING RAKESH HOMAGAIN

TIMES KING RAKESH HOMAGAIN (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Ahmad^talk 09:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Kostas20142; thanks. Ahmad^talk 15:34, 14 May 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) 14:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Q11696

Please permanently semi-protect this as the image has been vandalised on numerous occasions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 1 year because it has already been protected for 1 month, then 6 months in the past. Pamputt (talk) 05:58, 15 May 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) 14:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Drake (Q33240)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 15 May 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. --Trade (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q16328923 & Q93328778 because of persistent vandalism

Colleagues from bgwiki recently reported a pattern of persistent vandalism affecting specific pages about places in Greece, where the links to bgwiki, mkwiki, and arzwiki are removed by newly-registered or unregistered users. Here are some examples:

• Special:Contributions/Kone_ebang
• Special:Contributions/31.152.207.98
• Special:Contributions/62.74.9.134
• Special:Contributions/62.74.20.228
• Special:Contributions/62.74.10.237

Could you, guys, please semi-protect for some appropriate period (1+ month?) these objects:

• Q16328923
• Q93328778

Алиса and Мико may add other vandalized objects to the list if they've noticed such.

Many thanks in advance for the help!

By the way, any suggestions on how to monitor for and combat such kind of vandalism will also be greatly appreciated. I've been thinking about checking the EventStreams for suspicious events, but probably there are smarter ways to do it.

Thanks again,
— Luchesar • T/C 12:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. So far as I can see, the two items you cite have each had one incident of sitelink removal by one editor (each). Aetohori, Pella (Q89423548) (now a redirect) has more history of sitelink removal. We generally prefer not to protect items unless there is a pattern of ongoing vandalism from multiple users. Most of the IP users have not edited recently, and we don't usually block IP users unless there is some reason to suspect ongoing usage by the same person. The one account @Kone_ebang has not edited here since 2020-04-20 and, in particular, has not edited since Алиса Селезньова's talk message to them today, which appears to be the first time that anyone has engaged with them about this. The removal of sitelinks is certainly suspicious behaviour, but there are sometimes innocent explanations, such as naïve attempts to merge. Bovlb (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iliev: You may be interested in the tag #new+editor+removing+sitelink. Bovlb (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is indeed helpful to know! As for the vandalism itself, I agree with your judgement—let's follow it and see if it continues.
— Luchesar • T/C 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning users (bulk request)

• Arvindyadavpersonal (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (a gllitch are preventing me from nominating his talk page manually)

• Wr0ng3d (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

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

• AL-JAMIATUL QADRIA MADINATUL ULOOM (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

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

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

• University of Torbat Heydarieh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

• عبدالرحمن332 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

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

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

Reasons: Promotion-only accounts--Trade (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New gadget

I have created a script for Wikidata, which allows to easily change order of values in a Wikidata statement. I need an assistance from interface admin, for a gadget to be made out of this script. I have tested the script on test.wikidata.org, and it works fine, apart from an issue that it can fail to launch in Opera for certain interface languages. I've created a phabricator ticket with the same request. --Tohaomg (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, please have a look on Bamoucaraio's work : 1 contribution = 1 vandalism. Best regards, --—d—n—f (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:194.254.60.35

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

• Reasons: vandalism on multiple pages, warned 4 times. Txs —Eihel (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Eihel: I blocked it one month. --Fralambert (talk) 03:12, 19 May 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) 03:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mix'n'match change property

Please change property number of mix'n'match catalog 3533 to 8171. When I wanted to change, it changed back --INakeii (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata administrators don't have the ability, you need to tell Magnus. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: --Trade (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Q90237918

Hi, multiple IP (but probably the same person) made multiple Requests for deletion of Deependra Singh (Q90237918). It's kind of annoying. I deleted the three duplicates of this RfD. Do you know what we can do about this? --Fralambert (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

People using various IP adresses to recreate promotional items several times a weel is indeed a problem. I'll recommend that you take it up on the project chat@Fralambert:--Trade (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: This point was not about the recreation of a item, but instead four Request of Deletion about the same item, who was never deleted. --Fralambert (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:113.253.249.46

113.253.249.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalize after block expired. Please extend the block. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 now stale --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The IP hasn't vandalized anymore. Esteban16 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 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) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio on some lexemes

Hello,

Thieol made some contribution in 2019 on Lexeme namespace and he copied French Wiktionary definitions and examples on three entries. Content from Wiktionary is CC BY-SA and not CC0 so it's a copyvio. Could you please clean those three lexemes:

• Lexeme:L12094 désespéré similar as désespéré in fr.wikt
• Lexeme:L12449 sagesse similar as sagesse in fr.wikt
• Lexeme:L2242 parler similar as parler in fr.wikt

He is informed by now (here). Thank you! Noé (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've removed all the senses coming from the French Wiktionary and only let the ones coming from the DAF8 that is in the public domain. I've also hidden all the copyvio version in the history. Pamputt (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Merci ! Noé (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems a bit counter-productive for Wiki projects use completely different licenses--Trade (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:H2O-500

H2O-500 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: I've had to erase almost all of his edits by erasing correct data, changing items completely for others of another type, almost nothing correctly. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Q360160

It seems that there's a heavy edit war going on recently at Q360160 (Gotse Delchev) with multiple IPs/users changing multiple language descriptions from bulgarian revolutionary to macedonian revolutionary. This is vandalism per se as such nationality disputes are out of Wikidata's scope and should be discussed on the respective Wikipedia pages. Please take corrective mesaures. Thanks. --Corporis caloris (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Q tu g

Clearly not here to improve the database; crosswiki vandal. See their edits. Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Has been globally locked. --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:32, 19 May 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) 10:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Connie Glynn (Q55510399)

Reasons: Persistent vandalism. --Trade (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Also block CGSFH (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) for sockpuppeting. --Trade (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@HakanIST: @HakanIST: @MisterSynergy:--Trade (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The item was already semi-protected. CGSFH (talk • contribs • logs) has been blocked by Fralambert and also globally locked. --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 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) 21:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Martin Cebas

Martin Cebas (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of BLP--Trade (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: Based on my limited understanding of Spanish, I am not sure this is in bad faith. I'll leave it to someone more proficient in Spanish.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The only vandalism he did, IMO, was on Ed Sheeran (Q47447), by adding the singer was a "great friend" of Martin Cebas (his username). At Sur Oscura (Q6136090) added a not so good description, and at Mus (Q976100) he added "board game". As this is not severe, I don't think a block is necessary, unless he vandalizes again. --Esteban16 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 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) 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

IP address vandal 5.76.178.65

5.76.178.65 just vandalized the community portal, you probably noticed but hey, I might as well report it too Levana Taylor (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

IP stopped vandalizing. All his/her modifications have b een reverted. I think it is now to late to go further. Pamputt (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did you not just blocked him?--Trade (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it was too late so blocking him/her is useless. Moreover, if this IP is dynamic then it could block someone else so doing nothing is the best to do I think. Pamputt (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It was reported on the same day the vandalism happened. In what way is that considered late?--Trade (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Last vandalism happens on 15 May 2020, 01:38. I read the message on 15 May 2020 6:00, i.e. 4 hours later. The IP did not contribute at that time. I thought blocking would be useless. Yet, another sysop may think differently. Pamputt (talk) 06:21, 16 May 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) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.36.203.18

83.36.203.18 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The IP hasn't vandalized anymore. Esteban16 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He was vandalizing when i made the request. --Trade (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Trade: Yes, but it is a Stale report. . --Esteban16 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 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) 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Udit Narayan (Q469818)

Reasons: Persistent vandalism by IPs and new accounts. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 6 months. Pamputt (talk) 07:23, 16 May 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) 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:5.76.178.65

