Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/10
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
complaint about editor GerardM
Hello, User:GerardM has recently caused major problem at cs. wikipedia because of his robotical and baseless edits of wikidata items concerning Israeli politicians. The false and absurd claims (such as religion of Ariel Sharon was muslim etc.) seeped through templates into dozens of articles at Czech wikipedia. We had to switch off temporarily automatic link between wikidata property of religion and our articles because of him... Now I found another scandalous edit, claiming that someone living in 19th century carried a citizenship of the Czech republic (which came into existence in 1993). Again, it was automatically displayed in the template of cs.wiki´s article. I changed the template and deleted the claim from wikidata, but I suspect, there might be dozens of similar mistakes. When the previous controversy about his work occured, he seemed to be unforthcoming in detecting and correcting his mistakes (cause I am not able to see the methodology of his massive edits on wikidata). Thus I ask the administrators of wikidata to ask him strongly to cooperate and possibly block him from editing altogether. Thank you. --Davcza (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Davcza: Well, the two edits you talk about specifically are from before the last discussion we had about Gerard. Anything more recent? --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don´t know. The fact is, that accidentally I came across another multiple error (here another one from the same batch) on behalf of this editor. Look, for me it is not so much important WHEN these edits occured, but WHY are they still spoiling dozens of Czech wikipedia articles. I am no expert on robotical, category-based input of wikidata items, so I cannot check all GerardM´s edits and btw why should I. HE should have done that after having been chastised about his routine, and if not, his edits should be deleted. As far as I know, a dilligent fool can make thousands of such edits just by connecting some categories and feeding them through a robot. Can you see the damage it makes to reputation of Czech/any wikipedia, when someone opens an article about 19th century poet and sees an obvious error in the template? --Davcza (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- This problem is similar with Wikidata GAme - there is also Game for adding nationality, but only actual countries. It looks easily to check, if someone lived in 19th century so cannot live in some country, but there are many other countries which can looks good but in that time it was different one or this person lived in more different countries during his life even if he lived on the same place (Germany x West Germany x Prussia...) (Pope state x Italy x Kngdom of Napoli...) (Czech rep. x Czechoslovakia x Böhmen und Mähren x Austria-Hungary...) JAn Dudík (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- well, it is the problem, but so far the only GerardM activity gives me feeling that widar shall not be used without prior discussion like any other bot task. -- Vlsergey (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, are administrators ready to enforce GerardM to fix his mistakes or will they preserve them? -- Vlsergey (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a strong personal conflict with Vlsergey from the years back I was active in the Russian Wikipedia, and this is why I am not going to comment on this bot request, nor to take any action. May be another administrator could have a look. I am posting it since I closed the last couple of dozens bot requests (and, together with Vogone, may be several dozens), and I guess people already assume I will be closing all of them. Any administrator can close bot requests, though a crat is needed to flag if this is the first request for the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
185.14.40.253
Some vandal edits - Special:Contributions/185.14.40.253 -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, warned them, but my guess is we are not going to ever see them again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Non items deletion: dedicated page or template use
I've opened a section on the Project chat (permanent link) about the best way to request non-items pages speedy deletion. --Dereckson (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Не открывается страница, сервер сообщает что всё плохо. (This page was could not open, the server reports that everything is bad.) --Туча (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Administrators can't do anything for this. It seem to be again problem with Bugzilla:71519. --Stryn (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Link between articles - Q14412287
I can't link [1] and [2] on the Wikidata page [3] and I don't understand why. Can you do it ? And explain me why I haven't been able to do it. Another side, I haven't find a purge button on Wikidata ? --Berdea (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I had no problems of adding the frwiki link to Wikidata, so I don't know why you couldn't. There's not any purge button AFAIK. But in the preferences you can find "Local Live Clock: Clock which shows the local time of the user. Clicking on clock will purge the page." --Stryn (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Merged
Q13324407 has been merged into Q8498002. Amqui (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Great! Vogone (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Lots of vandalism of Bill Nye page please help
Lots of vandalism of page related to en:Bill Nye, please help.
Page still needs cleanup.
Can it be semi-protected as well?
