Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2020/06

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good article badge for 31 minutos in eswiki

Hi. Recently I approved 31 minutos as good article in eswiki, but I can´t change it in Wikidata because i am not a autoconfirmed user here. JABO (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@JABO: I have have granted you "confirmed" status. Let us know if that does not resolve your problem. Bovlb (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Problem solved. Thanks. JABO (talk) 18:59, 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. Bovlb (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of John Wayne Gacy (Q298252)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ semi-protected for a week. Esteban16 (talk) 20:32, 2 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) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Q315975

I fixed some of the vandalism, but more effort may come, if not protected. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 07:06, 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)

Semiprotection of Q28836807 (Samantha Katie james)

Today 6 fresh accounts/IPs edited that item, mostly vandalism. Thanks. --Wurgl (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected, and some accounts blocked or warned. Bovlb (talk) 15:09, 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)

Semi-protection of Ariana Grande (Q151892)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for 3 months. --Sotiale (talk) 11:35, 2 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)

Semi-protection for Q26703582

Virgil Abloh (Q26703582): excessive vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 11:36, 2 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)

user:Eli;g;0ih32323

Eli;g;0ih32323 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)): vandalism-only account. — Mike Novikoff 03:37, 2 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)

Report concerning 2401:4900:3137:2C1:CB2A:374E:C8D0:3DEA

User: 2401:4900:3137:2C1:CB2A:374E:C8D0:3DEA (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Reason: Vandalism (only on WD) —Eihel (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 11:33, 2 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)

Report concerning User:2401:4900:1AA5:33B9:1:1:C50F:6996

2401:4900:1AA5:33B9:1:1:C50F:6996 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism WhitePhosphorus (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 11:33, 2 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)

Semi-protection of Jehovah's Witnesses (Q35269)

Reasons: Vandalism---Trade (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 13:10, 2 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)

Semi-protection of Kurt Cobain (Q8446)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, for 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 2 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)

Tag creation: openrefine-3.5

Dear admins,

Could you please create an "openrefine-3.5" tag which would be exactly like "openrefine-3.4" (except for the last character)? This tag is to be applied manually, not via an abuse filter.

Thank you! − Pintoch (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pintoch: could you please indicate more precisely what you are asking for?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Ymblanter: ✓ Done, see MediaWiki:Tag-openrefine-3.5 --DannyS712 (talk) 18:00, 3 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)

Draft problem

Hello, why those articles are draft? Draft:Bıyıklı Mehmed Pasha and Draft:Battle of Koçhisar  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaradumanMareşal (talk • contribs).

KaradumanMareşal: This is Wikidata, not Wikipedia. Those pages do not exist here. Esteban16 (talk) 20:36, 2 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)

Protection of Delfina Pignatiello (Q55912033)

Reasons: Vandalism. --BugWarp (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for a week.
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) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:ShadessKB

@1997kB: Should rename to User talk:Shadess as this user renamed their username 3 months ago. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: done, why it didn't happen automatically during rename see phab:T150572. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:26, 3 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) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please accept

I want to tell that please accept my badges i wanted to put good badges only because i appreciate your work. So please why cant we put badges at least good ones.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master 371 (talk • contribs) at 08:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Individual Wikis have policies about what articles should get badges. Badges aren't a way for users to express articles they appricate. You can use the "thank" feature in the edit history to express your appreciation. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Entity Schema EntitySchema:E219

A new entity schema EntitySchema:E219 is created by 78.37.17.8. In my opinion, it looks like spam. There is no schema text and no clear description. Currently, there is option to mark this page for deletion. John Samuel (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 09:33, 4 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Mia Malkova (Q15576453)

156.204.128.177 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Someone changing the label and descripion of Mia Malkova without explanation.--Trade (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And now he changed his IP to 156.204.26.0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Trade (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Epìdosis:--Trade (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done I semi-protected, and also placed a short-term block on the IP range. Bovlb (talk) 17:09, 7 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:200.56.21.64, 200.94.52.84, 2605:6000:1308:658:30F5:20FB:159A:A7, 189.248.25.142, 177.237.31.49, 200.68.140.21

200.56.21.64, 200.94.52.84, 2605:6000:1308:658:30F5:20FB:159A:A7, 189.248.25.142, 177.237.31.49, 200.68.140.21 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism in Héctor Armando Cabada Alvídrez (Q25349690)‎: offensives labels and descriptions Valdemar2018 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 7 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:SalemLeo1984

SalemLeo1984 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandal, en:WP:Long-term abuse/Angela Criss. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sotiale:--Trade (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks like they are also editing logged out, as Special:Contribs/98.183.199.182. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Account is now globally locked (after removing this report twice), but the IP needs taking care of. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
IP blocked --DannyS712 (talk) 20:19, 6 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:sergiokatoofficial

sergiokatoofficial (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: multiple promotional edits to labels and descriptions of unrelated items; possible CoI on namesake item. Arlo Barnes (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Has been warned twice and not edited since--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 7 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Tm

Tm (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Change of content without justification in Banco Bradesco (Q806181) 2804:18:4824:D1D3:1:0:9F4:139C 02:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not actionable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 7 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Item to protect

Please semiprotect FCSB (Q179658). It's a constant target for vandalism.  —Andreitalk 08:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC) " ✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 7 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Protect Sanni Kurkisuo (Q10577548)

Please protect Sanni Kurkisuo (Q10577548) again as someone is vandalizing again the item --★ → Airon 90 10:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Airon90: ✓ Done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 7 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sachinsisodiy

Sachinsisodiy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done indeffed Bovlb (talk) 02:32, 8 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Halfprotect Massimo Ornatelli (Q1907717)

Someone does not like Massimo Ornatelli and vandalizes, 3 reverts should be enough. Thanks --Wurgl (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for a week Bovlb (talk) 02:35, 8 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Mohammad tavrez00786

Mohammad tavrez00786 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Hijacking items for the purpose of self promotion--Trade (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, repurposing of existing items is a very common mistake for new Wikidata users, and some of these editors turn out to be constructive contributors if handled in the right way. I note that you have not attempted to warn or otherwise communicate with this user. I have left them a welcome and a custom warning. Bovlb (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware this was a common mistake.--Trade (talk) 16:50, 8 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q47674

Please semi-protect Amerigo Vespucci (Q47674) - persistent IP vandalism from various IP addresses, popular theme. --Jklamo (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for three months. Bovlb (talk) 16:33, 8 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Anan Foundation 2

It may be related to blocked Special:Contributions/Anan Foundation. By the way some IP created Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/Anan Foundation 2.--GZWDer (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Yes, our Ananislam138 friend. Blocked and locked. --Sotiale (talk) 13:14, 9 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report vandalism concerning Harrison147

Harrison147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Vandalism only account. Repeatedly adding non-neutral or even insulting words in descriptions of items of some certain celebrity, even after being warned[1].--虹易 (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 13:17, 9 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) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding countries to Wikidata pages

Heyo - I'm Dibbydib and a while back I've made pages on countries on the Indonesian Wikiquote. They need linking, but the pages are protected (for good reason, too).

I have made a list of pages to be added, with their translations:

Can someone put these on? Happy editing! Dibbydib (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have granted you "confirmed" status, which should allow you to edit these semi-protected items. Please let us know if this does not resolve your problem. Bovlb (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dibbydib: Forgot to ping. Bovlb (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, they work now! Dibbydib (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done adding them, thanks Bovlb! Dibbydib (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Undelete Q95578521, a member of a notable association

Q95578521.

It is a member of Q55657189, which is a notable association. The association probably can be considered a cartel or a former cartel (at least one member proposed a discount if you find another member of — I think — that same association that had a lower price), and has now been controversial for years for successfully lobbying increases of tariffs and other hindrances for customers of foreign online stores. I think items for its members improve information on the association and thus fulfill a structural need. I am not sure I should also list the members on the association's page, considering that the association is rapidly growing now for some reason. I also prefer not to help the members with links to their sites, but more to link from them to the pages about the controversy. --AVRS (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bencemac:--Trade (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote AVRS, I deleted it because I had agreed with the nominator (and the item didn't have any internal or site links). I don't mind if the item will be undeleted, I have already recommended AVRS to make this request. Feel free to add your comment! Bencemac (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've temporarily restored it to aid the discussion: I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I added the store's OKPO ID (P2391) from a state financial database of year 2012. The database also contains its taxpayer ID (same as at the website, but no property for that) and "51.64" for, I think, OKVED 1.1 code of the economic activity (P3243) (but 51.6 seems to be missing from the OKVED classifier), and other data. --AVRS (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi!

86.126.160.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is a Vandal, All edits wrong! --B.Zsolt (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

IP 47.60.36.194 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) is doing a lot of reversions and vandalic editions in articles by Spanish Wikipedia. I would like to request his blocked. --Pichu VI (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are you using {{checkip|}}?--Trade (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:111.125.110.54

111.125.110.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Stale report. Esteban16 (talk) 13:58, 12 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) 13:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Restrict editing of properties to autoconfirmed users - how to close discussion?