5.76.178.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Xiplus (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Still vandalism. Please block this ip as soon as possible. Thank you. --SCP-2000 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for a week --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 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) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection For Page https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q92710589

Hello Admins, I would like to propose to you the protection of a page of Yash Gupta ( Entrepreneur) . Please check if it deserves protection and if it does please do notify me and about the protection . Thanks, Shonna

 Not done No need, please read Wikidata:Protection policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:15, 17 May 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) 17:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

Following a sensationalist note in an Argentine newspaper, the page is under attack by several IPs. Banfield (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 17 May 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) 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

New pages

See [8]: an LTA created many items about years. They should be nuked.--GZWDer (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Stryn (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stryn: Please nuke Special:Contributions/2001:5B0:46CB:1338:3420:600A:E0DE:B532, Special:Contributions/2001:5B0:46CB:1338:F9DD:4E31:8538:2273. By the way Special:Contributions/173.191.207.25 should also be nuked (an unrelated LTA).--GZWDer (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Stryn (talk) 17:12, 17 May 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) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

File:User-info.svg is licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0

The link may not be suppressed according to the license. Please change at MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon [[File:User-info.svg|40px|link=]] to [[File:User-info.svg|40px]] .--WikiBayer (talk)17:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Esteban16 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 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) 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2800:810:46b:21db:744e:32d9:8ccc:3490

2800:810:46b:21db:744e:32d9:8ccc:3490 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Recurrent vandalism on Argentinian politicians Salvador alc (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Stale report. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:48, 21 May 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) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please remove unsupported and problematic statement

Please remove and hide Special:Diff/1182520452 --109.67.35.43 05:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

… and of course Special:Diff/1182519893 too.--109.67.35.43 05:13, 18 May 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) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Nathansevilla7

Nathansevilla7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Recreating promotional items. --Trade (talk) 22:05, 19 May 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) 23:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Matteo Salvini (Q1055449)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 21:00, 21 May 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) 23:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Kostas20142

In accordance with the instructions at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight, this is a notification of my candidacy. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Good luck Kostas. What other additional candidacy could add to this prestigious group ? One more candidate would be appreciated. —Eihel (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection for Vice President of Argentina

Following a sensationalist note in an Argentine newspaper, the page is under attack by several IPs. Banfield (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Q40649) already protected by @Ymblanter. For future reference, protection requests should give the article id, preferably as a link.  :) Bovlb (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it was Q2914766, which I now protected--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Andberg08 on Anders Behring Breivik

I tried to remove some misleading data on Anders Behring Breivik. User:Andber08, which added the misleading data (listing his crimes twice, listing conspiracy theorist as a profession, and Counterjihadism as an organization) in order to create a mess in infoboxes which use Wikidata, reverted me and he has kept doing so. He copies my edit summaries when he reverts me in order to tease me. I suggest that somebody else takes over here and blocks this vandal so he stops this disruptive editing. --Te og kaker (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Te og Kaker removes valid data on Anders Behring Breivik (Q44220) because of his trouble with the usage of wikidata on No wiki. He wants the infoboxes on NO wiki too look nice and instead of making suggestions for changes to the infobox on No wiki he instead edits the item here to make it conform to his needs localy on No wiki. regarding the copy of edit summaries I thought that the summary that Te og Kaker used was appropriate to be used in return because it fitted and why invent the wheel a secomd time.  I dont want Te og Kaker to be blocked I see that as counterproductive he generaly makes good edits on no wiki and some advice on edits on wikidata is instead more productive. Andber08 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete User talk:Hasley/Structured Discussions Archive 1. Can't tag SD pages for deletion. Thanks. —Hasley 20:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 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) 19:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request II

Hey, please delete Q81104990. It was an entry for a poker tournament series which was postponed due to Corona and is no more relevant. -- M-B (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 24 May 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) 19:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Tamagotchi block

Just wondering, what's the status on the block of the user? --- Jura 21:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: Tamagotchi (talk • contribs • logs) isn't and has never been blocked. Do you perhaps mean someone else? --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

reporting trouble

The following user is engaging on disruptive behaviour, modifying descriptors on elements w insults:

Asfahdaj2002

kind regards. Ernilandia (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. They are already indeffed on ESWP. Bovlb (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Castiel098

Castiel098 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Account created to vandalize political parties description, even including emoticons PedroAcero76 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked indef --Esteban16 (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

report concerning Bocksten Man (Q492499)

Persistent vandalism for multiple days. Please semi-protect for a month -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maxlag and QuickStatements

This user (I believe without a bot bit) is creating super high speed new items, while all other bots and scripts are now constantly on hold, due to the maxlag-policy. If this for just one hour or two, I wouldn't care, but the other botscripts are more on hold then working now, and the more this user creates, the bigger the problem for the regular bots are. I have requested on the talk page to respect the maxlag-parameter, but I'm not sure how long it is gonna take before this user will either read or react. Edoderoo (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at his contributions he is running three QS batches simultaneously. -- Discostu (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a problem with QuickStatements which does not throttle multiple parallel batches properly when maxlag>5. I did raise this issue in this discussion (at the very end), but nobody seemed to care. IMO User:Magnus Manske should fix this, as QS users are usually not aware of this problem. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Now raised on Magnus' talk page at Topic:Vmpoj3x7soxb2u32. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, this user has stopped for now, but theoretically this could happen to any user. Let's wait to see if they can solve it on the toolserver side. Edoderoo (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/79.182.47.206

Vandalism. --Minorax (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for a week --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Jdolivera2812

Jdolivera2812 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

semi-protection for Gabriel Sergio Blasberg (Q65695245) and correspondence chess player (Q30176225)

Multiple vandalisms --Gerwoman (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gerwoman:  Done for a month and two weks, respectively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:52, 21 May 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) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A02:8070:A81:DE00:51EC:F25F:B09A:5A67

Vandalism. --Minorax (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Stale report. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 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) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ialinikoo and Abdollahghanbari

Spammers.--GZWDer (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked indef --Esteban16 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 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) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Melonrico

Melonrico (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandal Gerwoman (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by ChristianKl--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 22 May 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) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Please block Special:Contributions/47.16.137.166 --WikiBayer (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Too late--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 22 May 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) 16:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Amir Hetsroni (Q12404037)

Reasons: Numerous vandalism edits, going back at least a year (from 3 different IP addresses in the past month alone). One of the vandalism edits I've removed today has been there undetected since January. Dovno (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I protected the page for a year. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:06, 25 May 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) 16:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:臺南市

臺南市 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Keep inserting nonsense description Xiplus (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Already warned twice. I blocked him/her for one month. Pamputt (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pamputt: Shouldn't it be indef because it looks like a promotion of Tainan (Q140631)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: it is probably what will happen if the IP comes back here and contributes the same way as before. Yet, if you think that he/she should be block indef now, I do not oppose. Pamputt (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Atudu

Also the users @Bodhisattwa: and @Mahir256:. A week ago I had opened an AfD about what I thought were some non-notable bank branch entries created by Atudu. I'm not sure how to link to it, but it's called "Revert all Indian bank branch entries created by Atudu." She never participated in the AfD, but almost immediately after opening it Bodhisattwa repeatedly posted the same point and attacked me in an attempt to derail things. When I asked him to stop posting essentially the same point multiple times I was almost blocked by Mahir256 supposedly for intimidation and harassment. When the block was over, I messaged Mahir256 to find out what exactly I was blocked for. He told me I was blocked because I had sent threatening messages to Atudu and Bodhisattwa. Which never happened because I never contacted either of them, in a threatening way or otherwise, outside of asking Bodhisattwa in the AfD to stop sending repetitive messages. The message didn't contain a threat though. Apparently, all three of them are friends in real life and Atudu asked Mahir256 to look into the AfD for her. It appears the block was Mahir256's way of doing her a favor by intimidating me with it. Which made it harder for the AfD to go forward. Which he was aided in by Bodhisattwa, and it was a clear miss use of his admin privileges. Lying about me sending them threatening messages was a just a way to justify things. Ultimately, all three of them got together to stop the AfD from going anywhere by harassing, intimidating, and blocking me. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, Adamant1 pinged me at my talk page and accused me there for harassment and intimidation, as he thinks I was lying and got him blocked in order to kill the RfD and he has notified me about this discussion. So, I guess, I need to defend from my side. He did not provided the links, so first I am giving them here to help understand the perspective.

