Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2018/02

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2018
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Krzysztof Machocki RIP

Following the sad passing of our fellow Wikimedian Krzysztof Machocki, User:Halibutt, will someone please protect his user page (but not talk page). The guidelines at en:Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines should be followed where applicable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You're referencing to a guideline of the English Wikipedia. However, it seems common practice:   Done. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted items

Can someone please tell me what Q19353437 and Q19353481 were about?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) at 22:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC).

—MisterSynergy (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Thank you. In that case, please will you restore them both, as they were delete without discussion; yet meet our notability criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@יונה בנדלאק, Jared Preston, Steak:, as those involved in those items' deletion. Let's first prevent another set of RfDs from manifesting again. Mahir256 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They were nominated for deletion here and here (no real discussion, though). In that shape they were indeed questionable, but you have now the chance to improve them :-)
@יונה בנדלאק, Jared Preston: FYI. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Those pages do not show up in "what links here", which I checked before posting here. Furthermore, I do not appear to have been notified of either deletion proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Both deletions took place during larger cleanup activity that was initiated by a very large amount of RfDs in May 2017 (the backlog and that incident actually motivated me to run for adminship). Questionable items had not been deleted for a while back then, so there was a large pile of several thousands of items which required admin attention. I assume that deletion of yours were more or less “collateral damage”. However, I also have to tell that they do indeed look like abandoned and forgotten items by an experienced user—a situation which happens surprisingly often. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This is rather troubling; and leaves me wondering what other valid items, created by me or others, have been deleted without the creator being made aware. I only happened to notice these because I was editing my watchlist and saw unexpected red links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the cleanup affected only items without sitelinks, backlinks, references, and identifiers. So items with questionable notability, and where a deletion did not impact any other content in Wikidata. We still have to delete on average several hundreds of such items each day, clearly much more than what appears at WD:RfD. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
[ec] Thank you for restoring these. I have now added references, and it can clearly be seen that they are not merely well within scope, but also potentially very useful for describing other items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, please restore Q19636948 and Q20758227 (again, deleted with no apparent discussion, each by User:Ymblanter). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I restored the second one since it contained external identifiers and may be argued to be notable. Concerning the first one, I do not see at the moment how it is notable. There is no policy on Wikidata which requires discussion to delete pages on the notability criterion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
There may not be policy, but it would certainly be courtesy, especially when dealing with the work of a regular contributor, in good standing. Please now restore Q19636948, in order that it can be improved, and then tested against the notability criteria in a proper deletion discussion, if you or anyone else still feels that is warranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
„a regular contributor, in good standing“? It's off topic: But mind to answer some open questions directed to you, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Please avoid making ad hominem attacks such as this; and avoid hijacking discussions in this manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
„ad hominem attacks“? Why do you feel personal „attack“ed by my reminder Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I have restored Prof. Fincher's item and have added some identifiers to it. Would you be willing to appropriately replace author name string (P2093) with author (P50) in these items? (Perhaps that query doesn't return all of his papers; that's ultimately what the Google Scholar Author ID is for.) Mahir256 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It's getting late here, so I'll take a look at that tomorrow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

[ec] Likewise Q23498574, deleted by User:HakanIST, Q30070414, deleted by User:ValterVB and Q47213649 (User:MisterSynergy) and Q47459838 (User:MisterSynergy). [ping fixed] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the item Future for Nature (Q23498574), though I expect you to edit to claim notability as it claims none at the moment.-- Hakan·IST 22:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. When I created it, it had a Wikipedia link. The Wikipedia article was subsequently deleted, but the item still remains notable by Wikidata standards. Anyway, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: We already have dictionary entry (Q4423781), so undeleting Q30070414 (also titled 'dictionary entry') makes little sense. Mahir256 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does. It is used externally. It should be recreated, and - if the items match - be redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

promotional account

KBJB_Radio has a promotional username and the only edit is spam. I think that they should be blocked. --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Same with Divorcematters --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done; contributions deleted —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Automatically adding a value.

Hello,

I'd like to submit a request via autolist to add actor (Q33999) to all files which have television actor (Q10798782), film actor (Q10800557), stage actor (Q2259451) or voice actor (Q2405480), so it can properly shown in a biographical template where all the other values have been rendered invisible. However, I'm afraid I don't remember how to use the gadget. Could you tell me how I should do it, or how I should submit the request ? Thank you. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how some upperclass of the given items is relevant to add. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This biographical template used on wikipedia fr used to display all the following professions : "film actor, television actor, actor, stage actor" (in no particular order). It has been recently decided to show only "actor" and to hide the other ones because it was redundant to show all of them in a template as if they were different professions.
But it appears that some files did not have "actor" as a profession, just "film actor", "stage actor" or "television actor" (or all of them). So the change leaves them without profession in the template. Hence, we'd need Q33999 to be added (or added back) in the template so it can be displayed again. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
It sounds as though the template needs to be fixed. Either way, this is not a matter requiring administrator attention, In future, please use Wikidata:Project chat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the template is awful but in the meantime we have to fix the various problems it poses. Ok, I'll go ask the chat. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

vandalism-only account

Please block TheXxkevinxX as vandalism-only account. --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done - Blocked indefinitely. Mbch331 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

promotional account

Dentistewin has a promotional username and only promotional edits. Please block. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism from 200.42.156.29

Looks like Special:Contributions/200.42.156.29 is consistently vandalizing items about Argentinian politicians. Maybe needs some action there. Laboramus (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Laboramus: Blocked for three days; thanks for reporting! Mahir256 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jarekt (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Main Page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58258
Declined

I think the page "[[Main Page]]" needs to be recreated, with a redirect to "Wikidata:Main Page," for consistent interwiki linking with the other Wikimedia projects (as listed below).

Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not possible, since the mainspace is reserved for items, whose titles have the form Q<#####> and are not ordinary wikitext pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Esteghlal F.C. on wikidata

hi, recently Esteghlal F.C. on Persian wikipedia has been chosen as a good article, I was trying to update its page on wikidata and add the related badge but received this message:

Could not save due to an error. The save has failed. Warning: You are trying to add/remove badges to this item. At local Wikipedias adding or removing badges are done by consensus. Saving this edit was blocked and should be done only by administrators or trusted users. If you think you are correct, please contact an administrator.