See Wikidata:Project_chat#Restrict_editing_of_properties_to_autoconfirmed_users? - after nearly 2 weeks, I think consensus is clear, but I'm not 100% sure how to move forward with this. See the subsection at the end. Any thoughts/anyone willing to close it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The proponet created User:Mike Peel/sandbox, so I'm closing this.
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) 18:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Lana Rhoades (Q28132520)

— Reasons: Almost all edits for the last couple of months have been vandalism--Trade (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for three months. Bovlb (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of George Floyd (Q95677819)

— Reasons: Highly visible page with a decent amount of vandalism.--Trade (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 1 month. Pamputt (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of dark brown (Q17244894)

— Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a month. I always wonder if the people changing labels on eye or hair colour are actually trying to change a specific person and missing. Bovlb (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Pabitraxyz

Pabitraxyz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked the user and deleted the pages. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.117.117.35

212.117.117.35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Numerous deletion of text after just returning from a previous blockage. To block indefinitively. Pierre cb (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked for a year. (In general, IPs cannot be blocked for indef!) --Sotiale (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of DaiGo (Q11196499) and Yuuki Kikuchi (Q89449258)

— Reasons: Vandalism.--Sasuyan (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:1C05:1D02:7100:F5EB:30BD:727E:1424

2001:1C05:1D02:7100:F5EB:30BD:727E:1424 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism – Aranya (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week Esteban16 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

WikiDayer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) LTA --WikiBayer (talk)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Esteban16 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, is it possible to protect Assa Traoré (Q60143479) ? The page has been vandalized with serious defamation and it is in the center of the french news. Thank you ! -- tyseria 08:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for 2 weeks. --Sotiale (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q15925869

Reason: Excessive spam. --SCP-2000 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for 6 months. Thank you for reporting. --Sotiale (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Might wanna add those links to the spam blacklist--Trade (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Are there any other examples of using this link? --Sotiale (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning MarioMiller90

MarioMiller90 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it is LaraLili2000. Blocked by Bovlb and locked by me. --Sotiale (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
How did you knew it was LaraLili2000?--Trade (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This thread was handled by Bovlb, so I'll let you know through your talkpage. --Sotiale (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indefinitely. I can't shake the sense that they are trying to do something useful, but are just hopelessly confused about how to do it. Unfortunately, if they cannot stop making disruptive edits, and they will not respond to talk page messages, then we are left with no choice.  Bovlb (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I also need to thank Ytha67 for bringing his to my attenion. @Ytha67:--Trade (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the opinions, this user follows a specific pattern in his contributions, adds the same contents (Marina d'Or, Place of burial French Pantheon of Mercy, and unreal causes of death). I check deaths on eswiki, that's why I see it, thank you very much for the help, greetings, --Ytha67 (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2020/05#Hoax_additions_by_148.3.196.108. Bovlb (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I have fixed up today's damage. I found one set of edits (Jaclyn Linetsky (Q454059)) that appeared to be correct, but most of them were simply unverifiable. We seem to have a lot of items on Spanish voice actors that are hard to find sources for. Does anyone else feel that we're involved in a bizarre publicity stunt for Marina d'Or (Q3490113)? Bovlb (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Penaber49

Penaber49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Constantly vandalising Turkey-related items.(1, 2, 3 etc.) BSRF 💬 17:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this user's talk page is a red link? I have requested a review of their KUWP edits. Bovlb (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protect Q938985

Please semi-protect Peppa Pig (Q938985) because of repeated vandalism by IP addresses -- Discostu (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protect Berber (Q25448)

— Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

vandalism from Ngozikal7

A lot of vandalisms from Ngozikal7. You can his discussion page. Jmax (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Q96238980, Q96325380 Q96198861 delete this spam page.

delete this spam page. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:4052:81B:1A6C:9C9C:3C3B:F079:2A0A (talk • contribs).

✓ Done, and it woul be better to make such requests on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Esteban16 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
They were nominated long before he posted here. Quakewoody (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Quakewoody: Thanks for that. Still, pointing that is useful to let the IP know what the most common place for such requests is... Although they may not see this. Esteban16 (talk) 18:34, 17 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) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow up on an old privacy request

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=722573853#demande_de_masquage It’s my understanding that in this old query a user asked for the masking on some personal information of its item. Yet it seems that the information are still present in the history of the item. I think they should be masked per WD:BLP. @Pamputt:

On a more abstract level, is there mechanisms to follow up on such requests to verify nobody readds information after someone asked them deleted ?

author  TomT0m / talk page 15:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a mechanism violate our privacy policy? --Trade (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
A thing to alert when certain property are (re)added on certain item after a deletion request ? Why, this is personal information ? The requests are still kept anyway, imho that would imply that the requests themselves should be masked as well ? author  TomT0m / talk page 15:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, i thought you meant looking at the item, not adding statements.--Trade (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Q206685

Hello, i'd like to protect Albert Uderzo (Q206685) from IP users editing. Thanks Bouzinac (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Already protected by Ayack--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please block 94.237.7.126 (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism only ip. Thx. 轻语者 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:583:680:14F0:ED2E:20D1:E811:F7FA . Sneeuwschaap (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Likely a dynamic IP, at this point I do not see much of a benefit of blocking it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 14 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Angelcarmona1996

Special:Contributions/Angelcarmona1996 - Marina d'Or vandal, creating nonsense items. Peter James (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indefinitely, a couple of undos, and a few deletions. Also an edit on ENWP which looks good. Bovlb (talk) 04:53, 15 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

[2] -- this user has been vandalising Polish descriptions for a while now. Most of it is almost nonsensical or pure gibberish. 83.21.45.177 21:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Globally locked--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 15 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

spam from Jimsmiths

Please see Special:Contributions/Jimsmiths.

Mutante (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mutante: Blocked indefinitely. I also fixed up some damage that you missed, and reverted other damage by this user on the Polish Wikipedia. Bovlb (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


Thank you, Bovlb. Mutante (talk) 04:04, 17 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning STUDIO25986

User: STUDIO25986 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Reason: account created to vandalize

—Eihel (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indefinitely. No cross-wiki activity. Bovlb (talk) 17:19, 16 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection of Marshmello (Q26334949)

— Reasons: All the recentbedits have been vandalism --Trade (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a month. Bovlb (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 17:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

semi-protection for a year for Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (Q2908)

The item undergoes recurrent vandalism, it was protected for 6 month in August. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a year. Thank you for reporting. --Sotiale (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 17:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.28.192.227, 2.28.192.169

2.28.192.227, 2.28.192.169 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Arbonne International is being repeatedly vandalised. The Wikipedia article has been protected. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Sotiale--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

semi protection for Zoë Quinn (Q17024751)

The item start to be vandalized again (3 time in a month), I assume some Gamergate (Q18114445) resurgence. A semi protection of a few months would be helpful. --Misc (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

H.R. Ranganath

H.R. Ranganath (Q25796334) has been the subject of numerous, uncited, attempts to repurpose it, since 2018. Please add long-term semi-protection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 20 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. DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Anne of Nuremberg

Anne of Nuremberg (Q55830028) reason for deletion: the object already exists Q76509241 Dieda30

Semi-protection of stage name (Q1055303)

— Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a month. As is often the case, most of these strike me as well-intentioned but profoundly misplaced edits rather than deliberate vandalism.  Bovlb (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think that?--Trade (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I suspect some new users are editing a page like stage name (Q1055303) to add specific names because they are actually trying to add or change the stage name for some person, but are somehow going very wrong in doing so. Hanlon's razor (Q257767) Bovlb (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that if there's a pattern of edits getting regularly misplaced like this there's no reason to expect that pattern to stop after one month. Why protected it only for a month, so we have the same problem we have today in a month again? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: That's a great question. An argument could be made that this falls under Wikidata:Page_protection_policy#Highly_used_items. Bovlb (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:WikiModJeff

WikiModJeff (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: misleading username that gives the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have (mod -> moderator). Also, their five edits have all been blatant vandalism. – Aranya (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sotiale:--Trade (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

vandelism

Requests to block User:Philip Ib. The editor knowingly puts errors into value. May or may not, Nimrod Fortress is currently in Israeli territory. Wikidata is not the place for wishful thinking. In addition, he entered an editorial war in front of me, opposite User:אלעדב. and User:מיכאל.צבאן. thanks, דגש חזק - Talk 20:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah I'm sorry, I confused you with אלעדב as far as the edit-warring goes. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
There is an old political debate about who the land belongs to; But those who are actually there are citizens of the State of Israel, and there is no entry there with a Syrian ID card. The argument should be kept elsewhere. In fact, it is in the territory controlled by the State of Israel. Syria has no control over the place. thanks, דגש חזק - Talk 09:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata was purposefully designed to be able to have multiple statements for the same property in cases where different communities have different ideas of what the truth happens to be. Territories claimed by Isreael were even one of the prime examples of how Denny described why he designed Wikidata the way it's setup. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In fact, the user who started reverting the edits without discussion or clarification is the one who started vandelism. I have Re-added my amendments in a way that cannot be rejected, here in wikidata and When we deal with political matters we only accept international laws and the provisions of international organizations, the first of which is the United Nations. As for the Reality imposed by the force of arms, it does not accept it, nor do we accept changing the geography, the truth, and bias towards the point of occupation. The open street map you mentioned is biased to the views of the US government and cannot be considered a Credible source, and even if Google Maps put the Golan inside Israel entirely, we cannot accept that, because wikidata is an independent project, and it follows the Wikimedia Foundation that applies the international and neutral viewpoint.Philip Ib (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning Hannolans and the use of 'floruit'

