Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/02

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Report concerning User:109.107.226.238

109.107.226.238 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Karim185.3 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Warned user — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 1 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Q258067 semi-protection

Please semi-protect Q258067 since IP users persistent vandalism. Thank you. --SCP-2000 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for two weeks. --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:80.35.249.42

80.35.249.42 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Please revert all edits and block

See its Special:Contributions/80.35.249.42

AndreCstr (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.26.75.240

2.26.75.240 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism Skmp (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked BrokenSegue (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Project:Village pump (Q16503)

Hi, can this item's protection be lowered? It has been fully protected since 2014, giving no chance for normal users to fill in blank descriptions. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the log, the protection is in place to "disable the automated page-move-change-sitelink that happens twice in a month". I'm guessing this is related to the way some project does archiving, presumably this one. CC @ Stryn, Lavallen, Matěj Suchánek, Tpt, MARKELLOS. Bovlb (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be prevented using AbuseFilter instead of protecting? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. I don't know the full story of which pages are being protected against which projects. For all I know, no-one is still doing archiving that way. Bovlb (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: FYI, see this log entry from last December 31st. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
So the proposed filter would be something like: On certain pages (perhaps just Q16503), if the edit changes certain sitelinks (perhaps just elwiki), then ask the user for confirmation. I suspect that this would be enough to prevent the disruption while allowing maximum user freedom. Bovlb (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not an expert for abuse filters, but I have just created Special:AbuseFilter/161. Is this what you suggested? --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Seems nice! The item should be semi-protected for the time being. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:177.236.77.114

177.236.77.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Envlh (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 165.111.2.207

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sinazareanzabi

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

Account created to vandalize. —Eihel (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Report SangarOfficiall

SangarOfficiall (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) destroys existing items to advertise —Eihel (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:207.31.33.24

207.31.33.24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism after rollbacks Skmp (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Bovlb. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:陸頌雄全部退出任期落選

陸頌雄全部退出任期落選 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism only user. Xiplus (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Sotiale (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2022 (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. Sotiale (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:88.156.133.233

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

Please block this IP or protect pages where this IP user changes description's, because they are not friendly with Neutral point of view and there is an edit war on them. Matlin (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see section above! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 2 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2603:3020:2603:1300:FD99:B745:285F:9EFD

2603:3020:2603:1300:FD99:B745:285F:9EFD (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Also Special:Contributions/2603:3020:2603:1300:70E8:270D:E14E:FC24 Skmp (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:80.25.215.19

80.25.215.19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a year. Some cross-wiki vandalism at ESWP to keep an eye on. Bovlb (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Bram Stoker (Q36184)

Vandalism by 85.192.92.81 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and SoyDiegoXD (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

— eru [Talk] [french wiki] 12:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done 1-year block on the IP plus 3 months on the /24. Indef on the account. Some cross-wiki vandalism on ESWP to keep an eye on. Bovlb (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 195.41.180.129

195.41.180.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has been active vandalizing a few times per year since 2014 and both yesterday and today. --Hjart (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for five years, plus one year on the /24. Bovlb (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Report of 184.96.237.235

After getting blocked in Commons, 184.96.237.235 (talk • contribs • logs) attacks other people in Wikidata. Taivo (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Globally + locally. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (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. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

wikidata screwdrive - german entry

For wikidata screwdrive the german entry should be changed from "Schraubenkopfantrieb", which is a subtitle of "screw", to "Liste der Schraubenkopfantriebe" --PeterZF (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@PeterZF: It does not look like we have to change something. de:Schraubenkopfantrieb is connected with screw drive (Q23824424) and de:Liste der Schraubenkopfantriebe with list of screw drives (Q12357600). Seems to be correct. Maybe you want to change the target of the redirect instead? This needs to be done on dewiki, not on Wikidata. --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sinavipvip

Sinavipvip (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) sockpuppet of User:Sinazareanzabi (spamming) (@1997kB: CU+A) txs. —Eihel (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. @Eihel: All confirmed accounts are blocked; Sinavip8899, Sinazareanzabii, Sqna8899. --Sotiale (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Sotiale. —Eihel (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 2001:268:9095:5B41:0:2A:1E1D:2E01

2001:268:9095:5B41:0:2A:1E1D:2E01 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) blanking vandalisms. Txs. —Eihel (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the report. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 03:59, 3 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.171.8.47

212.171.8.47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Block evasion (79.37.97.199 and many others). – LiberatorG (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Norman Reedus (Q503545)

Excessive vandalism

--Karim185.3 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for two weeks. Bovlb (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:181.65.18.234

181.65.18.234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism in Vegetta777 (Q63383300) Ruy (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 5 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please put Damirbek Olimov in the "rowiki".

Please put Damirbek Olimov in the "rowiki". I created them on Wikidata and they've been on Wikidata and Wikipedia for a while now. And they are from Wikipedia Romania. AlexB25L (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) AlexB25L

✓ Done Damirbek Olimov (Q110821017) RIP, but I don't think he will meet notability standard for Wikipedia — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 5 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Buller1

Buller1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated false claims to be an administrator on user page, disruptive editing. – LiberatorG (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Noticia em dia

Noticia em dia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: only adding gibberish description in portuguese. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Fralambert (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2022 (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. Fralambert (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 90.177.221.47

Special:Contributions/90.177.221.47 has been adding occupation : alcoholic to Jiří Ovčáček (Q15290758), an attempt at a joke, albeit good by some standards. Please protect the item or block the user. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Q2439541

Please protect Ali B (Q2439541) for a while, BLP issues. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by MisterSynergy. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Q9317

Plz protect John Maynard Keynes (Q9317) Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 14:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I only see one recent problematic edit. We generally don’t consider this to be enough for protection.
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Q12154

Plz protect Tutankhamun (Q12154) Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi for 3 months --Emu (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2022 (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. Emu (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Request for Howard Stableford (Q16193376) (Howard Stableford)

Not sure how this one got deleted: deleted on the 3rd January this year, it was still linked to its Wikipedia page (which still exists but at AFD) on the 2nd January, https://web.archive.org/web/20220102214031/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stableford I see that a new Wikidata item has been created so it'll have to be merged. Sources for notability include https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba1bb342b and https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?q=%22Howard+Stableford%22#top Piecesofuk (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Ymblanter as the deleting admin. In the last deleted revision, there was no sitelink (last one was removed by @Liz as part of this enwiki deletion). Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I restored the item and merged it with the new one, but the only sitelink is the English Wikipedia article which is now at AfD. If it gets deleted, the Wikidata item must be deleted as non-notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a general flaw in our process. When a client project deletes and then undeletes an article, it is not automatically reconnected with its Wikidata item. Bovlb (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the undeletion. He passes Wikidata notability based on the two sources given above Piecesofuk (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I do not see how these sources establish Wikidata (or Wikipedia, for this purpose) notability. As far as I am concerned, he is not notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
He passes "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." The references are from The British Film Institute and the Radio Times Piecesofuk (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Not for example everybody who has VIAF or ORCID is notable, though these are issued by notable entities.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Q110497555

Some IP users are vandalizing this entry Q110497555, please protect it.--PQR01 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have merged it with Alka Nupur (Q18351243). I suspect that is the reason behind the blanking of the other item, although there was little communication happening there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for instant support. PQR01 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay so I was wrong. The vandalism immediately started on the other item, so that's protected as well now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 6 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Senonseitunonsonoio and Dorades

