Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Bacheca degli amministratori

Questa è una bacheca per tutte le questioni che richiedono l'attenzione degli amministratori.

• Per richieste di cancellazione, utilizzare Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
• Per segnalare un bug nel software Wikidata, per favore usa Wikidata:Report a technical problem o phabricator.
• I problemi che non richiedono l'azione degli amministratori vanno sollevati nella Project chat.
• I problemi che potrebbero richiedere l'azione dei check user vanno sollevati in Wikidata:Requests for checkuser.
• Per segnalare vandalismi su Wikidata: clicca qui.
• Aggiungi {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} per risolvere le sezioni.

Canale IRC: #wikidata^connect

Traduci questo box ora!

Inizia una nuova discussione

In questa pagina, le vecchie discussioni sono archiviate. Una panoramica di tutti gli archivi può essere trovata nell'indice. L'archivio attuale si trova in 2024/09.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~140 open requests for deletions.}

Requests for unblock

empty

_{0 open requests for unblock.}

Q91949506 and Q94696971

Can Q91949506 and Q94696971 be restored. If it was empty, I will fill in the details. Please ping me. RAN (discussione) 06:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: FYI. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is spam. The user who created the items attempts to use Wikidata to make their family tree. They have already been infinitely blocked for this at the English Wikipedia. As far as I am concerned, this is a clear misuse of the platform, they should instead go to the appropriate resources like Rodovid. Ymblanter (discussione) 07:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot see them, but looking at other entries by this person they have a structural need. Wikidata:Notability: "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." Please restore, at least temporarily so I can see what is going on and if they were "described using serious and publicly available references". We are only supposed to not be involved in "self promotion". If they are welcome at Rodovid, they should be welcome here, since we use Rodovid as one of our Identifiers. Did these go through the standard deletion nomination? We should not be going by "As far as I am concerned", we are supposed to follow Wikidata:Notability and community consensus when Wikidata:Notability is vague. --RAN (discussione) 09:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  The notion that an external identifier makes any item notable has been continuously rejected by the community. Of course some users misuse the notability criteria by creating walling gardens of relatives of relatives of relatives of notable people, but this is why we have tools to delete items and to block users. Ymblanter (discussione) 12:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Q91949506 was previously kept as it passed WDN3, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/07/26#Q91949506 Piecesofuk (discussione) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Q91949506 is Patricia F. Crass and Q94696971 is Marion Boisot. It appears to me that deletion was appropriate as neither item met WD:N. I would need convincing that they are notable before restoring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

For Marion Boisot she is involved in a case (text also replicated in various books). Also a number of mentions. GZWDer (discussione) 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Q94696971 should be restored since it can be used to connect three notable items (father and two husbands). GZWDer (discussione) 15:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Q130219966 has been created (hopefully not to override/bypass the deletion of Q94696971. It is now at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q130219966 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Formal request to restore Q94696971

@Wüstenspringmaus, Ymblanter: I here request to (1) restore old versions of Q94696971 and (2) restore and merge Q130219966 into it. This does not involve undeletion of other items or Commons category. My rationale is WD:N#3: this item is used as child of Emile Kellogg Boisot (Q5371574), and spouse of Byington Ford (Q5004096) and George Faunce Whitcomb (Q41635631) - connection of three notable items, and such information can not precisely be expressed otherwise.--GZWDer (discussione) 11:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Although not being pinged: I can live with restoration of this item. --Lymantria (discussione) 12:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ISNIplus

Editor @ISNIplus persists in failing to respond on their talk page and edit warring in the process. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 23:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see User talk:ISNIplus: Revision history, Special:Diff/2245610460, and Special:Diff/2245611209. Thank you. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 00:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, @ISNIplus introduced ~ 4000 external identifiers into Wikidata that were knowingly mistmatched or erroneous, in the following batch 237296, and refuses to discuss the reversion of the batch on their talk page. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that @ISNIplus would rather engage in bad faith accusations, such as accusing @Martin (MSGJ) of vandalism, regarding issues related to the same batch in question. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It was vandalism, look yourself. What you do is bad faith, because you claim "It appears that @ISNIplus would rather engage in bad faith accusations". Get your facts straight, too much fabricated verifiably wrong claims by you. ISNIplus (discussione) 00:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dcflyer, get your facts straight first:

1. It's a lie. The response has been linked [1] and you pinged [2] Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859#P7859_revival_proposal.
2. The user-talk-page history gives evidence for harassment by user DCflyer.
3. "~ 4000 external identifiers into Wikidata that were knowingly mistmatched or erroneous" - that is a lie too. See Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859#LCCN_-_2024-09-07_PM.

ISNIplus (discussione) 00:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to see the actions and attitude of ISNIplus in this episode. I reverted some of their erroneous edits with a polite edit summary, and I received hostile and beligerant responses — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please give links to edits that provide evidence for what you claim to have happened.