So I would like to request and administrator to add the related badge. Thanks --Vathlu (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the badge --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jarekt (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding a badge

Please add the "recommended article" badge to PopPixie's Russian article. Coolak (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Protection request

Please protect Q187413 and Q17478000 due to excessive vandalism. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Montgomery:   Done for six months; should be fine until after 2018 Colombian presidential election (Q24960542). Mahir256 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Oopsy Daisy Art

This user used its personal page for spamming. Thanks for cleaning up :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  Deleted and blocked. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

74.12.120.57

200.42.156.29 is vandalizing despite warnings. Please block him. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any message on their talk page, also the vandalism was 12 hours ago. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: Ops, sorry, I mean the IP 74.12.120.57. Montgomery (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: I confirm that the IP is 74.12.120.57 (talk) (who is vandalizing Wikimedia projects since at least November 2017, cf. meta:Vandalism reports#184.147.30.161). --NicoScribe (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Heading duly updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done 31 hours blocked; will not hesitate to extend if necessary. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Add: I looked through all their edits from this month (activity started on Feb 10), but everything is already reverted. Good job, patrollers! —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Doublon

Bonjour, créateur par erreur d'un nouvel élément constituant un doublon, je vous remercie de supprimer Raymond Lecoq (Q48697987). La page Raymond Lecoq (Q48334180) est nécessaire et suffisante. Cordialement . ~ Antoniex (discuter) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Antoniex:   Done Mahir256 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mahir256 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some IPs with the same goal

Hi, I see some IPs 58.145.190.226, 58.145.190.251, 58.145.190.231 and 103.242.20.230 who seem to have fun to add the same alias: Gazi Salauddin. Could someone check on these? --Fralambert (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A rangeblock might be in order, if somebody can apply such a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  Done for 1 week --Alaa :)..! 05:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks علاء :) --Fralambert (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Decapitalization of English labels by GerardM

Please pay attention that User:GerardM changes English labels using non-English rules of capitalization. I've reverted his move of "Battle of Ankara" to "battle of Ankara" in Q209387, because it does not follow the rules of capitalization for English. The word "Battle" is capitalized in the English Wikipedia (en:Battle of Ankara), the same is said in en:MOS:MILTERMS:

Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion). The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone (France went to war; The battle began; The raid succeeded). As a rule of thumb, if a battle, war, etc. has its own Wikipedia article with capitalized name, the name should be capitalized in articles linked to it as it is in the article name."

The same is said in Help:Label in regard to proper nouns and phrases, i.e. they should be capitalized (exceptions are xkcd (Q13915), t.A.T.u. (Q161723) and similar cases).

However, GerardM, regardless of the above mentioned arguments, reverted my changes twice with the following comments:

  • "I am not aware that this is correct, for many purposes camel casing is a problem" [1]
  • "I am absolutely aware of English .. given the amount of labels I have added over the years <grin> that is obvious </grin> [2]

It seems it's pointless to argue with him on this, because it's an obvious case of en:WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Though, if nothing happens be sure he'll someday rename Battle of Waterloo (Q48314) to "battle of Waterloo" or University of Oxford (Q34433) to "university of Oxford".

Considering that GerardM is not a native English speaker, according to his own page, I ask English-speaking administrators to confirm the correctness of the initial label (Battle of Ankara) and revert his unilateral and undiscussed move.--Russian Rocky (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that the guidelines of the English Wikipedia don't affect Wikidata. Sadly, Help:Label is also not a guideline. So it's up to sources how they write it. I would suggest starting some discussion on the talk page of the item or the project chat. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec) @Sjoerddebruin: Notwithstanding that we can't defer to enwiki's MOS all the time, nor should we adopt it wholesale, it does provide good style guidelines in accordance with standard English usages, so adopting much of it to govern Wikidata labels in English would be helpful. I must agree with Russian Rocky in this case; making 'battle' lowercase makes the battle read generically, as if there are numerous other battles of Ankara besides that one, i.e. as if 'battle of Ankara' were a P31 value for other battles that take place in the Anatolian city. Mahir256 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Things would really be easier if (English) Wikipedia would drop mandatory caps for article titles.
--- Jura 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As a native English speaker (you don't need to be an admin to do so), I agree that "Battle of Ankara" is the correct capitalisation. Only one of the first two pages of Google search results does not capitalise it in running prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, as an English speaker, proper nouns (the names of concrete entities or events) should be capitalized in labels; only generic/abstract things or entities that explicitly use lowercase in their name should use lower case. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say, it is B to be specific of one. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Andy Mabbett and ArthurPSmith. I hope it's settled now.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Russian Rocky, Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith, Sjoerddebruin, Jura1, Artix Kreiger: Gerard wishes to continue the conversation here. Mahir256 (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


This conversation is problematic for several reasons.

There is this guy waltzing in reverting changes and telling others that they are complete idiots (there was no such claim; see discussion below —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)) because English Wikipedia does things different (this IS Wikidata). He could have changed the label and it would have been end of story.
This conversation should be on the chat not here.
Edit warring and seeking admins is REALLY bad behaviour when you are a guest.
When you abuse / accuse by ICANTHEARYOU.. do note that this guy did not even engage in conversation. He made proclamations, a totally different thing.
The current lack of conversation at Wikidata will ensure that many of these spats will occur in the future and Admins as a rule are no help either.

Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM:, I know you do a lot of great work with mass edits, but we all make mistakes. Occasionally one needs to accept that one's understanding of common usage is a language is different from the prevalent view, whether it's one's native tongue or an acquired language. Accusing the other editor of forum shopping isn't going to solve the underlying issue: your decapitalization script is over-reaching and decapitalizing "Battle of ___" which are traditionally capitalized in running prose. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with mass edits. Yes, we all make mistakes. This is not one of them. This is about how we approach each other. I make mistakes obviously as we all do. This approach is wrong on all levels. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"He could have changed the label and it would have been end of story." Three two people, so far, have changed the label. You have reverted them all both. "...when you are a guest" Russian Rocky is no more or less a "guest" here than you, or I. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No three people engaged in bad behaviour. Reverting is not changing the label. It is an act of aggression. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
When you bring your baggage from elsewhere you are a guest. When you assume, you are better than others you tell others what to do. To me he is the kind of guest we can do without. When he is friendly, he will find friendliness in return. When his first interaction with me is a revert with such an attitude.. he is not one of us. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be saying that if someone reverts you, you regard them as being of lesser worth. That's not acceptable. And don't divide my comments in two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM:

  • Your first comment of today on this page has highly inappropriate tone. I consider particularly the statement around “… telling others that they are complete idiots …” as problematic, since I cannot find any evidence that the words “(complete) idiots” have been used against you in this case in the many revert edit summaries of the item, on the item’s talk page, or here at WD:AN, by any involved user. Please bring evidence for this claim here, or retract it immediately from your comment. I otherwise consider this as intentional defamatory speech (and thus a personal attack) by you.
  • On the matter: you have reverted four times [3][4][5][6] against two different users (Russian Rocky and Mahir256). While there are in total four users with a well-founded opinion for the uppercase solution, I cannot find how you justify your reverts at all (I looked at your revert edit summaries, the item’s talk page, and this section), and seemingly no other user supports your position. Please explain why you insist on the lowercase solution, in order to make a real conversation possible at all. If there is no reasonable explanation possible beyond personal upset due to the course of dispute, please revert yourself to the uppercase solution.
    I agree that WD:AN is the wrong venue to discuss the matter, however I also note that your last revert happened after you have explicitly been made aware of this discussion by Mahir256 in their latest revert edit summary, and around half an hour after you complained about the wrong venue at the item’s talk page [7].