1. The Rfd link
2. the discussion in Adamant1's talk page

The entire discussion is open to everyone and if anyone can show any of my wording or tone, which is unacceptable to the community standards, and find me guilty of the accusations Adamant1 has put on me, I will not edit on Wikimedia ever. In the Rfd, I was simply giving the reasons and logic about why the items concerned are notable enough as per WD:N, I guess, it is not a crime to defend the items. While doing so, Adamant1 accused me of repeating my arguments, which I guess, I was not doing at all. He said that "commenting on everything is utterly worthless", which is a way to stop me from participating in the RfD. After seeing that, I declared that, I will not participate in the discussion as my points were already made. I also requested Adamant1 not to personally attack me, as that was not needed and even apologized if he feels I have done something wrong. Regarding the items on bank branches, they were created and enriched by at least 4 Wikidata volunteers including me, as part of WD:IND. We all knew each other including Atudu and Mahir256 as we work closely on many other projects together and we often seek advice, suggestions and guidance from each other, both on-wiki and off-wiki. When the RfD started Atudu showed me the link of the discussion as the RfD concerned my edits also regarding the bank branches, and that is why, I participated. While participating in the RfD, I also stated that these items are in the process of enrichment and keeping aside all my other works, I myself added the coordinates and postal codes for many of the branches, with an intent to enrich the items. I am still doing so. We had very small discussions off-wiki about the RfD, enrichment of the items and the way to do it and my decision to not participate in the RfD as I felt some of the comments made by Adamant1 as personal attack, but never we had discussions on instructing or suggesting Mahir256 to block Adamant1. What Mahir256 did, has been explained by him in detail here and we had no discussions about it till now. Adamant1 also accused me and Atudu of concerting efforts to derail the RfD, which is a blatant lie. Atudu never told me to do such things, nor did I told her to do so. Anyway, I guess, I have explained myself. If some more clarification is needed from my side, I will surely give. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bodhisattwa: All I know is that someone lied and it led to me being blocked. I said I don't know who it was, but going by what Mahir256 said on my talk page and how you've responded here it seems like your one of those people. For instance you say that you didn't repeat yourself in the RfD. Yet you said you read my talk page, where I pointed out that you wrote very similar messages 5 times in a row in the RfD. You even said "I have explained earlier" in the RfD. So, you know full well you repeated yourself. Also, you say you were "simply giving the reasons and logic about why the items concerned are notable", but in the RfD you said "If you think, all these bank branch items should be deleted, then there is no purpose for Indian Financial System Code (P4635) to exist." Which was not about the notability of the individual bank branches and was clearly a deflection from the topic. So again what your said is false. Also, you didn't create any of the bank branch entries in my RfD like you claim. Let alone did you "enrich" any of them until I opened it. In fact, none of them that I looked into had been edited by anyone besides Atudu until the RfD. You only started "enriching" them after you realized they might get deleted. Plus, I couldn't find anything in WikiProject India about bank branches. Let alone a project related to them that you have participated in for a while. You didn't even know people where adding coordinates to the entries until you asked someone during the RfD. So, there's no way were already involved with them as you claim.

Further, while maybe you didn't directly tell Mahir256 to block me, you did lie to him that I sent you intimidating messages. There's no reason you would do that except to get me blocked. Lastly, maybe you had a "small" discussion offline about the RfD. It still should have been on Wikidata though so there was a record of it and other people could have participated in it. Especially since you were discussing an active RfD. It just seems nefarious and like attempted voting manipulation. Especially since Atudu asked Mahir256 to "look into it." People can't ask their friends to participate in RfDs. That you work projects together doesn't matter. I can't ask people I work with on Wikidata to vote a certain way on an RfDs and neither can you. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Today Adamant1 has pinged me at my talk page and accused me of harassment and intimidationand also claimed that I lied and got him blocked in order to kill the ADF. This made me join the discussion.

I was very surprised when Adamant1 pinged me in the discussion of The Rfd link, since Bodhisattwa was one of the contributor of that a wikidata Project, I brought that matter into his knowledge. I did not participate in that discussion earlier as my point were no different from that of Bodhisattwa. On the very day, I also told Mahir256 about the discussion off-wiki and that was the last time I talked to them about the RDF till now.

Adamant1 stated that Atudu asked Mahir256 to look into the AfD for her. It appears the block was Mahir256's way of doing her a favor by intimidating me with it, he also accused me of trying to stop the ADF from going anywhere by harassing, intimidating and blocking him along with Mahir256 and Bodhisattwa which is a loathsome lie absolutely based on his own assumption and misconsidaration of the entire matter.

Being very aggrived of such kind of untoward happening and pointless blaming, I am always ready to clarify my stand point at this matter, if necessary.--Atudu (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Atudu thanks for participating. I'll ignore your personal attacks of calling this disgusting on my part etc etc for now. I will ask you to read through my talk page though and especially Mahir256's response to my question about why I got blocked. Including where he said I was blocked because you contacted him and said I sent you intimidating messages. Which never happened. It's clear one of you are being dishonest about this and that I got blocked because of it. You calling me, or my behavior, disgusting and inconsiderate doesn't help with sorting the situation out. Which is all I'm trying to do. If anything, it just make you look more like the one in the wrong.

If you want this to be productive, you can start by explaining why you told Mahir256 that I sent you intimidating messages, when I have never contacted you before. Also, just because you didn't participate directly in the AfD doesn't mean you aren't partly responsible for how it went down or for me being blocked for no reason. So, I'd like to know why you didn't participate in the RfD yourself and asked other people to instead. Because you asking Mahir256 and Bodhisattwa to "look into it" seems like vote manipulation. You can't ask friends to intervene in RfDs on your behalf. Whatever you want to say about me, it's on you that you went about it that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well I have been following this since brought up here and what I interpreted is that,
  • Adamant1 started a deletion request to very broad range of items (which is later they have decreased to the one that doesn't have identifiers) in which they mentioned User:Atudu, and I think that's normal because we generally ping items creators in such discussions, but tone of that RFD could have been better.
  • Blocking Adamant1 based on that (as no-one provided any details of harassing Atudu, except opening that RFD, plus there's no history between these users in past) was inappropriate and this could have been easily solved with a friendly note saying to properly format that RFD and behave.
  • I do not see any of the claims to derail RFD are true, it's obvious when such discussions happens user involved in creating them comes and provide their opinions.

I think everyone needs to WD:AGF and move on as there's isn't much to do—block has already expired, RFD discussion has narrowed down to specific items and specifically I'd advise Adamant1 to cool down and do not take things too much seriously, afterall we all are here for same mission. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@1997kB: Thanks for the comments. I mostly agree with you. A few things I disagree with though.

