Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2019/12

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2019

Q4899515

Can some admin check whether this item is. Is it the same person as Q67932458?--GZWDer (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@GZWDer: It's about Beverly Engel who is American psychotherapist. looks like same person. --Sotiale (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:26kateplumb

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q39042&action=history How can vandalism like that survive that long? It's not even an obscure item, but a US state capitol that was vandalised here. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Less than 2 weeks... but we could always use more patrollers on recent changes. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done, the vandal has been blocked. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:149.147.197.23

149.147.197.23 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: The user has made two edits related to the article TP Senkumar. One is a bad word and another leads to the usage of foul language. The words inside brackets is the usage of foul language. Adithyak1997 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your report. But now it seems to have stopped. Let's keep an eye on it. --Sotiale (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм

@Ymblanter: Salyn777. Весь глобальный вклад - в Викиданных. Последние правки - вандализм. Kalendar (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. -- Kalendar (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove rights

As per request on meta, please remove the rights of Renamed user uofgjwfojfowubwofemipvwjboiw. Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done Except for translation admin. Thanks for her volunteering. --Sotiale (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Black people (Q817393)

Requesting semiprotection of Black people (Q817393) due to persistent IP vandalism. –LiberatorG (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning 74.12.120.154 (talk • contribs • logs) and their previous IPs

They did mass undo on many pages (previously did so several times in other IPs and all got reverted as vandalism). It seems that correct things are removed and false information is inserted, e.g. Ricky Martin (is homosexual according to source instead of heterosexual), Angelica Panganiban (the name is manipulated) and so on. I request protection on pages affected (or use AbuseFilter) as the IP range is wide and block may be inefficient. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for your report. I saw vandalism in the items you said. As you said, band-blocking is not good because the band is wide. So I semi-protected the items. Incorrectly set protection periods will be fixed soon. (It's mobile) --Sotiale (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done --Sotiale (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Sotiale (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Q4899515

Please undelete Q4899515, which is apparently a duplicate of Q67932458 (per this), and merge them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q15799

Club Atlético River Plate (Q15799): persistent vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 15:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Sotiale (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick Delete

Hallo Admin, please make Quick Delete for my exercise Template:User SUL Box-fr. Thank you very much. Best regards --Abrape (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done --MisterSynergy (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q54850195

Lenny Tavárez (Q54850195): persistent vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done --MisterSynergy (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 22:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Не связанная страница

@Ymblanter: считаю, что подобные несвязанные страницы следует удалять Kalendar (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: ещё одна страница Kalendar (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: ещё одна страница. Kalendar (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: первая из удалённых страниц снова появилась. Kalendar (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  deleted by Ymblanter. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Item to be restored

Hi,

I just saw that Q30332896 was recreated by somebody else (Q57338054). So could you please restore it and merge the two items? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC).

  Done C'est fait. Pamputt (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

5.244.88.102

5.244.88.102 All edits are vandalism. Repeatedly changes date of death (P570) of long dead people to recent deaths. –LiberatorG (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 1 month. Pamputt (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Q23679

This user is a bot operated by @U+1F360:, but you'd never guess that from their username. The issue has been brought up at Wikidata_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Inappropriate_bot_username?, and pointed out specifically to the bot owner at User_talk:U+1F360, over two months ago - but nothing changed. If others think this is an issue, perhaps the bot could be blocked until it is renamed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, with a little sense of humor, you could say that User:Q23679 = Abbott and Costello (Q23679) = "Abbott and Costello". So, a little farfetched, but the word "bot" is actually there! 62 etc (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a bot .. so shouldn't it go unnoticed anyways ?  ;) --- Jura 09:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the username stands out as unusual, which has the opposite effect! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe we have a policy on such things, but if I am mistake I will of course rename it. U+1F360 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@U+1F360: There's WD:UCS. You can submit rename request through Special:GlobalRenameRequest. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, U+1F360: I don't see any problem here. Bots don't have to contain the username of the operator and User:Q23679 has a clear link to the operator. No action required. Multichill (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

IP blanking

2402:800:63AE:A5A6:DD44:94C6:4E71:E1E4 (talk • contribs • logs) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Jasper Deng. --Sotiale (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q25056945

Blackpink (Q25056945): persistent vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 16:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Gotitbro

Gotitbro (talk • contribs • logs) started edit war in Q10806. Раммон (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a joke? First you make mindless reverts without explaining anything in your edit summaries and when I politely ask you to discuss your edits on the Talk page you make this nonsensical report. This is pretty bad faith editing on your part is all I can say. Gotitbro (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Your have deleted sourced information and started edit war to keep your version. Usually such a behavior leads to block. Раммон (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
You are adding information that is not even supported by the linked wiki articles. Last I remember I actually started a discussion on the talk to sort this out, you made "unexplained" reverts to keep your version. Who needs to be blocked will be clear to the admins, you don't need to dictate that here. Gotitbro (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not dictate. I just explain to you the practice of applying the Wikidata's rules. Раммон (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Block request

Cross wiki vandalism from 197.1.68.242 on item Aguigui Mouna and the corresponding article in French. Please block user. Many thanks. --—d—n—f (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If the page is a target, I think it's better to protect the related item. So I protected the item for a week. --Sotiale (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
mark as   semi-protected --Sotiale (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Hsarrazin (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Item restoration

Please restore Q28924637, while it fulfils two structural needs:

Thanks, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

  Done --MisterSynergy (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

QuickStatements Status

Hello,

I just wanted to add a batch to QuickStatements and I cant do that and there is a notification: You can't create a new batch, because you are blocked on Wikidata When I look into my Block-Logbook in German Sperrlogbuch then I cant find a information that I am blocked at the moment. Can you give me some information why I see this information in Wikidata. I think it is because of the QueryServiceLag but I am not sure and is it possible to get a notification if a batch was stopped because of a Lag of a Server. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem that others experience as well, see Wikidata:Project chat#Quick statements down? Admins probably cannot help you here… ;-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, this is now solved - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T240316 --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 2

@Ymblanter: Malikudrat В Русской Википедии уже заблокирован. Kalendar (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. -- Kalendar (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 3

@Ymblanter: Kristina k2. Kalendar (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. -- Kalendar (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

24.193.116.230

24.193.116.230 - Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done Short block. --Sotiale (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Block User:3mrreda55

User: 3mrreda55 (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

Reason: Account to vandalize (157 vandalisms). Indefinite block, please.

—Eihel (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done by MisterSynergy. --Sotiale (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Block 193.54.198.93

User: 193.54.198.93

Reason: This IP practices only vandalism since 5 years. Thanks.