I only found evidence to the contrary, including same-minute reply "Please give an example" and nine-minute-later reply "Thanks for spotting" :

1. 12:54 "Hello. I have reverted seeral of your edits which introduced a identificativo della Biblioteca del Congresso (P244) with incorrect format. Please review the corrret format. Thanks." by MSGJ [3]
2. 12:54 "Please give an example" by ISNIplus [4]
3. 12:59 "The one I just reverted again. It is missing the final digit." by MSGJ [5]
4. 12:59 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q116111947&diff=prev&oldid=2245418735 - removal of valid external ID and two labels by MSGJ - which looked like vandalism to ISNIplus
5. 13:02 Topic:Ybzop0fjyjdnwzgk a friendly comment "Please don't vandalise"
6. 13:03 Thread by MSGJ "I will block your account if you continue to add incorrect values when you have already been advised they are correct" [6]
7. 13:03 "Thanks for spotting" by ISNIplus https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISNIplus&diff=prev&oldid=2245420113
8. 13:04 "You should not remove referenced values in the first place and maybe block yourself for vandalism." https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISNIplus&diff=next&oldid=2245420320

I think all of this can be dealt with at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859.

Summary for what have happenend in relation to Wikidata item content: The values having false formats came from P7859, existed there for a longer time, copying these values to P244 made the errors easier to spot. Reverting wasn't the way to go, but fixing the format error would have been, since the values were referenced and simply removing them removed the references. The references referenced WorldCat Identities (P7859 is marked "superseded"), which is is hint that the item may exist in WorldCat Entities (to be added to Property:P10832). ISNIplus (discussione) 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The three edits which I reverted were all erroneous: [7], [8], [9]. I assume there are likely to be many more, because these were just the ones I happened to spot. No, you should not expect other editors to clean these up for you. If you introduce errors, they will be reverted. In all three of these cases, the correct value was already present on the item, so there was nothing to do except delete the incorrect one — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you not understand about:

1. "I think all of this can be dealt with at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859."
2. "Summary for what have happenend in relation to Wikidata item content: [...]"

"If you introduce errors" - I didn't.

ISNIplus (discussione) 16:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi vibes are back, folks. Technically still a very competent editor, but as always unable to navigate in a collaborative environment. Once there is an editorial conflict, discussion culture goes south so much that various otherwise inconspicuous users get in trouble. Do we need a checkuser query first, or shall we just close the account indefinitely? —MisterSynergy (discussione) 18:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What "Tobias Conradi vibes"?

1. "Technically still a very competent editor"? What do you refer to? Who was where "still a very competent editor"?
2. "unable to navigate in a collaborative environment" - What do you refer to?
3. "Once there is an editorial conflict, discussion culture goes south so much that various otherwise inconspicuous users get in trouble." - Who made the "discussion culture" go south?
4. People get in trouble because of "discussion culture"? Then maybe they fix their "culture" and stop vandalism and harrasment. - MisterSynergy, get the facts straight and provide links. Attacking users with comments about them without providing *any* link that provides evidence for what you claim is what makes "discussion culture go[] south" and "otherwise inconspicuous users get in trouble".

Still no answer regarding the outright lies by Dcflyer. ISNIplus (discussione) 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

ISNIplus' batch 237296 started "Sept. 8, 2024, 12:31 a.m.", ended "Sept. 8, 2024, 3:11 a.m.", existing entities edited: 3988.

Database reports - Constraint violations - P244 : the two reports covering the time period of the batch's run, date time stamps 2024-09-07T11:59:15Z and 2024-09-08T11:58:59Z, report that single value constraint violations increased from 4986 to 8735 = + 3749, and unique value violations increased from 4755 to 5017 = + 262. Note: 3749 and 262 are not fully additive for determining the precise number of the affected items, because multiple of the erroneous edits have been observed to have triggered both single and unique value constraint violations.

Additionally, these numbers do not take into account the amount of errors introduced by several other batches run by ISNIplus. Those batches, with links to them, were listed in my comment that ISNIplus deleted from their user talk page. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 01:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Still no answer regarding the outright lies by Dcflyer. ISNIplus (discussione) 02:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed analysis. I'm afraid the response above is the last straw for me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: user now blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the user clearly cannot discuss in good faith nor respect other people. Samoasambia ✎ 14:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The correct P244 identifier value for Esercito prussiano (Q706042) — n80044963 — which was and is present on the item, was added to 15 other items, via three batches, triggering 16 unique value constraint violations.