• 1. It's ridiculous to suggest I shouldn't take allegations, false or otherwise, that I intimidated and harassed a women to the point of her supposedly being scared of me not seriously. They are serious allegations and it just looks bad. What if I edit Wikidata as part of my job? How do you think my boss or coworkers would react to seeing those kind of allegations on my talk page? Someone's career could potentially be ruined that way.
• 2. All three of them had ample opportunities to do the right thing. None of them did. Mahir256 could have just messaged me originally. Plus, he didn't handle the talk page message well. Bodhisattwa has acted dishonestly the whole time. He could have said he repeated himself, but that it was not because of bad intentions. I don't see why he and Mahir256 would lie about it otherwise though. Atudu could have said she miss-interpreted the AfD and over reacted by making the false accusations. I would have been fine with that. It's clear she has zero empathy for me being inappropriately blocked due to her dishonesty though. All of them are acting like the innocent victims here and there's nothing to assume good faith about any of this.
• 3. It's still against the rules to ask other people to intervene in an AfD to kill it or otherwise, and none of them have denied that's what happened. Mahir256 was clear he was asked to get involved in it and I'm sure Bodhisattwa was to. Especially since his excuse that he was involved in it because he had past history with the entries is obviously false. Again, there's zero reason he would lie about it except to cover up why he was really involved in the AfD. Just like he would have been honest about repeating himself if there was a totally innocent reason behind it.
• 4. IMO the place to go with this is to block Bodhisattwa and Atudu. Even if it's just for a week. Although I think it should be longer to get the point across. Mahir256 should also be reprimanded somehow for miss-using his admin powers. As an admin he should be held to a higher standard then the others and it's clear he acted badly. As much as I don't appreciate them doing this to me, I don't want them to do it to anyone else. If there are are no consequences it will just embolden them to act the same way again. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I thought to respond to administrators when they will decide to look into this discussion and ask some questions to me. But, I had no other option but to give this message now. I request you to stop calling me liar and dishonest again and again on every comments. You made some baseless allegations against me and I have tried to explain my stand. You are using harsh words constantly against me, on the other hand I have been polite to you. The discussion is on administrator's noticeboard and you have every right to bring activities of any users to their notice. Now let the administrators decide. I have already said, if any of your allegations against me are true, I will never edit again on Wikimedia sites. I again say that what I have said earlier is nothing but true. It is totally fine for me if you want to prove me wrong and establish your points, but please use polite words as I have been polite to you since we first interact. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodhisattwa, nothing I have said is a baseless accusation. You've repeatedly said things that you know full well are untrue and easily disprovable. Then instead of taking responsible for it you've just deflected, acted like an innocent victim, and tried to make this my fault. When I did nothing wrong and it's clearly on you. It's pretty basic logic that you did not create the bank branch entries that were created by Atudu or edited them before the AfD like you claim you did. Everything else you have said is just as easily disproved by your own words and simple reasoning. It's just the facts and there's nothing baseless about it. There's nothing polite about saying a bunch of obviously untrue things with the intent to slander me, get me in trouble, or make this my fault either. Nor is doing so simply explaining your stand. The polite thing to do would have been to admit your mistake and apologize. Or to have not falsely accused me of intimidating you to the point of fear in the first place. Good on you for being polite after that, while you continued making crap up and wouldn't admit you were wrong. I didn't see you caring about baseless accusations when they were being made on my talk page thanks to you either. I agree it's on the admins to look into and resolve this. It's pretty obvious all three of you are in the wrong here and there should be consequences for your actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, No one accused you of harassment or intimidation, what I think led you to block was the tone you kept since the start of that RFD and continuing-which is gonna make things worse. This could've been all avoided at two points, 1) You should have started a properly formatted RFD and should have taken comments from participants constructively or 2) Mahir should have warned you before blocking.

Anyone can participate in these discussions and that's what it is for-to take input from the community, so even Bodhisattwa is not the creator of those items s/he can still participate. Plus it looks like your approach from starting has been just to delete those items, instead of properly discussing it first.

I don't think there's any reason to block Bodhisattwa or Atudu, neither I see any of them accusing you of harassment nor any of those comment seems to derail RFD. I think you should also use your words towards them in a friendly and careful tone.

So to conclude yeah there has been a mistake from you, yeah the block was unfair, but this doesn't mean I should block other users unfairly.

What I can do now is to request you to keep things calm and participate in that RFD constructively and message to Mahir256 that block was unfair and could have been avoided, if not-warned first. Thanks for understanding! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

1997kB I'm not sure how you can say no one accused me of intimidation and harassment. The block said "harassment and intimidation" in it. Plus, on my talk page Mahir256 specifically said he received "generally fearful, comments off-wiki about your messaging by those I noted at the start of this response suggested to me intimidating behavior, which has led to the block from which you have arisen (and please do not try to tell me that they were not scared)." How else am I suppose to interpret that. Except that one of them said I intimidated them? Mahir256 didn't just pull the idea that I "intimidated them to the point of fear" out of thin air and nothing I said in the RfD would have led to him concluding that. Especially when it comes to Atudu. Since she wasn't even involved in it. That's also why I think a block of both of them is warranted. It's clear they said something to Mahir256 that was not true to make him conclude what he did and block me. Unless he just invented it. Neither of them are willing to say what they said to him either. That would be the simple way to resolve this. I don't think it would be unfair to block them if they told Mahir256 I sent them intimidating messages though and that's my conclusion based on the evidence I've cited. I'm willing to give Mahir256 the benefit of the doubt that they said something about me that wasn't true and there's no reason they would do so except to try and halt the AfD. That's enough for a block IMO. How successful they were at stopping the AfD isn't relevant.

As far as properly formatting the RfD goes, I'm not sure what your comment is in reference to. I never claimed to be an expert in RfDs. I mostly do them in Wikipedia and it's a different process. What exactly should have been formatted better about it and how does it being badly formatted relate to or warrant how I was treated? Also, I take constructive comments as constructive, including Bodhisattwa's the first time he commented. I didn't after the fifth time he repeated himself though. There's zero reason I would have. There's a point where repeating yourself is just talking down to the other person or treating them like they are stupid, and he had reached that point. That said, I never said I had a problem with him commenting. I have been clear my issue was just with him commenting on every message with the same point. I could have gave a crap if he had made different points though. As the person who opened the RfD I think it was valid to tell him his similarly phrased comments weren't constructive anymore and were just getting in the way. Your free to disagree though. Also, I'm not sure what your referencing with your whole "Plus it looks like your approach from starting has been just to delete those items, instead of properly discussing it first" thing. What items have I supposedly deleted and not discussed? I've never deleted an Indian bank branch entry or any other entry for that matter, because regular users can't delete entries on their own. Plus, last time I checked an RfD is a discussion. so I don't know what your talking about either point. Especially about me not properly discussing things first. That's literally what an RfD is.