—Eihel (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done Block for two weeks. And watch afterwards. --Sotiale (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Double headed serpent

The above article on Double headed serpent is in the English Wikipedia - there is the same article in the Italian wikipedia (and several other languages) under the name 'Serpente a due teste' - can you add these links please?

thanks  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jononmac46 (talk • contribs) at 11:10, 11 December 2019‎ (UTC).

Yes; I've merged Q43374224 into Double-headed serpent (Q5299596). This is something you can do yourself; please see Help:Merge for guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a red link, Andy; could you just fix it (personally I don't know the right target)? Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC).
Oops, sorry. Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

IP blockage

Hello, please temporarily block 77.204.125.190 due to vandalism : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.204.125.190 Thanks. Bouzinac (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

block 156.67.167.27 (talk • contribs • logs)

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

Vandalism only account. 轻语者 (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Offensive username

Please block Nickiseminemsslave as his username is offensive and his contribution so far demonstrates that his intention is indeed to disparge the username's subject. --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done: indefinitely blocked. I think this is sufficient here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Bob Singleton

It unfortunately seems that the editor whose editing was discussed on the AN in June still didn't quit creating duplicate items to Bob Singleton (Q28101393) (see for instance the edits of 173.191.240.205). Could an administrator please review this case and see if anything can be done about it (perhaps setting up an Abuse Filter could help)? --Sintakso (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Bograt the Defiler

Bograt the Defiler (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account, apparently taking out their political grievances from the UK election on Wikidata entries. (Discovered by changes to short description on a Wikipedia article -- this is my first time on this wiki, so let me know if I've made any mistakes.) The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Rschen7754 05:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Link abuse through commission site through change of website url

Hi. To note that I have seen that BetOnline (Q4897149) had its official url rerouted through a commission website. They had already tried to do this on the enWP article, and were smart enough to then back track to WD to make the change. I have added some global blacklisting and put some trackers on the suspicious domains, and raising here for your general information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

add article Olesha (Deutsch) as reference to english site and vice versa

hi, the page does not let me add the article even though it clearly refers to the same topic.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klesha should be referenced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Hinduism) and vice versa

There are two separate data items. One is for the concept of the "klesha" in Hinduism, and the other is for the concept as a generality in all religions of India. The English Wikipedia has several pages on "kleshas", including one specific to Buddhism. For this reason, the data items must remain separate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Juice WRLD (Q52151598)

Juice WRLD (Q52151598): persistent vandalism. — Premeditated (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done; please have a look whether the current version should be kept or another revert is necessary. --MisterSynergy (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q60309635

Excessive vandalism by the same person that using different ip addresses from Saudi Arabia. Kirilloparma (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done, protected for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

91.80.30.239

Please block Special:Contributions/91.80.30.239 - vandalism after warning. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done short block. --Sotiale (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bot GZWDer (flood)

The previous note has been archived (Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2019/11#The Bot GZWDer (flood)), but I don't think the problem has been solved.

Please have a look at User talk:GZWDer#User:GZWDer (flood) creating duplicates, User talk:GZWDer#The peerage duplicates and User talk:GZWDer#The Peerage and notability. It looks like the bot is creating a massive amount of new items, there is either duplicates or not notability.--Kjeldjoh (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Block 74.12.120.154

Active vandal. -Mys 721tx (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. Please have a second look whether everything is reverted. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Chinese LTA

220.169.239.83 (talk • contribs • logs) - see Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/10#Persistent_vandalism_on_China_politics-related_items. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting. This is part of 220.169.0.0/16.. and for now, I deleted inappropriate edit summaries. --Sotiale (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

176.103.220.32

176.103.220.32 (talk • contribs • logs) looks like a vandal to me – block and delete the created items? (I’ve already cleaned up the project chat edit.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Items are deleted, but the IP is not yet blocked. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

98.21.18.185

user is creating/re-creating the same items, and creating false/non-existent items. The "deletion" page has merged/deleted a few (with more pending). But Since the IP seems to be static, I thought maybe I should bring it to someone else's attention. Get your opinions and help with the matter, as to what to do with the editor and the items. Quakewoody (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nuked recent creations and blocked for a year. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 4

@Ymblanter: Анатолий Герасимов. Весь глобальный вклад откачен. Kalendar (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

194.214.51.206

Hello. The user 194.214.51.206 is an active vandal. Thank you --Tylwyth Eldar (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Stale report. User has not made changes in 20 days. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q70213529

Need the semi-protection fo this item. Like previously in this request, it's the same person who uses ip addresses from Saudi Arabia (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and continue to vandalize a lot of items, I think he uses the same ip addresses range to doing this. Kirilloparma (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done for 1 month. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:Doqume

I have just blocked Doqume for a period of a week due to the user's mass creation of items for startup companies of questionable notability, behavior which is similar to the actions of Freebald, about whose actions there was much discussion back in October. Any admin is free to rescind this block if they find it inappropriate, but the notability of the items that this new user created should be evaluated first, especially given that the vast majority of Freebald's creations ended up eventually getting deleted. Mahir256 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I suggest to get in contact with them on their talk page.
  • Their items appear to be not notable in the current form, I'd say; there is another (larger) batch from May with the same problem.
  • 2.35.224.171 is the same user, with some more manual creations.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

—MisterSynergy (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

IPA number order (P3917)

There has been consensus at Wikidata:Properties for deletion#Property:P3917, and no further posts, since September. Please will someone close it, and enact the decision?

There are several other discussions on that page which are also overdue for closure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 5

@Ymblanter: BL0odY28 Kalendar (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. -- Kalendar (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:MIKKY2323

MIKKY2323 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: blanking item and property. Blocked on two projects. -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 16:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 04:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection request - Q54556287

There have been several IP users vandalizing Magalí Tajes (Q54556287) within the last few hours – perhaps semiprotection is needed? –FlyingAce✈hello 07:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week by User:Mahir256 -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 07:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 11:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Rollback of edits