Hannolans (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Abuse of floruit (P1317)
A lengthy discussion (see Wikidata:Project_chat#floruit_(fl.)) started with me seeing a message about the death of a Dutch philosopher, that soon appeared not to be meant as an announcement of his dead. This is about the use of floruit (P1317), a concept used in historical sciences for ages and introduced on Wikidata also. The use of this concept is reflected in the property's decription: it is used to indicate a period someone is known to have been alive, in case birth and death are not documented. Usually it is applied to more historical figures, but it can be used with anonymous makers and with more contemporary makers whose whereabouts and other facts have remained unknown. Outside Wikidata, 'floruit' is never used on persons whose life facts are or could be perfectly known, so that's why I was shcoked to suddenly see it applied to someone whose birth date and bibliography are perfectly known and who is most likely still alive today.
I think such use of floruit, as applied by at least Hannolans and User:DanielleJWiki, should be stopped immediately. Their object is to give a single date as being the last known date the subject was alive (in relation to copyright questions) and they use floruit for such a single date, implying that such date was the flourishing, but by traditional use at the same time also implying the subject is hardly known, probably death etc. etc. Now there is an alternative to indicate that someone has not died before a given date, yet they refuse to use that, because "we don't know if someone is death". (But floruit in traditional and commons sense use also implies that the person is probably death!)
I find it unacceptable that an existing concept is stretched to the point that it becomes rather useless. The use by Hannolans c.s. in my opinion totally defies the property's description. I have jumped to the defence of a concept because I think it should not be brutalized, and I request that Hannolans and others be enforced to stop abusing the concept and the property of floruit immediately. It does not fit the description and that should already be the end of it, but when even solutions are rejected, I think further measures are not only warranted, but also the only option left. Eissink (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

If it was up to me, Eissink would be blocked for creating an unsafe work area on Wikidata. Edoderoo (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This is so unfair. My concerns have been sincere from the beginning. I have tried to resolve the issue, and I refuse to give in to what is in my opinion a very questionable use, so I am forced to seek resolution, as long as Hannolans c.s. maintain their position. And yes, there was a point on which it became clear that we would not come to any agreement, and then discussions do become frictionous, but we had already passed that point. It is low and very telling, that Edoderoo's only contribution to the discussion was right in the beginning his message that my remarks should be laughed away, that I only tried to "flik" something and that he would unfollow – he created the poisoness atmosphere right in the beginning! And now that the discussion is over, he comes back to poison this request here, after exporting his vitriol to the Dutch Wikipedia where I cannot defend myself. I have never had a problem on Wikidata, I have never had problems on Commons, but when Edoderoo comes close, I know a possible reasonless block is certainly to be feared. Who is creating the unsafety here? It is not me. Eissink (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
The only thing I ask for here is that administrators decide on whether Hannolans' use violates the description of the property, which I think is no doubt the case. If the administrators have decided, the case is closed as far as I'm concerned. I think my concerns are very legitimate and I don't deserve to be projectwide intimidated by Edoderoo. Eissink (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
"I have never had a problem on Wikidata"... Are you sure? I seem to remember you having the worst night of your live here on Wikidata. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That was terrible, so terrible I forgot it, but not a problem in the sense I meant. And it was resolved in way benevolent not only to me, and it had also nothing to do with "creating an unsafe work area", I believe. Eissink (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
OK, good to read, but then I'm a bit unclear about what you mean with "problem". As it was terrible to you, couldn't that have labeled it as "creating an unsafe work area", and vice versa, I did claim you were very aggressive towards me (and not only to me), so I could (even though you dissagreed with you being aggressive) have labelled that as "creating an unsafe work area"? It stopped, and I agreed it's "resolved in way benevolent not only to" me, so I let it go, but I'm not sure you could say you never run any into problems on Wikidata. It may be on a different level than on one specific other project, and I can find no trace of problems on Commons, so I will grant you that (until proven wrong), but still "I have never had a problem on Wikidata", but hey, if you feel sure, who I am I to argue, glad you took to think it over. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 16:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You are right, I should have reacted differently then, but I thought I had just seen days and days of work vanish and I did overreact. Still, the situation here is totally different: I signalled a problem, I felt responsibility for that problem, so I have tried to solve it and I failed, and now I put the responsibility to a team of administrators. Any decision is fine, but I think asking a decision here is the right thing to do and the question is really simple: does Hannolans violate the description of floruit and if so, should he stop doing that? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
OK, I'm satisfied with that explanation. As you say this situation is totally different, I'll let you get back to the issue about floruit', I don't have an opinion on that, so I'll be off now. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eissink: I'm sorry that you seem to be having a frustrating time of things. Unfortunately, this core issue here (correct usage of a property) seems to be a content issue and therefore the domain of the community, not administrators. I have yet to appreciate every nuance of the discussion you linked to, but it does not seem to have reached a clear consensus. In the absence of such a consensus, administrators cannot act to enforce it. We can look at the behaviour of editors involved, but administrative tools can be a clumsy way to deal with established editors and heated situations. Perhaps you might like to restart the discussion on Project Chat with a concrete proposal, and some use cases (queries?) that your proposal would better support. Bovlb (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Bovlb. I thought administrators could decide on the proper use of properties also, but I understand what you are saying. I think that some people do see the problem I brought up, but there is indeed no consensus.* This is a matter of how far one wants to go in stretching external concepts only to have properties on Wikidata able to contain the data one feels should be able to be queried. The particular use of floruit on well known contemporary persons only to provide for a possible end of copyright-date to be queried, is a bridge too far, as far as I am concerned, and I think I have made that clear already. When desired queries should justify the distortion – the rape really – of an established concept, then things are getting a bit dark. I hate to see a world where the technicians decide what meaning worldly concepts should be forced into in order to match their machines. I will not restart this discussion, that I started nearly a week ago. I can't do this alone and no one seems to be willing to step in, while many must have seen the discussion. I have spent a lot energy on it already, I quit. Thanks for your reaction, it's appreciated, Eissink (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
* To be clear, I think there absolutely is consensus outside Wikidata on when to use floruit, it's the alternative use by Hannolans c.s. on Wikidata that lacks consensus here on Wikidata; I have no doubts that a vast mayority of historians outside Wikidata, if not all, would reject Hannolans' use of the term on well described contemporaries. Eissink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
We are here on wikidata and the use of a property is up to the community. The way you try and continually talk about people and not about content keeps derailing an issue. Instead of working on proposing a new property - as you said several times you would do - you keep focusing your vitriolic 'contributions' on wikidata users who responded politely and professionally to the issue. Disagreeing on the use of a property should not end in unprofessional, unfriendly, derogatory and denigrating comments that are not in any way related to the issue (i.e. the use of a specific property on wikidata). I'd propose Eissink makes some excuses to user Hannolans for these annoying, derogatory and very unprofessional comments (on the - Dutch language - user page of Hannolans) and that he immediately stops this incredibly unprofessional and harming behaviour towards wikidata colleagues. Start working on improving the content, make a proposal for a new property if you find that necessary to bring this specific discussion any further, collaborate with the community and its specific users, improve wikidata by adding content but fore and foremost start participating in a respectful way. Ecritures (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it escaped your attention, but it turned out that an alternative is already existent, which makes any proposal for a different one virtually hopeless, at least I haven't come up with a better one yet. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to find it appropriate to use, like I don't find it appropriate to use floruit in the way contested.
Regarding the rest of your comment: if you and Hannolans hadn't refused to participate in the Project chat, it wouldn't have been necessary for me to bring the views of others on the table. And, if I were you, I would stop acting as if Hannolans is your protegé: it doesn't fit you and it's embarrassing to witness. Eissink (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
Keep working on just keeping it to discussing the use of the property: both me (disclosure: as it says on my user page I am DanielleJWiki: that is the account I use while at work) and Hannolans participated in the discussion on Project Chat. I very much appreciate the views of others: they stick to discussing content.
And yes, I did notice you think properties earliest date (P1319) or latest date (P1326) have to be used. As was already mentioned to you on the Dutch discussion page those properties is a qualifier (Use as qualifier for other date properties). So they could be used as qualifier with, let's say, floruit (P1317) to indicate whether it is the earliest (when there is no date of birth) or latest (when there is no date of death) 'sign of life'. But let's stop discussing content here: that is not what this notice board is for. I cam to add some context for the admins after your ridiculous statements here against a wikidata colleague. Again, let's stick to content. Good evening, Ecritures (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget that content is useless without meaning and this all was about meaning. And it still is. Eissink (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
  • @Eissink: Please stop insulting people. Bovlb was already clear. There's no further need for discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard about this issue. @Multichill, Romaine, Mbch331, Lymantria: can one of you Dutch speaking admins look into the discussion page of Hannolans to see whether the level of Eissink insulting Hannolans rises to a level that needs further action? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't read Dutch, but you already assume I have insulted people because someone said so? Thanks for the fair trial (not). When people feel insulted, it doesn't mean I insulted them. But let's please finally end this discussion. Eissink (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC).
Eissink has been blocked for 24 hours. Swearing is not acceptable. Multichill (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Separately from the swearing: I'm not an admin here; I don't exactly read Dutch but I do read German; and unless there is some very unlikely difference I am failing to pick up, the following (also from Eissink, on User talk:Hannolans) is pretty far out of line: "En dan bedoel ik niet van Edoderoo, die meteen in de aanval gaat, alsof ik iets geflikt zou hebben, want zijn haat naar mij is bekend, en hij mist het empatisch vermogen om in te voelen dat mijn reactie uit oprechte zorg voortkwam en hij doet niets liever dan waar mogelijk zijn gal over mij te spugen." Jmabel (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That was indeed written as I am the only one that has good intentions, and every body else is only here to make life impossible because they are stupid and miss essential basic social skills. There is nothing wrong with your ability to understand Dutch, and in the next survey about "safe workspace" I can honestly answer that I experienced a very unsafe workspace on a Wikimedia project. Edoderoo (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I support the block that Eissink has been given. If he repeats to argue ad hominem ("God, wat val jij door de mand"), in my opinion he may be given a block quite a bit longer. Lymantria (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And to just add: this user has been given a life-long ban on nl-wiki last year. Usually I fancy second or even third chances, and if someone offends me I turn around (hopefully) and work on something else. But in this case the behaviour seems to be more structural, and over an extended period of time. I know we should not cross-import issues from other projects, but that will only work if issues are not of a structural nature. Most users here will not know the background of issues on nl-wiki, and this is only meant to point out that there is more going on than only this one issue this week. Edoderoo (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And this remark resulted in additional herassment on Commons. Edoderoo (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
For those who might be interested in what Edoderoo says: I have not received a "life-long ban on nl-wiki", I got an indefinite block, with an appeal possibility after a year. Eissink (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
I agree with the block by Multichill and also agree with Lymantria. The sentence quoted by Jmabel can be seen as a personal attack and unfortunately this was the same behaviour shown by the user on nlwiki. Mbch331 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eissink: You insulted Ecritures on this page via And, if I were you, I would stop acting as if Hannolans is your protegé: it doesn't fit you and it's embarrassing to witness. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 09:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection for Harap Alb (Q12738408)