ISNIplus batch 237144 : # 1 — # 2 — # 3 — # 4 — # 5 — # 6 — # 7 — # 8 — # 9

ISNIplus batch 237146 : # 10 — # 11 — # 12

ISNIplus batch 237147 : # 13 — # 14 — # 15

NB: These three batches were run between 4 September and 6 September 2024, prior to the above batch, 237296, on 8 September 2024. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The database reports for P244 constraint violations, covering the time period in which multiple ISNIplus batches were run between 4 September and 6 September 2024, indicate that single value constraint violations increased from 4906 to 4986 = + 80, while unique (distinct) value constraint violations increased from 2631 to 4755 = + 2124. -- DCflyer* (discussione) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Dcflyer

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

1. Wikidata project page vandalism [10] [11]
2. user talk harassment https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISNIplus&action=history

ISNIplus (discussione) 02:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Per our blocking policy (here #3 and #4) I would suggest a temporary block for this unacceptable behaviour by Dcflyer. Other opinions (@Lymantria, Estopedist1:)? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 04:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wüstenspringmaus: A week block for "cooling down" seems reasonable. --Lymantria (discussione) 05:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks do not usually work. w:en:WP:COOLDOWN. In this case I think a warning is needed and would be sufficient.--Jasper Deng (discussione) 05:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

yes Jasper Deng, cooldowning or shock-blocking doesn't work if we are dealing with so-called superWikipedians, lets say over 0.5 mln edits. There is definitely edit war at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859. My humble suggestion is that to focus on one or two concrete example, which is obvious vandalism/unacceptable action by related two users. And then to ask why they act in unacceptable way Estopedist1 (discussione) 06:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

E.g. if I see editwarring at User talk:ISNIplus, then both aren't acting in correct way. Estopedist1 (discussione) 06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

One might consider removing comments from "own" user talk pages acceptable. Then not both are acting incorrectly. --Lymantria (discussione) 08:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I see this case as Lymantria. @Dcflyer this is your final warning. If you don't stop you'll be blocked for a longer time. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see #Report concerning User:ISNIplus above. It not acceptable to ignore legitimate concerns expressed by other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"It not acceptable to ignore legitimate concerns expressed by other editors" - Agreed. But who ignored what? ISNIplus (discussione) 14:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the valid concern (with examples) and a request to revert the batch, which you rudely deleted without replying. The subsequent edit warring from both of you, was not ideal, and probably resulted from frustration due to your actions which could be seen as dismissive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. You claim "which you rudely deleted without replying" and in the link you show the response. ISNIplus (discussione) 16:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I see you are now doing the same with @Samoasambia. This has got to stop — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a link where I am "now doing the same with @Samoasambia" and explain what am I doing there that you label with "This has got to stop" - Attacking people without providing links isn't good behaviour, Martin, this has to be stopped by you. ISNIplus (discussione) 16:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@ISNIplus: Martin obviously refers to the fact that you deleted my comment from your talk page without giving a reason. Could you explain how Dcflyers's comment that you deleted on your talk page is "harrassment". I'm not super familiar with identificativo della Biblioteca del Congresso (P244) but to my eyes the concerns raised by Dcflyer look quite valid. Thank you. Samoasambia ✎ 20:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

1. "Martin obviously refers to the fact that you deleted my comment from your talk page without giving a reason." - How could that be, when 1) the removal of Martin's edit was done in an edit that proviveded a link to the appropriate page for that type of discussion s/he started (~ a "reason") and 2) in the edit summary that removed your edit I provided links to edits that provide evidence that removal of talk on ones own talk page is nothing that has community consensus in the form of "This has got to stop" . I suggest you stay out of this and let Martin speak for Martin, when I ask Martin.
2. 'Could you explain how Dcflyers's comment that you deleted on your talk page is "harrassment".' - No. Why do you ask?
3. "I'm not super familiar with Library of Congress authority ID (P244) but to my eyes the concerns raised by Dcflyer look quite valid." - Whatever that means, but the batch was explained, and Dcflyer chose to not reply to my reply, but started vandalism and harassment as notified in the beginning of this very section.

ISNIplus (discussione) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ISNIplus. To your first point: removal of my comment was the subject of the discussion, so I think I have a valid interest voicing my opinion on the matter. The links provided in the summary did not give a reason why the deletion of my comment was necessary. The second point: That was your given reason (see your first comment under this subheading) for deleting Dcflyers's comment. It would be helpful if you could give a bit more substantive reasoning. As I said, from my point of view the concerns raised by Dcflyers look valid. I don't think "the batch was explained" and "chose to not reply to my reply" are good reasons for deleting someone's comment raising concerns about the batch. Samoasambia ✎ 06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on talk page

There's some edit warring going on on User talk:ISNIplus. Samoasambia ✎ 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Samoasambia Please see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Vandalism and harassment by User:Dcflyer. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Samoasambia ✎ 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Q126487673