Can someone roll-back the edits of Ludo29? The user isn't interested in discussing changes with other contributors (see the edit summary on their talk page and the accusation of vandalism for a mere difference of points of view). Their edits just lead a bunch of inconsistent statements compared to 250 correct ones. --- Jura 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone block Jura1. He delete some informations. You can read this discussion Ludo29 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For the editorial side, the situation is unclear and it is unclear mainly because of Jura1 (see these diff1 diff2 back in 2017 - already! - by Pigsonthewing and Envlh which is quite representative of Jura1 disruptive and bad faith behaviour on this domain).
While Ludo29 shouldn't have started an edit war (not the best way to contributed, but I totally understand how someone can be tired of Jura1, I'm often myself as he never answer even basic question nor provide references for his claims), Jura1 is even less contributive: he started this war, he did the first revert without any explanation. Worse, this is not a new problem but a long time conflict where Jura1 is involved (gain see previous diff).
PS: this is not the first time that Jura1 is problematic on this topic, see Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/04#Q33129158:_unreferenced_statements_addition where a topic ban was voted : « Jura1 should be forbidden from undoing another autoconfirmed editor's edits to items about politicians, politics, and government without prior discussion, until further notice » (words by Deryck Chan). As he broke this ban, I suggest to move to a block (and if possible for a long time).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I think VIGNERON omits to mention that we are currently following the model he suggested. He now buries this in some unrelated quotes: tells us a lot about VIGNERON.
Also, I did open discussion for the review of the model, but Ludo29 deleted the invitation to participate from their talk page with the note "[I] read nothing, no interest". As people fixing his edits are doing "vandalisme", there might not be much benefit in doing that though.
Anyways, can someone rollback Ludo29's edits so we have consistent, up to date data. --- Jura 11:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Please, give us explication why you want To delete content on wikidata. Thanks. Ludo29 (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Why should I re-explain it to you? --- Jura 12:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no diffs either in this request or in the mentioned discussion, but here we can see that Jura is trying to remove the information that Laurent Wehrli (Q21294873) is a member of the 51st legislative period of the Swiss Federal Assembly (Q71712404). If in addition this is a violation of a topic-ban as Vigneron suggests, I also support a long-time block. -Ash Crow (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Most information is still present otherwise. It does delete the speculation that the person will be in office till 2023. --- Jura 13:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. This related "ban" is not logged in Wikidata:Editing restrictions yet.--GZWDer (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone but its creator take that page seriously? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@GZWDer: No admin officially closed that discussion. While there's no official policy on what is required to enact an editing restriction, I guess it just seems weird to me to determine consensus on that since I !voted in that myself. But I suppose others may see it differently. --Rschen7754 07:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Jura1 has been disrupting (not in a good way) the data about members of parliament for several years. Several examples have already been shown: here (he never answered when I demonstrated that he is a liar, except for some conspiracy theory about the EveryPolitician project), also in this other section, and now here (removing a complete statement because the value of a qualifier is incorrect is not a way to improve the data). He is again lying, saying The user isn't interested in discussing while he repeatedly refused to explain why Ludo29's edits are not correct. As shown above, he also broke a topic ban about politicians. But Jura1's bad faith doesn't stop at political data. For example, he once asked me to justify my participation to the project because we had an editorial disagreement. Jura1 has been destructive to the Wikidata project for several years. I know at least two volunteers who made a wikibreak because of him. And he also puts an inconsiderate pressure on the staff, using passive-aggressive attacks, with lunatic requests, unable to explain their relevance. At some point, at least a few weeks outside of the project would maybe make him think that his behaviour is unconstructive and damaging to the project. — Envlh (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose the best way to take your comment is to think it's funny in an Envlh-kind of way, mostly unfounded, off-topic and you wont repeat it. --- Jura 23:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just sum this up:
  • the edits to be undo are these. Doing that should remove no actual content, but restore data in a way consistent with all other holders of the same office and delete the speculation that the person will be in office till 2023.
  • The other fictional date he added (29 november 2019) has already been corrected and he doesn't seem to restore it, likely as he seems to have understood that it's erronous.
  • The section on Ludo29's talk page Ludo29 deleted with the comment "[I] don't read anything, no interest" [10] needn't be restored, but above he links to his talk page without the section being present, which makes his link above "You can read this discussion" misleading.
BTW, today I did take the time to talk VIGNERON through the need of restoring their incorrect deletion on some other occasion. --- Jura 23:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was long, painfull and borderline harrasment (reopening an old discussion just after this? do you really need to be threaten of being block to talk to people?). I still think you should be block for bad behaviour. The problem is not what you do (everybody does good and bad edits) but how you do it (how you react when you did good or bad edits); until learn that, it's doomed to repeat. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I wonder what you think of your own behaviour with an edit like this. I know you have problems with providing references or understanding them, but merely deleting a reference doesn't demonstrate a good understanding of the way this is meant to work. Is it that you hadn't edited the field before and were just trying to make a point? --- Jura 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The edit you cite was not "merely deleting a reference", it reverted your whole edit, which was disputed, with an edit summary making that clear. Making misleading allegations in this manner is unacceptable; as is a personal attack such as "know you have problems with providing references or understanding them". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


Any reason to delete contents on Wikidata ? Ludo29 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

What information are you missing? --- Jura 16:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you delete contents ? I'am looking for a reason about that since the end of october. Ludo29 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you understood that 29 Nov 2019 was wrong. Still, please explain in plain words what information you are missing. --- Jura 16:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
If one date is not correct, fix it. Why do you delete contents ? Ludo29 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I deleted any information. Maybe this is why don't answer my question about what information you are missing. --- Jura 16:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
You didn't delete any information.
Ok.Thanks for this demonstration about your lies.
End of discussion for me. We can discuss again together when you stop lying. Thanks a lot. Ludo29 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you are confusing statements with information. Anyways, if you don't want to discuss your contributions, please stop your edits on the topic. --- Jura 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Whatever the communication issues between you and Ludo29, you should include an edit summary to indicate to the rest of us why you deleted that information. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Block of Jura1

Given the many discussions about the data model of position held (P39) in which Jura1 was involved, e.g.