I explicitly mention that I hereby offer an escape path from this dispute to you, without any further consequences for you if you manage to properly address the two points above. Your first comment of today on this page indicates that you are edit-warring just because you feel personally offended by a revert of a really old edit by you, and the course of the discussion until now does not indicate that you are about to stop this harmful behavior.
In case of questions or unclear points about my statement feel free to ask, but please refrain from attacking other users here. If you feel yourself unable to respond calmly due to the heat of the moment, you may take your time to cool down. However, I expect your next edit in this matter to address my comment.
Besides this I do not see need for further comments by involved (or uninvolved) users at this point, and there is in my opinion no other behavior or activity which needs administrative attention here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The tone of voice is one of "you are a complete idiot" and "you do not know English". As to what I object to: it is the way I am treated; by reverting and I revert reverts. When the change was just made I could not care less and that is still true. Capitalising is still wrong imho and, a line of LUA can add a first capital, but I am not really bothered. When I change existing data I just change and do not make a fuss. Only when it is fundamentally wrong as it is fundamentally wrong to have a subclass of retracted papers I may use reverts but in the end it is not worth it, it says more about the other than about me. I have been explicit that this is about how we communicate, how we deal with each other and what we do is think and act in an aggressive manner, it is in confronting others.
My approach is one that aims to achieve goals, I am adding start and end dates, predecessors and successors to US governors at this time. Why? because when we have this for all US States we can have a map with a timeline and show the persons who were governor at that time. We are likely to get this functionality for the USA but the mechanism works for any country.. I blogged about that as well.
We do not communicate we confront each other. We do not use arguments and more important we do not listen to others, particularly not to the arguments that are not your own as well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the calm comment.
  • “Tone of voice” is something which depends heavily on personal interpretation, and it is thus perceived very differently by each and everyone of us. While I am personally a strong supporter of the approach that the “exact word” counts and nothing else, I do of course try to figure out what could have been meant “between the lines” while assessing a dispute like this one. There is, however, nothing which remotely reminds me of the impression you apparently perceived and described above. The tone of the other side after your first revert certainly isn’t 100% friendly, but it is totally within the acceptable range and, in fact, not uncommon in revert situations.
    I thus request you again, for the last time, to retract the claim (it would suffice to strike it with <s>text</s> and add something like “might be a mis-interpretation”, or only “retracted” with a fresh signature in <small> brackets). I understand your uncomfortableness with the entire situation and I can assure you that the message you wanted to transport has indeed reached us, however I cannot accept that you make severe and deceptive accusations towards User:Russian Rocky as above, based on your very personal interpretation in the heat of the moment.
  • If you don’t really bother about the capitalization, I recommend to follow the input on this page (in spite of it being placed on the wrong page), change the item to the uppercase variant, and release a lot of stress from the dispute. No long explanations are required.
So in conclusion, once again: yes, the way how the other side changed the label was not most elegant for sure (revert instead of just update, not informing you of this discussion). However, the only things that I found to be critical and unacceptable from the administrative viewpoint is, apart from maybe too many reverts equally from both sides, your behavior and your comment from this morning, after you have been made aware of this discussion on WD:AN. My offer to let you escape from this difficult situation still stands, but I am not here to negotiate it, or to offer it forever. It is now up to you to bring this to an end quickly and relatively noiseless.
Again, in case of questions or unclear statements by me feel free to ask before you reply. You may of course prepare your response and possible changes of your comment from this morning and the item carefully again. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • From the previous thread, it seems unsurprising (to me) that GerardM makes unfounded accusations and fails to provide a reference for his spelling claim. I would appreciate a retraction as well.
    --- Jura 16:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  Info notified GerardM that I still expect him to take action; see Topic:U7aoh6hlhhjezzjc on his user talk page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I am really dismayed to see this post as well as the post prior to this one. It is unseemly and unnecessary to bring this conflict to ANI. I see this type of garbage / attacks on En Wikipedia all the time. I don't want to see it here on Wikidata. Wikidatans have a choice here. They can fall on their swords and obstinately fixate on squabbles. Or they can choose to be better and move past small irritations and build a community of collaboration. I just really hate seeing Wikidata mirror the bad actor environment of En Wiki. There are choices in how to engage here, no matter if there are difference of language, etc. And yes, I realize coming from me, this is more than a little ironic. But GerardM is my friend and I find this upsetting. I know he has good intentions re: Wikidata. I suspect some folks just want to be mean or have other agendas. Just asking editors to maybe not fixate en masse on being mean to a fellow editor. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pigs, you reap what you sow. You are exemplifying EXACTLY what I am talking about. If it wasn't so tragic (and awful) it would be hilarious. It's too bad, as much of the work you do is valuable. Yet interacting with you is nightmarish in the extreme. I have no interest in engaging in areas where you work because of these issues. You don't have a language issue to hide behind, so where is the excuse. I call on you and others to rise above this nasty approach to communicating. It's a choice you can make. I'm sick of this. Please hear the feedback. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There was further discussion in Topic:U7aoh6hlhhjezzjc on GerardM’s user talk page (that topic was already linked this afternoon from here). Unfortunately, GerardM refuses to retract his defamatory speech (personal attack) above. I did so now, and blocked him for 6 hours per Wikidata:No personal attacks. The issue with the label itself has meanwhile been solved. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • This is outrageous. From the Talk page it looks like one Admin vs. one user. I don’t understand how it was okay to publish a private email on Wikidata. I don’t like the precedent of this. If I disagree with a Wikidata Admin and the Admin personalizes and/or over-reacts, then this could happen to me and others. Very badly done. Badly done. — Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I did not pulish a private email. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
      • No, you did not publish a private email. What you did was first to invite me to write an email and then answer publicly "because we do everything in the open". The result: there is no room for a private conversation. I am glad that I invited no further abuse by saying everything to say in my first mail. I do not think you thought about this. But it is a great example why the admins at this time do not have a clue how to stem the increasingly acrimonious atmosphere. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

