Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/01

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2022

vandalistic edit

I ask that the vandalistic edit [1] be reversed. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2001:16a2:e635:6700:c98e:30a:33ff:cd11

Withdrawn, please close this request. Some languages this user added does not really provided by this website, so a FP raised by me. Stang 21:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:124.169.254.147

124.169.254.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: @BrokenSegue: Our good friend from Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2021/12#User:124.169.226.16 vandalizes and changes correct properties seems to be back with a new IP. – Máté (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done blocked. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Pigeon named gorbachev

Pigeon named gorbachev (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Clearly not here to build a data repository. This editor vandalized Q30487 ten times. Peaceray (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done blocked BrokenSegue (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 187.160.13.180

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:110.137.192.175

110.137.192.175 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism in various items. BAJI 09:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done 3 days block. Lymantria (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

About User:Apex oof

Apex oof (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) VOA. --GY Fan★ 11:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2603:8080:E700:2A95:4576:E3A5:8F67:7103

2603:8080:E700:2A95:4576:E3A5:8F67:7103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: New IP for a returning anon making unconstructive edits on certain movie items. I've had a short conversations with them in edit summaries (without previously relizing they are the same person) which show malintent. Previous IPs include:

– Máté (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably some protection on The Music Man (Q762649) and Don Camillo in Moscow (Q569183) could be considered as well as they return to vandalize these two items over and over again. – Máté (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Previous report: Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/02#Anon with changing IP vandalizing pages. – Máté (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done User:2603:8080:e700:2a95::/64 blocked for three months, both items semi-protected for six months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Adalberto laborde Hernández

Adalberto laborde Hernández (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reason: Seems that the account isn't intended to anything but vandalism. --Wolverène (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2601:584:c500:450:68ed:8b02:7dc7:e52d

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2603:6011:7802:8be4:2992:1da4:62db:f1bd

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2001:4CD0:AC47:A665:CF28:48:6917:CB4E

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 85.14.144.21

  Done Blocked for a year, and some older vandalism tidied up. Bovlb (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 198.236.92.33

  Done Blocked for 31h. Bovlb (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User block request Abirahmedmahi

Abirahmedmahi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotion only account Rockpeterson (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User warned about notability. Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done Indef. After kind warning by Bovlb, user hijacked Mehedi Hasan (Q88933602). Lymantria (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 195.221.155.15

  Done Blocked for 31h. Bovlb (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

John Shedletsky

No Wikidata John Shedletsky eu quero que no "Sitelink" em "Wikipedia" adicione John Shedletsky (ptwiki) pois o artigo se refere ao próprio John Shedletsky. Já que eu sou impossibilitado dessa ação, eu peço por favor que algum administrador faça isso pelo o artigo.

LuckyMisterGabriel (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@LuckyMisterGabriel: I added the sitelink for you, but I'm not sure why you were unable to do so. See Help:Sitelinks for more information on how to do it yourself. Bovlb (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 205.235.34.66

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2A01:E0A:9B5:4B00:E55F:8F36:FA04:4FB

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 95.239.106.50

  Done 3 days. Lymantria (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2806:1000:8000:efa3:88ed:56f5:2e9e:640c

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user Abcbiography

  Done Both. Lymantria (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 190.108.240.57

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user Mahmodsallahm

This is a botched handling of duplicate items. For some reason, many new users believe that the best way to deal with duplicate pages is to blank one of them. In particular, this pattern of replacing the English label and description with "1" and "a" is very common. Either the same person keeps coming back with new accounts, or everyone is reading the same bad advice somewhere. Anyway, I have merged the items, warned Mahmodsallahm about blanking instead of merging, and warned the original item creator about notability. Bovlb (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:1700:3720:3770::/64

2600:1700:3720:3770::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism on many items. – LiberatorG (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:1011:B009:2B15:5D34:6A57:2DC0:FEE9

2600:1011:B009:2B15:5D34:6A57:2DC0:FEE9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: blanking at Sug Sutton (Q98519411) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Deng Xiaoping is not a featured article in chinese wikipedia

And this article is not protected,why i can't debadge it?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ABCDEAN (talk • contribs) at 08:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC).