Jura1 knows very well that his model is not supported by the community. Nevertheless, Jura1 continues enforcing his data model by reverting other user's contributions. It's malicious, disruptive and bad faith. Given the consensus of a topic ban (Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/04#Proposed_topic_ban), I've blocked Jura1 for 3 days. If Jura1 should continue with their disruptive behavior after the block, further blocks will last longer. --Pasleim (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Thank you. By the way, the answer from Jura1 is appalling:
  • He doesn't recognize that he was topic banned, even after it was clearly reminded to him in this section.
  • He refers to an "established datamodel", as usual without providing any link to such a thing.
  • He accuses Pasleim of POV pushing because Pasleim blocked him and while Pasleim did not take part in the editorial debate.
  • He states that Pasleim "has a history of making up requirements on the way I should edit he doesn't comply with himself", without providing evidence.
I understand that he is angry, but this behaviour is unacceptable and I fear the end of his block. — Envlh (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Jura1's behavior has long been borderline - not enough personal attacks or profanities to get blocked outright but making accusations and being difficult to work with in general and not listening to others. There are some legitimate questions about whether the topic ban was enacted properly like the other ones were, but I think a block is defendable given the incivility. --Rschen7754 07:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I've warned Jura that their block stands to be extended and/or their talk page stands to be revoked if they continue attacking others on their talk page. I can't support unblocking unless they show a serious commitment to contributing more civilly and collaboratively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pasleim: Because of this, the fact that I warned Jura to stop commenting on the behavior of others, and their long history of problems in this regard, I have upgraded the block to a week, with talk page access disabled. This might seem harsh, and is a bit stronger than what I would have normally done, but in this particular case, the incivility problem has gone on enough (a cursory search of the archives of this page is enough to show that).Jasper Deng (talk)--07:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
After long reflexion and hesitation, I decided to bring here my testimony about Jura1's behavior : for years, I tried to avoid direct confrontation, because I don't like it, and prefer to try and find positive, sourced, solutions. But enough is enough, and there needs to be a point when one puts one's foot down, to say : now, it's enough ! you need to stop !
As general behaviour, when confronted to cases that do not fit the "usual" structure on the type of items he decided to work on (person whose name is not complete, unknown first name, etc.), Jura has a tendency to "make" solutions his own way, then apply them on some items, and then claim there is an established practice, or even "consensus", to force his solution into adoption by other contributors, instead of participating in discussion about how to handle these cases…
Recently, about how to handle "unknown", or "anonym" authors, he tried to force the solution to create items for authors with only initials (and no other info) and created Q69659100, which is now in "rfd" phase… and re-added it 4 times as author (P50) , despite the consensus in discussion to "not" use this system for anonymous authors history of item here
-> see discussions here, here, and Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q69659100
It is to be noted that this choice of him is at least consistent, as he enforced the same system for "first names" -> see B. (Q19803497), which led to thousands of people named A., B., C., etc. as family name (P734) ; which is not only false but may be absurd when the person native name is "ಬಿ. ಎಸ್. ಯಡಿಯೂರಪ್ಪ" (kn) (B. S. Yediyurappa (Q795241)) or when the complete name of the person is indeed known, leading to juxtaposition of "real" first name and initials like here.
When confronted to errors he made, or inappropriateness of his solution, or asked to explain, Jura tends to evade, and accuse other contributors, without bringing sources to justify his positions… Moreover, when confronted to people who hold their ground and refuse to yield, he tends to become patronizing and behave as a "small-time boss" (something most of us have already experienced at work, and would prefer to avoid in projects)...
I can effectively confirm Envlh's claim about contributors taking wikibreaks from projects (if not wikidata as a whole, specific projects - at least 3 people I know IRL, including myself), just to avoid being permanently confronted to his disruptive and passive-agressive behaviour… The result is that he can obtain "passive consensus" because opponents prefer to leave, and turn to other projects…
The French Bistro is usually a place of mutual assistance, with a very helpful mood... but on some recent subjects (like here or here), despite our efforts to try and clarify data and sources, the passive-aggressiveness is really bad... so... another place to leave when one doesn't like this ? or a lesson to learn ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Since there seem to be no contestation of Jura1's topic ban, I added it to the Wikidata:Editing restrictions list, along the current sanction. Feel free to rephrase it though, I was not sure of the best wording. -Ash Crow (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll be sad if this block continues; I find Jura's comments and work on Wikidata usually to be helpful, despite a sometimes noxious tone and occasional stubbornness or wrong-headedness. Maybe this episode will lead to a good outcome, that's my hope. But I do support the admins in taking whatever steps they find necessary to maintain a good tone here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotional-only account

AGreenFutureCalgaryLandscping, as demonstrated by both the username and the edits is used for self-promotion; created one promotional user page and 1 promotional item, added links with the intention to promote themselves and the 2-3 remaining edits where made to the same item. --Kostas20142 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


I have removed the links which I didnt know I am not suppose to have them. Thanks Kostas20142 for helping. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by AGreenFutureCalgaryLandscping (talk • contribs).

2600:2B00:8217:2F00:BD76:CE04:8E7:E3A6

Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems it has stopped. Will be blocked if comes back. --Esteban16 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

SemiProtection request - Q1784466

Some IPs are vandalizing Q1784466 (history). -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 10:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done. I have blocked the IPs. Semiprotection is not necessary. Esteban16 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2600:2B00:8217:2F00:0:0:0:0/64

2600:2B00:8217:2F00:0:0:0:0/64 - Test edit. Long-term vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for a month. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

222.243.119.72

222.243.119.72 - Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked by MisterSynergy. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Plz semi protect

Mesut Özil (Q83488) for maybe a month because Oezil's support of Uighurs is drawing lots of Chinese vandalism.--Roy17 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The vandalism was caused just by a single IP, and has been blocked. No need to semiprotect. Esteban16 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done; protected it for a month nevertheless, due to his recent controversial comments. It is quite likely that this item attracts more vandalism. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Chinese vandal

120.17.109.16 (talk • contribs • logs) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  blocked by MisterSynergy for one week. --94rain (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- Ahmad Kanik 💬 13:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Grave picture of Hubertine Auclert

The page is semi-protected for independent reasons. The :fr article will be highlighted in a future "did you know that..." entry. Could the disgraceful grave picture be replaced by File:Tombe Hubertine Auclert.jpg where the (apparently offending) sculpture is less prominent? Thanks in advance, Micheletb (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC).
Thanks a lot. Micheletb (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't really matter now (and no matter within the noticeboard), but what is wrong with uncensored picture? What's offensing on the sculpture (face, headscarf, inscription...)? --Wolverène (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's rather a problem of rights (no FOP in France). Ayack (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Aw, now I see. --Wolverène (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

[13] Please and thank you. GMGtalk 11:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Sotiale (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.71.159.98

Please block 67.71.159.98. Looks like the same person who was already blocked under 74.12.120.154 a few days ago. Typically restores old versions (thereby removing all improvements that happened in the meantime) and vandalizes other items. --Kam Solusar (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done by 10:23, 20 December 2019 Jasper Deng. --Sotiale (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

sweater (Q232191)

An IP user has relabeled this item from "sweater" to "pullover" and is removing all links to different language Wikipedias. Can someone more experienced please help me determine if this is a proper change, or if mass rollback is warranted? Thanks! –FlyingAce✈hello 23:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverted by @PKM: --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@FlyingAce: thanks for raising the issue. - PKM (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