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reverted by @AmaryllisGardener: and semi-protected a day by me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
User:VlsergeyBot blocked
Hello, I've blocked VlsergeyBot because it is an unapproved bot running a controversial task. The RfP was withdrawn because there were oppose votes but User:Vlsergey continues running this task for a day now. I believe that is is necessary to wait for some community consensus on such tasks before edits in the large scale are made. -- Bene* talk 07:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Operator appears to have retired (see their talkpage). --Jakob (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can not see the difference between edits of User:VlsergeyBot and User:GerardM, maybe that edits from VLSB are not camouflaged by non-bot account, they are at least basically sourced in edit summary and they have lower error rate (as they are taken from wiki infobox, not from vague and undocumented categories intersection). Why are these two cases (from my point of view very similar) treated so differently ? --Jklamo (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jklamo:In my opinion, the controversial task of Vlsergey was that they added qualifiers country (P17) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to properties place of birth (P19) and place of death (P20) which resulted in a massive multiplication of same information. I guess, that after a discussion we could have unblocked VlsergeyBot but unfortunately, the first action Vlsergey undertook after the block was to announce their retirement. Also GerardM got blocked several times but at least he participated in discussions about his block and he improved the quality of his edits now. --Pasleim (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Pasleim: you didn't ask why it's was done it this way on RfP so calling it's controversial now... One user already asked why it's done like this and there was an explanation on my talk page. Also RfP was withdrawn not because of opposite votes but because majority of those votes had nothing to do with bot itself. I did not needed this flag -- bot effectively worked since August and already moved about 150k article info from infoboxes to Wikidata, which means ruwiki was the biggest Wikipedia that actually used Wikidata and incorporated it's editors into Wikidata workflow. But... Bene* just stopped it. 2 month of work and just stop. I was needed community of Wikidata not to interfere (in bad way) and may be a little support. Was you able to propose better solution? I did listen. Was my English in summaries not good enough? I did fixed it. But spending 1-2 years in discussions proving that i'm not a camel and my solution is the only one that works... I already have big uproar in ruwiki. But i moved forward "by the edge" because Wikidata was the future of all projects. But now i have no power to fight bureaucracy at 2 projects at the same time. Let me know if community would like country (P17) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to be removed from place of birth (P19) and place of death (P20), it's very quick to "fix" it, as soon as all local data would be restored in ruwiki. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Vlsergey, I'm sorry if this action is disappointing to you and I'm willing to unblock your bot if we can start a discussion about that topic. A block of that bot does not mean that we do not honour your work which I really appreciate. However, in this case I feel that doing such a comprehensive task (you will be touching all items about persons which have a place of birth/death) without a real community conensus is not the right way to go. The arbitrary access feature (which I beleave you are referring here) will come in the next development iterations and for the time being I think it is too much overhead to add those qualifiers on all items. Furthermore, this creates lots of redundancy in our database which is something we should really avoid. Although you might have good reasons to do what you did and might even persuade me and others, it is still necessary to take the same course as every bot operator and discuss what you are planning to do. I also understand that there is too much bureaucracy in your eyes (often even in my eyes) but discussions are valuable and necessary for such big tasks. Please consider rejoining the project and discussing this topic on a cooperative way. If you agree I will unblock your bot asap. -- Bene* talk 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bene*: The bot discussion (along with bot contribution link) started month ago. So one had a month to check and discuss bot results. No comments except one person how received answers on my talk page. Link to new page with detailed explanation of ruwiki-wikidata integration (including qualifiers-on-places explanation as well) was created and link posted on English forum board (i.e. Wikidata:Ruwiki). No comments from community. Bot flag requests? No support except 2 persons from ruwiki, and one of them is not even Wikidata community member AFAIK. Basing on this I can clearly see how Wikidata community expresses it's support for my work (i.e. how valuable it is in the eyes of Wikidata community) and how community cares about productive discussions and consensus. Well, should I also note that there was no community consensus to allow admins to block unapproved bots? Let's call it a history. -- Vlsergey (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Vlsergey: Without commenting on your bot in particular: The RfC I started in August clearly generated at least some consensus in favor of blocking unauthorized bots. But with that said though, I think not enough people have commented on your bot. Mostly it's because I don't think that many people understood its exact task.