Seems to be resolved. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection request Yoram Taharlev (Q16131043)

There's a lot of ongoing vandalism on Yoram Taharlev (Q16131043), probably caused by press coverage related to his dead, so I would suggest semiprotection for a week. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done To have 2 weekends included I semiprotected 10 days. Lymantria (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 64.124.47.51

  Done IP blocked for 3 months and item semi-protected for 24h. I wonder if this is a return of Mwasoge (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done IP blocked for a day, semi-protection for two weeks. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Banning IP address

Hi, Kindly I want to apply for banning this IP 185.166.25.1, as it has vandalism edits in below: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.166.25.1 Ravan (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Declined for the block, as the last edit was some time ago, but I   semiprotected the item for two weeks as it was edited disruptively from multiple IPs (and an account). Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:77.13.233.80

77.13.233.80 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This IP user made a personal attack on another user by saying they should not be trusted and comparing them to the seller of a Ponzi scheme.[2] On being asked to read Wikidata:Assume good faith and remove the comparison,[3] the IP user declined to read the policy and pretended that they have not said anything bad about another user.[4] From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a well-known globally blocked user. They have access to several large IP ranges, so blocks will not be very effective. I suggest to simply ignore their comments, or to leave a comment that meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi applies for the IP user. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"This IP user made a personal attack on another user by saying they should not be trusted" - that is a false claim by User:From Hill To Shore 77.13.233.80 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"and comparing them to the seller of a Ponzi scheme." - that is a false claim by User:From Hill To Shore 77.13.233.80 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"the IP user declined to read the policy" - that is a false claim by User:From Hill To Shore 77.13.233.80 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"pretended that they have not said anything bad about another user" - that is a false claim by User:From Hill To Shore 77.13.233.80 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Four false claims. Should User:From Hill To Shore maybe read
77.13.233.80 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done, blocked for a week by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:8:7::/64

2600:387:8:7::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, block evasion of 2600:1700:3720:3770::/64. – LiberatorG (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi protection for Q108109345

Amugiri (Q108109345) - Vandalism persistently continued after the last semi protection expired. [5] It is a living people item. whym (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done BrokenSegue (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2601:584:c500:450::/64

2601:584:c500:450::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism since 20 December 2021. SCP-2000 (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:110.137.192.47

110.137.192.47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:

[[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: RSAmusiclover (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC) --RSAmusiclover (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@RSAmusiclover: Seems like something went wrong, I do not see a user name. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is regarding User:Din-nani1. He/she has been making 1000s of edits adding identical profile descriptions with a bot in dagbanli language. When I Google translated these they were saying derivative things about USA, France, Ghana and South Africa. I’ve been undoing some of the damage but I don’t have the knowledge or the tools to do this properly. The vandalism to American profiles goes in the many many thousands. I’m not an admin but I think this profile should be blocked (maybe it was hacked?) RSAmusiclover (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe this was intended to refer to Din-nani1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) who has been using Quick Statements to add the description "Ghana siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ paɣa" (GT: Ghanaian politics is difficult) to many items. Bovlb (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
They appear to have had a number of similarly problematic batches over the last week. Previously, they appear to have been a normal productive editor. I have invited them to join this discussion. If they continue with batches without addressing this, they will need to be blocked. Bovlb (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for joining the discussion very late and after been already blocked indefinitely. I think this is a serious misunderstanding and I would blame it on the Dagbani Language not been recognized on the google translate tool or any other tools used in translation. I am so disturbed on seeing that my translation of USA Wikidata items description is understood as "saying derivative things about USA", who am I to commit such things! I hope someone who understands the Dagbani language very well could be contacted on this issue so that I can be cleared of this misunderstanding. Again, "Ghana siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ paɣa" has been translated wrongly by Google Translate to mean "Ghanaian politics is difficult". Frankly speaking it's so sad to see these kind of translations. "Ghana siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ paɣa" means "Female Ghananian politician". Initially I thought I was blocked because QS batch is not allowed but for this issue I don't think I have done anything wrong. Please, I apologize for the misunderstanding created and pray that I be pardoned and unblocked to enable me continue to contribute to Wikidata. I would stop contributing using the QS batch tool until the issue of Dagbani Language translation is resolved.Din-nani1 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
See also: [6], [7], [8]. Looking too suspiciously. --Wolverène (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Batches have resumed, apparently without any attempt to discuss, so I have blocked Din-nani from mainspace. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as possible. Bovlb (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I have stumbled on this discussion following RSAmusiclover's mass reversion of these Dagbani labels with the rather unhelpful label of "Spam". An edit description referencing this discussion would have been much more useful. I don't know Dagbani but I am concerned that the core premise of this problem is flawed. In the comments above, RSAmusiclover states that Google Translate has revealed these labels to be incorrect. However, as far as I can tell, Google Translate does not include an option for Dagbani. Using the "auto detect" function of Google Translate causes it to pick a random language and try to offer a translation into English; the label I tried it with thought the original language was Japanese. This results in a nonsensical English translation that may not reflect the original meaning in Dagbani. I would suggest freezing both the insertions and reversions here and trying to find someone who can verify whether the labels are genuinely Dagbani and that they are correct. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
For reference, we currently have Achiri Bitamsimli (talk • contribs • logs) working through quickstatements with a batch edit of adding large numbers of Dagbani labels. At the same time we have RSAmusiclover (talk • contribs • logs) working through EditGroups on a mass reversion of Achiri Bitamsimli's Dagbani labels. Both editors are making thousands of edits undoing each other's work and neither appear to be talking to each other. Can an administrator please implement a temporary block on both users to stop this disruptive behaviour until we clarify the situation and gain consensus? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The other two editors are also now blocked from mainspace. They can be unblocked as soon as they undertake to stop the QS batches pending the results of this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Like From Hill To Shore, I'm also working in the dark here with respect to the content issue here. Regardless of who is right, we need to resolve this in a way that does not involved massive edit warring via QuickStatements. (And bulk batch editors need to be very responsive to concerns raised, not just keep running batches.) Bovlb (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, just to clarify, I noticed these users adding identical description labels to profiles on a massive scale. I’ve been trying to undo this vandalism and as it seems I’m now getting blocked as a result myself. So, I’m more than happy to stop doing this and leave this to the administrators to sort out. I was simply trying to help and I’d appreciate it if you could unblock my profile. Regards 102.65.160.39 04:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, this was my reply, I forgot to log in. RSAmusiclover (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I've unblocked RSAmusiclover and Din-nani1 per requests. Let's see some discussion take place before anyone does any more batches. Bovlb (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks unblocking me. I am grateful.Din-nani1 (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
You shouldn't have done that without my knowledge sir. You don't understand something doesn't mean that it is wrong. Beside, is it wrong to have identical descriptions for items on wikidata? A description does not need to be unique; multiple items can have the same description, only labels can not be the same. Achiri Bitamsimli (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
With the above reply I pray that you unblock me to continue contributing to Wikidata. I would stop using the QS tool until Dagbani langauge is fully accepted by the Google translate tool or other translation tools that may be developed. Thank you.Din-nani1 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Din-nani1: I’m sorry I had to block you, but another user had raised concerns about your batch edits and had reverted some of them, and you were continuing to run new batches without making any response to those concerns. I’m afraid that bulk editors have to be highly responsive to concerns raised and not proceed in the face of strong opposition without engaging in discussion. I felt obliged to step in and give you a partial block to prevent more batches from adding to the problem.