Sending a message to Mahir256 that the block was unfair and could have been avoided would be a much appreciated action. I still think more should be done though. Especially toward Bodhisattwa and Atudu. As I said above, there's no reason Mahir256 would have had the impression that I intimidated them to the point of fear unless that was what they told him. I see no other reason he would think that. If so, then it was clearly a tactic by them to get me blocked by saying things that weren't true and there should be consequences for it. I don't care that the RfD didn't ultimately get stopped. They still shouldn't have asked each other to participate in it either. I know anyone can participate in an RfD, but that's completely different then intentionally going out of your way to recruit people who you know are on your side to get involved in it. I don't know how it works with Wikidata, but I know it's not allowed with Wikipedia AfD's. You can't even ping people you know to comment in an AfD unless there's an extremely good reason to. Let alone ask people to vote or participate on your behalf. It's considered sock-puppet voting. Maybe the rules are different here though. Anyway, I'd at least appreciate it if you explained what your whole thing about me deleting stuff without discussing it is in reference to, because I really have zero idea what your talking about and it sounds like another false accusation to deflect from what happened (just so we are clear, not by you though). There's nothing in my contribution history related to deleting anything either from what I can find. As it pertains to Indian bank branches or otherwise. So, I doubt I deleted anything even accidentally. Especially related to Indian bank branches though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@1997kB: I put some thought into it and if you just want to leave a message to Mahir256 that his block was inappropriate that would be fine. The main thing was the block, and I don't feel like turning this into a he said she said type thing. So, I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt that something got misrepresented between them along the way and all the back peddling, disingenuous, etc etc by Bodhisattwa is just how he acts. I'm fine with that. I rather just be done with this. At least there's a record of it now in case they try the same thing again. Thanks for looking into it and at least messaging Mahir256. I'll try to use a better tone in RfDs also. I appreciate that you were willing to say the block was unwarranted. I'd like to know what you where talking about with me deleting entries without discussion though, since I'm really at a lose there, but don't feel obligated to explain it. It's fine if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would note for administrators that Adamant1 has appeared previously on this noticeboard. ArthurPSmith (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: That's a little unfair don't you think? Especially considering 1997kB agreed the block wasn't justified, the other report your referencing never went anywhere and this isn't a report about me anyway, and I said I was willing to let this go. Are you just bringing it up to try and cause more drama when this has already been resolved or is your insinuation that because someone reported me once for something that now I shouldn't be able to report other people for treating me badly? Because if it's either, your comment is not helpful and I really don't appreciate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking things with calm mind Adamant1. Yeah I still repeat that block was unfair to you. And I'm assuming good faith here that your future actions will be to encourage collaborative and friendly environment. I'll also note that, @Mahir256: for the sake of transparency we should encourage people to report onwiki or where others can review than private ones.

Now why I thought you approach to that RFD has been as deletion–ist is because firstly, how it was worded — things like revert all ... by Atudu and with that broad range of items. Secondly while I was reading discussion at your talk page, you said my afd... they were trying to derail, which made my thinking more strong on that thought. Even if that was true (suppose) admin who gonna review that discussion isn't a fool to see that. I hope you understand what I am saying. Also I don't like to repeat myself but one of the important factor was also that I didn't found Bodhisattva repeatitive at all, instead s/he was trying to explain clearly and finally narrowed down that RFD to specific items. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, alright. It seems like your really reading into things there and not assuming good faith, like your telling me to. Also, it's circularly reasoning and confirmation bias to claim I'm deletion-ist just for opening an RFD, because it's failing to account for all the entries I'm not doing deletion requests for. You could claim the same thing about anyone that does an RFD and that kind of attitude just turns people off from doing them. Which isn't helpful. The same goes for how I titled the RFD. It was a bulk request, I couldn't list all the entries, and I thought it would be easier for an admin to find the entries by looking at her edit history. Since she added them at the same time. That's it and there was nothing nefarious about it. Mahir256 could have asked me about it if he thought there was though. There has also been other deletion bulk deletion requests with the creators name in the title. It's pretty convenient I was singled out for it by people who were personally involved in the entries (including Mahir256) and yet there's supposedly nothing wrong with that. It's extremely hard to assume good faith when things like this happen and some of the people who are telling me to assume it repeatedly act in paranoid, tea leaf reading, self serving ways and don't assume it for me. "do as I say, not as I do" I guess. Anyway, that's all I have to say about it. Since it's been dealt with as far as I'm concerned. We will just have to disagree about Bodhisattva repeating him/her self or not, or if doing so was still productive. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Contributions of User:Votestackfinder...

… are not really useful. Please have a look. --Succu (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not? I discovered severe longterm votestacking. I will mark the others and then compile a full review. Votestackfinder (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill, ArthurPSmith, EncycloPetey, Jura1: I want to prevent damage in the voting system, so the first notices I made directly in the discussion. Votestackfinder (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is likely an undisclosed alternative account, violating WD:AA. Besides, the concern by Votestackfinder seems legitmate (which will also be WD:AA violation), but need to be confirmed by a CheckUser (some IP used are still active). @Jasper Deng, Sotiale, علاء:.--GZWDer (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, RFD and PFD are not votes.--GZWDer (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think most who follow PfD know what's going on. --- Jura 20:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

But proper intervention are still CheckUsers' affair.--GZWDer (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: The community should be made aware, so they can act accordingly on the properties for deletion page. Review may take time and in the meantime discussions could be closed containing votes of that user. If all votes should be deleted is also an issue the community should decide on. Not much CheckUser to do, IPs are visible and behavior so similar and user already admitted using the IP range and the account in the same discussion and promissed to stop this behavior. He didn't, but instead intensified. Votestackfinder (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

CheckUsers can see more than IP (not go into detail for BEANS). Though they can not connect specific IP and account, they may find whether a user is using undisclosed accounts or IPs to edit.--GZWDer (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Back to the title, I would say that Votestackfinder is Tobias Conradi, where they continued to do pointing deers and call them horses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what this account is for, nor what the purpose of the edits were. This edit is unenlightening, and does not make any sense. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: what do you mean by unenlightening? Did you check the IP locations for the IPs involved, compare the behavior on Wikidata and Meta? This is a longterm abuse by a user from Tianjin going back to at least 2014. Votestackfinder (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Votestackfinder: The place to report an alleged case of sockpuppetry is here, or at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser, so I am preventing you from editing PfD temporarily. Note that by reporting here, you yourself are subject to the same scrutiny. If you have edited under any other accounts anywhere on Wikimedia, please declare them as required by Wikidata:Alternate accounts. I am not going to action Liuxinyu970226 until they at least get a chance to defend themselves here, and per the Wikimedia privacy policy I will not investigate their case with CheckUser unless you have accounts that could be connected. You don't have any proof that Liuxinyu970226 is from the same area as these IP's and I cannot ever affirm or deny such a connection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You should place a template at top of AN that tells users to report sockpuppetry to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser@Jasper Deng:--Trade (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: said he is in Tianjin as of 2019. Note Liuxinyu970226 are welcome to comment here and also alternative accounts or IPs used to edit here must be publicly declared per WD:AA.--GZWDer (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: My IP address is currently 36.153.84.20, I don't familiar with those 117.*.*.*. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can a CheckUser confirm that there is no logged-out edits? No IPs will be leaked. (Also @Ajraddatz: as the concern is also affecting Meta-Wiki.)--GZWDer (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: If I was having logged-out edits, tell me when I was did, and which IPs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that I also added some signatures on Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved/2020 for requests that are {{Unsigned}}, is this also a wrong behavior so that I should stop this now? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Votestackfinder: Please do not make sock censures without enough evidences. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Checkuser is not for fishing. Hello, I wonder why there are discussions about me, I don't even know the Liuxinyu, as I'm not a Chinese and don't know his behaviors, so what should I do now? Register an account? --117.136.55.130 01:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And I'm from Venezuela. Hola. Soy venezolana. --117.136.55.130 02:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@117.136.55.130: I'm afraid, yes, you should stop using IP address to troll this project, be an account, not an anonymous, please and thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Details of report

• Can you answer the question about your account on your user talk page? Please don't spam with stuff we already know. --- Jura 21:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Jura1, Multichill, Jasper Deng: I never edit with mobile phones, so I even don't know what Votestackfinder is pointing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Say a laugh: based on @Votestackfinder:'s so-called "evidences", I'm @PhiLiP:, as per [9] and [10]. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Beernley

Beernley (talk • contribs • logs)

Русский: Заблокируйте вандала

. --Mitte27 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reporting of accounts

Accounts created to vandalize:

• Online robot (talk • contribs • logs)
• Anan Foundation (talk • contribs • logs)