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bene*: The bot discussion (along with bot contribution link) started month ago. So one had a month to check and discuss bot results. No comments except one person how received answers on my talk page. Link to new page with detailed explanation of ruwiki-wikidata integration (including qualifiers-on-places explanation as well) was created and link posted on English forum board (i.e. Wikidata:Ruwiki). No comments from community. Bot flag requests? No support except 2 persons from ruwiki, and one of them is not even Wikidata community member AFAIK. Basing on this I can clearly see how Wikidata community expresses it's support for my work (i.e. how valuable it is in the eyes of Wikidata community) and how community cares about productive discussions and consensus. Well, should I also note that there was no community consensus to allow admins to block unapproved bots? Let's call it a history. -- Vlsergey (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Vlsergey, I'm sorry if this action is disappointing to you and I'm willing to unblock your bot if we can start a discussion about that topic. A block of that bot does not mean that we do not honour your work which I really appreciate. However, in this case I feel that doing such a comprehensive task (you will be touching all items about persons which have a place of birth/death) without a real community conensus is not the right way to go. The arbitrary access feature (which I beleave you are referring here) will come in the next development iterations and for the time being I think it is too much overhead to add those qualifiers on all items. Furthermore, this creates lots of redundancy in our database which is something we should really avoid. Although you might have good reasons to do what you did and might even persuade me and others, it is still necessary to take the same course as every bot operator and discuss what you are planning to do. I also understand that there is too much bureaucracy in your eyes (often even in my eyes) but discussions are valuable and necessary for such big tasks. Please consider rejoining the project and discussing this topic on a cooperative way. If you agree I will unblock your bot asap. -- Bene* talk 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Pasleim: you didn't ask why it's was done it this way on RfP so calling it's controversial now... One user already asked why it's done like this and there was an explanation on my talk page. Also RfP was withdrawn not because of opposite votes but because majority of those votes had nothing to do with bot itself. I did not needed this flag -- bot effectively worked since August and already moved about 150k article info from infoboxes to Wikidata, which means ruwiki was the biggest Wikipedia that actually used Wikidata and incorporated it's editors into Wikidata workflow. But... Bene* just stopped it. 2 month of work and just stop. I was needed community of Wikidata not to interfere (in bad way) and may be a little support. Was you able to propose better solution? I did listen. Was my English in summaries not good enough? I did fixed it. But spending 1-2 years in discussions proving that i'm not a camel and my solution is the only one that works... I already have big uproar in ruwiki. But i moved forward "by the edge" because Wikidata was the future of all projects. But now i have no power to fight bureaucracy at 2 projects at the same time. Let me know if community would like country (P17) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to be removed from place of birth (P19) and place of death (P20), it's very quick to "fix" it, as soon as all local data would be restored in ruwiki. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jklamo:In my opinion, the controversial task of Vlsergey was that they added qualifiers country (P17) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to properties place of birth (P19) and place of death (P20) which resulted in a massive multiplication of same information. I guess, that after a discussion we could have unblocked VlsergeyBot but unfortunately, the first action Vlsergey undertook after the block was to announce their retirement. Also GerardM got blocked several times but at least he participated in discussions about his block and he improved the quality of his edits now. --Pasleim (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
104.131.225.76 (talk • contribs • logs)
Is probably a log out bot.--GZWDer (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like User:ProteinBoxBot. Andrawaag? --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrawaag, AmaryllisGardener: This IP still edits today. If it is not controled, probably block it for one week.--GZWDer (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @GZWDer:
Done blocked for one week. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @AmaryllisGardener, GZWDer: Somehowe the bot got logged out, without me noticing. That IP address was however ProteinBoxBot. I did login again. Would it be possible to revert the block? Andrawaag (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrawaag: You can edit if log in. the block in anon-only.--GZWDer (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: In that case, could the block remain indefinitely, to prevent future anon edits? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrawaag (talk • contribs).
- @Andrawaag: If you edit with this IP too, this is unnecessary.--GZWDer (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrawaag: you can use the AssertEdit extension and add
assert=botto all requests your bot makes. Then they'll automatically fail when your bot is logged out. -- Bene* talk 08:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrawaag: you can use the AssertEdit extension and add
- @Andrawaag: If you edit with this IP too, this is unnecessary.--GZWDer (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: In that case, could the block remain indefinitely, to prevent future anon edits? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrawaag (talk • contribs).
- @Andrawaag: You can edit if log in. the block in anon-only.--GZWDer (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @AmaryllisGardener, GZWDer: Somehowe the bot got logged out, without me noticing. That IP address was however ProteinBoxBot. I did login again. Would it be possible to revert the block? Andrawaag (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @GZWDer:
- @Andrawaag, AmaryllisGardener: This IP still edits today. If it is not controled, probably block it for one week.--GZWDer (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
global help needed
User:西安兵马俑(contributions) had created a page(ay:傻逼鸡巴性交) in aywiki, which is totally vandalism. In Chinese, "傻逼" means "fool", "鸡巴" means "pennis", "性交" means "sex intercourse". The article only contain one sentence like this "草死你is£〇上", which means "fuck you to death". I have request for delete in the wiki before, but without respose.
he also add a link in wikidata: Q5873. I removed it, but was soon restored.