Senonseitunonsonoio (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism on various items. Dorades (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

me vandalism? Pls administrators, see his editis, he is reverting edits in all pages! sorry for the intrusion. Senonseitunonsonoio (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
You have been following Dorades around and reverting their edits. Why are you doing that? Your actions on ASUS ROG (Q4811943) are edit warring. You should try to use edit summaries to explain why you are reverting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the double site, as he had entered it twice Senonseitunonsonoio (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dorades (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: The user, as you can see from the list of his contributions, undoes changes everywhere (at random I would add), as if he were a rollbacker, and then report me here for vandalism.--Senonseitunonsonoio (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Dorades is a vandal fighter with a 7 year history and 14k edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
ok but his changes turned out to be irrelevant and unjustified, like those on Q4811943, so I hope he understands Senonseitunonsonoio (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry about this specific revert, which was unnecessary since the website was already linked. I got the impression that an IP deleted it for no reason.
For the other edits that you reverted, I see no reason: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Since you reverted them without commect, I assumed they were mere vandalism. Would you please explain why you are removing valid information while adding links to non-existent social media profiles? --Dorades (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
you removed TIM Group Twitter username, I am not adding links to non-existent social media profiles 🤨 Senonseitunonsonoio (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You did so here and here. I removed those before. --Dorades (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
ok stop talking here, let's talk in your talk page. Senonseitunonsonoio (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:187.172.173.115

187.172.173.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism after last warning Skmp (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please protect Q7474

Rosalind Franklin (Q7474) – vandalism from IPs and new accounts. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for six months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

user:Friedrich Franz07

Friedrich Franz07 (talk • contribs • logs) needs a local block, at least until a global block can be enacted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:64.114.239.104

64.114.239.104 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.114.239.104. 2 times in 1 y and quarter, block or/and protect Annunciation with St. Margaret and St. Ansanus (Q979440) Oursana (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Only two edits within more than a year from a school IP. No need for blocking or other measures at this point in time. -- Emu (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Q110471150

Request undeletion of this item as the Wikipedia article have been restored.--GZWDer (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Fralambert: as the deleting admin. --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@GZWDer, Ameisenigel: Undeleted. --Fralambert (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2022 (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. Fralambert (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fralambert (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 77.224.253.102

The IP 77.224.253.102 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has been vandalizing Henry David Thoreau (Q131149) over two days. Their edit history over the past year consists of vandalism. Please protect the item or block the user. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a year. Bovlb (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:111.109.79.170

111.109.79.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Afaz (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

He has already been blocked once, but he still repeatedly writes inappropriate sentences in the item descriptions. Afaz (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done by Lymantria --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:179.1.64.210

179.1.64.210 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Block 3 days. --Lymantria (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:111.109.79.170

111.109.79.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vadalism in Q132345 Q8j (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked again, 2 weeks now. --Lymantria (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 81.33.163.92

81.33.163.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is a bit too annoying today. Has been vandalizing various items a few times over the last 2 weeks too.--Hjart (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Ayack --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Block

Can 62.97.72.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) be blocked? And perhaps Tom Holland (Q2023710) be protected, as the vandalism is not only from this IP. Dajasj (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for three days, semi-protected for three months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 194.254.62.27

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 5.148.0.10

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Protection

2A00:F41:2828:6FB6:8C11:56F4:829:15BD (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
2A00:F41:2828:6FB6:EC0D:B2D6:A745:4346 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
88.156.133.233 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

I report pages edited by these users for protection due to vandalism committed by them. Vandalisms have been appearing for a month now, so it's probably a planned action. Openbk (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked 88.156.133.233 and range blocked 2A00:F41:2828:6FB6:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Please report if other IPs appear and the range and/or duration can be adjusted. How many items are involved? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! There are about 10 items involved: Q9346213, Q85867122, Q998264, Q22350992, Q55917, Q2757, Q20830538, Q48852336, Q11748756, Q4877021. Openbk (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There are new edits from 88.156.133.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Openbk (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2A00:F41:2885:DF48:5D02:FEBE:E994:F284 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Openbk (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2 weeks. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
2A00:F41:28F4:42E3:A4BA:64C1:A269:3549 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Openbk (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 82.219.7.189

82.219.7.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Vandalising items by changing descriptions , labels and aliases items Rockpeterson (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockpeterson: This IP has never made an edit. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe this was intended to refer to 82.219.7.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), now blocked by @ Ayack. Bovlb (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb Oh sorry , glad u got it Rockpeterson (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Estadodanacao

This user does not want Rui Pinto (Q62007389) to be a hacker and thus deletes corresponding information. I have asked them for proof on their talk page, but they did not give any useful information. They have also changed en.wp and pt.wiki accordingly (just to give this information here, not to discuss their edits on other wikis). What is the best way to deal with this? --Dorades (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the discussion on their talk page misses the point of wikidata. We don't try to identify if someone is "definitively" a hacker. We merely catalog the fact that others have called them that. There appear to be many references on enwiki that call them a "hacker". I would add the hacker claim back along with some references. If someone disputes this claim we can mark it as such. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You're right, my approach on the talk page was not the best. Since I already clashed with them, can I maybe ask you (or someone else) to add the hacker claim with a corresponding reference? Suitable would be, for example, this article. --Dorades (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
done. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Dorades (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Trial is ongoing. "Hacker" allegations not proven yet. Estadodanacao (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Estadodanacao: The statement doesn't say he was convicted of hacking. Just that they are a "hacker" which is a broad/ambiguous terms. Feel free to add a claim that the statement is disputed if you can find someone disputing it. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2022 (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. Dorades (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q61478103

Excessive vandalism. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Emu --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dexbot (talk • contribs • logs)

Please block the bot, it's currently doing an un-approved task, after its operator [8] closed a discussion advertised only three days ago. @Ladsgroup: --- Jura 13:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I stopped the bot for now but not for long. Amir (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
As I wrote in Property talk:P396, IMHO the consensus was sufficient and prolonging the discussion another week will not change things a lot; anyway, as I wrote, for me waiting another week is not a problem. --Epìdosis 13:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
An approved bot task request is still needed. I think we should block the bot until this is available. "not for long" isn't really reassuring. --- Jura 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Do you have an approved bot request for this kind of edits? --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ameisenigel TBH, I don't know. I have so many tasks or bot requests that I lost track and I thought I did (and probably did somehow but I can't find it atm), I made a new one Dexbot 15. Amir (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am truly appalled at @Jura1:'s behaviour, since they were the only user in the discussion to oppose the bot task. I would say that @Ladsgroup: can resume the task, since the code change is going to happen - whether Jura likes it or not - and that creating a new property from scratch is absolutely absurd. I also would like Jura to refrain, once and for all, from such uncollaborative behaviour. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Jura1 keeps insisting to reopen a discussion that has already reached a consensus, and that should not therefore be reopened. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Strange comment as nobody (including the bot's operator) seems to recall discussing Dexbot's bot permission. --- Jura 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
And yet, time and again, when the discussion doesn't go your way, you find a way to obstruct other users. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Sannita, this commentary is unhelpful (WD:NPA). Please stop, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Further discussion can take place at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Dexbot 15. --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ericmclachlan adding subreddit (P3984) to inappropriate items

Hi - Ericmclachlan seems to be adding the subreddit (P3984) property to loads of items that it doesn't actually make sense for. If you look at their contributions, they're doing this with subreddits dedicated to particular locations (e.g. flintshire), and then adding this to items for things that are associated with that place, and not just the places themselves. The property description for subreddit (P3984) states that it's for the "name of the Reddit forum associated to this subject", so what they're doing doesn't make any sense at all.