HTTPS for Wayback Machine, other websites

Back in 2015, Wikimedia decided to go HTTPS-by-default for all its projects, and soon thereafter we started converting old HTTP links to HTTPS, in particular for web.archive.org, the Wayback Machine. Nowadays, a number of Wikipedia templates use Wikidata properties (and their references!), which imports a bunch of HTTP Wayback Machine links that can't be fixed from "the Wikipedia side." For instance, Aleutsky District imports its population data and specific reference from Aleutsky District (Q621449), which (until fixed just now by me) imported a HTTP Wayback Machine link. Long story short: is there a way to have those links (here on Wikidata) changed from HTTP to HTTPS on a large scale? --Bender235 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add the https version of original http url, then remove the http one, I don't know why directly change "http" to "https" always triaged a warning says a lot of "using start on... end on... do not remove or change..." --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
My question was whether we can avoid having to change these links manually, but instead have it done automatically by a bot or a script. --Bender235 (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Bender235: This isn't an admin issue; try asking on Wikidata:Bot requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. --Bender235 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sistema de la Cueva Pál-völgy – Mátyás-hegy

Hello. Why do not let me the wiki to create a spanish article about the Pál-völgyi-barlangrendszer? Cave system Pál-völgy in English...  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemeztektonika (talk • contribs) at 06:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

Lemeztektonika: This is Wikidata, not Spanish Wikipedia. You tried to add a badge to an item, but you can't because you're not an autoconfirmed user yet. Esteban16 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

persistent vandalism

105.155.96.223 has been persistently vandalizing items despite having been warned. Could you please temporarily block this IP? --Kostas20142 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's stopped now. I will watch. --Sotiale (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect inter language links

Hi this Wikidata item [14] needs fixing. I’ve tried to do it myself but possibly made matters worse. The dataset is defined as inter language links between articles about an opera by Porpora. There is a Catalan article about this and an English one that I just created. Most of the items here are wrongly placed. They are articles about a different opera with the same title by Johann Christian Bach. Someone needs to create a new dataset for the JCB operas and move them out of this one. Sorry I’m not able to do this myself. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Michael Bednarek: Temistocle (Q1618696) corrected, Temistocle (Q79396478) created and sitelinked. —Eihel (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

216.68.106.246

216.68.106.246 - Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for reporting. --Sotiale (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How common is this?

See Kyoto Prize in Advanced Technology (Q6452191) and the Swedish (sv) label! 62 etc (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Labels should not contain wikisyntax. I removed the "wikilink". (No admin attention needed, btw.) —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No, no admin attension is needed. The reason I brought it here, is that it looked like a little too narrow field for WD:PC. Back to my Q: Do we have other labels with wikisyntax? 62 etc (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Item to be restored

Please consider restoration of Q33820187: it has been recreated there; and it fulfills a need. Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of Jessica Yaniv (Q18168126)

Can someone please mask this version of Jessica Yaniv (Q18168126) from the history? --Trade (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done with short period protection. --Sotiale (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sotiale: Sorry, i forgot there there were another version with the defamatory edits that needed to be masked --Trade (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I found some more edits that needs masking --Trade (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  Done @Trade: --Sotiale (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

76.181.133.101 vandalism --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done short block. --Sotiale (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Refusal of dialogue 名あきこ

名あきこ - Refusal of dialogue on Q63229830. Vandalism after being noted on the talkpage. --Soratako (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have warned the user, but I couldn't find the vandalism you say. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! This user did this undo edit after this warning. The edit was undo by jawiki sysop. Japanese article of Q63229830 is protected because of same edits. I reported here just in case. --Soratako (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Soratako: Please confirm if this was in fact a bad-faith edit. Esteban16 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Esteban16: Rollback is correct, but I can't say it was malicious. --Soratako (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

New page

Hi! We craete new page of Ukrainian politic Pavlo Sushko:

en:Draft:Pavlo_Sushko

Tell pls how to show this page and add to other languages?

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:Antoine2711bot

Please block this user immediately, revert his edits and delete Q62666535 / Q62382575. As pointed out several times (User talk:Antoine2711bot) this user has absolutely no glue what he is doing. He uses wikidata as a playground and fills the dataobjects full of rubbish. -- MovieFex (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

See Topic:Vd6vfnti3zvxwt7j. I requested that the operator finishes the approval process which he has already started at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Antoine2711bot before continuing using this bot in production. The account might be used for test edits, though, thus there is no block right now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: That's what I said, he uses his bot for tests and wikidata as playground. But why here? And who will correct his edits? --MovieFex (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Test edits need to be clearly related to the approval process, but there is no discussion going on on the approval page since September. Thus, those edits are not "test edits". If the bot is being used in production before a botflag is approved, we are of course going to block the account. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@MovieFex: « He uses wikidata as a playground and fills the dataobjects full of rubbish. » ?! What? I have a catalog of 279 movies, with good data provided by their distributors. I am in NO WAY testing or anything like that. I can back any of my changes, and I always put a description (and most of the time, a reference).
@MisterSynergy: : I have no problem to finish the approval process, but I think I did all I had to do. What's the next step? If I'm to be block, I want to know WHY. Like I said, I know all the changes I make to WD. Antoine2711 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Antoine2711: Your "good data provided by their distributors" may be good for you, but no one can check this claim. Where is this catalog? Editings like [15], [16], [17] (how often do you want to have Canada here?) are only a few examples of the rubbish you have added. Obviously you have no knowledge of the guidelines and rules in wikidata and no glue in propper programming your bot. You made hundreds of changes within one hour and this is not testing to improve your bot, this is vandalism. It is absolutely unecessary that another faulty bot makes mischief here. -- MovieFex (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@MovieFex: You are wrong on so many of your claims.
First, Jade et Matteo (Q65055400), You removed the country of origin (P495), but why? It's a canadian film, why not sayit?
And for A Wedding (Q27477490) Why did you remove the alias, « Wedding, A »? Why did you remove the title (P1476) for english?
And now, for Q2354576, why did you remove the title (P1476) for english?
And I saw that sometimes, yes, the tool I use, OpenRefine, does duplicate. The tool is not perfect, and I'm working with the great community who maintains it so it can de improved. Anywy, you are clearly out of your right way, and YOU are the person doing vandalism. I ask you to put back my modifications now, and if you see a duplicate, just clean it, but don't revert all my modifications. If you see other errors, you can always flag me, and I will repair them. Please be respectful of my work and the work of others. Antoine2711 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Both of you, please talk respectful with each other. The actual discussion about the edits do not need to take place on the administrators' noticeboard. Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Antoine2711bot would be a good place to continue, in order to figure out whether the account should be bot-flagged at all (bureaucrats will decide), and which sort of data model to use here. I asked User:Antoine2711 to re-start the discussion on that page, so let's wait for that to happen. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I have no problem on not having edit discussions here, but my reputation was attacked by MovieFex. More over, his request of deleting the 2 entities he mentioned is agressive. He's also attacking the quality of my work. Also, every concern raised on the discussion page have been address properly, and responded to in less that A DAY. I'm trying to do good work, I don't see why I should endure such treatment from him. Antoine2711 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I see how they responded, but I guess I am able to boil it down to the actual problem and find a balanced administrative decision for the issue by myself. There is indeed need for clarification regarding your account and editing, thus I contacted you on your talk page. Contrary to MovieFex's request, there is absolutely no need for a block of your bot account at this point, and neither did we delete any items. It would really be the best now to bring the bot approval process to an end (i.e. until there is a bureaucrat decision). —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Suppressing my two logged-out edits