Please delete the vandalism page in aywiki, and remove the link from the wikidata page, thanks.--122.90.87.118 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- For some reason, Ymblanter added the link back. I've removed it, and IMO it doesn't have to be semi-protected or anything. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @122.90.87.118: The correct place to request deletion of page in wikis without active admins should be m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. In my opinion, I don't think this user should be blocked, because this user is new when creating the page.--GZWDer (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is perfectly fine. IP users removing a single link are strongly advised in such situations to leave a meaningful edit summary, so that it is clear what it is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- You can't (or at least I can't) leave an edit summary when removing a link from an item. I can understand how the confusion arose though... maybe it would be a good idea to be able to? Ajraddatz (talk)
- [4]: Definitely possible … Vogone (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- How then? And if I can't figure it out, I certainly don't blame an IP for being unable to... Ajraddatz (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I use Special:ApiSandbox. json -> wbsetsitelink; id: q<number>; summary: <summary>; token: <token I request from API>; and the rest unchanged. There might be easier ways though, but development likes it if users stick to the API (as also with creating redirects). Regards, Vogone (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Or if you use "undo". --Rschen7754 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I use Special:ApiSandbox. json -> wbsetsitelink; id: q<number>; summary: <summary>; token: <token I request from API>; and the rest unchanged. There might be easier ways though, but development likes it if users stick to the API (as also with creating redirects). Regards, Vogone (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- How then? And if I can't figure it out, I certainly don't blame an IP for being unable to... Ajraddatz (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- [4]: Definitely possible … Vogone (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- You can't (or at least I can't) leave an edit summary when removing a link from an item. I can understand how the confusion arose though... maybe it would be a good idea to be able to? Ajraddatz (talk)
Request for undeletion
Q14907854 CYP11B1 (Q14907854): protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Q14897899 FGF23 (Q14897899): protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Q14914437 CD27 (Q14914437): protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
These genes was falsely merged into the corresponding proteins.
--Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- Bene* talk 11:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Gadget-AuthorityControl.js
Hello, there are 6 open modification requests on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js. Please process its or decrease the page protection level. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done, but it does not appear to work (either with or without my addings).--Zolo (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. It works fine for me (Opera v12.15, MonoBook). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I sometimes get the links now, but more often I don't (Firefox, vector). --Zolo (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. It works fine for me (Opera v12.15, MonoBook). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Q183 2
The Statements section contains two instances of 'member of WTO': one without a date, the other with date 1/1/95. Please remove the first one. I see that the item is super-protected now. But I'm still filing this request so that someone do this in future after the protection is lowered. --Michgrig (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Spam at Talk:Q6903
This page has been created 9 times now, and deleted 8 times. Running Google Translate makes it clear that it's just garbled spam nonsense. At least three of the creations have been by the same IP, 83.166.232.13, a major spam IP. Might I suggest blocking him? And maybe semi-salting the page if the spamming persists. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted and salted for 3 months by Stryn. The IP is blocked as well. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 16:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Lockal
I would like to see Lockal blocked from his bot-like adding EOL-pages until such a time as there is some kind of agreement. See his talk page, - Brya (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge properties
Please merge P1572 (P1572) with date of first performance (P1191), I didn't realize it was already there.--Micru (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- We can't merge properties. We corrected all items using P:1572 then i deleted it.--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Просьба о бессрочной блокировке
Заблокируйте пожалуйста мою учётку бессрочно. Если в течении 24 часов она не будет забанена, то я начну портить викиданные. Заранее благодарен. С наилучшими пожеланиями. --Malbakov Korkem Shamshievih (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Вот когда начнёте поpтить, тогда и заблокируем.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
С таких заяв хочется предложить дать админам ВД право глобальной блокировки. Причём без права замены на локальную. Чисто чтобы неповадно было...Фил Вечеровский (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- На каждый чих не наздравствуешься. Мало ли кому что придёт в голову. Хочется человеку получить бессрочку за бандализм - флаг в руки.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki edit
MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new/el. Thanks. :-) --geraki talk 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Move request for ESADA to European Sleep Apnea Database
Please move to name European Sleep Apnea Database, as that correlates to page en:European Sleep Apnea Database.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed it, but a double check to make sure nothing in name of page refers to ESADA (but page could use addition of abbreviation as notation somewhere). Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge request for A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
Please merge Q17399690 into Q1188699.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I may have just merged it in a non-admin action but would please appreciate a check to make sure I did it correctly. — Cirt (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Texas
Please add piwiki टेक्सास to Texas (Q1439). It is curious that out of 50 states this is the only one that is protected. 76.24.193.7 08:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Global pushing?