GerardM's comments were not the best, but I do not know what a block with a length shorter than the interval between the problematic comment and the block is intended to accomplish. --Rschen7754 01:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The only thing achieved in the way things have been executed, the lack of comments in answer to the accusation of abuse is the confirmation that we do not know how to handle abuse, that the victim has been victimised. Arguably MisterSynergy has shown to have been abusive, among other things he responded publicly to a private mail, a mail he indicated I could send in the first place. It was however "kind" to have the ban during my night, I could not sleep anyway. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. An established pattern in the Wiki projects -- blame the victim, re-victimize the victim, incompetent unqualified Admins or Admin surrogates carrying out weird personal agendas, etc. This is the worst behavior of En Wiki. To see it here is very sad.
  • Ha! You made me laugh, Gerard. I totally thought, well he will just sleep and wake up and be able to edit. That gave me a chuckle. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I originally wanted to do so on Friday morning after seeing the edit, but I thought it would be appropriate to reassure myself that there was no misunderstanding (there wasn’t any), and to offer GerardM re-consideration of his comment (he didn’t do so, unfortunately). 6 hrs is the shortest default block time that is offered, and since there was no block for that reason in his log yet, I chose that period. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's clear to me the issue is that Gerard didn't respond, which is his right. And a smart thing to do in the face of that discussion, I think.
  • So this was what, a slap on the wrists for Gerard by you as an Admin or whatever you are? Is that really productive? Necessary? Did it solve the actual Wikidata problem? It just seems jive. It seems personal on your part however you might disavow and shift blame to Gerard. It's disheartening and unproductive. But you're the person in charge here obviously! We are all just lucky to breathe the rarified air around here! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Q254

Please semi-protect Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Q254) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism.--Jklamo (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Please semi-protect Ed Sheeran (Q47447) for about 1 year; sporadic vandalism and all IP edits since November have been unconstructive. Jc86035 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Mahir256 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Block 70.31.126.117

Hello,
Could you block 70.31.126.117, who is vandalizing items, like this, after warnings on his talk page. The user is vandalizing Wikimedia projects since at least November 2017, cf. meta:Vandalism reports#184.147.30.161.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@YMS: thanks! --NicoScribe (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Global blacklist discussion about .club, .space, .website

Seeking the community's opinion on the usefulness and ready availability to utilise links to the top level domains

  • .club
  • .space
  • .website

Due to the amount of spam activity featuring these websites (spambot and some user), there is a general conversation about the usefulness of these three top level domains for the Wikimedia sites. Discussion at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Thoughts_about_blacklisting_.club/_.space/_and_.website/

If there is useful feedback for the global community, please add it to that discussion. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

GerardM

Would someone attempt to explain to GerardM that he should avoid deleting content when adding qualifiers. Sample edit: [8]. The some of the list of governors of Vermont got the qualifiers deleted (a list that was previously complete). An explanation given was "The ones that I remove are often wrong". Apparently, none actually are. Discussion at Topic:U6ayh1y34ay3j4kf prior to more deletions by GerardM. In the previous cleanup of GerardM's edit in the field, I had to remove governor's wives added as governors.
--- Jura 17:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Jura forgets that he removes relevant qualifiers added by me. He forgets that he is asked to explain what these numbers are there for. They are completely ambiguous, there is no one explanation what they are there for. It is not number in governors, it is not number of elected governor. It is random and this is exactly why I mostly do not care but will not add any of these random numbers.
Having said that he proves to be a stalker, his attitude is hostile and when his only argument is that he removed a governors wife, it is a long time ago and the process is known to him. So bad faith is how I do characterise his recent flare. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to the question you mention where "he is asked to explain"? Obviously, I don't appreciate that you persist with more unproductive edits of items I previously cleaned up. Your accusations and imaginary questions make we wonder about the nature of collaboration you have in mind when people discuss cleaning up data quality issues and this is the feedback you provide. --
    --- Jura 08:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Take the South Carolina governors, the first governor is not number one. There is no consistency in what the number means. There is nothing where there is a need for cleaning up. This is stalking, it is insulting. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • it would be better if both of you would (A) not delete any statements, qualifiers, sources, etc. added by other editors unless you are certain they are wrong, and (B) add references to the claims you add. At least the ones I looked at (on a certain person having been a governor, with a certain ordinal number, predecessor, start date, etc.) had no supporting reference listed at all. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerardM You were unable to point out an error in the reversals of some your edits a while ago and still I notice you persist in deleting content I added. I still haven't seen a link to the imaginary question you mention. Besides that, are you trying to describe yourself with the last sentence?
    --- Jura 20:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When you check what I do you find that I only add content. Having said that, when you consider the "series ordinal" as they are used on governors of the USA, they are inconsistently applied. When you consider the USA governors of South Carolina, you will find that many of them (by the number) were not US American but British and also many of them did not hold the office of governor. In addition to this some of these sequences include governors who replace chosen governors. Others include governors who were appointed. When the notion is that only chosen governors are included, some did not take up the post after they were elected.. So these numbers are a mess, typically they are not included on governors anyway... Yes, I did remove several of them and given the description on "series ordinal" it follows that the property is misaplied. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • For the general question, you might want to bring this up on the project chat topic you started afterwards on the same topic (I think it currently has an open question for you). Here you are expected to explain why it's incorrect on Q20684288]. Furthermore, I think you should post a retraction for your accusations made here, similar to what has been requested in the next section. This to avoid any further escalation of this matter.
    --- Jura 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I just explained with chapter and verse how these numbers are inconsistent and that is one of the requirements of the property in use. Now there is nothing I accused anyone for that I cannot prove so there is nothing to appologise for. If anything requiring an apology from others is abusive particularly when you are arguably in the wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM: You are obviously free to disagree on the current approach with qualifiers for ordinals, but this is still no reason to delete them. Especially as you didn't provide an alernative solution. As for your accusations, please provide a reference for your comment at 17:09, 6 February 2018 or retract your comment.
--- Jura 10:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not disagree, I object. You do not refute the argument and your suggestion that I fail to have another solution is in line with the objection. This property has a distinct definition and this use is not compliant. Given my experience with the suggestion of properties I refrain because I have found it to be not productive. When I find that I am harassed, it is no longer possible to say so? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@GerardM: I have not followed closely what you are arguing here, but is your problem that series ordinal (P1545) is being used in cases where the numbers do not appear to be sequential (i.e. there's an item for 57, 125, 233, whatever, but other numbers appear to be missing)? As long as there's a supporting source for such a statement, I don't see why it's a problem. Or is the issue that there are different sources which have different values for such a number? In that case add both to wikidata with the appropriate references, and if some are clearly wrong rank the statements appropriately. Note that series ordinal (P1545) is a string-valued property, so the values do not even have to be numbers. I'm not sure how many are not numbers, but I have definitely seen several cases where the value is '0', which seems odd for the position in a sequence of things (but some sources may number things that way, so...). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we can discuss the ordinal on Project Chat where it was opened up for discussion by GerardM. As for the reminder of GerardM's statement posted on 17:09, 6 February 2018 I will take other measures.
--- Jura 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
So because you are apparently an administrator and something is said about you that you do not like, you are to be the one to take measures? Have we sunk this deep? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Then do reflect on your own actions, you reverted changes that are obviously good and you told me to not edit because you cannot make the argument why what you think is relevant is in compliance with the description what the property is about.. Wonderful. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Q35919

Please semi-protect Lexus (Q35919). Various IPs add unnecessary character to its description.--本日晴天 (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done 1 month semi-protected —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Any admin available to help Wikidata hackathon on Wed 21 Feb?