@Wüstenspringmaus: Please restore Alexander Dawson Henderson III (1924-2020) obituary (Q126487673) it was in use as a person described in an obituary. See: Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) The person is not living so there was no self-promotion involved. We have a 6-month lag in deletions but somehow this one was deleted on the day it was nominated, despite it being in use. The nomination and immediate deletion was by User:Wüstenspringmaus These deletions appear to be part of a campaign targeting people that are not English Wikipedia notable, yet meeting the requirement for Wikidata notability. An obituary is a serious and public reference, which defines Wikidata notability. Anyone with an obit is eligible for a Wikidata entry unless involved in self promotion, and dead people cannot self promote. RAN (discussione) 17:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto sorry, this was a mistake. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 17:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• There is already a request for sanctions against another person with admin rights at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems against User:Bedivere, for using the same tactics against the same type of entries that are Wikidata notable but not English Wikipedia notable. --RAN (discussione) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  RAN, why are you treating en.wiki as if it's a separately group while treating Commons as interrelated one? Graywalls (discussione) 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Please restore the following: See above for the problem of deleting entries out of process. The issue is not resolved the removal of Q93303092 has caused a cascade of problems as the person was mentioned in several obituaries. --RAN (discussione) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Object to blanket restoration. If anything, discussion should be re-activated. Please also see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q125118469. Your interpretation of notability doesn't show strong community consensus. Graywalls (discussione) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Q93303092 Q108054098 Q108053980 Q108052901 Q108053097 Q108053223 Q108054042

User:Wüstenspringmaus log shows the following removals all out of process and all in use:

• 09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −435‎ Jacob Harrison Ford (Q96474144) ‎ ‎Removed claim: mother (P25): Q108053980 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −436‎ Pleasant Thomas Ford (Q108053973) ‎ ‎Removed claim: mother (P25): Q108054098 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −436‎ Pleasant Thomas Ford (Q108053973) ‎ ‎Removed claim: spouse (P26): Q108053980 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −436‎ Pleasant Thomas Ford (Q108053973) ‎ ‎Removed claim: father (P22): Q108054042 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −421‎ Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) ‎ ‎Removed claim: main subject (P921): Q108052901 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −421‎ Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) ‎ ‎Removed claim: main subject (P921): Q108053223 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −424‎ Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) ‎ ‎Removed claim: main subject (P921): Q108053097 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −419‎ Angelina Annetta Weaver (Q95690565) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053223 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −419‎ Angelina Annetta Weaver (Q95690565) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053097 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −419‎ Angelina Annetta Weaver (Q95690565) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108052901 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:55, 10 September 2024 diff hist −695‎ Joseph Henderson (Q6283892) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053097 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:55, 10 September 2024 diff hist −695‎ Joseph Henderson (Q6283892) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053223 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
• 09:55, 10 September 2024 diff hist −695‎ Joseph Henderson (Q6283892) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108052901 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface

Wüstenspringmaus is nominating then closing as delete or just deleting without debate. If we want Wikidata notability to match English Wikipedia notability that would require a vote on the topic. Currently any dead person that can be described by a serious and public reference is eligible for an entry. The Wikidata entries need to be restored as well as the links that were deleted for other entries. --RAN (discussione) 17:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If we want to match the English Wikipedia, we should start by blocking the creator, who is blocked there exactly for creation of the walled garden of these articles. Ymblanter (discussione) 18:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wikidata:Notability: "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." "I don't like it" does not trump Wikidata:Notability. If you do not like it, don't look at it. Every cluster of entries is a "walled garden", even the entries for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a limit on how many other entries link to it, and there is no minimum, we have over 1,000,000 entries with no links to other entries. --RAN (discussione) 19:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree Masai giraffe (discussione) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This intepretation would mean every human is notable since (i) there are documents somewhere registering birth, death, employment etc; (ii) there is structural need for every single relative of this human. Such intepretation is a clear abuse of Wikidata and does not have consensus here. Ymblanter (discussione) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of WD:N needs to be tightened to make it clearer what is regarded as notable for Wikidata's purposes. Most people would agree that a birth certificate is "serious" and "publicly available" so it is not surprising if this leads to situations like this. Could you suggest any alternative wording which would exclude the items listed above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think formally amending Notability policy belongs to this discussion or administrators' noticeboard. Such amendments should be brought to WD:PC or WD:RFC to discussion. It is not uncontroversial to exclude such items: there are users, or even admins, suggests to include items with any reliable-sourced statements. E.g. a proposal by Mike Peel in 2020. GZWDer (discussione) 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to add that notability criteria as of today do not require reliable, but serious sources. Reliability of course being one of the aspects of seriousness, but not synonym to it. Many of the disputes are about what to be considered serious. Mere birth certificates and alikes may be reliable, but IMHO not serious sources describing a human being. --Lymantria (discussione) 16:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with that, we should not have entries on every single human with a birth certificate or obituary as source unless they have done something great and have other serious and reliable sources. I do think notability should be discussed on admin notice boards. Masai giraffe (discussione) 17:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