Txs. —Eihel (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• uh, or even simply a global lock for the two accounts (iw LTA, linked pages, one of the accounts already locked on another wiki…) @علاء: ! Regards. —Eihel (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Eihel: Please file this at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser in the future. The two accounts are Confirmed to be the same and therefore blocked. The items technically are notable due to the Commons gallery, but that should be taken care of soon.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Jasper Deng I understand you, but I started to report here, then I realized that my request was mainly valid for meta:SRG afterwards (global). It is not difficult to understand that it is the same user in this case. You only blocked on this project. Instead of erasing, in short making several manipulations, I chose to ping the first stew more simply. Best regards. —Eihel (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Eihel: I filed the SRG request; next time you should feel free to file it yourself. And looking at their contributions, it's not immediately clear-cut that they are the same; editing the same item alone is not very strong evidence, so I wanted to make sure by checking them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Jasper Deng thanks for quoting me …—Eihel (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Eihel: I did not quote you, you should ask me to repeat in French if you do not understand what I say in English, instead of misinterpreting my words.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Jasper Deng #Wikidata^connect if you want —Eihel (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:劉錦明

劉錦明 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Chinese description vandal. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Esteban16

Notification of my candidacy for oversighter. Esteban16 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/JohnWilson1978

VOA, also active in Commons.--GZWDer (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, globally locked. --Esteban16 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 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) 18:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Fuckin anal

Vandalism. and no good intentions with that user name. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:53, 27 May 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) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User vandalism

Possible user vandal: Hey80'Q, includes deaths and erroneous references. A greeting, --Ytha67 (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite obvious vandal. Not all contributions are vandalism, but this and this does not seem to have been made in good faith. --Pugilist (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ytha6: In cases where it's not clear-cut vandalism, we always prefer user engagement before running to a noticeboard. Can you please provide a link for where you have engaged in discussion with this user about these problems? Similarly, in such cases it is good etiquette to inform the user that there is a thread about them on a noticeboard. Can you please link to where you have done that? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: - It ssems as if you have actually yourself informed the user, see this. The user has today contributed with a bunch of dubious birth dates for fictional characters and has been warned again. The user has not reacted.

Vandalism or dubious edits on Wikidata affects a large number of Wikis and is therefore quite disruptive to the project. I have a lot of sympathy for the assume-good-faith-principle, but as long as the user just continues with dubious edits without any reply to the warnings, I see no reason not to give the user a temporary pause until the user provides an explanation. --Pugilist (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am having trouble communicating in English. In this regard, I have not communicated with the user, because I do not know the procedures in Wikidata, I take it into account for future occasions, I have just made this edition of the same user: diff and the data taken from zhwiki was reversed by wiki editors. I detect anomalies in the dates of death from eswiki, and I go to Wikidata for their update, I am sorry that I cannot help any more, the language is an obstacle for me, --Ytha67 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ytha67: I sent Hey80'Q a notification for you. I sympathize with the language barrier, but dropping a quick link should not be a huge burden.

@Pugilist: It's not helpful to throw around accusations like "Quite obvious vandal" willy-nilly. I'd really like to hear directly from the user, but my impression is that they are executing some automated or semi-automated script that copies information from Wikipedias into Wikidata. This process clearly has a non-zero error rate from two sources: misinterpretation of what the Wikipedia says; and credulous reliance on (hopefully) ephemeral vandalism. Inasmuch as it seems useful for Wikidata to have this information, we should be working together to find ways to reduce the error rate. Bovlb (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hey80'Q: Some specific suggestions for you: 1) Put the claim and the reference in the same edit. See above where the two linked diffs look bad in isolation, but check the item history and you see the next edit is to add a reference that explains where it came from. 2) Create a page that describes what you are doing, and link to it in your edit summary. That would, I think, do a lot to blunt these repeated problem reports. 3) Poll a page more than once (e.g. twice) at some interval (e.g. one day or week) before copying its information into Wikidata. Bovlb (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hey80'Q:, @Bovlb: I agree, to automate a content the person should be responsible for checking, or at least giving the option to undo the automatic action when it happens in the wiki that provides the content, since this affects all wikis. Now that I know the procedure, I am leaving notices to the user, always thinking in good faith. My notice in this TAB was caused by several weeks of finding the vandal who signed as Marinad'Or and included erroneous data continuously, causing many vandal editions that cost to undo. A greeting, --Ytha67 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I harvest the data from wikipedia thanks to various tools. I'm running Harvesttemplate... with the template "Death date and age" but normally this tool does not take redirects, but in this case it has used "disappeared date and age". I'll check the links of this redirect and manage them in wikidata. I used the tool recentdate too. When any user detects an erroneous data, the correct thing is to go to the source, and mark it as vandalism. and treat the data in wikidata correctly: obsolete/delete. And if you execute -by mistake- a wrong query, it is completely undone. Hey80'Q

Thanks Hey80'Q that I did, that's why we have this conversation, several errors followed, maybe you can think of improving the use of the tools so as not to transfer the errors to other editors, because they cannot always be detected. I appreciate the answer..--Ytha67 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

yes, there are errors in loads: some happen due to the unclean introduction in wikipedia. the improvements of the tool, better to raise them in the discussion of the tool itself. Hey80'Q

Stop User:Hey80'Q

Please stop Hey80'Q (talk • contribs • logs) and his bot. He does 20-30 edits per minute and imports every error and rubbish from different wikipedias. Last I've seen was this language of work or name (P407), but in film objects this is wrong (original language of film or TV show (P364) is correct). There is also no botflag for this account. -- MovieFex (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

See #User_vandalism above. Bovlb (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection related to items about politics in Argentina

This section was archived on a request by: Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Following the request to protect Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Q40649), I ask for semi protection to the following items under vandalism:

• President of Argentina (Q12969145)
• Amado Boudou (Q452112)
• Axel Kicillof (Q3754443)
• Frente de Todos (Q64590596)
• Mauricio Macri (Q561837)
• Alberto Fernández (Q2642828)
• Vice President of Argentina (Q2914766)

Also, I would like to ask for further action because probably the vandals will keep editing articles related to the topic, once those articles are semi protected. --B1mbo (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, most of the items have been protected. Esteban16 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Awikivisitor20122018

This section was archived on a request by: Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Awikivisitor20122018 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. When I tried to talk with him on his talk page - he deleted my concern without an answer [11]. --Zotur (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Support please block this user. --Horcrux (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked for a month --Esteban16 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Esteban16: He's still editing... --Horcrux (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Horcrux: Yes, abusedly edited his talkj page, which from now can't edit during the block. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2601:2C0:8A80:B290:9075:FC2:5661:DA88

2601:2C0:8A80:B290:9075:FC2:5661:DA88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: keeps removing statements from items with "delete" in label Haansn08 (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Stale report. Esteban16 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Please protect TVP Info (Q1724518). Due to their actions in Poland, a lot of people are now vandalizing their pages on all wikis. Please ping me and let me know about the decision. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Nadzik: Fortunately, it has been vandalized here just once. Therefore, there's no need to protect it here for now. I'll watch the item, and thank you for your alert. Esteban16 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lope de Vega (Q165257)

This section was archived on a request by: Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism. --Minorax (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for 6 months --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.98.82.184

This section was archived on a request by: Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

212.98.82.184 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: persistent vandal over long timespan Haansn08 (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for one week. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:103.24.208.0/24

This section was archived on a request by: Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

103.24.208.0/24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long term vandal. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done blocked for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Rosalía (Q28843759)

This section was archived on a request by: Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I request a semi-protection for Rosalía (Q28843759). Has been a lot of vandalism lately. Thanks - Premeditated (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done for 3 months --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of murderer (Q931260)

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

Recent vandalism was caused by a single IP. No need to protect IMO. Esteban16 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you could block the IP?--Trade (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it, at least not this time. The IP wasn't warned, the request was attended two hours later and the IP hasn't vandalized since then. IMO, a block would be useless in this case. Esteban16 (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