Hi, running a Wikidata hackathon on Wed 21 Feb 2018 from 12:30pm to 4.30pm GMT at the University of Edinburgh. Got about 30 signups and plan to demo manual edits, Listeria, mass edits with QuickStatements. Last two times we have tried multiple editors working with QuickStatements the edits have failed however. Therefore looking to see if an admin can help with granting new users with confirmed status to enable a smoother QuickStatements experience. Have also asked if IP address for the lab can have cap lifted temporarily. If anyone is available to help, then do let me know. Cheers! Stinglehammer (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Brya

Will an admin kindly review these ad hominem comments:

  1. "Andy Mabbett can play ignorant all he wants"
  2. "Andy Mabbett apparently really likes acting the part of being an ignorant loudmouthed bully"

and take appropriate action to prevent further abuse by that user, who has a previous block for making ad hominem remarks after warnings? Note that I asked them to desist from making personal attacks between those two comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

When Andy Mabbett made an obviously wrong assumption, I gave him ample opportunity to rectify this. Rather than re-examine his assumption, he shifted from this erroneous assumption to a false assertion, and tried to avoid discussion by "closing" the proposal based on this false assertion (twice). When Andy Mabbett finds he has put himself in a pit his primary reaction is not to get out of the trouble he has caused, but to dig himself in deeper. His false interpretation may have various causes, of which I selected the one that is most innocent. - Brya (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Mind to tell the full story, Mr. Mabbett? After 15 minutes you marked the property proposal as not done. Insisting here and here on your lonesome decision. --Succu (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I find the comments blockable (barely), but I also find edits like this blockable too. So, any thoughts? --Rschen7754 05:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the mild "ad hominems" that were used would have been prevented if Andy had not persisted in his premature closing of the proposal, him not being a property creator. His point was clearly not shared by all discussion participants. From that moment on it had been wise to try understand each other and discuss (not make it into a debating contest) the issue. There was not the slightest reason to hurry on closing the proposal, being harmless in itself. I don't see reasons to block anyone here, but urge to cooperate instead and look for solutions. Lymantria (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. We retain the ability to block all the parties in this disagreement, but I would hope that they can resolve this disagreement a different way. --Rschen7754 07:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
"Mild"?!? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I ceased marking the blatantly unactionable proposal as closed even before it was significantly re-drafted (see my comment here; timestamp 11:33, 31 January 2018). The abusive comments - which in any case are utterly inexcusable - were made long after that point, at 17:37, 31 January and 11:37, 1 February, with intervening posts by Brya at 11:46, 31 January and me at 11:52, 31 January, so Rschen7754's attempts to wave away this egregious ad hominem abuse on the above basis won't wash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

And now this:

in a separate discussion, which is nothing to with the duplicate IPNI property proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if he continued after this discussion started, then that reaches a whole new level. Blocked 1 week. --Rschen7754 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: At some point, I think we agreed that Pigsonthewing shouldn't be closing property creation requests. Their corresponding rights were removed. Still, here they attempted to close one repeatedly [9] [10]. Why do we sanction people here who seemed to be abused by this?
    --- Jura 19:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Got a diff saying I shouldn't, Jura? Got a policy link saying only property creators can close a discussion? No? Right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • But revert warring is not okay. --Rschen7754 19:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Clearly they shouldn't be editing or closing other people's proposals. Actually it happen even more than two times in the above discussion [11][12][13] and Pigsonthewing was already reminded before not to do that. Given that the closure removes the discussion from the lists of open ones, this is highly disruptive to the process. Accusing the person who undid their acts is just topping it.
          Furthermore, Pigsonthewing changed the property proposal from string to external-id without leaving any note in the discussion [14]. A problem we had seen before and that lead to their removal of property creator rights. I suggest their block to be twice the duration of that of Brya or, at least one week. Given the abuse Brya has suffered, I think we should remind him to request a block of Pigsonthewing here directly next time they close or edit proposals and rescind the block.
          --- Jura 20:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
          • That'd confirm the "no" to my question, then. And see the comment I made above, timestamp 11:43, 2 February - funny how this only became an issue after I complained about personal attacks made in two different discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
            • I find the repeated edit warring to close that proposal disruptive, and I would encourage admins to block if that happens again. I chose not to block either Pigsonthewing or Byra in my first comments above because I did not think in that case it would be productive, but after Byra decided to go ahead and make more personal attacks, he got blocked. --Rschen7754 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
              • They still don't seem to see anything wrong with it after this discussion was opened. This despite that they were told before not to close property creation discussions. It's possible that this is acceptable at ORCID, but for property creations at Wikidata, it's not.
                --- Jura 06:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
                • What do you want me to do? Block for something that happened almost 24 hours ago? --Rschen7754 07:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • Personally I might not have blocked either, but it seems disproportionate to block Brya, while the person who edit warred with him over the closure of a discussion they were told before not to close remains unblocked.
                    I fail to see how people can't be sufficiently disciplined to not just read what people write in forums and comment on it .. especially if they haven't started yesterday.
                    --- Jura 07:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
                    • @Jura1: It seems you must have missed the further comments from Brya that occurred after this issue was raised here. To help you, here they are: "It becomes increasingly difficult to imagine in what kind of realm Andy Mabbett's mind moves." The result is you are now advocating blocking Andy because of those comments made about him by Brya. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as partisan, so I suggest you strike your mistake above. As for closing proposals, it is within the remit of any experienced editor to do so, and you need to focus on the edit and not the editor. I won't condone edit-warring, of course, but I am rather alarmed that you are suggesting blocking Andy because "they were told before not to close property creation discussions". It would have to be a community decision to ban somebody from closing property creation discussions, not your personal decision, thankfully. It's not improving the project to prevent any proper, sensible close of a discussion that has no chance of succeeding, no matter if it's Andy making the close. If the close is contested, naturally my advice to Andy is step away from it. Somebody else will close it later, but I'm not prepared to see you threatening to sanction any editor for making any sensible close. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
                      • I'm wondering what good wind brought you here and I'm not sure if you followed the removal of Pigsonthewing's Property Creator rights. It happened because of the way they closed property creation discussions. From their comments above, it seems they still fail to understand that closures by themselves are detrimental to the process.
                        --- Jura 17:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
                        • Yes, that expression quoted was certainly over the edge and I must admit that Brya seems to have deliberately provoked being blocked and was rightfully so blocked by Rschen7754. But IMHO in the end prematurely closing a property creation discussion based only on own opinion and not waiting for input of other participants is more damageing to the project. Note that there was not the slightest need to deal quickly with the proposal, as proposals in themselves are totally harmless. Added to that Andy Mabbett, among doing many valuable things at Wikidata, has proven himself incompetent in dealing with his former property creating rights. In my words he often was taken away by his own opinions. So this discussion/reverting battle on closing a property proposal was a deja vu. Again he was very fond of his initial position and defended it quite strongly without trying to understand the position of its opponents, but also without really clarifying the reasoning behind his action - at least not satisfying the needs of the opponents. Honestly, such behaviour may make you president of a large country, but it is not very helpful in a cooperative project. If you are struck by this behaviour on Andy's behalf, I am very aware that that is frustrating. And then Andy is addressed "... can play ignorant all he wants". I see this not that much as a personal attack but an expression of frustration. It litteraly translates "dommetje spelen" ("play ignorant"), a Dutch expression that is used against people that are not considering your points seriously. In Dutch using this expression timed as Brya did would have been perfectly adequate. But Andy escalates by doing this request, Brya by escalating their expressions, which finally got Brya blocked for a week. I think the length of that block is disproportionate and I feel sad that where two people both escalate, one takes a severe blow by being blocked and the other walks free. Lymantria (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (outdent) I am not a fan of Pigsonthewing's actions here, nor of non-property creators closing those discussions in general. However, outside of edit warring, there is not a strong support from the community against it, see Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming the property creation process#Discussions. Perhaps that should be changed. --Rschen7754 22:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Brya's block was lifted a few hours ago. One of his first edits, referring to me, says "Well, that is at least a reason given for his intolerant behaviour, other than just knee-jerk bigotry.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside other errors, I there generously gave credit to Andy Mabbett for finally providing an actual reason for his behaviour. Up to that point he was engaged in "correcting errors", as compared to something he considers a Holy Text. Up till now there was no discernible difference between Andy Mabbett's behaviour and that of Muslims persecuting women who dare come close to them with uncovered heads (which they regard as being counter to their particular Holy Text). - Brya (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Blocking 1 month. The next one may be indefinite. --Rschen7754 18:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  Info This is your 4th block of Brya. --Succu (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocking duration: The case of Brya