However the problem of "what is a serious source" is never resolved. Is a law case considered serious source? What about an article mention something a family member did? There is an 900-page book describing thousands of members in a family, should we create item for each of them? GZWDer (discussione) 18:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there should be one on every single family member just the ones with significant actions. Masai giraffe (discussione) 18:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• See the original debate here: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/09/10#Bulk_deletion_request_Henderson_related_family_genealogy_building. --RAN (discussione) 04:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I just restored an item that I confused with another RfD, so I let them have a chance for a wider discussion. But I agree with Ymblanter, if we want to finally stop these endless and unnecessary discussions, we should block the creator. Other admin opinions? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  golden words by Ymblanter :) Estopedist1 (discussione) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Full support for the deletions and removal diffs by Wüstenspringmaus and Ymblanter's explanation of notability. --Lymantria (discussione) 08:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I give my full support to Wüstenspringmaus for the deletion. As for the creator of these, their interpretation is of notablity is so broad that their creation often (if not always) end up in RfD, so I also support blocking the creator. Fralambert (discussione) 11:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

   Info I've blocked RAN now as there is a clear consensus about blocking (support by 2 other admins). --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which two admins? I did not read @Ymblanter's comments as support for a block, just that wikidata and wikipedia are different projects — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I thought If we want to match the English Wikipedia, we should start by blocking the creator, who is blocked there exactly for creation of the walled garden of these articles. was a support/proposal for blocking. If not, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry for being unclear. By "creator" I meant Greghenderson2006 who is blocked on en.wp just for that. RAN is indeed blocked on en.wp, but this is for copyright violations, unrelated to the current dispute. Ymblanter (discussione) 13:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  In my reason for blocking, I wanted to note that RAN is also blocked on enwiki (for other, unrelated abuse), not just now on wikidata. But that had no influence on my decision here. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 15:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have checked some of his created pages and he has created non notable pages on wikidata and appears to not understand how to write pages that only have notability. Masai giraffe (discussione) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think someone should be block for it's action in a another wiki, except for crosswiki vandalism or spam, which is not the case here. I do find RAN anoying in RfD, but it's mostly because he often use as a notability criterion. Item should be notable own their own, not because a other item is notable. If the creator was Greghenderson2006, he is proably the one that we should be block. Fralambert (discussione) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Greghenderson2006 is the creator of most of them, but RAN has created some as well. I would also support a block for Greghenderson2006, but I don't think we should change the block/unblock for RAN unless he shows that he will change his behaviour, as he is also involved in creating these items. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think maybe he should be blocked but I’m not quite sure. Masai giraffe (discussione) 21:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  (Trying again in the hope of getting an answer.) Which two admins? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @MSGJ: here the support by Fralambert (I think he meant RAN) and I earlier thought also Ymblanter, but there was my misunderstanding. So "only" support from another admin. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think perhaps you jumped on a block too quickly. But there is problematic behaviour, so we should use the opportunity to intervene. I have declined the unblock request with a suggestion to RAN on rewriting it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Generally for established users they deserve a warning before getting blocked, informing them of what you consider problematic so that they have a chance to address it. I couldn't see that being the case here. Infrastruktur (discussione) 08:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  There were personal attacks from this user, there was no insight that this user's behaviour was wrong, and another admin (formally?) supported the block, so I considered doing it. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking action. I have called out Mr. Northon's actions here and on Commons and they claim relentlessly that taking a contrary stance on their contributions is "harassment". Hope they take this time to cool off and make some reflections on their work here and there. Bedivere (discussione) 04:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

RAN: Non-admin call for unblock

I find the above very disturbing. It appears that RAN is being blocked for an opinion, rather for an action; has been blocked without any warning; and has been blocked by somebody who is personally in dispute with him. None of this reflects well on the admin corps.

Looking back at some of the mass uploads of Q5s, including the somewhat controversial case of identificativo The Peerage di una persona (P4638) uploads by User:GZWDer, it seems to me that the community has generally shown acceptance for creation of Q5s who are one-degree-of-separation removed from a Q5 with wikipedia levels of notability, e.g. to allow the data about family relationships, as might be included in a wiki article, to be encoded in the lead wikidata item. In the case of The Peerage, it was also accepted that it could make sense to do a total import of a database if perhaps 40-50% of the entries made the above criteria; because the TP entries typically represent data in standard reference works such as Burke's Peerage and Burke's Landed Gentry; and because there is historical value in a complete prosopography of the dominant power-wielding class of a leading country at a particular period in history.