'the request was attended two hours later' Uhm, yes why are you bringing this up? Anyways, other than the warning i think your demands for blocking IP's for vandalism is very extreme and unreasonable and it kinda saddens me how overly difficult you are making it. --Trade (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trade, Esteban16: Warned. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Trade: All the points I stated are here. User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned and Stale report. , which includes the last two. If the vandalism would had been more severe, I would have considered blocking the IP, but right now, I consider it useless. But, if the vandal comes back, then I would block it. It is usual not to block vandals if a request was late attended. Esteban16 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is usual not to block vandals if a request was late attended' I'm well aware of that. I just think you are giving far too little time before you call a report stale.Given the average response time on AN it's nearly impossible for a report not to become stale.--Trade (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If I might jump in, I would only block an IP if I think that doing so is likely to be effective in preventing future disruption. Most IP vandals pop up for an edit or two and then never use that address again. If the time span of an IP's edits is much smaller than the time since those edits, there is simply no reason to think that blocking would serve any purpose. Here the IP made 3 edits spanning five minutes, and you reported this within 25 minutes (5x edit period). By the time Esteban16 responded, the IP had been idle for nearly 2.5 hours, or 30x the IP's edit period. Bovlb (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Esteban16: Why not range block? i.e. Special:Block/95.185.190.0/24? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/95.185.190.0/24 - No other IP from this block has contributed to Wikidata. We only block IP ranges if there is abuse from multiple addresses (and few-to-no non-abusive edits). We do not usually block ranges because of a problem with one IP. This project's policy is to allow anonymous edits, so we can only block them if we can show it is likely to prevent future disruption without significant collateral damage. Bovlb (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:158.102.162.34

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

Consistent vandalism at Pimen Zainea (Q12738081)

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

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

Special:Contributions/83.42.209.71

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

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

 Comment Suggest range block, warn posted to every IP addresses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That item has had problems for quite a while. Semi-protected, and also blocked a couple of IPs that showed repeated history. Others are too stale to deal with. I see no case for a range block here. Bovlb (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Basadre

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

Special:Contributions/181.73.183.247

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

@Dan Koehl: Blocked for 31h. Bovlb (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Already blocked on ESWP. es:Especial:Contribuciones/181.73.183.247 Bovlb (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.141.93.185

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

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

Report concerning User:Siswo11

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

Report concerning User:Jimmy Neutron gay

Jimmy Neutron gay (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Considering the username and edits, I think they are not here to contribute productively. Ahmad^talk 23:29, 31 May 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) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion

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

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

User:Tamawashi

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

We are unable to make a 100% proof of identity anyways. I do see that there is some sort of a disagreement about preferred item creation vs maintenance strategies, but I ask all involved parties to sort this out in a civilized manner. Since the current situation has not at all escalated to an unacceptable level yet, I do not see a reason to use administrative tools at this point. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see why we should allow a user to block evade and come back to insult us under yet another account. --- Jura 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen any insults yet, although I loosely follow the situation. Have I overlooked something? The past follow-up accounts (or IP ranges) of User:Tamawashi have been blocked after clear misconduct. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has been globally banned by the community a couple of years ago, I am afraid there is nothing more beyond a global ban we can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We can make sure it's applied. --- Jura 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

semi-protection for Gabriel García Márquez (Q5878)

Hi,

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

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

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

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) 20:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Faraday (Q8750)

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

Only one IP vandalized the item. Esteban16 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I count 4 Ips that vandalized in May alone. MisterSynergy protected the item. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:11, 27 May 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) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Spambots

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

@Trade: This would get a swifter response if it included necessary details. Bovlb (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You know what, they are soo similar i think a CU would be a better fit. --Trade (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge

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

One is a template, the other a mainspace article. Please do not merge or request merger of items from different namespaces. - FakirNL (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Q32453095 and Q9092083 --В.Галушко (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merged and blanking user warned. People are reporting problems with the merge tool today. Bovlb (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Undid first merging. Templates and mainspace should not be merged unless I'm unaware of a big change of policy. - FakirNL (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Report concerning User:184.146.206.155

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

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) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 81.255.79.86

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

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

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) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocking User:Alain Serhal

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

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

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

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

Based on the above response, I blocked the user indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked indef on ENWP, deleted pages, and also nominated pages for deletion on Commons. Bovlb (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please semi protect Leaning Tower of Pisa (Q39054)

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

 Done semi-protected for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 07:04, 1 June 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) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

• User:RVFA
• User:LucianoLucho
• TCL Electronics (Q29468800)
• TCL Electronics (Q95350993)

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

update. Content now restore but the user need a block or not? I can't find any warning message template for this wikiproject. Matthew hk (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's vandalism. In cases like this, it is best to leave a personalized message explaining what they did wrong (likely two people, possibly employed by the company, trying to make changes but not understanding). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted some more repurposing of the redirect, and left each of them a message. Bovlb (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Still having some problems. I have semi-protected both items for a week, and tried my best to explain matters to RVFA. Bovlb (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexismata7 and Cuatro Remos

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

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

Cuatro Ramos

Section removed to resolve this incident jointly.

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

I don't consider Alexismata7's edits "deliberate vandalism", but lack of common sense. He was firt undid by Miaow, and she told him that the English and Spanish descriptions he added weren't notable. Dua Lipa is mostly known for being a singer, and he added that she is a model and fashion designer, which, as stated by Miaow, is not necessary to add because the descriptions should include only the most notable occupations of a person. Cuatrro Remos considered the rest of his edits vandalism (and lack of languages knowledge) and restored the item. Cuatro Remos, who has been previously warned for the misuse of the rollback tool, did it again. Here he used the tool during and edit warring, and I consider this sufficient to remove his flag. As I was involved in his past disputes, I prefer not to do it myself. And, Alexismata7 shouldn't have continued do edit until consensus was reached. The response I give is that the descriptions added by AlexisMata7 shouldn't be restored, and I highly recommend an uninvolved administrator to review Cuatro Remos' use of the rollback tool. Esteban16 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Restoring wrong changes despite being told not to do so is vandalism, and so rollback tool has not been misused. It was not edit warring (only three rollbacks were performed). I could not resolve the issue myself, so I came here. I thank Miaow's comments on Alexis' talk page, which denote again their lack of common sense, as you Esteban put it. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cuatro Remos: Alexismata7' aim wasn't to harm to item, he just added data he claimed was right, but his actions weren't good. You did good by coming here, but if an user disagrees you, you shouldn't revert them. Esteban16 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, due to the continuous disputes between the two users, I have imposed an interaction saction between them untill they both agree to collaborate peacfully. Esteban16 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Peque (Q744207)

Dear administrators,

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

Thanks in advance.

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

As a note, IPs involved: 95.121.20.54 and 95.127.150.178. And there is one user, Wiiiiikiiiii, with just two edits, the same as the ones made by the IPs, that presumably may be another vandal. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Another IP involved: 95.127.150.98. The vandalism in the element persists. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 15:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The situation of this item and the battle of the IPs involved are being really exhaustive... Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the last IP involved in edit warring, and semi-protected the item for six months. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sannita. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ELSONRICS

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

User has not edited since first warning. Blanking and repurposing is (regrettably) a very common first interaction for users. In many cases, the user is redeemable. See also Wikidata:Project_chat#Américo_Castro. Bovlb (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are right, Bovlb. And yes, I fixed the one of Américo Castro. I will be careful, due in Commons it just persists in Américo Castro and in the upload of photographs (probably of himself): check his contributions. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

KrBot

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

I now blocked the bot--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: See response at User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin. BTW next time partial block should be used instead.--GZWDer (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I see, there is still no consensus at that page. When there is consensus, of if it converges to a situation where only one person is unhappy and nobody else cares, I will unblock the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