Please protect Harap Alb (Q12738408); a lot of vandalism coming from many different IP editors within the past two days. – Aranya (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. --Sotiale (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please semi Q18201520

and restore. --- Jura 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q524629, Q487907 and Q192314

Please semi-protect JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Q524629), Bank of America (Q487907) and JPMorgan Chase (Q192314) - heavy IP vandalism, one vandal using multiple IP addresses. --Jklamo (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month, for each item. and recent IP blocked for a week. --Sotiale (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:KBNiaDaniaty

KBNiaDaniaty (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Merge vandal, his edits need to be reverted. Jklamo (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indef Esteban16 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Kurdistan Workers' Party (Q152220)

Constant edit war about tr description for several weeks -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you very much. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 15:09, 23 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. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Spammer

User:Rahmahwahtih. Please indef block and revdel the text of his edit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Already ✓ Done, globally locked. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in Q44059595

Hi! There's a user trying to replace a good photo of a person with a bad one. Please, take a look.--Piramidion (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate request, but thanks. Discussion above. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronology deletion in Q3610329

The history versions of element Q3610329 form Special:Permalink/1039813734 to Special:Permalink/1203659513 should be deleted as they contain slurs against the subject in the italian description.--Mannivu (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:29 23:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we remove an edit filter

Specifically the one that doesn’t let anons have user pages. I want to describe myself to fellow editors. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:29 23:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@ 轻语者: the one that doesn’t let annonomoys users have user pages. It says “Dissalow User Namespaces for IPs”. In any case, I am marking this as resolved-feel free to unmark it as resolved if you want to reply. In any case, I have to get ready for bed-it is 9:41 PM where I live. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:29 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, you aren’t an admin. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:29 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
On third thought, you're evading the global sanctions against you. The OP is blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Who is he anyways? --Trade (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Trade: User:Gale5050.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:29 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

LTA

PvtHudsonisBACK (talk • contribs • logs)

Please review edits here and take necessary action. Please and thank you. Operator873 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This account has already been globally locked, and it looks like all their local changes have been cleared up. Bovlb (talk) 16:06, 26 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) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Please revert the latest edits done by an IP on the item Category:Wikis. Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Adithyak1997: ✓ Done, you can do it yourself too. Esteban16 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16: I haven't actually applied for rollback right yet. Adithyak1997 (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Adithyak1997: You can still use the "restore" button. Anyways, thanks for the report. Esteban16 (talk) 15:27, 27 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) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:124.123.170.27

124.123.170.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Excessive vandalism Kirilloparma (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 31hrs.
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) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Undelete Items Q96141738, Q96143247, Q96145462 and Q96144909

Blue Antoinette (Q96141738) and its owner (Q96143247) is an official Google Cloud Partner. Also the mentioned software Global Tax as a Service (Q96145462) and Global Tax for Marketplaces and More (Q96144909) is listed on the Google Cloud Platform (and there are more to come). You can check this out on the official Google Cloud Partner page Furthermore there also comparable items available on Wikidata yet, e.g. Google Kubernetes Engine (Q59848767) that are extended by these items. RobertoDonPedro (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to request a undeletion @Esteban16:--Trade (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
He did request, and I voiced an opinion as to why it shouldn't be filled.
Also, (off topic because it does not apply here) his image is nominated on commons. His primary justification for keeping was 'it is in use'. So, he kind of needs the wd item to be restored, otherwise the image isn't in use. Quakewoody (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
These items meet your notability criteria (which state that at least one is required) as follows:
The telephone book is also serious and publicly available. The criteria shouldn't be interpreted as broadly as you do. -- Discostu (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The identifiers on these four items are: a YouTube channel, a LinkedIn profile, none, and none (ignoring official websites) which is weak on identification. No claims are referenced, and there are no other external links. As Discostu points out, the "Official Google Cloud Partner page" is more like a directory entry than "serious and publicly available references". For example, if you could find articles in major newspapers or academic journals that are primarily about one of these entities, then you would have a very strong case. I couldn't find a "press coverage" section on https://www.blueantoinette.com/ . Bovlb (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You cannot compare it with an entry in a telephone book, since literally everone can get listed on a telephone book. For a listing as an official Google Cloud Build Partner on the other hand you need a deep integration of your product(s) with Google. I could also provide further links which describe the integration, however my items were deleted immediately, even before I could provide further links or create further items. Regarding newspaper, journal articles or press coverage please note that that's not Blue Antoinette's business or focus, rather it provides highly specialized software not yet very well known in public. RobertoDonPedro (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
"not yet very well known in public" - That's the point. Now please stop trying to misuse Wikidata for your marketing. -- Discostu (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just for argument's sake - not everyone can be listed in the phone book. You need a "deep intergration" with the company that prints it. Meaning, you need to have Verizon Home Phone Service (not mobile service) to be printed in the Verizon White Pages. Or you can pay to have your business listed in the Yellow Pages. Either way, it doesn't qualify. Quakewoody (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: When can we expect a resolution in this case? RobertoDonPedro (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@RobertoDonPedro: I'm sorry if you're finding this process frustrating. This is a discussion and we can keep it open longer but, so far, no-one has chimed in to support your request for undeletion. The identification on these items is weak. The sourcing is weak (self-published websites and a directory listing). No-one has identified any press coverage. Can you offer any remedy to these points? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bovlb: No problem, I appreciate your work and that of your team or volunteers. Personally I think that neither the identification nor the sourcing is weak. If you follow the links then you will find the evidence, that the software is even billed by Google. That would not be possible with a weak identification, please consider this. RobertoDonPedro (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

History split needed

Please see @GZWDer:'s comment at [4]. --- Jura 10:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To make it easier to read: quote:

1. Delete Template:Property_uses and restore all old versions older than 2020-5-14 (except one in 2018-10-21)
2. Move it to another name
3. Restore newer version and move to another name.