It looks like I had been unintentionally logged out for a brief time: [18][19] (192.x.x.x, same IP). Can these attributions be revision-deleted, please? I believe this kind of requests is acceptable per deletion WD:Deletion policy#Revision deletion. whym (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Whym: restored - thanks for the explanation --DannyS712 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done (admin-level revdel); if you think that this additionally needs oversight-level revdel, please contact the Oversighters directly. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 6

@Ymblanter: Salyn777 Весь вклад вандальный. Может пора уже заблокировать бессрочно??? Kalendar (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 7

@Ymblanter: 93.185.200.194 Весь вклад вандальный. Kalendar (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм 8

@Ymblanter: Кот учёный ядерщик Весь глобальный вклад вандализм, отменён. Kalendar (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for protection

Yair Netanyahu (Q35086816) – Many corruptions; Probably political background. thanks, דגש חזק - Talk 11:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thanks, דגש חזק - Talk 11:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Imrangongajanjua

Imrangongajanjua (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Edits seem to be mostly removals of statements or nonsense. In addition, their only mainspace edit on the English WP has been reverted as vandalism and their uploads to Commons were deleted as copyvios. So it doesn't look like good faith edits to me. --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Kam Solusar (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked indef Esteban16 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2402:800:61A5::/48

2402:800:61A5::/48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism only.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The last edit was on December 22nd. No need to block for now. Esteban16 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalising to target all my articles.

These 3 users are same person targeting me by vandalising all my articles, this is very serious matter. kindly block their accounts and ip address.

  • User:Justofck
  • User:Nishitsangwan
  • User:Tofckpanels

Reasons: Following articles were vandalised many times, kindly lock pages if possible.

-- 2405:204:320C:5E3F:5151:7A05:5461:4C40 16:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

These items mostly seem to be for non-notable "social media comunicators". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I put some Items in RFD. User talk:Nishitsangwan stopped vandalizing on the 21st, so it's a bit late. But it's an account with 90% vandalism (see warns in the link). Keep an eye on this account and if it starts again, have no indulgence. Looking forward ;) —Eihel (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Tofckpanels: already blocked by Bovlb before your message. —Eihel (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

TrollMenRO

Vandalism-only account. — Mike Novikoff 00:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Вандализм

@Ymblanter: Peykaze Старый вандал. Весь глобальный вклад откачен. Kalendar (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sistema de la Cueva Pál-völgy – Mátyás-hegy

Perdon. I have a question again: Why I can not publishing the Spanish version of Pál-völgyi-cave article? I need any permission...  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemeztektonika (talk • contribs) at 01:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC).

What are you talking about? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC).
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Clément Salviani, Q33084328

Q33084328 was deleted by User:Pasleim in April 2018, at the time of this discussion, during which no consensus for deletion was demonstrated, and no policy-compliant reason for deletion was given.

The subject - Clément Salviani - has since then apparently published a chapter in La panoplie du guerrier de Polignano : hypothèses croisées de reconstitution (Q77708507) and is a co-author of Le armi nei luoghi di culto di Civita di Tricarico e Rossano di Vaglio (Q79419796), either of which alone meet our notability requirements.

Please restore the item, but excise any non-referenced personal information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I restored Clément Salviani (Q33084328) and hid the personnal information. About La panoplie du guerrier de Polignano : hypothèses croisées de reconstitution (Q77708507) and Le armi nei luoghi di culto di Civita di Tricarico e Rossano di Vaglio (Q79419796) I am not convinced about their notability; these items are not linked to any other item. Pamputt (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, despite every claims I made about non-notability, the item has been recreated without any justification. Is it possible for you, @Pamputt, to delete it again ? C.Salviani (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The 2 bib ref has been created by an IP just to... Push my fake notability. I suspect the original creator of my page to be behind this. This is insane. C.Salviani (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 92.184.100.175 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Q14886050

Could you semi-protect terrorist (Q14886050), please? It's regularly vandalized from multiple different ip addresses. --Shinnin (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Protected by Sotiale --Esteban16 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Esteban16 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Masking request

Please mask this comment, which is offensive towards Pamputt (see [20] for the meaning of "m... à Pamputt"). Thanks in advance, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC).

Excuse me but as it was a semi-private conversation between you two at your own talkpage, you might hide the provocative sentence with <!-- --> admonishing the user that some words are strongly not recommended to use. --Wolverène (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Wolverène's suggestion. If any admin help is needed, please open a new topic. Multichill (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion/Merge request

Can some admin see where the sitelinks here and there come from (it's presumed that the user have remove the sitelink from another items which are now deleted). The deleted items should actually be merged.--GZWDer (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

GZWDer: They come from Q3257174 and Q24178175 respectively. I will proceed to restore and merge the items. Esteban16 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
At the end I undid the merging them because family name has to use a different item than disambiguation page (Q27924673). Esteban16 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge request

Item Q76824810 must be merged in Q56482, due to both items refers to the same language. I cannot edit the second item. 81.34.123.248 13:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done. --Epìdosis 15:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

78.61.174.154 image vandalism

Please, check the vandalism by Anonym user with IP 78.61.174.154. See his contribution. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

128.68.84.212

This user created some desysop requests. This seems not constructive, but I am not sure that we should delete or close the requests.

--GZWDer (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted this pointless vandalism. Multichill (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Multichill (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge request: Agnes...