User RusFas

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

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

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

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

• Two more edits of the same sort: [16] and [17]. Isn't there enough even of fascist pushing, without username, to ban him? Wikisaurus (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Although he is not very active, I see here a general mood for confrontation and promoting a marginal point of view. The observation about the nickname is confirmed by the fact that on his page on the Russian Wikipedia he indicated that he was a supporter of National Fascist Party (Q139596) Carn (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

To his honour, he's never wrote here that the White people are better than those who non-white, or something. --Wolverène (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• The provocativeness of his username seems still not embarrassing the community of his home wiki. Personally for me, it's not offensive, the block of user because of unacceptable nickname would be a controversial precedent, since for every individual person any hint of anything may be regarded as offensive (hint of fascism, communism, religion, irreligiosity, of feminism, masculinity, pro-Trumpism, BLM, etc.). We'd just be tired of being offended.
  However, I'm embarrassed about what the person's doing here at Wikidata, he's either understands badly what Wikidata is, or he's here for trolling. E.g. such a description changing is in a better case just incorrect (fascism = (ru) "Ideology of The Third Position"), or this description changing that's obviously a vandalism borderline (it's clear for the Russian-speaking community since Ye. Ponasenkov is rather a local internet meme than a true historian so describing him as a genius is bringing a smile). --Wolverène (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.123.104.23

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

• Some names have to be real (e.g. John Strong doesn't hide his real name). However I guess that the main source of birth names were now-closed PornWikiLeaks, which was leading the "wh*re hunting" (c) and used the information that has been stolen from a clinical database, so it's not that situation when a person disclosures the name by his/her own, or when a person wasn't careful to hide the personal data making it easily googled.
  I've heard what was happening to adult actors who have been unmasked on e.g. imageboards - they were harassed, they lost regular jobs and such. This shouldn't be encouraged so it's better to block the anonym for some time. --Wolverène (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed a oversighter to take care of this. --Trade (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is somewhat urgent.@Ajraddatz:--Trade (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I haven't received an email about this, or any notification until now, so if by your ping you meant to say that you emailed me then I'm afraid it didn't get through. As to the case, I'm not sure how best to handle this -- I looked through a sample of eight, and was able to easily find the real name of the individual for five of them. It's not clear to me that all of this qualifies as suppressable content. That said, if these people are all notable for being porn actresses/actors, then maybe it's best to just remove their real names from the alias column? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

S/he's adding these data exactly in the alias column. --Wolverène (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I am aware. Should we remove the real names from the alias column across the board, even for those that are verifiable? That would make sense to me. If the real name is public, it can be cited as a statement. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll be okay hiding all the changes just to be sure. Someone importing sensitive information from PornWikiLeaks is unlikely to be acting in good faith. It's better to act now rather than waiting for the subjects to fill complaints or goes to the media.--Trade (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted and in the process of hiding. I don't think suppression is needed here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot 2.123.110.163 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))@Ajraddatz:--Trade (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mediation between MovieFex and me

I find myself in an ongoing edit war with User:MovieFex across items and properties that is starting to get quite nasty, even though it is mostly about bagatelles. I know that I have my part in it as I continued reverting even when it got clear that there will be no consensus via communication over edit histories. It seems that MovieFex tends to insulting and/or pejorative comments (unjustified, after checking my points e.g. [18], [19]), stalling and does not seem able to accept other persons positions even when these are backed up by other members of the community and/or guidelines. Incidentally, MovieFex does not seem to be willing to look for advice via talk pages, but does seem to see this as a kind of confession of weakness (if I interpret his comment at [20] and his reaction at [21] correctly). That's why it starts to get quite frustrating for me. I can't stand it any longer, but I can't accept someone getting "his/her way" at the cost of other people's contributions without giving solid arguments and I can't accept to be insulted. There seems to be a general pattern of resentment and I don't want to start a new discussion for every item/property that is affected by our inability to cooperate. So I start a general call for mediation here.

History:

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

• Start of edit war at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), 12:36, 20. Mai 2020: [22]: MovieFex deleted the statement indicating the Dutch title, backed up by the European Film Academy Archive of the European Film Awards. I restored it suggesting to deprecate the statement if one is sure that the French title is really the original title. After doing some research I deprecated the statement with the reason that I could not confirm this with other sources. MovieFex does not agree with the deprecation.
• I seek mediation at Wikidata:Project_chat#Deprecated_rank. Other participants in the discussion support the deprecation.
• At the same time we have a discussion about the question if deprecated statements trigger constraint violations (User_talk:MovieFex#Deprecated_ranks_and_constraint_reports) leading to MovieFex to claim that the depreation of statements is one of my "special ideas" and asserting that "I [MovieFex] was confronted with many of your ideas that are absolutely unreasonable and it only shows that there sometimes is a lack in understanding. But for today I've wasted enough time in substantive discussions". When I referred to all the guidelines supporting the deprecation of ranks (esp. Help:Property_constraints_portal/Single_value#Possible_actions, Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank) there was no reponse or counter argument.
• I restored my edit at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), 20:32, 23. Mai 2020‎, after some days to give time for consideration. He/She reverted me again, in the end because of "monolingual text". I still don't see what a deprecated statement has to do with "monolingual text".
• I seek mediation, again at Wikidata:Project_chat#Deprecated_Rank_and_constraint_violations. There another user backs up the deprecated statements. MovieFex does not seem to be willing to restore the deprecated statement or answer to the points brought up against his position.

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

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

Several persons including myself add premiere dates to films. In 2017 it was accepted at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies/Properties#Looking_for_right_Properties and documented at Property_talk:P793 to use significant event (P793). date of first performance (P1191) was dropped with the reason that it should be reserved for live performances. significant event (P793) was confirmed, again, at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Datum_der_Erst-_oder_Uraufführung_(P1191)_for_films with the only opposing person being MovieFex. He/she did not provide any alternative way to indicate premiere dates or give his/her reasons for blocking the indication of premiere dates of films in Wikidata altogether. Instead, he/she deleted such a statement at Siberia (Q83954889) with the reason "no consensus" ([23]). I started a new section for discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Deletion_of_statements,_possible_options but MovieFex did not respond there, yet.

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

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

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

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

I used this property at Life is Beautiful (Q19355) (besides others) to indicate that "Madre di Dora" is the name of the character role of Marisa Paredes (Q235398) as given in the closing credits of the film. MovieFex deleted the qualifier. I restored my version pointing out that this is the way the person is mentioned in the credits. Even though "Dienstmann" is given as an example in the property proposal and Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (Q40289399) is full with "role names" being not personal names, MovieFex does not accept that name of the character role (P4633) can be used with anything than personal names (you can see the edit war history at [24]).

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

@MovieFex: Please answer here or at Property_talk:P4633 before continuing your deletions of name of the character role (P4633) (such as at Little Tony (Q1627206) [25]). "vriendin" is how the role is mentioned in the credits of the film. You give no evidence at all that your interpretation of that property is right. [26] should probably be one. But your reference does not support your claim. The property proposal, the use in relevant items created by the proposer of that property and the example at the property page oppose your view. Please give evidence that supports your view that personal names are allowed only. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MovieFex: I'm going to restore my edits in the course of the next week if there is no reply by you here or at any of the discussion sections. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record: I restored my edits at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), Siberia (Q83954889) and Little Tony (Q1627206) today. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Continued deletion of deprecated statements

MovieFex deleted the deprecated statement at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138) again without any concrete reason and without engaging in any discussion. What can be done if one person does not accept such general rules as those about deprecated statements? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

MovieFex does not engage in discussion, does not accept or even consider the reasons given in discussions and just keeps on reverting and deleting. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@MovieFex: As to this. There should be generally only one birth date per person, too. Sometimes sources provide conflicting information. If one statement is proven to be false it should be deprecated, not deleted, as this is what the source stated. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)