For example, Flintshire County Council (Higher Ferry Saltney Footbridge) Act 1965 (Q110283072) and Whitley Bay Pier (Extension of Time) Act 1972 (Q110283472), which are local Acts of Parliament of very little importance, now have statements saying that they have subreddits associated with them, which is complete nonsense! I can see that they've done this for thousands of items, and frankly I think this needs to be rolled back by an admin. Theknightwho (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I came to report the same user. It looks like they set up an automated batch but matched the subreddits to the item we have with the closest name. In some cases they got lucky and found a match in other cases they have added the statement to a completely unrelated item. The editing stopped a few minutes ago but I can't see any sign of the user engaging with the users who flagged up the problem. Can a temporary block be applied to force the user to engage in discussion before resuming their next batch? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
A temporary block (of a week, from the main namespace) has been applied. It may be extended if @Ericmclachlan: does not make efforts to clean up the subreddit statements. Mahir256 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Mahir256, @Theknightwho. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm sorry that this happened. I can make excuses about how local testing seemed to be working well, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that a mistake has happened and it shouldn't have. Please be patient with me while I rectify the mistake. Eric McLachlan (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and no worries. I had thought you were doing it manually at the time. Theknightwho (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see @From Hill To Shore should also be included in the reply. Eric McLachlan (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
A script is currently running to repair the incorrect subreddits. It may take some time but I think you'll be happy with the results. Eric McLachlan (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The script has completed. I will continue to do check for quality but I'm happy with the results.
Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. Eric McLachlan (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Gymnicus

A lot of very strange deletion requests. Could someone olease stop this problematic User!? -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: Before calling me a problematic user, please read Wikidata's notability criteria first. Then you will see that my deletion request, which you describe as a "bad joke", was completely correct at the time of submitting the request. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Problematic User. We know your old incarnations. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: Ich kann kein grobes Fehlverhalten bei den Löschkandidaten erkennen. Man kann die Meinung von Gymnicus teilen oder auch nicht, aber das Projekt muss sich die Frage gefallen lassen, warum bei Personen und Organisationen im Wikimedia-Umfeld tendenziell WD:N deutlich großzügiger ausgelegt wird als in anderen Bereichen. Ob es allerdings sinnvoll ist, im großen Stil Löschanträge zu stellen, wenn man ohnehin weiß, dass sie kaum Chancen haben, muss man aber ernsthaft bezweifeln. -- Emu (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 85.192.93.153

 Comment This IP has been active on Q9051334 repeatedly. I suggest to semi-protect Q9051334 as well. --Mosbatho (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for day, let's see if this enough or if we need semi-protection. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Asking for a temporary block of 79.42.96.226

I don't like to do this, but I have repeatedly tried to engage with this particular IP to no avail. Among a long list of problematic edits they also engage in altering sourced statements I've added myself, even after repeatedly being asked not to. Latest example : Revision history of "Jeremy Bender" (Q58365331) - Wikidata

79.42.96.226 if you read this: Just create an account already!? 90% of your edits are great (really) but 10% are pure bullsh*t - where are you getting this stuff from, what are you doing? We should talk. Moebeus (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moebeus: Blocked from the main namespace for two weeks. Mahir256 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible revision delete

These edit summaries contain spam, I'm not sure if they must be deleted. --Horcrux (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not see a need for a revision deletion here per WD:DEL. Anyway, thanks for the report. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Godson Bada

Godson Bada (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam/self-promotion account. — Envlh (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Fralambert (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2022 (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. Fralambert (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Pericent1

Pericent1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) -- Reasons: Spam, recreated three time the same nonotable item. User warned. Fralambert (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo of CGP Grey

The public person CGP Grey (Q5006102) doesn't want the image CGPGrey.png, and certainly the image CGP Grey Live.png of him, not to be used here on Wikidata. Whether this request will be accepted is currently being discussed on the talk page of the data object on the person. Despite this discussion, the user IagoQnsi simply performed this deletion again. I am requesting that this edit be undone as there is no consensus for deletion. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless if the photo is deleted or not on Commons, I don't think it should be added to his Wikidata item. This causes it to automatically be used in infoboxes on many Wikipedias, which would violate Grey's request for privacy. IagoQnsi (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any invasion of his privacy here. The two pictures were taken at a public event in which he took part. Therefore, he must be aware that photos can be taken of him there. I assume that the images will not be deleted and can therefore continue to be used here. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
There’s an active discussion at Talk:Q5006102. There is more harm in an image that potentially violates privacy than in the absence of an image of a somewhat obscure person. Therefore, there’s no reason to reinstate the image at this point in time. Emu (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Protection Q858432

Hi, please protect Q858432, because of the excessive vandalism from IPs and usersKarim185.3 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2022 (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. Emu (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 81.37.157.196

✓ Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 11 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Fanpageorg

Fanpageorg (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam/self-promotion account. — Envlh (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Envlh: User warned. You could have done that yourself. Bovlb (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Thank you for your reply. To be honest, I don't see the point to discuss with promotion-only accounts and I expected it to be blocked, like the other one with similar behavior I reported at the same time. (To be clear, I'm fine with your decision, and salute your patience.) Cheers, Envlh (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Envlh: A lot of newcomers come to this project and their first thought is that they should contribute on a subject that they know well that is not already covered. This often ends up being themselves or their friend's band or the like. If that isn't notable and we get them to understand why that wasn't appropriate, then they might turn their efforts down more productive channels. If we just block them, then they'll see the project as an enemy to be ignored or fought. Maybe the thing they're creating an item for is actually notable and they just haven't demonstrated it; in that case the best outcome would be to teach them how to establish notability so we gain both a new item and a new editor. Bovlb (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Move protected page

Hoi, could somebody please move Wikidata:Tools/Wikidata for Firefox to Wikidata:Tools/Wikidata for Web? The extension is also available for chrome now and so we plan to rename it--Shisma (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 12 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Gabriel Fauré (Q104919)

Bonjour,

Vandalisme puéril et scatologique sur Gabriel Fauré (Q104919).
Une semi-protection serait utile. Merci d'avance.
--Jmh2o (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done IP blocked 31h. Bovlb (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:168.11.226.201

168.11.226.201 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2931901&oldid=1517851281 Sifalot (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, IP has made no other edits the last two months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Yaze5d00jshs

Yaze5d00jshs (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account Ruy (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User warned. --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Senonseitunonsonoio

Senonseitunonsonoio (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Is the vandal LTA of the Italian telecommunications companies (knowed as Vodafone vandal) that has been created to bypass the blocking of their other accounts Giorgio mec, Ilnovotizio22, LupoOscuro, multiple IPs and to bypass the protection in Wind Tre (Q28119223). Carlitoscarlos (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 20:52, 13 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 68.67.43.98

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:185.197.90.54

185.197.90.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism in Félix Lope de Vega y Carpio (Q165257) Ruy (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for three days - Fuzheado (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2022 (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. Wolverène (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 169.244.3.137

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to add the value to the Hebrew language, and I'm right.

I want to add the value to the Hebrew language, and I'm right.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by אלו אלו (talk • contribs).

It would help if you could tell us what you this is about. Perhaps Battle of Athos (Q2659098)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Ping @אלו אלו: if you have not noticed the question. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge of deleted item

Please undelete Q25322618 and merge Q79756095 to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging deleting admin Multichill — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Multichill didn't respond so ✓ Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 14 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Mauricio Macri (Q561837)

Reason: edit war by an IP. —Frodar (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am the IP of the article, I don't have a Wikidata account, because I only collaborate from time to time, The user is reverting my changes arbitrarily and he himself is incurring the edit war. — 190.31.114.96 02:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm just reverting to the stable version. The IP is incurring in questionable behavior by editing many times per hour, and justifying its changes saying i'm "mad", "offended", "the owner of wikidata", etc. As explained, @190.31.114.96: if your edit doesn't work the most adequate decision is stop editing and discuss the changes, not beginning an edit war.—Frodar (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, arguing over a single word seems stupid to me, I'm not adding anything offensive to the description, it's just "nation" 190.31.114.96 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Then discuss the addition of the word, but don't try to revert again if you know that strategy it's failing because an editor is consistently opposing your changes. Seek for a consensus instead.—Frodar (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry!, ¿are you an administrator and I didn't realize? you behave as if you were one all time, I tried to reach an agreement with you, but I see that this will not be possible, I will let an ADMINISTRATOR make the decision that he considers correct. you can't ban a person from editing something just because you don't like it. 190.31.114.96 16:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm open to any discussion. But with reversals, accusations of bad judgement (that I'm "mad" or "offended" or that I believe myself the "owner of Wikidata") and comments loaded with irony we will not get anywhere. Even so, I think we should discuss the appropriateness or not of the edition in another section. I'm just here for the reasonable semi-protection and I don't want that objective to be distorted by the context. —Frodar (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I fully protected the article yet again.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:78.190.105.91