--- Jura 09:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Freycris1969

Many users, included me, asked Freycris1969 not to blank items but to merge them. The user keeps on not listening our advise, and I think a symbolic block could give Freycris1969 time to read Help:Merge and come back again to contribute on Wikidata without destroying out work. --★ → Airon 90 09:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that all of their talk messages (mine included) are in English, but their user page says they speak Spanish only. Maybe a hispanophone could help us bridge the communication gap here. As always, blanking instead of merging is a very common error. Bovlb (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators does provide a list with our administrators that does contain the languages they speak. As not every admin checks the Administrators' noticeboard regularly it can be very helpful for getting admins that speak a language to engage with an issue. @Abián, Mahir256, Harmonia Amanda, HakanIST: ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's any bad faith either. They might not even be reading their talk page at all or know how to ask for help, they have never responded and don't have a single edit in that namespace on any Wikimedia project. From their edits I do think they know some English, although their level is probably not good. We could consider blocking them in case their behaviour continues and their edits are more harmful than beneficial, or add an abuse filter to prevent them from blanking out Items, but I wouldn't consider it a punishment. --abián 10:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection of Wikipedia:Uploading images (Q6636058)

— Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done No long history of recent vandalism, but m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos is running, so protected preventively for 3 months. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 17:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Awikivisitor20122018

I'm requesting an indefinite block for the user Awikivisitor20122018. He continues blanking his talk page and removing sitelinks from items, even after 1 month block. --Horcrux (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Horcrux: Blocked for three months. Escalating to indefinite is probably not warranted yet as the previous blocking admin did not fully explain the importance of communication, and they didn't make many edits since the expiration of the previous block. However, the next time will be indefinite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

157.49.195.20

Again an IP doing Peppa Pig vandalism -- Discostu (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dynamical IP, gone, I do not see much sense in blocking it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

vandalism User:Stif Komar

Please block and redo.Yger (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Stif Komar (talk • contribs • logs) decided to remove links to Wikipedia pages. Is it vandalism just yet? Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been seen this one as well. One of the concern is if those pages relies to those entries on Wikidata it would break the connection due to these behaviour. Shinjiman (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Vndlsm

Hi everybody. I see these changes as disruptive edits if not pure vandalism. FYI. --E4024 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If I revert them they will revert me again and an unnecessary edit fight will occur. Can an admin please spare two minutes of his/her life to this issue, not three minutes, two is enough. --E4024 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Yaseen901

Yaseen901 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and {{vandal|1=Yasuu90128}  — Reasons: Spam, likely engaged in meatpuppetry due to similar user james and behavioral pattern. --Trade (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q204481

Could you please semiprotect far-right (Q204481) again? Thanks --Foguera (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for one month. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Image vandalism from Pro bono

Pro bono (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is adding abusive image to item Davyd Arakhamia (Q44059595). I warned him in uk.wiki ([5]) and he continued doing same thing. --JTs (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment @Pro bono: Clearly the image exchange is not consensual. Please do not modify again before discussing the change, which can be done on the talk page of the item. If you continue, it will be considered inappropriate behavior and you will be blocked. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q841470

For some reason Vegemite (Q841470) keeps getting vandalized. Semi-protection would be helpful. --Haansn08 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bug in the translated versions of WD:N

Hi there is a bug in the translated pages of Wikidata:Notability a error message about the protection of the page appear in all the linguistic versions (ex: Wikidata:Notability/fr, Wikidata:Notability/de Wikidata:Notability/de): Error: This page is not currently protected. Please request protection or remove the protection template. I don't contest the protection de the main page, but can we do that the template in the original text contaminates the translations. --Fralambert (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of María José Hoffmann

Vandalism. People have repeatedly described her as "mother of a rapist". It can be checked in the edit history. JFremd (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @JFremd: Semi-protected María José Hoffmann (Q6004050) for a month, and blocked one of the IPs. In future reports, it really helps if you can provide links. Bovlb (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Jozamba

Jozamba (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adding wrong descriptions Julián L. Páez (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q43139030

So much Vandalism by IP users. Euro know (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, it was just a single IP vandalizing, and the item doesn't have a track of recent vandalism beyond that. Esteban16 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

RfD edit conflict

can someone take a look at this edit and undo or reinsert what was removed. Assuming good faith, the user removed an item he created that was nominated, but in the process other edits occurred and his edit inadvertently undid them. But now that other edits have occurred, you can't simply undo the edit. Quakewoody (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q18810940 and Q18921974

Could someone please protect Camila Cabello (Q18810940) and Lauren Jauregui (Q18921974), these are being vandalized frequently.--Gusama Romero </talk> 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month and a week respectively. Esteban16 (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Placing two requests for same item

Please check this edit. In this, two items are present, out of which both have been requested earlier and are still active. In this situation, since the request is currently duplicate/invalid I would like to know whether this edit can be undone or whether 'Not Done' symbol needs to be made? Adithyak1997 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:101.78.151.221

101.78.151.221 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Inserting nonsense since 21 Oct 2019. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. It is hard to warn vandals in such cases. Esteban16 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Neilgeorge

Neilgeorge (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam---Trade (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sotiale:--Trade (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done --Sotiale (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Massive vandalism from 62.2.208.206

62.2.208.206 --Wurgl (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Stryn (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Wow! This one was fast! Thanks! --Wurgl (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Travis Scott (Q13605596)

Travis Scott (Q13605596) has been repeatedly vandalised by multiple IP's. Thanks. - Premeditated (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month Bovlb (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sebastian Rivera Sosa

Sebastian Rivera Sosa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Bovlb (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for accident (Q171558)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Protected for a week, --Esteban16 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi protection for Chung Dahm Learning (Q5116282)

Reason: Vandalism by Multiple IPs--MemphisA5 (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done for 2 weeks. --Sotiale (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q56514043

Kevsho (Q56514043) - persistent vandalism. Thanks. —Hasley 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Done for a month. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting protecting for Q28020081

This item is vandalized continuously. They mark the subject as pedophile every time. Please protect this item. 213.232.87.191 16:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Done by Sjoerddebruin. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Black Lives Matter (Q19600530)

Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Mahir256 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rafael (stanglavine) msg 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:LawtonGaines

LawtonGaines (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long-term abuse. There is also a lock request on m:SRG. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you make a filter against this user? He always use the same edit summary anyways--Trade (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Datamatinpc

Datamatinpc (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam--Trade (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Blocked indefinitely. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 22:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge error

Dear all. Sorry, I made a mistake merging the two following pages Q94142675 in Q94141166. Have you the possibility to delete my modifications. In fact title on this scientific article was incorrect in Q94142675. I corrected it and discovered an "exact" matching article... but in reality it seems they are different. I am really sorry. Thanks in advance. Givet (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Givet: Please check now. I think I have made a mistake. Adithyak1997 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Adithyak1997:. Thank you . For me seems perfect! I changed the title to the right (having a look on this page) for the Q94141166. One more time thanks for your action Givet (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, please take care of Special:Contributions/189.158.115.156. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 day. Clearly NOTHERE. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 18:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

Can't we make a "range block" for this IP (Vandal)? --E4024 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

+1.--Kette~cawiki (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked this IP, but I don't see any other vandal edits from the range. What range are you proposing? Bovlb (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The original IP reported above was 186.240.191.57. Today we saw more from 186.240.191.165. I wouldn't normally block a range for only two IPs, but I put a one month block on this /24 and will monitor for more issues of this type. Bovlb (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
And back again as 179.192.244.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
179.198.64.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Bovlb (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Pommée

There is a Dutch-speaking user, Pommée (talk • contribs • logs), who constantly replaces "American tennis player" with "US American tennis player" in tennis players' English descriptions. This user has already changed dozens of English descriptions: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]

I asked Pommée to refrain from doing it, because it's a tautology to replace "American tennis player" with "US American tennis player". In spite of this, Pommée reverted my edit, arguing that "Canadians and Brazilians (+++) are American too". After I had pointed out that there is Category:American tennis players, he calmed down for a while. However, recently I've noticed that he's started replacing "American tennis player" with "US tennis player".

Given the above, I ask administrators to talk some sense into Pommée.--Russian Rocky (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that user stating "US American" does not shock me at all since there is indeed Canadian and Mexican that are also in America. Bouzinac (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Also South Americans are Americans!
Could it be that some (not all) [p]residents of the U.S. of A. live in a personal certainty that only US citizens are true Americans and that all others, to the north and to the south of them, are fake Americans? MrGardiner (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
MrGardier, South Americans can call themselves whatever they want. It has no effect on how English speakers speak and write in English.--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Russian Rocky: you asked "to talk some sense into", I'll start with you first: An edit summary is not the place to have a discussion. Start a topic on a talk page, for example User talk:Pommée if you want to discus something. If that doesn't work out, you can come here.
As for how to describe peope from the USA: In Dutch we often use the other way around like "tennis player from the United States" to deal with this situation. Maybe that's an option? Multichill (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Controversial mass changes require administrator attention in any case. A conversation on the talk page won't change the fact that dozens if not hundreds of descriptions have already been changed.--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Dutch moderator Multichill invited me to react here. Actually there is not much that I can add to what has been written above. The basic point is that Americans live all over America, from Newfoundland to Tierra del Fuego, not just in the USA. Russian Rocky might also take a look at the German description of persons on wikidata; almost always it is "US-amerikanische Tennisspielerin" or whatever profession. Since the phrase "US American" is, to the best of my knowledge, not only correct but even quite usual in the English language (and also directly related to the name of your country: USA), this seems to be a good option. Pommée (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Pommée, it's not relevant how tennis players are commonly described in German. What is relevant is how they are commonly described in English. Each language has its own peculiarities, but it doesn't mean that English descriptions should be affected by German descriptions or, for example, Russian descriptions should be affected by French descriptions. Taking into account that Wikidata's guidelines encourage the use of common names, e.g. Help:Label, it's worth to note that there is a clear consensus within the English-speaking community that "American(s)" is a common word for citizen(s) of the United States (see en:Americans, en:Category:American tennis players, wikt:American), whereas the use of "US American" is considered rare (see wikt:US American).--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Rare but not forbidden. That formulation seems to avoid confusion and is more respectful for the continent-Americans. Bouzinac (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (c) Bert Lance. --Wolverène (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In American English (the main language of the Wikimedia projects), as well as in most of another regional variants of English, "American" means by default somebody or something related to the United States. As for me existance of an analogue is not ever a valid argument, so the German spelling cannot affect the way of how to call smth from the US in English. E.g. in Russian, calling smth 'American' I mean exclusively a thing or a person from the US, except such word combinations as 'American continent', or some taxon common name that's including that word. Also, I don't understand privileges for tennis players, sorry I'm fan of uniformity. --Wolverène (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is not just about tennis players. It concerns all persons from the United States, regardless of their profession or otherwise. Pommée (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Looked like your changes were applying to tennis players only and seems weren't supposed to be global for all items on [U.S. of A.] Americans. --Wolverène (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems a very strange dispute - "US-American" isn't a normal English adjective, and Wikidata descriptions should be clear and simple - they're not a place to try and change language use. If you want to avoid using "American person", an okay alternative would be "US person" or "United States person" (it's less common, but generally accepted). But insisting on a term that isn't generally used is really not helpful to our users. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing duplicate requests