The Wikidata items Q75244512 (Agnes von Holstein-Gottorp) and Q16157081 (Agnes av Holstein-Gottorp) refer to the same person and should be merged. Thanks and Season's Greetings! --MedMan (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Merged by GZWDer --Esteban16 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Esteban16 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

طلب منع مستخدم

المستخدم: ELGoRJA (talk • contribs • logs)

السبب: يقوم المستخدم بتعديلات غير مفهومة في عدد من عناصر البيانات. أنظر هنا مساهمات المستخدم. --MohammadHuzam (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't speak Arabic but Google Translator does. Yes, the added content looks like some random questions, meaningless phrases, which have been added as descriptions for items. S/he's probably a vandal. --Wolverène (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Local spam filter

I'm trying to add the official website (P856) to Vidme (Q78682705) but unfortunately the local spam filter are blocking me (The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: vid.me).

Can anyone here please whitelist the link from this specific item? --Trade (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Bitly (Q21079) is famous likely (I also can't use bitly dot com here), and answers of all the likely questions are global Spam blacklist on Meta-Wiki, not local one. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
They can be whitelisted locally at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --94rain (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose That whitelist page is unstable (can be rewritten without any pre-warnings), suggest to disable global s/b here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to point out - Sometimes if the system isn't letting me enter something, I have found that if you enter it manually, it works. I do a lot copy/paste to make sure nothing gets entered incorrectly. But sometimes there is hidden text that we can't see but the computers recognize. Manual entering helps. Quakewoody (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: @Sextvåetc:, last time i asked someone on Metawiki to remove a link from the ban list he specifically told me that i should go to Wikidata and request for the link to be whitelisted locally. --Trade (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trade: Good point, currently Wikidata and Meta-Wiki are both passing the buck each other, means, the Meta administrators consider that this is a Wikidata problem, and Wikidata administrators consider the opposite. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

So, should Wikidata be exempted from global spam blacklist or not?