78.190.105.91 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on Dinosaur Game (Q82235406). –FlyingAce✈hello 18:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked Stryn (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 72.138.93.0/24

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 88.26.224.195

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 212.170.103.187

✓ Done Blocked 3 days. --Fralambert (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2022 (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. Fralambert (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User block request ViniKaHo

ViniKaHo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Creating non-notable and promotional items Rockpeterson (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I pointed this out to him on his talk page and I hope he now follows Wikidata's notability criteria. I wouldn't incur a penalty until he keeps creating data objects for self-promotion. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gymnicus Great! , will keep an eye on his further contributions Rockpeterson (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Q64398465

Hi, yesterday, will patrolling I see that Christina Karali (Q64398465) was blanked by repetition by 2A02:587:CC09:5782:6C8E:A01F:75FF:27C. I semiprotected it and then Nikos run started to blanked the content. What should I do? Fralambert (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked for a month. The user was previously blocked for a week for similar behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Fralambert (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2022 (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. Fralambert (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.171.8.47

212.171.8.47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Lots of vandalism for more than two weeks Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps also protect Jack PC (Q1994218), because there has been vandalism from many IPs since November 2021. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Protected Wikidata item for 3 months. - Fuzheado (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:千村桜子

千村桜子 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Long term abuse. SCP-2000 (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done globally by Operator873 --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:212.231.199.133

212.231.199.133 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism within the past two hours, e.g. [9] and [10]. Bridget (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 16 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 185.152.109.173

185.152.109.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Is having terrible fun replacing images with that of Peppa the Pig and other memes. Milliped (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month. --Lymantria (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Tchio Christian l'électricien

Tchio Christian l'électricien (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Self-promotion only acc Jan Myšák (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indeffed. Lymantria (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Q105103969 - Persistant vandalism of sorts..? Page's history says it all. Toastskat (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mahir256 --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

New round of Quesotiotyo batches

After having been repeatedly told that there is no consensus (quite some support yes, but also a lot of opposition) for changing English descriptions on a mass-scale, Quesotiotyo has started another batch 75984. I feel that this is unacceptable and should result in a block of at least two weeks. But as I was very active in previous discussions, I would like to ask other administrators for action. CC BrokenSegue --Emu (talk)

✓ Done, I blocked the user for two weeks. Mass edits on this project require consensus, and it is clear that consensus has not been established despite complaints against the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thoughts on limiting the block to the main namespace? it'd be good if they used the time to build consensus. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Now they have posted an unblock request, and I believe another administrator should look into it. I do not object limiting the block to the main namespace,.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I limited it just to the main namespace. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter I don't think the complaints were about the same type of edits and I find your characterization of these as "nonsensical" offensive and inadequate. --- Jura 09:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but I fail to see how an item description "(1882-1967)" is sensical. Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it's "(1882-1967)"@en not "en (1882-1967)". It differentiates people from others with the same name, but different lifespan. --- Jura 09:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
If I am using structural Commons for example this is unlikely to help me. Anyway, there should have been a discussion before thousands of such edits have been made. Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It depends what information you have available. It's unlikely that you will have a description that describes a person's physical appearance. You wont be off any worse either. --- Jura 10:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess a description like "German architect" or "French alpine skier" is way more useful. But, again, the point is not so much what I think, the point is this should have been discussed, and the user got complaints about similar mass-edits earlier. Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I think "American politician" is the most useless description possible.
Anyways, it's really for the complainer to establish that an edit doesn't meet Help:Description. --- Jura 11:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:USSF144

USSF144 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This user has been adding unfactual claims relating Malaysia like claiming Sabah (Q179029) as a state that is illegally occupied by Malaysia and other facts. They are blocked indefinitely in enwiki. --Tofeiku (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done globally by AmandaNP --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Q471580

The same LTA, which has been blocked in el.wikipedia and en.wikipedia [11] and created an edit war in Q229760, that lead to its protection from MisterSynergy now has started to make similar changes in Q471580, which I'm prety sure will lead to another edit war. --C messier (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I was correct. He is edit warring. --C messier (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 17 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Spammers

Hi, please block and nuke all pages created by these spammers (or should I say "this spammer"?). Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:26, 17 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Claim to add Good Article Budge to Q7817054

Hey, I am Japanese Wikipedian. This time, jawp community has decided to nominate たぬきち(Tom Nook, Q7817054) as a Good Article. It seems that I have no permission to do this action. I'll be grateful if one of Wikidata sysop does instead. Thank you.--Sethemhat (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. stanglavine msg 17:01, 17 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Sakura Haruno (Q203240)

Persistent vandalism. Ruy (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 17 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism at the data object Q22964187

The data object Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source (Q22964187) is currently experiencing recurring vandalism this year. I ask that the administrators take a look and advise on a possible protection of the data object. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by MisterSynergy --Emu (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (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. Emu (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Madara Uchiha (Q700543)

Presistent vandalism. BAJI 13:57, 18 February 2022 (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. Emu (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Monkey D. Luffy (Q477948)

Persistent vandalism. Ruy (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2022 (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. Emu (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Supaplex (talk • contribs • logs)