Moved by Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Our Blocking policy lists some reasons, when it's reasonable to block a user account. But it states nothing about the duration of that measure. The first block of Brya was executed by User:Jasper Deng with a duration of 36 hours. He failed to give a trackable reason for this decision. All the next blocks are executed by another enWp based admin named Rschen7754. He started with 31 hours (Edit warring), then escalating it twice to 168 hours (a week). In his/her last stance (the 4th blocking done by them) multiplied that block to a month claiming Intimidating behaviour/harassment.

For me this looks like an unjustified punishment, based on bad "rules" executed on behalf of enWP. --Succu (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Special question to Rschen7754 The next one may be indefinite. Why? --Succu (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeated personal attacks. Succu, you failed to mention that the user is already blocked on enwiki and nlwiktionary, so it is not like this is unprecedented; in fact, I think it is fairly generous, especially considering "As an exception to this, if an account with a history of cross-wiki or single project abuse shows signs of continuing that pattern on Wikidata, they may be blocked here without a pattern of local abuse". In fact, I would expect people questioning why this block was not indefinite. I am of the belief that Brya is simply not able to communicate with others in a way that fosters collaboration, which is of course the whole purpose of Wikimedia projects; however, I decided to give one last chance. I am also quite offended at the insinuation that this has to do with forcing enwiki standards elsewhere. I also served as a steward for 1 year, Meta admin for almost 2, and en.wikivoyage admin for almost 2, not to mention being an admin on this project for 5 years - why are these considerations suddenly overlooked? --Rschen7754 01:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention a 1 month block on en.wiktionary, where the block summary was much harsher than something I would ever use: [15] --Rschen7754 01:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Where do you see a cross-wiki or single project abuse?
The indef block at enWikipedia dates back to October 2006.
The indef block at nlWiktionary was executed after this contributions
The temp bock at enWiktionary was executed by someone having personal conflicts with Brya
Calling your actions yourself as fairly generous is disturbing. And it's unimportend here in which ways you served elsewhere (see User:John F. Lewis).
I am also quite offended at the insinuation that this has to do with forcing enwiki standards elsewhere - Why do you assume this?
--Succu (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
These comments are so far off base (specifically your complete denial of your previous comment "based on bad "rules" executed on behalf of enWP") that I will not dignify them with a further response. --Rschen7754 07:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I wrote looks like and I my post is addressed to all Wikidata admins, because I don't think this is the way we should follow as a distinguished Wikimedia project. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: So a.you did not address the fact that you denied saying that, and b.it's a straw man argument you are making here, by (wrongly) implying that his blocks are a bad-faith attempt to "force" English Wikipedia rules on this project. I do not believe I will invest more of my time replying to this thread, it doesn't seem to be in the best interests of you or the rest of the project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
it doesn't seem to be in the best interests of you or the rest of the project My gut feeling says otherwise. --Succu (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Succu: "Ad hominem remarks" was intended to be less-derogatory than "personal attacks", which was the core block reason. I honestly wonder why you are making such a big deal over something that happened so long ago.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is about the choice of blocking durations. After four years of good work here it was Bryas first block. From my expierence at deWP 36 hours is an inadequate duration. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: I fail to see the problem here. Brya was making personal attacks after I warned him/her not to, so (s)he was blocked. 36 hours is fine: the goal was to give Brya a bit over a day to reflect and reconsider.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So the decision to choose 36 hours for this first block after four years of good work here was yours only? --Succu (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course it was my own. Why would it be anyone else's? There's nothing in the blocking policy that prescribes specific lengths. I still don't get why you are making such a big deal over what (at least to me) is a rather trivial matter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Besides WD: Where did you gained this admin habit, Jasper Deng? --Succu (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I have not intervened before, but I fully support the decisions taken by the two administrators for this case. Pamputt (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pamputt: Out of curiosity: Why is a month block appropriate for "Well, that is at least a reason given for his intolerant behaviour, other than just knee-jerk bigotry." --Succu (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
"failed to give a trackable reason..." He did not fail to do so; he gave his reason here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Trackable (=link) in the blocking comment... Sorry for this shortcut. --Succu (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Laddo