  •   Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • vehemently OPPOSE - as was explained to you on meta, Liuxinyu970226, this will have disastrous effects as every single wikipage on every single wiki that transcludes the WD data cannot be edited anymore until also that local wiki whitelists said link, and if the data is not yet transcluded from WD edits to add it will all fail. In cases of redirect sites, the problem becomes even more wide as those links can then be added to any WD item and cause problems. This is not the solution. --Beetstra (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Beetstra: If all the blacklisted websites are not eligible for having items, yes. But since there are really having items about them, I doubt if all users agree some clauses that "every single wikipage on every single wiki that transcludes the WD data cannot be edited anymore" and/or "the problem becomes even more wide as those links can then be added to any WD item and cause problems". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    No, all items ARE eligible for having this property set. That is true.
There is nothing to not agree upon. If you have here on the WD item for tinyurl the website tinyurl.com whitelisted to allow saving that item on WD then you cannot add {{Official website}} without parameters to en:Tinyurl as then that page would 'add' the official website onto that page (through the transclusion) and then you cannot save that page. That goes for all the items that are eligible for having those items, youtu.be, pornhub.com, redtube.com, tinyurl.com. And you can test this, go to en:Cloud mining and add '* {{Official website}}' (without the tl) to the external links section and try to save. It does not work ([21]), you cannot save that edit on en.wikipedia. This is not the solution, this will have disastrous effects on all other wikis if you allow this. --Beetstra (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll give another example: if you break yourself loose from the meta spam-blacklist, you allow this edit to be performed. Now, the municipality of Burgen in Germany does not need a link to pornhub, and I think that the spam-blacklist properly blocked this abuse. Your solution could hence be that you block pornhub then locally to avoid that abuse, but then you would also not be able to add it as the official website of where it should be added, and hence you are back at square one. --Beetstra (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Your "example" is, as far as I've seen, about Pornhub (Q936394). As this is about Pornhub (Q936394), that owns an item, that has de facto 47 language editions of Wikipedia articles, has one Russian Wikinews page and a Wikimedia Commons category. It's instance of (P31) is website (Q35127), their logo is shown on both the item and on Commons, has 9 language of work or name (P407) values (means, that site has supported in 9 languages), has Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vkontakte, Snapchat accounts, has Youtube channel and Alexa rank, has their own Wikidata property Pornhub star ID (P5246), as well as having many other statements, as well as of as well as other website items should have, so why can't such site items have official website (P856)? Do you have any fair reason to answer this? Again, how can't these items have *official website (P856)*? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: They should have an own website, but the moment you whitelist that here, it will also be used on those 47 wikis that use WD to pull data from. That will in one step make those 47 pages not editable because the next edit 'adds' the external link to the local record and that is prohibited by the global spam blacklist. And when language 48 creates the page, they will not be able to use the WD data.
I fully agree that we need a solution for this, but blanket whitelisting or breaking WD loose from the global blacklist is not going to be the solution that works (OK, it works, but only here and then giving a humongous number of problems elsewhere - one link and 47 pages can't be edited, and that does not include the pages that call the property independently). Breaking the WD loose also enables the influx of the crap that you really don't want (or need; >100 blocked additions of viagra spam in the last month would also be allowed, there was not a single genuine/good edit trying to add viagra in those edits). Whitelisting here of the specific links is also allowing the abuse of that link on other pages (pornhub example above, one of about 6 cases in about a month, none genuine (except for your attempt now)) and which is often the reason why the page was blacklisted (globally) in the first place. And yes, WD is coming more and more on the radar of genuine spammers as well (see the Cloud mining example, it was blacklisted with a list of other sites for global spamming which included WD - that link is by the way not the official link, it is a spamlink pretending to be official). And that last one shows that WD does not have the mechanisms to clean that up (sorry, that was pointy of me to leave it there).
I suggested a solution on the global blacklist that is at least workable globally (excluding a neutral landing page from the blacklist), but does not fully satisfy the problem here. The only other way is the long way of a phabricator request, or the long awaited overhaul of the spam-blacklist extension. --Beetstra (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra:, in what way should the spam-blacklist extension be overhauled? --Trade (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: respectable companies know as well that it pays to be on Wikipedia. Get your page on Wikipedia is a great SEO trick. Having your link there is even better. People get to Wikipedia and follow the link to your page. That is sometimes what gets respectable companies on the blacklist. —Beetstra (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: it needs to be much more fine grained as it currently is, including page specific black and white listing. I have repeatedly suggested that it should be like a spam-specialized version of the edit filter. The current black-aand-white approach is insufficient, and this problem is another symptom of the problem. --Beetstra (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra:, by the way i've made a userpage where people can list the links they want whitelisted once this problem gets solved. Feel free to add if you have any more examples. --Trade (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: that list will likely be a good chunk of the meta blacklist. Also respectable companies do SEO, and then there is a large group of pages which are plainly abused and for which you need control. —Beetstra (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I'm not sure how this is related to SEO? --Trade (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  There should have NO reason to oppose, the world's most strongly Support For those who said oppose just based on confusing words like disastrous, I'm lucked. Per Liuxinyu970226, if one thing is good enough to have a Wikidata item, then it's damnly likely to have an official website statement, the URL shortner sites are also, @Beetstra: there is Wikidata, Wikidata is not Wikipedia, Please do not use Wikipedia's jargon as legal terms to rule Wikidata, Thank you all. --223.104.7.104 09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose No, but more exceptions to the global blacklist could probably be granted. Like the main page of tinyurl for example. But such exceptions should be granted on meta, not here! I cannot see any use for a whitelist at all for our content namespaces. 62 etc (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sextvåetc: Wait, without further explanations on technical criteria, I'm really confused by your "but more exceptions to the global blacklist could probably be granted", the header of m:Talk:Spam blacklist says "There is no global whitelist, so if you are seeking a whitelisting of a url at a wiki then please address such matters via use of the respective Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist page at that wiki, and you should consider the use of the template {{edit protected}} or its local equivalent to get attention to your edit.", and neither mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist nor mw:Extension:AbuseFilter mentioned anything about "global exceptions". Maybe pinging maintainers of both Extensions? @Tim Starling, Werdna, Daimona Eaytoy, VasilievVV:? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I do not know how this code that is used in the blacklist is done. But if it can be modified so it allows some pages but not others on sites like tinyurl, then do it that way. From my point of view, a missing "official website" in some pages is not a big deal. We do not have coordinate location (P625) on all geographic places, just because we cannot add it. Not all properties fits all items, even within the scope of those properties. We do not need an official website in items like Pornhub. Those who have the interest to go there, already know where to look! 62 etc (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Sorry, just no. We would be overwhelmed by spam. Instead, certain bots that import this kind of link could get an exemption to the global blacklist, or (more preferably) these bots could report at some page any such links that got blocked by the blacklist (local or global), and we can handle them with local exemptions.--Jasper Deng (talk)08:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    ^^Whose sign includes only timestamp and no links to their user page and talk page? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Suggest to just strike out asa troll vote. --223.104.7.104 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
To suggest that the comment of an admin like me is a "troll vote" is laughable. This isn't a vote at all in any case, and in any case, who are you? Do you already have any account here?--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Under Beetstra's comments, non of the affected items are even suitable for having items, if you believe that user, please just delete those items.
@-revi: Please be aware that your Korean Wikipedia is already opted-out from it, but how this results "overwhelmed by spam"? All the spams are however successfully handled by local spam blacklists.
Here are the reasons why another example Turkish Wikipedia is also opted out from global one: There are too many entries in the Meta-Wiki's spam blacklist that points to websites about Muslims, results that list by itself detrimental for Turkish users. And their list even don't have any entries that are about Judaist sites, to which Arabic users will of course be angried due to years-by-years conflicting between Israel and the Arab World. Therefore we the Turkish users set up our own spam blacklist on tr:Mediawiki:Spam blacklist and hence opted out the global one.
To me, the reasons some users oppose this idea here are afraiding that if Wikidata is losting supports from spam blacklist, but what i see is that this idea is to use our own blacklist and not the global one. Keyword: Our own, locally Mediawiki:Spam blacklist. By this way, what we do is just like Korean and Turkish Wikipedias. --223.104.7.104 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
PS: I found that that Meta blacklist even can't hold up this kinds of spams on Meta itself: Someone who is interested in re-doing some famous arson events, they said something like that "I will make an arson fire to the (Wikimedia Foundation/your home/other good places), it will just like how the Kyoto Animation 1st studio was damaged" which is even inappropriate byme. How don't we think that such spams be listed? --223.104.7.104 21:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
And locally blacklisting many of the same links would still encounter the same problem with transclusion of our data, since the global blacklist still controls virtually all other projects that use it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this proposal is only supported by Liuxinyu970226 and the group of Chinese ip's following around this user. Does any other established member of this community support this? Multichill (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no support for this, so   Not done. Multichill (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  • From discussions there, it looks like any competent admins have left, or at least are not maintaining the spam blacklist. This would be a good reason to exempt Wikidata from the Meta blacklist, but first we should show that we have people who can use the tools effectively - for example our protected pages seem to have been abandoned, when edit filters could be used to prevent the changes to links after pages are archived (and now we have an admin who has protected their own pages where there has been no disruption and most of the language labels and descriptions are missing). If we can deal with these more effectively than the current protect and abandon approach, then we can take control of our blacklist. Peter James (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources and abuse of rollback

I am having problems with User:MovieFex, who is abusing rollback to include his preferred version of item revisions and who is also using it to remove reliable sources. He refuses to discuss on his talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This[22] and this[[23] can be called vandalism. He wants to change duration (P2047) in seconds instead of minutes and deletes release dates which are sourced by IMDb. In my opinion this user needs a break to read the rules and guidelines. -- MovieFex (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Even if that were (which it's not), this edit is not vandalism. You may not use rollback to remove it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It is! There is no need to delete a sourced release date in Germany. -- MovieFex (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Help:Sources says that we prefer academic sources, as I pointed out on your talk page. You are replacing accurate, well-sourced, broad information with possibly suspicious, poorly-sourced, narrow information. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

He is also inserting unsourced information and deliberately incorrect identifiers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be time that an admin has a look at this. Here is pure vandalism at work. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
And here too. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

@MovieFex: I keep it on a (last) warning for now. Please read Wikidata:Rollbackers again. It's only to be used for clear vandalism (and test edits). If you use rollback on established users again like you did earlier, the right will be removed. Multichill (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Removing valuable sources several times IS vandalism. -- MovieFex (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
If you don't understand you shouldn't be using rollback in those situations, I should remove the rollback right immediately. Do you understand you shouldn't be using it? Multichill (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
There was one week gone and no admin has taken care of this. And it seems you haven't checked what has happened. -- MovieFex (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Done rollback removed. I was willing to let you get away with a warning, but given your response it's better that you don't have the ability to use rollback. Multichill (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: I won't let you blackmail me. You're not willing to do your job properly and have a deeper look at this case. May be you should give back your admin rights, too. -- MovieFex (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2019/12&oldid=1655778571"