Please note: Requests for deletion has now reached near 200. I have seen some duplicate requests (meaning, an item has been requested for deletion by 2 users). I would like to know whether the duplicate request can be merged with the one being asked earlier. Adithyak1997 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Because I was asked to reply here: it does not matter that there are duplicate sections, at least as long as there is no discussion in it. Otherwise you can simply leave an anchor link to the other discussion in order to make sure this does not go unnoticed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of data

Can someone have a look at this. The suggestion was made on en.wikipedia that the data should be checked and referenced to a reliable source (which philatlas was deemed not to be, but the user decided to mass-remove all data). Thanks. --Beetstra (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: In my opinion, the mass removal was justified. Thanks user:Sanglahi86 for doing it. What needs to be done is, a reliable source, like the Google Maps API, needs to be used, and the data re-added. The new data will probably not match the old data, so I think their mass removal is OK. FYI for Wikidata admins: see en:Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#PhilAtlas. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra, Psiĥedelisto, Sanglahi86: this data should not be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, we do not really make a distinction between "reliable" and "unreliable" sources which is effectively a very subjective assessment anyways. We merely track provenance for the data, and if it is stated in that source, it is usually considered to be a valid claim. In case there is something (systematically) wrong with the data, the claim should be using "deprecated rank" (see Help:Ranking) to indicate this. Data users (such as Wikipedias) should also consider filtering sources, e.g. drop the ones with a particular URL for instance. @Sanglahi86:, please stop your removal batch. This needs to be discussed first. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: So is the solution, then, for us at enwiki, to apply deprecated rank to all of these, and then edit our template to not show any data with such a rank? Because there is a systematic problem with all data from PhilAtlas, even if some of it might be correct, as we discussed at enwiki. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • All your data retrieval methods at enwiki should ignore "deprecated rank" claims completely, as this is the standard way to indicate that something is wrong with the data.
  • All non-deprecated claims (i.e. "normal rank" and "preferred rank"), should by default considered correct, either currently or historically. Yet, you may find references in non-deprecated claims that do not fit your enwiki policies (but some other data user might be fine with it); thus, I recommend to filter references by default, remove the ones you locally deem "unreliable" (e.g. URLs pointing to this domain here, or are "imported from: some Wikipedia" references, …); if this leaves the data without enwiki-compliant sources, you may also skip using the data alltogether, of course.
  • Always consider that there may be other data users as enwiki with other needs. Enwiki is one of many Wikidata data users.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to say MisterSynergy, now I'm even more confused than before. You seem to imply that my original idea on en:Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#PhilAtlas, viz., making the template itself here on enwiki reject PhilAtlas links, is the correct thing to do. But MisterSynergy just wrote that this thread would not have been opened at all had we at enwiki known about the ranking scheme, strongly implying that that's the play here. So, what do we do at enwiki? And while I'm sympathetic to your contention that enwiki isn't the only user, this is an extremely unreliable source, which is why we've taken the unusual step of blacklisting it. I'd like to encourage you all to do the same, if you can, so no new claims to it are added. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, if it was too confusing, let me separate things a bit:
  • From the pure enwiki perspective, consider yourself/your project to be a customer here---one of many. Wikidata offers data which you can freely use (or not use, it's your decision), but keep in mind that maybe some of the data here is not in line with your local policies. This means that you need to filter retrieved data locally and omit it in case of doubt, as you seem to have indicated over there as well.
  • That said, Wikidata is an open project and you are of course invited to participate *here* as well as an active Wikidata user (we are in fact very happy when users start to engage here). This means you can of course improve data at Wikidata when you find that something is wrong with it (e.g. add another reference, change ranks, import another value, etc.). However, this needs to be done in line with Wikidata policies, which are quite different sometimes---particularly for long-term Wikipedia editors which are very much accustomed to the Wikipedia world.
There is of course always space for different options available; however, as you can have both roles here (Wikipedia user who wants to use data vs. Wikidata user who wants to curate data), it is usually worth to factor in which role you are effectively acting in, which project goals you would need to keep in mind when trying to change something, and which project you would like to ask for help in case you consider yourself not experienced enough to make a decision by yourself. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

On en.wikipedia, the sequence would be: 1) check data and see if you can find a better reference, 2) if not, add a 'needs citation tag', then 3) consider removing it if it is very likely outright wrong and no reference can be found. I guess that fits with a 'mark depracated until a proper reference is found' here on WikiData. @MisterSynergy: can you please perform the actions we can't revert it? --Beetstra (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra, Psiĥedelisto: I apologize but @MisterSynergy: is absolutely wrong, or else Wikidata:Living people would not be a thing. I've been meaning to want to craft a more concrete verfiability policy in general because right now, Wikidata:Notability is a mess and inconsistently applied.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not about living people, and there are of course exceptions where data should be removed. This is clearly none, however. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Your comment leaves the false impression that Wikidata is an indiscriminate collection of information on the world, and also, source reliability is more objective than you imply it to be. For example, a peer-reviewed journal article will be far better as a source than some layperson saying "I said so". Especially in a world where misinformation is rampant, it is irresponsible to outright disingenuous to give that impression. At Wikimania 2014, the consensus of the attending Wikidatans was that we are not your backup either, or else people would just store lots of useless information in our database.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Problematic data unfortunately will find its way to this project again anyways, regardless of your efforts to constantly remove it again. I thus advised to use the "deprecated rank" feature in order to indicate that it is wrong. You don't solve the intrinsic problem of misinformation in the world simply by closing your eyes and pretending not to see it any longer. Wikidata is a secondary database where such information effectively has its place, as long as some exceptional conditions (e.g. BLP, of course) do not apply. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that you don't solve it by ignoring it... which is what your original comment seemed to imply. We need a broader discussion about this but I should point out that "secondary" does not just mean secondary, it means provably secondary. In other words we really ought to do our part and not host any potentially misleading information, clearly as many users do not know our ranking scheme (the fact that this thread was opened proves my point).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, there is plenty of space to improve our use of the ranking functionality; yet, it is not particularly new, and querying in a way that omits "deprecated rank" claims entirely or filtering them out manually is *really* a simple task. I would also agree that the ranking should be better indicated in the Web UI (cause this is what *people* see), but there are already phabricator tasks for it available.
Yet, this is the way to go, and IMO the only way to go. Many of the disputes in the more recent time deals with this question, and many (potential) data users that are unhappy with the current situation at Wikidata complain about the data instability that they experience due to the repeated removal of data (instead of using ranks properly). Otherwise every user would plainly remove data they don't like, regardless of the needs of other users. In practice this once again means that enwiki decides what can be here and what not, since they are clearly among the largest and most powerful data users here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
People would not be "removing data they don't like" if we had objective, comprehensive policies about what data can be included. By saying "IMO", you are basically admitting that you posed your opinion as that of the whole Wikidata community. That is what I'm annoyed by with your comment. If you want that opinion of yours to be that of the community, then constructively demonstrate that with an RfC; until then, please be careful to avoid giving our data consumers a wrong impression about what we are.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not need an RfC to change anything, as my position is in line with our local policies. I am pretty fundamental with how things should be done according to policies and original intentions, and I am in fact disappointed that many users are using functionalities quite differently on a larger scale meanwhile. Yet, we have to acknowledge that usage of ranks effectively has taken off not earlier than roughly a year ago, in other words the community is not well accustomed to it. However, policy-wise there is nothing to change from my perspective. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Then, pray tell, what RfC-ratified policy says we can be an indiscriminate collection of information? The unwritten nature of practices like this is problematic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone ("RfC-ratified policy") say we can't? Of course not. There are not many policies which generally govern the content management of the project. Specific ones (BLP, licensing, etc) do exist, but none of them was claimed to apply here yet. Thus we should not insinuate that a removal of data based on personal preferences such as it happened earlier today was fine; in fact, the established procedure clearly is not to do so, may it be "unwritten nature" or not. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, you just proved my point, we need an RfC to codify this. And the rest of your comment is a strawman argument; I never was arguing the particulars of this case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I'm not sure why you've repeated this again, but as I mentioned at enwiki, this is not always the sequence. When content is disputed, if you think there's a chance it's true you add {{cn}}, otherwise you remove it on sight. en:WP:V states uncategorically, Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. So what Sanglahi86 did was right per WP:V in my humble non-admin opinion. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: .. no en:WP:PRESERVE. Outright deletion, especially if the data may very well be right, just wrongly/unreferenced, is the last step. --Beetstra (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
On svwiki we (almost) always have the option to overwrite the data from Wikidata when we do not like what is stated here. That is what you should do, not delete. 62 etc (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not a good reason to keep elevations which are likely false. No original research and verifiability are reasons listed which override WP:PRESERVE. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This was brought up on project chat before and the suggestion was that enwiki should filter if the reference isn't deemed suitable for enwiki. --- Jura 10:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit group QSv2T/1593505410941