I am concerned that the uploads RAN supports seem to go well beyond this; and agree that we should not be aiming to be a database of every person who has ever lived. Other projects are available for that. I do not believe that an obituary contributed by close family members is a sufficent signal for inclusion here. (As opposed to an obituary editorially commissioned by a major national paper from one of its journalists).

But I do not think RAN has done anything blockable here. And it should not be a requirement for unblock to require he publicly recant his opinions.

RAN is an editor in good standing who has made many useful edits. IMO an appropriate way forward here would be a community restriction that he does not create new Q5s (and items for non-independent obituaries) for people more than 1 degree of separation from individuals who are wikipedia-notable unless that is agreed by a named mentor.

If this restriction is approved, and RAN does not comply with it, then block, for incrementally increasing periods of time. But to go straight to a block of a productive editor in good standing, without first having gained consensus for any restriction; and (ii) to go straight for that block to be a full indef block, both seem to me to be a serious error of judgment. Jheald (discussione) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking RAN at this point. It is clear that the scope of their uploads has gone beyond the established consensus of what is acceptable on Wikidata. RAN's actions raise valid concerns about whether the platform should include every individual in existence, especially when the notability standard has been compromised by factors like family-submitted obituaries, which do not meet the editorial rigor of reliable, independent sources. Here at Wikidata we should take action by setting clear boundaries. Allowing these types of items can dilute the quality of the database. Moreover, I don’t think their block was solely for holding an opinion but rather for their actions, which have now called into question the necessity of tighter controls on the creation of certain items. The block should remain in place. Bedivere (discussione) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that until they stop creating non notable articles the should not be unblocked. Masai giraffe (discussione) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

But we does not yet have a consensus that RAN's creation are non notable. Also if "one-degree-of-separation removed from a Q5 with wikipedia levels of notability" is agreed, we need to undelete both Q91949506 and Q94696971 (for the latter I have a undeletion request above independent of this reason and independent of the reasons provided by Greghenderson2006 or RAN, but there is no admin reacted with the request yet.) GZWDer (discussione) 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

GZWDer, the least we can say, is that there is controversy on the notability of a portion of the items RAN has been creating. The point here is that RAN seems to blame that controversy to poor judgement by others only. That makes it difficult to find a way out of this. --Lymantria (discussione) 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. Your formal request above seemed to be pointed to two specific admins. I didn't feel invited.

Discussion flagged on Wikidata telegram channel, with a call for more eyes to look at this. Jheald (discussione) 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

RAN: Admin call for unblock

I was alerted to this by an email from RAN pointing towards his talk page (where I'm also mentioned). Looking through this situation, there are a number of things I find worrying:

• The jump to blocking seems to be taking the nuclear option without any prior steps. There is no previous warning at User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_), and RAN has never been blocked here before.
• The original deletion debate was being debated, and was closed while discussion was still happening (less than 5 hours after the last comment).
• The discussion above was also ongoing, and blocking RAN kicked him out of this conversation. It's also confusing about who people were suggesting to be blocked, since since RAN wasn't the original creator of these items (technically, my bot auto-created one of them... I can't spot any that RAN created?).
• The Wikidata items in question were in use by another project - Commons - and there don't seem to be any corresponding open deletion discussions there (best practice would be to have simultaneous discussions). Deleting the items has broken template uses on Commons. (For anyone not aware, this usage is through the Infobox I maintain there, but also through the family tree template that I'm not connected with.)
• Wüstenspringmaus is a new admin, gaining the toolset only last month. Running into a situation like this so quickly is a bad sign.

I suggest the best way forward is to unblock, undelete the items, and restart the deletion conversations, with an uninvolved admin closing the deletion conversations in due course. Diffuse/de-escalate the situation now, discuss it calmly, and figure out a good way forward together. Thanks. Mike Peel (discussione) 09:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you withdraw the damaging comment you have given on Wüstenspringmaus. It's below the belt. --Lymantria (discussione) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not intended to be a damaging/below-the-belt comment, but it is relevant that they are new at this, and they have blocked a long time editor. I mostly like their responses below, though, and I hope this is a learning experience. Thanks. Mike Peel (discussione) 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to address a few points that led to this decision. RAN has also repeatedly personally attacked other users, who didn't agree to his opinion to notability. Some users, including other admins, have expressed worries about a potential unblocking, indicating that this is a broader issue and can't resolved with an immediately unblocking imo. A switch to a partial block that restricts RAN from creating new pages and participating in WD:RfD discussions would be an idea, but however, I’m unsure if this measure alone would be sufficient to improve the situation. I'll leave the decision to another admin. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you link to examples of your points here, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (discussione) 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