Please look at my edit. I was only trying to fix the interwiki links between Commons and the other wikis, but I did not intend to cause an edit war in doing so. My problem is that he he didn't fill in the edit summary to explain why he undo it.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure what are you doing? You merge a disambiguation page page with a bridge item. There are two separate concepts that should be two itemsSupaplex (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Supaplex: But the problem is that the linked Wikipedia article in the data object Jianying Bridge (Q107708822) is not a disambiguation page. I don't speak Chinese now, but the structure of the article doesn't look like a disambiguation page to me. --Gymnicus (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It might be a much longer article compare to normal disambiguation page. But the content combine the old bridge, the new bridge and the movie inspired by the story of construction of the old bridge.Supaplex (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
For people who is not familiar with the issue the Jianying Bridge on zh Wikipedia describe the old bridge, the new bridge and the movie with the same name combined together. Several months ago due to the new bridge will be open to public, I create separate items for the new bridge and the movie. And with discuss with the Wikidata Taiwan community during the monthly OpenStreetMap x Wikidata meetup in Taipei, we decide to found a new Wikidata item which link to the correspond zh Wikipedia article, which is a Wikimedia disambiguation page, and a new Wikidata item for the new bridge. I think the change of zh Wikipedia article link to a another Wikidata item confused Kai3952. Supaplex (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Supaplex: Nevertheless, the Wikipedia article is not a disambiguation page. I would rather recommend you to take the statement Jianying Bridge (Q107708822)instance of (P31)Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) at the beginning. For a good example of such a data object, you can look at uneven bars (Q854680). As you can see there, you can then link both the new bridge and the old bridge via a the statements Jianying Bridge (Q107708822)main subject (P921)Jianying Bridge (Q15925560) and Jianying Bridge (Q107708822)main subject (P921)Jianying Bridge (Q107708834). From my point of view, this would be the more sensible variant than doing it via a non-"really" existing disambiguation page. Regarding the Wikimedia Commons category, I would recommend that if there should be pictures for the new bridge, you have a supercategory for the old and the new bridge, which you then associate with the data object Jianying Bridge (Q107708822). The new and the old bridge then each have their own category, which is linked to the respective data object. In my opinion, that way there is less confusion. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems make sense to me. I change 箭瑛大橋（Q107708822） 性質 （P31） to 包含多個話題的維基百科條目（Q21484471）Supaplex (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at this diff. You are undo the interwiki links again, and it looks like vandalism to me. You are doing nothing except making it worse. I had no intention of ever linking it to anything. If you think you're doing the right thing, then go ahead and do it. Be that as it may, I remind you that per en:WP:CIR: "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus."--Kai3952 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kai3952: Because you bring up the subject of “consensus” yourself in your comment. There is currently a consensus and this consensus was – as Supaplex says – reached at a monthly meeting of Wikidata and Openstreetmap users in Taipei. What this consensus says is what Supaplex described in its comment of February 9, 2022 at 4:45 p.m. After he changed the consensus a bit after my request, I'm currently behind the consensus. It is certainly the case that everything is not perfect yet, especially in relation to the Wikimedia Commons category. But if there are pictures of the new bridge, then this problem will also be solved. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what consensus you are talking about. If what Supaplex said is true, then he should fix it. But he didn't! Look at c:Category:Jianying Bridge. There are no interwiki links on the category page to indicate where else it may be in use (which for example I am linked to twice in the "箭瑛大橋" article, but it is atrocious that they were all undo by Supaplex). Since he's made clear to me that he doesn't care about the needs of readers or wiki users, of course I have to remind him. Otherwise, what do you want me to do?--Kai3952 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kai3952: I can understand your problem with the interwiki link and as I said, in relation to the Wikimedia Commons category, not everything has been perfectly resolved. Nevertheless, the category currently only refers to the old bridge, because both pictures Jian-ying Bridge , Hualien.JPG and Jian-ying Bridge 2 , Hualien.JPG are from 2009. From my point of view, a link exclusively to the data object Jianying Bridge (Q15925560) is correct, because this deals with the old bridge. As a solution to this problem I see the possibility of uploading pictures of the new bridge. Then both the old bridge and the new bridge can get a Wikimedia Commons category and you can create a supercategory, which then links to the data object Jianying Bridge (Q107708822). --Gymnicus (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Please don't ping me, there is no need. As I said, I had no intention of ever linking it to anything.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of identifiers from the data object Q567

The GND identifiers 1210121425, 1012907104 and 1090428227 were deleted from the data object Angela Merkel (Q567) by the user Kolja21. These identifiers are only redirects and are referred as redundant by Kolja21. Nonetheless, the rule here at Wikidata is that information should not be deleted from data objects, even if they are outdated. That's why I ask that the deletions of Kolja21 be administratively reversed. --Gymnicus (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've explained to Gymnicus why I removed the entries as part of the maintenance work, see User talk:Kolja21#Löschen von Identifikatoren. @Emu, Nikki: FYI. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Keeping or not external IDs which have been redirected or deleted is the object of a RfC (Wikidata:Requests for comment/Handling of stored IDs after they've been deleted or redirected in the external database) which is stalled as of now; there is no clear consensus for keeping these IDs or not and how to keep them (deprecated, not deprecated ...); until this RfC reaches a conclusion, I fully support the maintenance done by Kolja21; I usually proceed in the same way, substantially agreeing with the position expressed by Ivan A. Krestinin in the RfC. --Epìdosis 16:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks and just to be clear: I do not generally delete redirects or obsolete identifiers. Some are useful. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. Looking at that RfC I don't see a substantial number supporting removing stale identifiers. The consensus seems clear. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that numerically most users seemed to support keeping outdated identifiers, but there are still two problems: 1) most users didn't specify how to keep outdated IDs (i.e. present IDs with normal rank and outdated with deprecated rank or present IDs with preferred rank and outdated with normal rank) and 2) the concerns by Ivan haven't been addressed yet. --Epìdosis 17:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The deletions had nothing to do with maintenance at all. The identifiers were already waiting. As you can see here, here and here, the identifiers had already been flagged as derogatory and a qualifier had already been used to indicate that it was a redirect. So the maintenance was already completed. Kolja21 justifies the processing by saying that the data object Angela Merkel (Q567) falls out of the maintenance list Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P227 due to the deletion. However, this justification is more than doubtful, because the data object is only in it because the bot that creates the list cannot recognize any disapproving statements. Thus the entry of the data object in the list is “false positive”. --Gymnicus (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: You ask for changes to be “administratively reversed” which is a concept familiar to de.wp (administrativ entfernt [administratively removed] yields more than 1.200 search results there). But enforcing a particular modeling or indeed version of the truth is not really how admins work on Wikidata. At the moment I see no reason for admins to intervene in this conflict. --Emu (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: But administrators enforce some kind of modeling or rule when there is consensus for it. My current status here in Wikidata is the best example of that. Regarding the removal of no longer existing identifiers or forwarding identifiers, there is already a consensus in the request for comment “Handling of stored IDs after they've been deleted or redirected in the external database”. There you can see that a majority voted for keeping such identifiers. So why is this consensus not enforced here? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gymnicus I’m well aware of this discussion. However, this discussion mostly concerns itself with what is desirable in theory, in principle and in general (with some notable exceptions like the comments of Epìdosis and Ivan A. Krestinin). It does not reflect current practice for GND ID (P227). I should know, GND ID (P227) is basically the reason why I joined Wikidata.
It’s a pretty common (albeit problematic) characteristic of Wikidata that documentation, theory and practice are sometimes very different things. Case in point is a matter close to your heart: the notability of Wikimedians. So it’s not possible to pinpoint consensus to the open discussion of a RfC (a system which is, I think, generally believed to be broken anyway).
As you know, I’m fairly sympathetic to your quest to hold Wikidata accountable to its own standards. But I’m not sure that there is a standard here after all. And if Kolja21 and Epìdosis agree on a GND ID (P227)-related issue, that’s something to consider. --Emu (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Wiki Chumabu

This is returning LTA Muhammad Farhan Zahid who has been globally blocked for vanityposting (link), which he is still doing now.

Should probably be blocked and have his content deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Speedy deletions are pending on 4 other wikis; in the moment this is done, then it can be safely deleted on this project. —Hasley+ 02:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 365PropertyBuyers

Warned. Bovlb (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Pino barilari

Pino barilari (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA Jan Myšák (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. Lymantria (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Block needed

Vandal Tabboniuth (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) keeps vandalizing random items, a block is needed. Thanks, --France3c0 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Id183

Id183 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Replacing Korean labels / descriptions with English labels / descriptions. Edits need to be reviewed due to the lengthy extent of activity. CrystalLemonade (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. --Lymantria (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Akm636v

Akm636v (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account Ruy (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Lymantria --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concering ZaidaMiller2002

ZaidaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Obvious sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), as shown by user name and edits. Same type of edits as other recent socks, like interest in dead children [12] [13], silly language additions [14] and unsourced data on video games. Sjö (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Lymantria --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Yourcamila

This is returning user Anshuman Tiwari Official who has been globally blocked for vanityposting (link), which he is still doing now.