User:Laddo is tagging everything with different from (P1889), even when there is no overlap, such as here (person versus town), here (film versus pronoun), or here, where one is a translation of the other, and both are already marked as such. Several editors have already brought this issue to the user's attention, but he continues to tag dozens of data items per second. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to discuss with EncycloPetey, there is always at least one good reason for my tagging. And only at the pace of QuickStatements. LaddΩ chat ;) 01:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Reading back comments from my own talk page (9 months ago...), I do remember I had agreed to refine and retrict use of that property. I thus stopped these edits. LaddΩ chat ;) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
"Good reason" according to Wikidata principles, or "good reason" according to yourself? Is there really any possibility that a stream in Poland Słoja (Q35394839) will be confused with a Serbian folk singer Stoja (Q292265)? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The information is from Wikidata:Do not merge. Ping @Pasleim, Ivan A. Krestinin: to comment. IMO we should deprecate the do not merge page.--GZWDer (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
My bot takes both different from (P1889) and Wikidata:Do not merge into account. Which of these is preferred used, I don't care. --Pasleim (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The two items in your first example both share the label "
Осия
" in one or more languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The precise purpose of different from (P1889) is not stated in the property documentation, leaving it open for interpretation. However from now on I will avoid using it on items that are clearly distinct, considering the opposition of some contributors - though I fail to see which "Wikidata Principle" I am violating. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 23:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The English description of different from (P1889) says "item that is different from another item, but they are often confused". How often is the biblical prophet confused with the Russian hamlet? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. But I know that having the same name is not "no overlap". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably no one ever actually confuses towns and prophets. However, if only the (according) labels are shown (or the labels and descriptions, but the latter ones might be missing in at least one of the items), it's impossible to distinguish them here on Wikidata, which again might lead to merge attempts if the merging user is working carelessly. Having this statement would prevent this even if there is no real chance in real life to confuse the subjects. On the other hand, having descriptions everywhere should prevent such merges (and other misuses, like wrong links, etc.) as well, unless someone really doesn't care which item they link, merge, etc. --YMS (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

184.146.205.165

Please block the IP User:184.146.205.165. It's related to previous vandal IP geolocated in Toronto. Montgomery (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

art educator (Q10547731) and art educator (Q15977927)

Hi! Both the items declare the same, a teacher, who educates art. Please merge both the items to Q15977927. Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doc Taxon: I've done this merge. It's curious that both items have been around so long - were sitelinks lost at some point from one or the other? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Thank you Doc Taxon (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Jorge Baliño" (Q28816050)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Jorge Baliño (Q28816050), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Mahir256 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Block 184.146.205.203

Hello,
Could you block 184.146.205.203, who is vandalizing items, after warnings on his talk page. The user is vandalizing Wikimedia projects since at least November 2017, cf. meta:Vandalism reports#184.147.30.161.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done for 31 hours. Talk page access also disabled.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Increased to 1 month after I found this to be block evasion of 184.146.205.165 (talk • contribs • logs). A rangeblock may be in order if they IP hop again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection Morvan Marchal (Q3324644)

Hello,

is it possible to protect Morvan Marchal (Q3324644) ? The article has been the target of vandals since July[16]. Thanks. XIII (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256 (talk • contribs • logs) —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Please semi-protect Millie Bobby Brown (Q25936414) for about 1 year; large quantity of recent problematic IP edits. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done 3 months semi-protected, and watched —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protection request (Q3847848)

I'm requesting that Zygmunt Szendzielarz (Q3847848) to be semi-protected (IMHO at least for a few months): there were several changes in Polish description (beginning in December), e.g. bandyta, morderca kobiet i dzieci, herszt bandy zwyrodnialców z lasu. Złodziej i kłamca → bandit, murderer of women and children, leader of a band of degenerates from the forest. Thief and liar and similar. As far as I know WD descriptions are visible in mobile app and I can't guarantee that I'll notice every vandalism in this item in a short time. Such edits probably won't stop in the near future, because it's the results of the current political situation in Poland (article in Polish is also vandalised quite often [17], but we have Flagged revisions there). Wostr (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done 3 months semi —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for adding a new sitelink to Q21436583

I was unable to add a Wikipedia sitelink with language zh_yue and page name w:yue:Template:風季帶路模/end to the mentioned page Q21436583. I would be grateful if an admin could help.--Hello903hello (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done - Next time you have this problem, please mention any error messages you get. Mbch331 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems like the user hit the Non-notable subpages abuse filter. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for page protection (Q6121272)

I want to request the protection of Santiago do Rego (Q6121272). This item refers to an Argentinian journalist that works on TV and has been depicted in a trending YouTube video by a local creator recently. There is a meme going on about him and his Spanish Wikipedia article was heavy vandalized and later protected. Now the vandals are focusing on Wikidata. Thanks in advance, --Pólux (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Mahir256 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass revert of descriptions modified by User:Artix Kreiger 2

It will be necessary to revert all of the changes made to Indonesian village descriptions made by Artix Kreiger 2 (talk • contribs • logs). See here for more information. I have already blocked the alt account but hesitate to remove it until this is cleaned up. Mahir256 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an idea how many descriptions are to be repaired? The alt account made 330.000+ edits in the past two weeks, so this could be a fairly large number. We do not have a mass-revert tool, thus the easiest way to undo all bad edits would be to run another QS batch that justs overwrites the bad descriptions with the old ones. I hope Artix Kreiger (talk • contribs • logs) has logfiles about their batches…?! —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: The number is about ~2600 (in particular, the last ~2600 before I blocked the alt account). It could have been ~84,500 if it wasn't caught in time. Mahir256 (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we still have the bot to mass-revert, Alphos? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256:, @MisterSynergy:, @Matěj Suchánek:, I have filed a request for the rollback tool so I can mass revert the edits. Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

in progress of reverts. Thanks to Jianhui67 for the rollback tool. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done complete. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't have time to notice.
Haven't had a good idea yet as to a good way to allow admins to control it either   Alphos (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

184.146.206.146

Hi. There is a new IP related with the inter-wiki vandal located in Toronto, now active at 184.146.206.146 (talk • contribs • logs). Please block. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done Notifying NicoScribe and MarcoAurelio. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

add request

please add bo:ཐེ་རོན་ཕུ། in Q22686. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 112.49.111.244 (talk • contribs).

  Done.-- Hakan·IST 08:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living People

There has been a request for comment about developing a policy about privacy and items about living people. Your participation is encouraged above. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC) (from Rschen7754)

User talk:Jura1

  1. User talk is archived every day, it is impossible to contact this user.
  2. There is a lot of content which is unconnected with talks on this talk page.
  3. There is no link to archive and it is excessively subdivided such that one can not read it easily.