Regarding the concerns, I have no knowledge of Dagbani, and am unable to judge the actual merits of the content here. (It is not a project requirement that editors only work in languages well-supported by Google Translate.) Perhaps it would help the discussion here if you could explain how you’re generating these batches and how you would translate some of the descriptions (e.g. Ghana siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ paɣa). Hopefully we can get this resolved quickly and get everything back to normal. Bovlb (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Din-nani1’s response appears to be in the wrong place, but having read their explanation I think it’s fair to say that this was entirely in good faith, and I would support them being able to restore their previous batch edits. Furthermore, I’d say that users should be very careful when trying to use Google Translate to verify meaning in a language they have no knowledge of, for exactly the reasons demonstrated in this thread (even if Google does support the language in the first place). That goes doubly-so for somewhere with structured data like Wikidata, where subtle differences in phrasing can be highly meaningful. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Din-nani1's explanation seems perfectly reasonable, and probably applies to Achiri Bitamsimli as well. @RSAmusiclover: Do you have anything else to say here, or are we clear to let @Din-nani1 and @Achiri Bitamsimli continue? Bovlb (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
To add a little context to the discussion; since my previous comment I have been hunting around online for Dagbani to English dictionaries to try to verify some of the labels that have been inserted. While not every Dagbani word has a translation available in the online dictionaries, every word I have been able to confirm aligns with the relevant item. For example, paɣa means "female" and has been used by Din-nani1 in the labels of items for human (Q5) female (Q6581072). Likewise, Achiri Bitamsimli has been using Dagbani words related to schools (shikuru = school) on items with occupation (P106) university teacher (Q1622272). I don't think there is any case to answer here and both users should be allowed to resume inserting the Dagbani labels. This may appear as "spam" solely from the perspective of Dagbani labels starting from a low level of implementation; labels will need to be inserted on millions of items. At a practical level, an automated sweep of generic labels based on one or more occupation (P106) stated in the items makes the most sense. Once the generic labels have been inserted, Dagbani language users may update the generic labels with more specific details for each item in future months or years. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks From Hill To Shore, that's very helpful. It sounds like we're about done here, but I'd like to give RSAmusiclover just a little more time to respond, to make sure we don't have any future problems. Bovlb (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't look like RSAmusiclover has time for us right now.
@Achiri Bitamsimli, Din-nani1: You are clear to proceed. Again, please accept my apologies for the interruption. When you're doing batches, please try to keep an eye out for feedback.
@RSAmusiclover: I appreciate your good intentions here, but if you have future concerns, please try harder to communicate before embarking on a QS edit war. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb @Ameisenigel @From Hill To Shore: Sorry for my late response. I'm surprised to read that you are planning to allow Din-nani1 to continue. He is adding the same description to labels of thousands of profiles. It does not make any sense to me. Whenever I google-translate any of his statements the translations sound political and seem like verbal 'warfare'. For example: this user @Din-nani1 just added another batch (batch #73247) via quickstatements today to thousands of Chinese profiles with the description "China siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ doo". This translates to "China's politics are weak" in Somali(!!). Now some here are implying this is just a coincidence and that they are meaning well and that the translation is wrong... So let's look at another recent one by Din-nani from 29.12.21, he added batch #temporary_batch_1640776782516 to thousands and thousands of profiles, with this profile label description: "USA alikaali nira" which translates to "The USA remained a yoke" in Chichewa language. Another massive batch via quick statements by the same user on 8.1.22 (batch #73246): "India siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ paɣa". None of these words seem to even be part of the dagbani language according to an online dictionary.. It seems like sometimes the batches even though added under dagbani are in other languages. For example, this batch (batch #73194) addition by the same user from 8.1.22 states "France siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ doo" apparently also means "France's politics are weak"...
To me this equates to some sort of negative propaganda mission or at least vandalism on wikidata and I really think this should not be tolerated and should be banned permanently asap... @Din-nani1 has been doing this for weeks.. These actions, jokes or politically motivated statements are not acceptable in my opinion. i leave it up to you... i think this stopped immediately! Kind regards User:RSAmusiclover RSAmusiclover (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
P.s. I really have zero interest in a QS war whatsoever. I simply noticed vandalism and I don't have the tools as a user to stop this. Talking about it with users who are clearly vandalising wikidata seemed rather silly, so I reported it here and started to try and erase their actions. I'll leave that up to the administrators in future because, as i said, i don't have the tools (or the time) to do this effectively. Just keep watching the amount of statements this user User:Din-nani1 is adding by the hour... RSAmusiclover (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
p.p.s. I first came across this user doing batch #72763 which added "South Africa kpiɛrikpiɛrita ŋun nyɛ doo" to 1500 South African profiles, translating to "South Africa is no exception" in IGBO language and added under dagbani like all the other batches... RSAmusiclover (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm totally wrong, and all added statements are correct and it's simply Google-Translate's fault. It is a little strange to me though that ALL added statements translate to something negative on Google translate (like USA remains a joke, France/Ghana/India's politics are weak, South Africa is no exception). That would be quite a coincidence, but, as I said, maybe I'm totally. If so, it should be verified by someone trustworthy with language skills in dagbani. That's my opinion. If I'm wrong, I will certainly owe a big apology to user Din-nani ;) RSAmusiclover (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