Should probably be blocked and have his content deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Globally locked--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:93.47.112.110

93.47.112.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalising and edit warring IP. --Dorades (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Dorades (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:93.94.15.204

93.94.15.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism Infrastruktur (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP range is that of a municipal network covering among other things primary and secondary schools. Spotted older vandalism from addresses in the same subnet dating back to 2015 that has never been cleaned up. Infrastruktur (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:102.159.28.3

102.159.28.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Dartyytrad (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Edits reverted. No edits since two months, so there is no need for a block. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:ChanWasonasong

User:ChanWasonasong is canvassing me across several wikis to make edits for them on the Horror film article. They have edited across several WikiProjects and have no come here. (they are currently banned under several IPs and other items). Could I have my talk page here locked/deleted? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Since they have already been blocked on enwikibooks because of the same behaviour, I have blocked them here as well and deleted your talk page, since there have been no edits by other users. I am not a big fan of protecting talk pages, because they should be used to discuss with a user. --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, they have returned as an IP, so I have semi-protected your talk page for a week. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2001:268:9091:5B81:0:35:BF69:401

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

blacklist verified handles xxx

Some bot is currently changing english descriptions of many different items to "blacklist verified handles xxx" from different IP accounts. Any way to stop this?--Hjart (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs an abuse filter. We have seen a similar edit pattern that involved plenty of IP addresse two days ago (or so) with P9395 (P9395) claim additions. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It can be reverted programmatically though? Hjart (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think it can and I will take care of it later this day if nobody else does so. In the meantime, you can relatively efficiently use reCh to undo these changes manually (please use rollback). —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Should all be done by now, as much as I am aware. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:128.71.170.7

128.71.170.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalising labels Daniel Baránek (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Related to the previous section on this page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 79.77.103.71

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 190.26.210.43

✓ Done by Gnoeee --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 95.235.103.233

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Wolverène (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 148.3.123.180

148.3.123.180 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) IP sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) as shown by geolocation and edited articles, including crosswiki edits. Sjö (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 2 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How long does it take before vandalism is reverted?

At Wikipedia vandalism is normally reverted in seconds or minutes. Is it much longer here? Example:

Please help me check that the revert did not cause any problems.

Any other long reaction time examples?

Tomastvivlaren (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Most reverts happen within the first ~2 days after a malicious edit has been made. However, there is no systematic parsing of all edits, thus there are cases which are not reverted for a long time. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Basically until it's discovered. There are relatively fewer people watching changes in Wikidata than in Wikipedia though, so there's more of a chance that vandalism will go unnoticed for some time.--Hjart (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that long reaction time examples might help us understand how to detect the most difficult forms of vandalism.
Statistics of reverting time might be helpful in checking if the anti-vandalism efforts are sufficiently efficient for the moment.
Do you have some suggestion for automatic tags that would be helpful in detecting suspicous vandalism?
Can the manual anti-vandalism task be devided into languages, topics etc, that different users are interested in supervising, by means of tags?Tomastvivlaren (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Some remarks:
  • The revision-based patrolling process that we use here fits for Wikipedias, but not so much for Wikidata with its "atomic edits". Individual edits are often difficult to assess without further context. Revision-based tags as well as ORES scoring have not been very helpful yet, aside from the very obvious cases. I think we need a user- and page-based revision process, but the software does not really help us with such a workflow.
  • Patrolling is often difficult because language skills might be required.
  • Vandalism is actually a pretty rare phenomenon, both compared to Wikipedias (which are much more visible to end users) and to the entire amount of data we have here.
  • The number of editors how really engage in counter-vandalism activites is rather small. However, it is difficult to recruit editors for counter-vandalism patrolling if there is actually not that much to do.
  • There are already some filter tools to help patrollers with their job. You can for instance only patrol term changes in a given language, or claim changes for a given property.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to put e.g. all footballers, actors, cities in the USA or citizens of Denmark, on or off my watchlist? Because then I would certainly be interested. Hjart (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
For items on your watchlist, you can simply use the watchlist filter options to limit display to unpatrolled changes. Similarly, you can use Special:RecentChangesLinked on with a list page that you manage (or e.g. Listeria manages). —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Please note that I've been reverting vandalism here for a couple years now. I'm also an administrator on dawiki. I am fairly familiar with those options and they are not what I was asking for. Hjart (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflict on the image for Venus de Milo (Q151952)

Hello, I have a conflict with an anonymous IP about he choice of the image for the Venus of Milo. I put a link to an explanation in a revert for the choice in a revert that I made. I let a message yesterday on the IP page but the answer was a new anonymous revert and a message on my discussion page asking for stopping to post my photo. This is not my photo and I don't know the photographer. It's the image chosen in French Wikipedia for documentary reasons. For trying to find a solution I started a topic on the talk page of the item. It's quite disheartening to have a conflict with an anonymous contributor. What is possible to do in this situation ? Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shonagon: I see a very simple solution to the problem here. Simply use both images in the data object and then set one of the two to the preferred rank. From my point of view, there is no need for an edit war. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: The photo is his and he is trying in every way possible to replace it with his own photo while his is of inferior quality and with the wrong perspective. Is this a free encyclopaedia anyway, or just for users? Greetings --5.168.52.165 17:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:220.124.67.41

220.124.67.41 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Unnecessary remove sitelinks. Cross-wiki abuse [https://meta.toolforge.org/stalktoy/220.124.67.41】 SCP-2000 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In today's edits, I honestly don't see a block reason because the IP there just removes redirect links. Whether the use of forwarding links makes sense in this case is debatable. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Unjal

This user's edits are very suspicious. I found this user because of phab:T301950.--GZWDer (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from property namespace. A block from other namespaces may be needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Fernando de Rojas (Q353841)

Persistent vandalism. Ruy (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jasper Deng --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:185.54.195.57

185.54.195.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.139.222.218

2.139.222.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 week. --Lymantria (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC close request

Hi all! Wikidata:Requests for comment/Frequency of YouTube follower count data has been open for several months, with no new activity since last November. Could an uninvolved administrator or other experienced editor wrap it up so we can move forward? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocking IP range?

(moved from here) --Derzno (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Currently I’m working on bavarian cultural heritage monuments (200k). While I’m fixing issues I saw that an IP is providing again and again same issues which are not in line with the common structure, use of property and the way of working. Now I’m getting tired to fix permanently without chance to of discussion and telling this user that he have to change his way of working. The IP edist are comming all out of the same range like this or this. Is it possible to block these IP range? The remainig work on cultural heritage monuments still heavy enought and i don’t won’t any more to clean up this problems. @Ordercrazy: fyi. --Derzno (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I sympathize with the problem of trying to communicate with an ever-changing IP address, but these two IPs are not close enough for a range block. Can you give more examples, and some specific diffs? Also, this request should really be on WD:AN. Bovlb (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb:, I'd sorted out a couple more IPs issues given by these IPs. As said it's painfull and frustrating that such changes could be made from IPs without any discussion. I'll guess the IP see how and who is working on the subjects and had also the chance to start discussion on my page. I don't see this as typical vandalism and the edits looks to me as an experianced user having normaly an account but no motivation to discuss something. At the end it brings additional work and it should be a headsup to the IP saying "STOP!". By the way I'd added this content now to WD:AN either --Derzno (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Add on: To show the result, see here the remaining fillup of issues. --Derzno (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Gio Marco Nero 95

Gio Marco Nero 95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, I just spotted his two only edits. One was unnoticed until I open the label in Italian and cleaned it up. It's 100% disruptive account already blocked on itwikipedia after one edit, please evaluate some actions.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection

Date Masamune (Q311183) --Trade (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The vandalizing IP has been blocked. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2603:8080:600:AA7F:D5EB:EFA0:C66C:5C03

2603:8080:600:AA7F:D5EB:EFA0:C66C:5C03 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:159.253.160.207

159.253.160.207 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Racist vandalism. Block? https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3036213&diff=1575425255&oldid=1562507826 Zanimum (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This behaviour carries over to English Wikipedia the user seems to be persistent. I'm an admin on en-wp, and banning this IP there for six months. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
An example of edits:
January 31, ethnicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romaldo_Giurgola&diff=prev&oldid=1069070249
February 14, birth year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romaldo_Giurgola&diff=prev&oldid=1071822652

Report concerning: User:Baranably

✓ Done This is unfortunately common. I deleted all the items they made. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The user seems to be recreating the items and/or others. Perhaps sanctions are in order. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Warned. Bovlb (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Operations seem to have expanded to Birhatablay3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done by Lymantria --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Infobox Greek local community