Multiproject specialist is needed to review strange activity: Q18195566 and linked Wikipedia articles. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Ivan A. Krestinin: I don't speak any major languages in English, but I followed the identifier links, which lead to 404 errors. All of them have been removed, I also removed the item's "topic's main category" and "Commons category" properties, as those were also invalid. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like a case of aggressive self-promotion and spam. First the user attacked the English Wikipedia with many sockpuppets, then he started spamming other Wikipedias. I have requested deletions on the following pages:
- Here are the involved users on Wikidata:
- User:جواد رمضانی شوراب (vandalized Q16477203, Q5603832 and Q5603832; created a few items)
- 82.115.12.20 (vandalized Q5603832)
- 82.115.12.137 (vandalized Q15516970 and Q16477203)
- 151.238.80.137 (vandalized Q2435540, Q2742258 and Q9071790)
- 151.238.85.138 (created Q18195566)
- 151.238.48.229 (edited Q18195566)
- 151.238.61.244 (edited Q18195566)
- 151.238.67.128 (edited Q18195566)
- 151.238.70.103 (edited Q18195566)
- 151.238.90.158 (edited Q18195566)
- 151.238.92.168 (edited Q18195566)
- 151.238.91.31 (edited Q18195566)
- Due to the seriousness and persistence of the abuse, I have blocked User:جواد رمضانی شوراب indefinitely. Mushroom (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Mushroom for the in-depth research on the issue. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Noting that I locked the account globally with my steward hat. --Rschen7754 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The spamming hasn't stopped:
- 151.238.76.75 (edited Q1262035, Q18195566)
--Kolja21 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the vandalism comes from the 151.238.0.0/16 IP range (Shatel DSL Network in Iran), it is a public network so blocking it for a long time is not a good idea. I have blocked anonymous edits from the range for 24 hours, let's see what happens. I have also reported the vandalism on Meta and requested a global title block. Meanwhile, the Bulgarian, Catalan and Turkish Wikipedia have not yet deleted the articles, and new Spanish, Hindi, and Japanese ones have popped up. Mushroom (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Mushroom: These (at least all the ones listed here, excepting two) can all be covered by 151.238.64.0/19. Would you mind it if I replaced your /16 block with that? The /19 would cover 151.238.64.0 to 151.238.95.255.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng: Sure, fine by me. Mushroom (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Mushroom: These (at least all the ones listed here, excepting two) can all be covered by 151.238.64.0/19. Would you mind it if I replaced your /16 block with that? The /19 would cover 151.238.64.0 to 151.238.95.255.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Please indef soft block 10.68.0.0/16
These are the IPs of WMFLabs, and a lot of log-out bot are or were running under these IPs (See Special:Contributions/10.68.0.0/16, with contribsrange tool enabled). bugzilla:72384 also make a lot of Widar edits under these IPs, before the patch deployed.--GZWDer (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why should we block good edits? Vogone (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. Please don't. 10.68 are private IPs. (i.e., everything gets broken when you block it). Well, not really. It will prevent many other people from editing. Once, when such an IP was gblocked lots of people were blocked from editing due to that. --Glaisher (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- 10.68.0.0/16 is actually a dedicated range for the eqiad labs realm so the notion 'it will prevent many other people from editing' is incorrect unless you edit logged out from labs in a way it can only communicate via the 10.0.0.0/8 subnet. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @John F. Lewis: User:Glaisher probably means XFF. If such an IP is in the XFF of a user, that user gets blocked. If carrier-grade NAT is used in one form or another, this is a pretty good possibility.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- That would not happen here. The blocks Glaisher is referring to were on Varnish caches' private IPs. These would match XFF as all requests are proxied via Varnish but none are proxied via labs. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also reticent to block such IP range.
- It could mean unattributed edits become lots edits, and create more bot malfunctioning and lost for the project than to restrict such edits to logged out users.
- --Dereckson (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- That would not happen here. The blocks Glaisher is referring to were on Varnish caches' private IPs. These would match XFF as all requests are proxied via Varnish but none are proxied via labs. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @John F. Lewis: User:Glaisher probably means XFF. If such an IP is in the XFF of a user, that user gets blocked. If carrier-grade NAT is used in one form or another, this is a pretty good possibility.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- 10.68.0.0/16 is actually a dedicated range for the eqiad labs realm so the notion 'it will prevent many other people from editing' is incorrect unless you edit logged out from labs in a way it can only communicate via the 10.0.0.0/8 subnet. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)