I believe this user is doing it deliberately, please do something. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:Jura1/ shows the confusingly named archives. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Jura1 do you have any explanation? Pamputt (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I left a note about it on Wikisaurus' talk page before seeing this.
--- Jura 16:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
So you did; but it did not address any of the above points; much less answer Pamputt's question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment the first problem is because of |archive = User talk:Jura1/6/%(counter)d/7/1aruJ:klat resU, which is the reason that I also can't check talk page archive easier.
TBH, why using such configuration? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: could you reply? BTW, the message you posted on the Wikisaurus' talk page is a bit too tough. Pamputt (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not aware that one is ok to edit other people's user pages. Maybe it helps if an admin explain it to Wikisaurus as well. I'm not sure if there is much to say about point 1 as long as we don't get an answer from Wikisauraus. Apparently they don't respond to people contacting them.
--- Jura 06:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware that hiding ones archive behind unfathomable gibberish as archive sub-pages, and removing everything after just one day, is considered helpful in any way, I'd call this very aggressive towards people, who ask you a question. And you haven't answered the questions by Pamputt and Andy yet. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: It will be useful to other editors if you set your user talk page to archive less often (say, once a week) and use an archive page naming system that other editors can understand. That will help other users discuss things with you. Deryck Chan (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we revert all the archive bot edits? Would make the process easier. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still awaiting for a response from Wikisaurus on my attempt at contacting them. Apparently they just left a note here and then disappeared. Would an admin ask them for feedback and remind them of not editing other users pages/page configuration?
    --- Jura 07:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as you don't provide any good reason for the user unfriendly configurations, it is fine if any other user is fixing them. Keep in mind that Wikidata is a collaborative project. --Pasleim (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently it hasn't actually been unfriendly as far as I can tell. Maybe others are more successful in attempting to contact Wikisaurus.
--- Jura 09:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You talk page is unfriendly in many ways:
  1. The inclusion of many images and spinning wheels increases in an unnecessary way the loading time of your page and it's distracting for readers.
  2. The archiving period enforces that a reply has to be given within one day, otherwise the discussion is over. Moreover, if you are on a vacation, it is impossible to leave you a message.
  3. The naming schema of your archive sub-pages makes it impossible to track back any discussion and thus is missing the main purpose of an archive. --Pasleim (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
How much unarchived or decorative content would you consider appropriate on a talk page? (100k, 200k?) Do you think archive subpages need to be listed? Do you think a naming scheme with a random number would be preferable?
--- Jura 09:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't seem to be making any progress. I think we need a concrete proposal, to remedy the current situation. How about:

  1. Jura's talk pages must be archived with name in the sequence User talk:Jura1/Archive 1, User talk:Jura1/Archive 2, etc.
  2. Jura's talk archive pages should have a length of around 70Kb
  3. All of Jura's current talk page archives shall be migrated to pages as described above. Any editor may work on this.
  4. Once #3 is complete, the current archive pages shall be deleted.
  5. Jura must not remove discussions from their talk page until a minimum of seven days from the last post has elapsed. In the case of abusive messages, Jura should ask another editor to remove them. Mailing-list style announcements may be removed at any time.
  6. Other than abuse removed by a third party, or mailing-list style announcements, no post shall be removed from Jura's talk page without also being archived
  7. Any non-discussion content currently in Jura's talk page header template shall be moved to/ transcluded on a page or pages in Jura's user space, named like User:Jura1/Example and shall not appear on their talk page
  8. Jura's talk page shall be archived by bot, by the inclusion at the top of User talk:Jura1 of the code below
  9. Any variation to these conditions must be agreed at the Administrators' Noticeboard
  10. Failure to abide by these conditions will result in blocks, with length increasing after repeat instances.

The code for point 8 is: 

{{User:Hazard-Bot/Archiver
|archiveheader = {{Archive}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Jura1/Archive %(counter)d
}}

{{Archives}}

with the counter set to the appropriate value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with logical archives based on months or years? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing. What's wrong with logical archives based on sequential numbering? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Any logic would be fine, but those archives are obviously deliberately constructed in an obfuscated and unfathomable way. There is absolutely no logic behind this nonsense. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It is generally unprecedented on this wiki to hand out individual restrictions. I would prefer to see a more general policy that applies to all users. --Rschen7754 01:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: Why are you making it hard for people to read your talk page archives and communicate with you? Please answer the question rather than blaming it on Wikisaurus. --Rschen7754 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I can change the archiving to a couple of days if that helps and change the amount of other content, but I still haven't seen a suggestion for a reasonable length that others actually use. Besides that, contrary to some of the other users in this thread, I think I generally respond to people contacting me even with some delay and don't remove their posts with some blank accusation. I'm still curious about what incident Wikisaurus refers to. Maybe there were good reasons not to do that. Personally, I prefer incremental archives. I don't think the approach used by (e.g.) Pasleim is preferable (using random page names, placing it in a separate unsearchable namespace, supporting hiding discussion topics). Obviously, mine is just a personal preference. Personally, I think it would be odd to recommend to others to follow things I don't attempt to follow myself. What's the word for people who do that?
    --- Jura 04:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

One week on, nothing seems to have changed, The adjustment Wikisaurus made to the archive delay period has not been reverted, but the old content is still archived using the pattern User talk:Jura1/6/%(counter)d/7/1aruJ:klat resU, with no links to them on the current talk page, and discussion on the talk page is still obfuscated by the image galleries, animated "loading" image, etc. discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

98.15.105.199

He changes Russia to Ukraine, Russian to Ukrainian in different languages in Q159.Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:&beer&love

Please block the User:&beer&love. Vandal: Q47447999. — Niklitov (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Niklitov: Doesn't seem to be in bad faith to me at first glance. You do not appear to have reached out to this user before reporting them here. It's common for misguided/mistaken decisions to be made when using an automated tool. Thus, this is   Not done.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility

Remarks like this one from User:Multichill (diff) are out of order. People give what time they can. Jheald (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: You have not indicated that you addressed Maarten directly about this issue of civility before coming here. Please do that first. Mahir256 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Droit de retrait 03

Hello,

Droit de retrait 03 has - again - engaged in a conflict with Nomen ad hoc and is making several inadequate and un-collaborative edits, for instance, recently adding description in French : « un homme mort en 2017 qui est dans le who'who » ("a man dead in 2017 who is in the who'who" Special:Diff/Q48804641), same for a dozen other items (see Special:Contributions/Droit de retrait 03). This user has also left messages with insults on several talk page of items : Talk:Q50172330 and Talk:Q48226554.

For the context, this is the late episode of a more general conflict (with rightful concerns about privacy but wrong actions on these concerns ; and which among other things lead to indefinite block of Droit de retrait 03 on fr.wikipedia and fr.wikiquote). I can search and provide more informations about the context but I think the last actions alone on the provided links above deserve some actions.

VIGNERON (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

J'ai bloqué l'utilisateur pour 3 jours. Je vais lui laisser un message et bloquerait pour une période plus longue, voire infini, si son comportement ne change pas à son retour. Pamputt (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

70.31.127.107

The anonymous vandal geolocated in Toronto is now active with the IP 70.31.127.107 (talk • contribs • logs). Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done @Montgomery: Feel free to revert the vandal's edits. Mahir256 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of references by 2600:8800:3981:7A80:194E:E87A:2510:F53C

2600:8800:3981:7A80:194E:E87A:2510:F53C (talk • contribs • logs) is constantly removing references for Bud Luckey (Q2619317). I asked them to stop doing so but they did not react. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done blocked by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2018/02&oldid=2035985154"