Hello! Could somebody please delete Template:Infobox Greek local community which I created accidentally and has no id. I cannot figure out how to delete it using the deletion request as it has no id nor can I merge it. Thank you. FilipposTrains (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Metehanmorgil

Metehanmorgil (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism (diff, diff) Supermæn (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User warned. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Crosswiki spam by Alpaca5000

Crosswiki spam by Alpaca5000 (talk • contribs • logs). Articles already deleted on fr.wp, en.wp, es.wp... Gyrostat (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


✓ Done Q110891285 still exists on dewiki and is nominated for deletion. Everything else is nuked. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Debite Man

Debite Man (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Vandalising item Q98760003 Rockpeterson (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done User warned. Lymantria (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2022 (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. Lymantria (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Analcunftist

Analcunftist (talk • contribs • logs) does not look like they're here to build whatever it is we're building. Block? --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Uli Elch

Uli Elch (talk • contribs • logs) has repeatedly tried to change the concept of aircraft model (Q15056995) by giving it misleading aliases and descriptions in German due to their conviction that the item's label is not official terminology, today again with Special:Diff/1583854291. This effectively leads to a conflation of two different concepts and causes major confusion in general modelling of aircrafts since aircraft model (Q15056995) is very frequently used as class for instance of (P31) (400+ instances). On the item's talk page there was a discussion in December 2021 started by me and another one from August 2018 started by Uli Elch which both include explanations directed at Uli Elch that conflations are not desired.

I would like to request than an administrator contacts Uli Elch and explains to them that this attempt at changing an item's underlying concept is not desired, since my attempt at persuading them obviously failed. --Nw520 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Type" is the official ICAO and Wikipedia term, not "model". ICAO is the highest aviation authority worldwide and the term is used like this in Wikipedia. Just see en:Aircraft model in the English WP or Flygplanmodell in the sv:WP. It has been discussed on Commons with the same result. See also Category:Models of aircraft in Commons.
It has been confused with "model aircraft" on creation by using US slang instead of professional English.
There has never been any consensus about this in the discussion Talk:Q15056995#Wrong term. This is logical, since the sheer number of use of this slang expression does not justify a wrong use in Wikidata, contrary to all official sources and other Wikipedia projects (en:WP, sv:WP, Commons). --Uli Elch (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Uli Elch Sind wir uns einig, dass Q15056995 sich konzeptuell auf ein Flugzeugmodell, -typ, -variante, -produkt oder wie man es immer nennen möchte im Sinne der „einfachen Einträge“ (also nicht Kategorien, etc.) von w:de:Kategorie:Ziviler Flugzeugtyp bzw. w:de:Kategorie:Militärischer Flugzeugtyp bezieht? Wenn ja, inwiefern ist Special:Diff/1583854291 ein sinnvoller Beitrag? --Emu (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Nein. Bitte den obigen Text und die Links beachten, danke. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Uli Elch Zuerst einmal ganz grundsätzlich: Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob dir klar ist, dass es hier potentiell um Sanktionen bis hin zu einer temporären oder dauerhaften Sperre deines Accounts geht. Deine Antwort könnte für den skeptischen Beobachter patzig wirken, hilfreich ist sie jedenfalls nicht.
Was genau ist deine Position? Wenn du der Meinung bist, dass Q15056995 etwas mit Modellflug im Sinne von w:de: Flugmodell zu tun hat, dann muss ich dich bitten, einzusehen, dass das nicht der Konsens über die Bedeutung des Items ist. --Emu (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not speaking German I had to gtranslate some of the above and the talk page. But generally I don't think what ICAO says is that important (unless the class represents a classification controlled by them). Labels should be human understandable and aliases should include terms that could possibly by construed to mean the same thing. I'm fairly confused what the difference between aircraft type (Q45296117) and aircraft model (Q15056995) is supposed to be and I agree with @Joshbaumgartner:'s analysis on the matter. Either the two should be merged or one should be a subclass of the other (or should share some super class). All that said I'm not sure there's anything to be done by admins here. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BrokenSegue Thanks for your opinion and, speaking as a layman, I fully agree with you that the two items look similar.
In the discussion it has been explained to Uli Elch already that instead of trying to change the concept described by aircraft model (Q15056995) to model aircraft (Q60055387) (which would make all uses in instance of (P31) wrong), they should rather change the label to what they perceive as correct (while retaining the underlying concept), i.e. rename to aircraft type/Flugzeugtyp and check whether it can be merged with aircraft type (Q45296117) or elaborate how the concepts are different. What they are doing instead is sticking to the existing — from a layman's perspective ambiguous — German label and trying to change the concept to model aircraft (Q60055387), which not only would introduce yet another duplicate but also — judging from the item's claims, labels, descriptions in all other languages and use with P31 — conflict with the intended concept of the item.
My reason for requesting an administrator's help is I do not see any possibility to convince Uli Elch anymore, because the request to not intermingle separate concepts was presented to them not only by me but also by Valentina.Anitnelav (and in both German and English). WikiProject Aviation has been informed about this dispute too and from what I can tell consensus had been reached in the discussion. I do think that Uli Elch is acting with best intentions but IMO these edits do more harm than good. --Nw520 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I can't read German but if they are trying to convert aircraft model (Q15056995) to model aircraft (Q60055387) then yeah that is definitely unacceptable. The two concepts are very different. There's currently no German description for aircraft model (Q15056995) and I do not know what "Modellflug" (Uli's proposed description) means. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I've removed Uli's previous German description ("Term from aircraft modeling"). When they added theirs it broke consistency with all other languages ("specific model" to "model aircraft").
"Modellflug" ≈ model aircraft building (Q210403) --Nw520 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Emu: Ich räume ein, dass mein letzter Eintrag nicht der Konsens über die Bedeutung des Items ist. Allerdings gibt es, wie oben dargelegt, keinen de:Konsens (übereinstimmende Meinung).
Zu Deiner Beruhigung: Unabhängig davon habe ich nicht die Absicht, dies noch einmal weiter zu verfolgen. Der Eintrag selbst wurde auch inzwischen ohnehin revertiert, obwohl die Diskussion n och nicht abgeschlossen war. Das sind halt Stilfragen. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Das Item wird ausweislich dieser Abfrage von fast 7914 Items genutzt – soweit ich sehe, ausschließlich in der von mir genannten Bedeutung. Aber wie auch immer, dann ist das Thema an dieser Stelle gelöst. --Emu (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2022 (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. Emu (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kolja21

See also: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2022/02#Deletion_of_identifiers_from_the_data_object_Q567, User_talk:Kolja21#Löschen_von_Identifikatoren, and User_talk:Kolja21#Löschungen_von_Fundstellen_bei_Identifikatoren