i) Statements like these (now [12] on his userpage. ii) This comment by Lymantria where they say … I'm not sure if it is of much use to switch to partial block for main space only, wordings of this request do not entirely convince me. It is not about "... winning a debate ..." but reaching agreement and act on that agreement … and this comment by Ajraddatz. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 20:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Even tough I am not an admin, I do agree with Wüstenspringmaus that a partial block is necessary. Masai giraffe (discussione) 01:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess we could relax the block settings to partial, only prohibiting main space edits and item creations. --Matěj Suchánek (discussione) 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Why would we want to restrict main space edits? As I understand it, it is no more than a small subset of new items RAN has created that are being objected to. His edits, at least as I understand it, appear to be consistently well-motivated and useful. Jheald (discussione) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would we want to restrict main space edits? What else? The concern were items, not lexemes, not talk pages, etc. Other than that, we have no less restrictive countermeasure. --Matěj Suchánek (discussione) 11:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A less restrictive measure would be a community restriction telling RAN not to create specific types of item (eg as I outlined in the previous section).

If RAN went against such a restriction, adopted with due process, then one could proceed to more technological measures. But I have not seen any reason to presume he would do that.

As far as I understand, RAN's edits, per se, have not been a problem. So there seems no good reason to restrict them. -- Jheald (discussione) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is too drastic of an escalation and had this been repeated, I'd be opening a request to desysop Wüstenspringmaus due to a gross lack of judgement. @Wüstenspringmaus: I can find no reading of the comments above that supports the block, since although three admins commented in support of your deletion, none were in support of a block. I strongly suggest you self-revert your action. I also strongly dislike that you did not enter a notice on their talk page about the reasons for the block; {{Block}} has a reason parameter for a, well, reason. In this particular case I cannot find anything that rises to the level of a personal attack, though there's some unnecessarily confrontational language (for example) and that needs to stop; either way, an indefinite block is too much of an escalation from just that, especially with no warning. That said, however, I also do believe conduct on other wikis can in general be taken in to consideration when deciding to block. RAN does have a significant history of personal attacks on the English Wikipedia that has resulted in their indefinite block there. I can't see evidence of that in this particular case, but the leash should be short for future conduct.--Jasper Deng (discussione) 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I thought I did the right thing from my position, but I'm willing to have the block reviewed and would be happy to reverse it if necessary. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed course of action - I am concerned that RAN does not seem willing to budge from his position, and noted such on his talk page. I think an unwillingness to discuss and adapt to community consensus will continue to land him in unfortunate waters. But I do agree that this block was too hasty (and have noted such to the blocking admin privately), and I think the path forward here is further discussion rather than removing a generally productive member of the Wikidata community. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think maybe the block was a bit too swift but RAN appears to not want to listen to consensus of the community. I’m not an admin at this time but I am willing to offer insight on issues like this. Masai giraffe (discussione) 01:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Cranloa12n

Cranloa12n (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adding (likely) defamatory statements to BLP using extremely unreliable sources and original research--Trade (discussione) 23:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n Please explain that and stop until this discuss is resolved. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n:--Trade (discussione) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

[13]https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ava-kris-tyson-mrbeast-sexual-misconduct-claims-1235075537/ Cranloa12n (discussione) 02:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wüstenspringmaus:--Trade (discussione) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cranloa12n: It looks like the initial claim was incorrect since I can't find that the person have been charged with anything. Youtube is unacceptable as a source for something as serious as this. So yes, it clearly violates WD:LP. Please refrain from making similar edits. Until the person is formally charged I don't think this belongs on Wikidata, but if/when they are then the Rolling Stone article should be ok as an additional reference. Infrastruktur (discussione) 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Bad bot activity

Escarbot is performing bad edits, namely mass replacing of generic labels by wikipedia-specific labels for items shared among various types of wikis. This is far outside of scope of the approval, and undesirable (see User_talk:Escarbot#Wikimedia_disambiguation_page_(Q4167410)). Three of gazillions of examples:

• Q122780933
• Q4167410
• Q9724955

Taylor 49 (discussione) 13:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vargenau FYI. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wüstenspringmaus Thank you for informing me. Vargenau (discussione) 17:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you turn gazillions into a real number? My bot made millions of edits, so even if you do not agree with some, that will be a very low percentage.