Summary #quickstatements; Author Sanglahi86
Number of edits 1,630 (more statistics) Example edit Q131984

The above are the details of the problematic batch. --- Jura 07:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


User:Mike Novikoff

User breaks WD:NPA:

I ask you to take measures to stop the insults.Carn (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Admins: of course you *can* "take measures" if you want me to leave for good, and I'll do. I'll do leave for good.
Just because I am NOT member of their ruwikian chats, Skype and Discord, where they just have obviously coordinated this attack on me. Чатики-браччучатики.
Still I hope that WD has nothing to do with the stinking ruwiki, and even less with their semi-private chats. No place for ruwiki drama here.
Not to mention that there's rather wrong translation from Russian ("MGIMO finished" style), and the thing that they surely didn't expext (I myself didn't, too): I've just got thanks for this edit from Ghuron. — Mike Novikoff 10:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want drama — don't bring it. The fact that Ghuron thanked you for the edit, where you called him patronymic (Q110874) "Гондоныч" ~ "son of condom" honors his sense of humor, not your behavior.Carn (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really know why he did it (maybe you do?), but so what anyway? You [don't yet] see, it's a decent place unlike your ruwiki, and people don't get punished and killed just because of made-up conflicts. And it's defeitely NOT a place where your "чатики-браччучатики" would be revdel'd. @TenBaseT: noboby will revdel "чатики-браччучатики" and block me for a week for this, so *I* will remain here at WD, making a clear contrast with what you've done to me at your ruwiki. Чатики-браччучатики, чатики-браччучатики, чатики-браччучатики! (For anyone interested, чатики-браччучатики means a pun for a ruwikian sockmaster D.bratchuk and his unusually lucky sock Good Will Hunting). — Mike Novikoff 11:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
One more message like this, and I am going to block your account. Civility is not optional on this Wiki, even if there is only one administrator around who can speak your language. I am not a member of Russian wikiclan either, whatever this means.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Just one remark: for this matter, Russian is not "my language". It's no more mine than yours, and for basically the same reasons. You can see it's the last one in my Babel, and that is by no means coincidental. Even though I still live in Moscow, my preferred wiki-language is English and my home is enwiki ever since 2012. Moreover, my preferred IT language is English ever since 1990 (when I'd switched from БК-0010-01 to PC XT). I hope you see my point now.
And I would specifically like to mention that I'd noticed you long ago, and I always have thought that you're exactly the one who would understand my attitudes regarding English vs Russian. I still hope so. — Mike Novikoff 03:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I should admit that this is not the first time. Not knowing this user I was suddenly attacked in a capricious manner during some constructive discussion. --Infovarius (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If I were you, I would avoid mentioning it, as it clearly shows that I had constructively participated it this "constructive discussion" until you had started reverting me again despite everything discussed. Your "not knowing me" is highly surpsising. And your pattern of mindless reversions is clearly seen all across your talk page, including (but, as GPL puts it, "not limited to") this. — Mike Novikoff 03:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary

I guess this case needs a summary, for I don't want any spots on my reputation, and I'll try to put it as civil as I can. Just the facts.

It all started with my usual patrol of the suspicious recent changes, when I'd noticed this. Tracing back (which is of course my usual way of doing reverts) I had found that. By the "experienced user" who once even had been proclaimed somewhat of a "ruwiki dictator" (by some 10, or maybe even 15, "experienced users"). Very nice and very typical of them ruwikians. They are very experienced in their private chats, private wars and all the like, but when it comes to WD, they just do such childish fubar. So I couldn't resist to make a winky edit summary.

It may had ended by this already, but nope. His Majesty ShinePhantom chose to provoke me further at my talk page, as if he did'n get what I've meant (although he surely did), and then – just watch the hands! – sent a totally uninvolved user Carn to report me.

That's the fault. Carn is so much uninvolved that he never ever seen me before (and I didn't seen him either), yet he came with a thorough analysis of my user talk page within an hour. If that isn't a real personal attack and harrassment, what is?

The bottom line is that ShinePhantom didn'd get his satisfaction in spite of all his Skypian and/or Discordian efforts, so we can praise Mick Jagger (alternatively with this).

But seriously, it's no time for me to laugh. I'll have to wait for at least another two weeks before this topic is archived, and then ask myself what am I really doing here in all my sobriety. — Mike Novikoff 09:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not turn the situation upside down, as if you were the victim of some kind of conspiracy.
People make mistakes. You fixed a mistake made by ShinePhantom. Thank you for that.
But the fact that you make fun of him by calling him "His Majesty" will not help your reputation.
And your insinuations that someone sent me violate "assume good intentions" rule and will not help your reputation either.Carn (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your thanks. I see, reporting me here at AN is your way of thanking.
It's not "AGI", it's AGF.
Can you please explain how come you had investigated my talk page and even reported me at 08:57, 16 June 2020? What on this God's green Earth made you do this, if not ShinePhantom's chat? — Mike Novikoff 10:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: what about auntie Annie's WP:BOOMERANG? — Mike Novikoff 11:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Mike Novikoff blocked for 3 days for continued personal attacks despite a clear warning I have given to them in this very thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't talked to ShinePhantom in any chats. Indeed, I saw a link to your page in the ru:WP:Discord chat, but no one asked me to do something about this. No one asked me to start this topic — I decided to do it myself.Carn (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record - I posted this link to discord. I did not “investigate” your talk page, it was you who pinged me there. I did not ask Carn to report this, I was 100% sure that admins would ignore dogfight between Russian-speaking users Ghuron (talk)
You guys don't seem to see what's wrong with off-wiki chats at all. With the lack of transparency in an open community.
For a year and a half (right after my withdrawal from your ruwiki) I've been spending lots of my time here at WD, fixing the inconsistencies and fighting the vandalism, requesting the protection for vandalized pages and reporting the vandals. In short, I've been a helper to admins, and I've been doing it flawlessly. Now that all of a sudden I am being treated like a vandal myself (even worse than a vandal, compared to my home enwiki where even the blatant vandals who vandalize content generally get four warnings before they are reported), I feel deeply wounded and I don't know if I'll ever be able to go on. In the end, it appears that a dirty block log with a dreadful wording is the only reward for all I've ever done here. Thanks, I'd rather stay at enwiki and make sure that I won't even see WD edits in my WP watchlist. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. — Mike Novikoff 09:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism from 47.60.32.0/21

Most edits from IP range Special:Contributions/47.60.32.0/21 are vandalism similar to Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2020/06#Angelcarmona1996; looks like their IP addresses have changed from Special:Contributions/137.101.0.0/16. Peter James (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

They also edited from Special:Contributions/88.8.196.208 today but I can't see anything else similar from that range. Peter James (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I already blocked three IP addresses and deleted a few items. Thanks for bringing it here. There is also some cross-wiki activity, but it seems oddly sane by comparison. Bovlb (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked 47.60.33.209 for a month as well, and I also placed a one-week block on 47.60.0.0/16. We can extend that, but I did find a couple of good edits from that range in the last month. Bovlb (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
And 81.37.55.118 today. Bovlb (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
And Angelmiller40 (talk • contribs • logs). Bovlb (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Angelmiller40 is LaraLili2000. Locked.. I would like to take appropriate action, but there is too much range he used :( --Sotiale (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Today I blocked 47.60.35.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), and I'm watching 47.60.35.208 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). A lot of these are claims on fairly obscure people, so are hard to prove false. Bovlb (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
And ‎47.60.37.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), so I placed a one-month block on 47.60.0.0/16. @sotiale Bovlb (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm out of time for now. Can someone please check out 31.4.182.184 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) if you have a moment? Bovlb (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please block 112.223.44.58 (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism only ip. Thx. 轻语者 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Report was good at the time, but is now stale. (6 days since last edit) Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. Esteban16 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 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) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MrProperLawAndOrder

Would someone please look in at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Disallow merging into newer entity? User:MrProperLawAndOrder has accused four of us of "supporting vandals" and, in the sequence after I have given him two chances to retract the entirely false statement has accused me of a personal attack for saying, "Apparently, you are not only being insulting, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote" when he responded to the request by drawing a conclusion not justified by my words.