As you can see from the examples Special:Diff/1581213124, Special:Diff/1581231260, Special:Diff/1581210848 and Special:Diff/1581210165 he removes the references from identifier statements. This is destructive behavior and should be sanctioned. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: please speak to Kolja21 to find out why they are doing this instead of demanding sanctions straightaway — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Okay if that's what you want. But I don't see much point in it, because Kolja continues to delete GND identifiers from data objects despite my request, but you administrators don't really care about that. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Because I have now also written to him on his discussion page, I have also linked this discussion via the template {{See also}}. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
We've had this discussion twice. It's about the blocking of Gymnicus: "Removing content from pages: continuing to remove references after being asked not to." He wants to prove that the blocking of his account was unfair. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kolja21: your actions are apparently controversial. Would you mind stopping until there is a stronger consensus that they are appropriate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial in replacing a wrong ID added by a bot with a correct ID. If you take a look at the edits of Gymnicus you can see that he is trolling arroud. Please block this user to stop the harassment! @Epìdosis: FYI. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I quote "There is nothing controversial in replacing a wrong ID added by a bot with a correct ID": I perfectly agree, regarding P214 there was also a previous discussion reaching consensus (Property_talk:P214/Archive_2#Removal_of_redirected_and_deleted_IDs). --Epìdosis 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Epìdosis here. I would also do the same, especially if VIAF changed the ID to the correct one - the source would be invalid, or at the very least it would be useless to keep a deprecated value in this case. IMHO we can dismiss this request. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
If Epìdosis already mentions the discussion “Removal of redirected and deleted IDs”, then you should also mention the request for comment Handling of stored IDs after they've been deleted or redirected in the external database. There you can see that a majority of the participants are against the deletion of external links that either no longer “work” or lead to another link. Nevertheless, I understood and accepted Emu's “decision” in the discussion Deletion of identifiers from the data object Q567. Because even with this request for comment, the crucial point is “in general”. But that should be it for this point, because this is not about removing of identifiers, but about removing references from identifiers. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I have subsequently erroneous statement of mine by crossing out as such markings. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course. But in general, if a statement changes (being it an identifier or another type of statement), the old references should be changed as well; otherwise, referring the old reference to a different ID would be wrong (cfr. Wikidata:Mismatched reference notification input). So the question resorts to the previous one: if removing obsolete IDs is judged correct, then also their references should be removed; if removing obsolete IDs is judged incorrect, then they will be kept with their reference. And for this of course stands the ongoing RfC. --Epìdosis 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

All examples seem to refer to former Tn entries of GND ID (P227). For those who aren’t connoisseurs of now removed legacy parts of German authority control standards: First of all, lucky you. Second of all, those were entries for names, not specific people. Deleting them is one thing, but replacing them with correct values shouldn’t be controversial at all. Am I missing something? --Emu (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, late at night, mistakes happen. That's why I crossed out the statement "But that should be it for this point, because this is not about removing of identifiers, but about removing references from identifiers." in my last comment and marked it as incorrect or faulty. The point here is, of course, that statements that contain references have been deleted or edited. Even if the statement was incorrect, as Emu clearly wrote in his comment, it is still the case here on Wikipedia, in my opinion, that such statements are kept. This can be seen, for example, in the conspiracy theory birthplace of Barack Obama, which is also given in Wikidata, or the indication of Terence Eden as the author of the Mona Lisa. The second was stated at least until January 3, 2022, when the statement was deleted by the user Oursana. This deletion was also likely against Wikidata's rules. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I can only participate in the discusson if you quote what you are writing about--Oursana (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Oursana: I mentioned you for the edit Special:Diff/1555489369. Which can be seen as a violation of the Wikidata rules. Therefore, the edit should be undone. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Move request Wikidata:SPARQL query service -> Wikidata query service

Move Wikidata:SPARQL query service --> Wikidata:Wikidata Query Service

The latest evidence of community approval is at

Past discussions are at

For context and to repeat past discussion, there is a tool which Wikidata users call by various names. The most common name for the tool is "Wikidata query service" or even "WDQS", whereas the documentation's title is "SPARQL query service". I am asking for a move.

@Matěj Suchánek: the last time I requested this in 2018 you wanted more conversation. This has not been a popular topic, but at least since then there has been no opposition and some support. Since you evaluated this request previously, would you please comment here again? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Currently there are 229 links to Wikidata:SPARQL query service. Most of these are links from newsletters on userpages. In my view this is a reasonably low number of incoming links which Wikidata editors can fix casually as needed without planning in advance.

I do worry about Category:Wikidata:SPARQL query service which contains 196 items, mostly translations. I am not sure how much trouble it is to move a page with translations.

Thanks for anyone who can comment or execute the move. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I just want to point out that this could not be done by admins/translation admins, because there are more than 500 pages. But a move could be requested at phabricator. (I think @Martin Urbanec: has done this for the OTRS / VRT renaming on Meta). --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ameisenigel: Thanks for the feedback. Can you tell me how you see more than 500 pages? As I mentioned, I see 196 subpages in the Category. I checked the page info and see that it counts 242 subpages, so 50 in addition to the ones in the category. How did you see more than 500?
I am asking so that I can explain if and when I post to phabricator. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure. If you use the button Move and then Check if the move is possible (TA rights needed) you get the following message:

The translatable page cannot be moved to a new name because of the following error:

Wikidata:SPARQL query service

This translatable page consists of over 500 pages. Moving this many pages has been found to be unreliable. Please contact a system administrator to do this via a maintenance script.

--Ameisenigel (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T302684
Thanks, that is sufficient. I made a phabricator request as linked here. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem with getting this done. I can see I was too strict in 2018 and instead of letting the discussion run just rejected the request. I'm sorry if that was the cause of this overdue.
Indeed, cooperation of sysadmins is now needed. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: You did everything right. This is a big move, and there was not enough discussion in 2018, and you were right to ask for more. Please continue to make correct calls and tell people no when necessary rather than approve messy situations. I am still a bit anxious about this because there are a lot of pages and sorting this is not simple. Regardless, thanks for giving your opinion here. I am going to advance the move process and maybe discuss more on the main talk page. Thanks. Nothing more needed here at this admin board.
This section was archived on a request by: Bluerasberry (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Reporting 67.226.221.78

67.226.221.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Malicious modifications. Pierre cb (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning. Hazard-SJ (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:81.214.166.107

81.214.166.107 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

IP is no longer active. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Asemahle1

Asemahle1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, Wikidata edits and several wikimedia common edits are not constructive. Kethyga (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User warned --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Vodafone vandal

I don't know how to deal with the user known as "Vodafone vandal". I have only came across them this january, but there seem to be a longer history (cf. here, here and here). When they were a registered user, I reached a consensus on a few things with them (cf. here and here), but they never implemented them. Since they were blocked, they continue to edit with changing IPs, so it is pretty useless to try to write to them; I have seen dozens of IPs which are most likely connected to them. They engage in items related to telecommunication and I am not sure if their edits are entirely vandalism, but I don't know how to handle their often wrong or problematic edit behaviour. For some current conflicts, cf. Alice Home TV (Q3788743), Intesa Sanpaolo (Q1343118) or Welcome Italia (Q47517949). To me, it has become a waste of time reverting them, since they come back daily with another IP and engage with too many items to keep track of things. --Dorades (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits on the items mentioned and semi-protected them. --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you also semi-protect Three Ireland (Q19840921) and Carrefour Mobile (Q2530120), please? Same user ... --Dorades (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Same applies for Telecom Italia Foundation (Q3747224), Mediaset Extra (Q3853711), NPO 3 (Q1455479), TIM Group (Q144617), MASS Response (Q107483089), Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (Q1048204), Mediaset Infinity (Q3937931), Google TV (Q841291), Vodafone Netherlands (Q17031826). I don't think it is optimal to semi-protect more and more items, but I don't see a better way to deal with this. --Dorades (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Cf. this message on my talk page. --Dorades (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I have just semi-protected a few items. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
New round: Telecom Italia Foundation (Q3747224), TIM Group (Q144617), Google TV (Q841291), Vodafone Foundation (Q99440281). --Dorades (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Reverted and semi-protected. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Unregenerate as always: Infinity+ (Q19655865) (cf. also this discussion on my talk page). --Dorades (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
as you can see I have done nothing wrong except to write him civilly on the talk page. I also motivated everything there. 151.15.62.57 20:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
... and you still don't implement the necessary revisions which I explained to you in detail.
I'm asking for semi-protection of Infinity+ (Q19655865). --Dorades (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
you don't understand that is not necessary remove the old social network links, because the service is now discontinued, and they can also be used in Wayback Machine. So don't remove them.151.19.157.236
✓ Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2022 (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. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC close request

Trying again since my last request here received no comment. Wikidata:Requests for comment/Frequency of YouTube follower count data has been open for several months, with no new activity since last November. Could an uninvolved administrator or other experienced editor wrap it up so we can move forward? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2022/02&oldid=1588836457"