I am willing to stop modifying these pages if you can provide a list or a simple way to identify them. Vargenau (discussione) 17:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. Your bot is making wrong edits, so you have to disable changes of existing lables until you are able to resolve the issue. --Ameisenigel (discussione) 10:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if we would not discuss about the quality of the edits this would still be a violation of WD:BOT (Bots must stay within reasonable bounds of their approved tasks. The general guideline is to use common sense, and if in doubt, file another request for approval.). Editing labels is completely different from adding interwiki links. --Ameisenigel (discussione) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Your (user "Vargenau") request for a "simple way to identify them" is already answered twice at the talk page of the bot: please do not modify labels if there are sitelinks not only to Wikipedia but also to sister projects and the bot should NOT stipulate the title picked from wikipedia if there are links to other types of wikis (commons, meta, wiktionary, wikiversity, ...). Taylor 49 (discussione) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is a simple way, but, as I already said, this eliminates way too many pages. Vargenau (discussione) 05:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "eliminates too many pages"? As I read it, you are pointed to cases where your bot makes edits that are considered incorrect. Can we avoid too many incorrect edits?? --Lymantria (discussione) 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, the bot could not do this: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q8703332&diff=prev&oldid=2249541250 Vargenau (discussione) 07:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a necessary edit, does it? --Lymantria (discussione) 10:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. When a category is renamed, the wikidata element must be updated accordingly. Vargenau (discussione) 12:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It is still better if some good edits are missing and we have no wrong edits instead of having all the good edits but also some amount of wrong edits. --Ameisenigel (discussione) 15:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In the case of your example, the category @commons was not renamed and identical to the label. --Lymantria (discussione) 16:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:86.114.37.213

86.114.37.213 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Vandalism and creating multiple hoaxes. XReport ―William Graham (discussione) 22:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@William Graham: not a trivial case. Could you clarify a bit? Which ones are hoaxes? Estopedist1 (discussione) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Withdrawn I will withdraw this report for now. There is something more going on that crosses between wiki projects that I need to better understand and I am waiting for deletion requests on other wikis to be resolved before I can do that. William Graham (discussione) 15:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning user 31.11.210.128

31.11.210.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism aimed at Polish politics-related articles. ̴̃ Halfbricking (discussione) 09:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto for a year. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 10:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection for Q382677

Please semi-protect Q382677 due to persistent vandalism. After the protection was over on 4th September, vandalism started again. --郊外生活Kogaiseikatsu (talk,contribs) 11:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Protected for 3 years; 4th protection. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Rickytsai47

Rickytsai47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: blanking user and talk pages with aggressive edit summaries ―Samoasambia ✎ 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto indeffed. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 17:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:JiomtysAutoCentres1

JiomtysAutoCentres1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam-only account, see filter log XReport ―Leonidlednev (discussione) 21:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto: Already global locked.--S8321414 (discussione) 23:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Vlad the Impaler Still a better person tham Tate McRae

Vlad the Impaler Still a better person tham Tate McRae (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA XReport ―Leonidlednev (discussione) 22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto: Already global locked.--S8321414 (discussione) 23:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 04:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Jacob Stellmach

Jacob Stellmach (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA XReport ―Leonidlednev (discussione) 01:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto: Already global locked.--S8321414 (discussione) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 04:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:200.93.106.145

200.93.106.145 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Removing info? ―Estopedist1 (discussione) 11:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I shock-blocked him for three days. Could someone review the case? Edit Natalja Zabijako (Q6968326) seems to be obvious vandalism Estopedist1 (discussione) 12:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA (for many years). Blocked for a year (it's just a patch, will be back in a while). Madamebiblio (discussione) 00:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Madamebiblio (discussione) 00:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Protection request for Q117684575

Please semi-protect Q117684575. Reason: Vandalism XReport --Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto 1 month semi. --Lymantria (discussione) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Protection request for Q1111024

Please semi-protect Q1111024. Reason: Vandalism XReport --Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto 1 month semi. --Lymantria (discussione) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 20:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:102.156.33.52

102.156.33.52 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto Blocked 1 week. Edits need some more attention. --Lymantria (discussione) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:196.225.144.62

196.225.144.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto Blocked 1 week. --Lymantria (discussione) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:197.0.188.114

197.0.188.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fatto Blocked 1 week. --Lymantria (discussione) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Penso che questa discussione sia risolta e possa essere archiviata. Se non sei d'accordo, non esitare a sostituire questo template con il tuo commento. Lymantria (discussione) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Protect Yenesi

I think the element Q118185675 should be protected or semi-protected since it's been heavily vandalized multiple times. -- Brunnaiz (discussione) 22:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Protected for six months Estopedist1 (discussione) 06:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Jenicebenji

Jenicebenji (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA vandal strikes again. Please block and revert all edits. Note that he has once again bypassed autoconfirmed limitation with nonsensical edits in his User namespace. ―Jklamo (discussione) 23:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jklamo: I have blocked them to curb the immediate disruption, but can you please also open a WD:RFCU case so their sockpuppetry can be investigated as well? No particular sockmaster comes to mind with them.--Jasper Deng (discussione) 23:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

meta:User:Codename_Noreste/Tyler_Antonius. Jklamo (discussione) 23:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)