If indeed you believe he is right, and that I am "supporting vandals" and making personal attacks, please say so, and I will suspend myself from participating in discussions on Wikidata.- Jmabel (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Jmabel,
  1. I wrote "you support vandals by giving them a chance to break queries by creating a higher ID item." and I withdrew it, because I made an error with that statement. "Anyway, I withdraw, since I have no single proof that a vandal is actively using this vector. If it is not used by a vandal, leaving it open cannot be a support of any vandal."
  2. you still didn't explain where I have been insulting, "you support vandals by giving them a chance to break queries by creating a higher ID item." isn't an insult at all. The only way not to support vandals is to completely shut WD down for their editing, which would have negative side effects, so to some extent it is necessary to support them. And the discussion is about the right balance.
  3. you still didn't explain how it is OK to say something about me that you cannot know
  4. please show the diff where I accused you 'of a personal attack for saying, "Apparently, you are not only being insulting, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote"'
RE "when he responded to the request by drawing a conclusion not justified by my words." - that can be discussed there if I drew a false conclusion. Did you never drew a false conclusion in your life? I did, and I am happy if people explain it to me. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Jmabel, FYI Wikidata:No personal attacks "Comment on content, not on the contributor." It seems "Apparently, you are not only being insulting, you didn't even bother reading what I wrote." isn't respecting that policy. You cannot know if I read what you wrote, not even speaking of whether I bothered to read it. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I think I'm to personally involved to ban MrProperLawAndOrder for conflicts like this. However it seems to me that given the amount of conflict that MrProperLawAndOrder stirs up, Wikidata likely would be better with him banned. I find it also quite curious that MrProperLawAndOrder frequently cites EnWiki policy (that's not policy on Wikidata) even through his account has no edits on EnWiki. It might be worth to check whether he violates the multiple account rule. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So do I understand that other than one admin who is recusing himself, none of the admins here think that accusing four of us of "supporting vandals" was any sort of problem? - Jmabel (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 3 days. I am not a CU, and I do not see obvious block evasion. If anybody see it, feel free to reblock indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: After additional evidence surfaced, I checked them and found them a Likely sock of User:Tamawashi (aka Tobias Conradi, a globally banned user). Thus the block has been made indefinite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Strange, I blocked their socks several dozen times before, but could not recognize this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Not very surprising. Only a litte topic shift. --Succu (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

  • To help cleanup this incident, can someone delete all items created by the user and not yet edited by other contributors but bots? --- Jura 07:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1: I don't think it's the best route, since they appear to be notable items (containing GND ID (P227)); I would prefer enriching these items importing info from GND, as was successfully done for all items created before the 19th of May; I can do it in more or less two weeks. However, I support the mass-deletions of redirected-items edited only by the user and bots, as they were created as a result of QuickStatements errors and existed only for few hours. --Epìdosis 07:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Can you adopt that ones you are interested in and ensure that they have something beyond IDs .. afterwards we can delete the rest. --- Jura 08:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1: OK, it will take about two weeks, as said (depending also on the speed of QS). I will report here the end of the work and we will consider the state of the remaining items. --Epìdosis 08:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    Can you outline which ones you wont be able to fix? Given the way QS works, it might be easier to just create new ones. --- Jura 08:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Not yet, first I need @Bargioni: to extract data from GND, which will take at least some days. --Epìdosis 08:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1, Epìdosis: I hope to contribute to solve this incident. Let's go. -- Bargioni 🗣 08:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This user created 168,968 non-redirected items. Note I oppose block evasion as a reason for deletion and I strongly oppose a mass deleteion like this. They refer to clearly identifiable entries and duplicates should be merged.--GZWDer (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should encourage block evasion merely because it lead to the creation of many items.
Most items lack info beyond identifiers, saturating searches for related items.
Bargioni, apparently, will be importing information about some of these. This would be simplified by creating new items and would avoid having to quality control the block users evasion.--- Jura 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bargioni: what's your view on this? --- Jura 09:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
How is the quality of improved existing item different from new ones? "saturating searches" - as long as the entries are valid, this is instead a good thing. "encourage block evasion" - As a explicit disagreement of comment by Pasleim (specifically the 17:19, 24 May 2020 one) and my opinion only: blocks, deletion and protection etc. should be treated as technical measure only to improve the quality of the project, and every edit by blocked users should be examined in its own merit.--GZWDer (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I did understand your point of view, it's just that block evasion is generally not seen as a good thing. Whatever your point of view about English Wikipedia.
The difference for Bargioni would be that they wont need to check new creations against the data dump's quality or lack thereof. Besides, merely in terms of editing, it may be 6 times quicker to create one item with 10 statements than to add 6 statements to an exiting item with four statements. --- Jura 10:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes block evasion is generally not seen as a good thing, but edits done by users evading blocks should still be reviewed individually. Any user is free to revert them if they does not found them beneficial, but I will oppose a revert by default as long as the user is not vandalism (or disruption)-only. "check new creations against the data dump's quality" - yes, but items and datas are not owned by anyone, which means items may be used or improved by everyone.--GZWDer (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The dump can be evaluated as whole. Alternatively, we could amend the blocking policy to state that users are free to continue editing as long as their additions aren't reverted or deleted by GZWDer. --- Jura 10:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
We block a user because we know they will potentially make bad edits. We block sockpuppets for the same reason, plus main accounts should be used (i.e. unblocked) if admins believes their edits will be a net positive (more help than harm). This only said potential. Edits already performed are another thing.--GZWDer (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
If you feel this should be so, why not amend the blocking policy accordingly? Will save us the same discussion next time. --- Jura 10:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
We do not need to amend it. Wikidata:Blocking policy does not said whether to revert blocked users' contributions, so we use Wikidata:Edit warring, which says "Reverting edits by a locally blocked or globally locked/banned editor is not edit warring, but is also not mandatory."--GZWDer (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
If we just keep everything that gets dumped into Wikidata at each iteration, it's unlikely to stop and probably undermines ongoing action by WMF to end this. --- Jura 17:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
For edits of this account only, quality of their edits seems acceptable.--GZWDer (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
It's mostly a datadump. Whether it's useful or not depends on what @Bargioni: adds to the item. I think it would be easier for them to create new items (1 edit) than to check and complete the existing ones (check, plus multiple edits). --- Jura 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Somebody is already working on these items.--GZWDer (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup finished one hour ago (less than ten days!), thanks to the data very fastly provided by @Bargioni:. --Epìdosis 12:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: Thx, an impressive and patient job of submitting up to 25 batches! -- Bargioni 🗣 13:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good, I will have a look. In the meantime, would you check the countless duplicates that ended up on Wikidata:Database_reports/identical_birth_and_death_dates/1? --- Jura 18:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: I've already seen, unfortunately :( 46 merges easily performed since labels and days of birth/death were exactly the same. I will try to slowly check also the others in the next weeks, but it will be long ... --Epìdosis 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
There are probably some 2000 more on the main page.--- Jura 05:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you left out all that weren't easy, e.g. Q94794644, Q94916338 are duplicates as well. --- Jura 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Strangely, it seems that for some duplicates both were created by the same: Q94769315+Q94778271. --- Jura 05:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision delete

Hi all! @Jura1: asked me to delete Wikidata:VIAF and subpages as they were created by the user, or to keep them revdeleting user's edits. Obviously it can be done, but since I don't find help pages prescribing this way of action and I don't know if it's common practice in such cases, I would ask the opinion of some other admin before acting. Thanks, --Epìdosis 14:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • If you want to create pages with the same titles, please do that after deleting content added in violation of blocks. --- Jura 14:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • English Wikipedia does not revision delete any edits by blocked (or banned) users, they only revert them. Here I don't think mass revert is the correct thing to do, but other are free to do so. Note in English Wikipedia any objection permanently prevents a speedy deletion of banned edits.--GZWDer (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      • This is not English Wikipedia. The question here is what to do with pages that haven't been edited by other people. Epidosis wants to keep them because the title are useful. --- Jura 09:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reactivate Krbot

@Ymblanter:

Seems to be a fall out from the incident with the above user. Please see User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin#KrBot_reactivated. Would you kindly deblock it per my comment there? --- Jura 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Let us see: @Vojtěch Dostál, Kolja21, Raymond: what do you think?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter If the operator agrees to the consensus concerning deprecated database values, I think the bot should be unblocked. However, as far as I can see, the operator has not responded yet at all at Property talk:P227. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál, Ymblanter: Please see @Ivan_A._Krestinin:'s comment at User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin#KrBot_reactivated. --- Jura 19:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done, unblocked now--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thks .--- Jura 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
VIAF resolution is back on track. --- Jura 06:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Return

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2020/06&oldid=1242886096"