one last P.s. while I was trying to undo the damage by user DIN-Nani1 I might have undone one batch by user Achiri Bitamsimli by mistake thinking it was one of DIN-Nani1's batches. So, I believe that his edits were possibly correct.. This has nothing to do with my reporting of User:Din-nani1 on this platform RSAmusiclover (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@RSAmusiclover: I am rather concerned about your failure to grasp the fundamental flaw in your logic in trying to prove a flawed translation using a tool that is not designed to work with that language. I would also draw your attention to Wikidata:AGF; in the absence of specific evidence of vandalism, we must assume that a user is working with the best intentions of improving the project. Your evidence here is smoke and mirrors from an online translation tool that garbles translations between two common languages it is designed to support; it cannot be expected to support any case of translating a language that isn't even in its database.
Taking one of your examples; "USA alikaali nira" which you say means "The USA remained a yoke" in Chichewa language, we can see through the Dagabani-English dictionary at rogerblench.info(PDF) that alikaalimi means either "pen" or "pencil" and nira means "person." That suggests to me that this label has been added to people from the USA with an occupation involved in writing. I'll take a look shortly to see if I am right.
Another of your examples; "France siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ doo" which you say means "France's politics are weak," the first word siyaasa doesn't appear in online English-Dagbani dictionaries but that isn't surprising as the dictionaries only contain a few thousand entries; there are hundreds of thousands of words in many languages. However, siyaasa is used by the Dagbani Wikipedia on articles about politicians and it is also used by other languages in the region to refer to politics; we can make a fair assumption that politics is involved in some way in this label. As in the first example, nira means "person." ŋun is in the rogerblench.info dictionary and represents a gender-neutral pronoun equivalent to "he" or "she." The next word nyɛ is difficult to identify but rogerblench.info has a similar looking word with an accented e nyè (note that rogerblench does not use the character ɛ, so è may be being used as a substitute) which means "to be." The final word doo according to rogerblench can mean either "man" or "dawadawa tree;" as earlier labels I looked at used paɣa or "female" in the same position, I am inclined to believe it is a gender term. My rough dictionary-based translation for this label would be "a French male politician," let's take a look later to see if that matches where the labels have been placed.
Next, "China siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ doo" which you say translates to "China's politics are weak" in Somali is almost identical to the French example and is likely to mean "A Chinese male politician."
Using the above translations, it would be reasonable to assume your other example of "India siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ paɣa" is likely to mean "an Indian female politician."
In terms of edit warring, you should not have begun reverting another user's batch edits before you had consensus to freeze that other user's batch edits. By undoing a set of batch edits that are still in progress, you are just placing an unnecesary burden on the servers. Discuss the problem with the user in the first instance, if you don't get a response or are unsatisfied with the answer, escalate the issue to this notice board and leave it to the administrators to resolve the issue. While you obviously mean well, I am concerned that your perspective is too narrow here and you are using very poor logic to analyse the situation. You say that perhaps it is Google Translate that is at fault but that misses the key issue; Google Translate makes clear that Dagbani isn't in its translation database. The error here lies in attempting to use a translation tool that has no words to support the translation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
For "China siyaasa nira ŋun nyɛ doo" which Dagbani-English dictionaries suggest may mean "A Chinese male politician," we have Wang Gang (Q98382927), Tang Ying (Q96095071) and Shao Xun (Q96069898), all of which are human (Q5), male (Q6581097), politician (Q82955) from People's Republic of China (Q148). From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look into this. It seems like I might have made quite a big mistake here and have wasted everyone’s time. My sincere apologies especially to user User:Din-nani1. I made some wrong assumptions- the first one being that google translate could (at least partially) translate dagbani language. It’s unfortunate that the statements all seem to mean something negative in several african languages as well as Japanese ;) it seems like this mislead me, again sincere st apologies. In future I’ll try and discuss questions with users first… RSAmusiclover (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected item

Could someone please mention Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (Q82122)'s, Auguste de Lamarck (Q110470983)? Unfortunately I can't do it by myself, since the item is protected. Thanks in advance, 92.184.98.172 08:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Bovlb (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.239.106.50

95.239.106.50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Has resumed vandalism after expiration of previous block. – LiberatorG (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 177.236.33.166

  Done Blocked 3 days. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please block User:Worldm99

The account bulk adds P172 statements to Wikidata despite being requested to provide references. --- Jura 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked until they confirm that the batch is stopped; further discussion regarding the issue on their user talk page, please. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:VirguloMane

VirguloMane (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: nonsensical edits on various items since last week ; most are breaking previously correct external identifiers Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Info This issue was discussed on User talk:VirguloMane. --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems like this has been resolved on the user talk page. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please semi-protect YG Entertainment (Q50595)

YG Entertainment (Q50595) is under anon-vandalism / newcomer vandalism. I think that silverlocking might help in reducing such disruptions. CrystalLemonade (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Seconded! –FlyingAce✈hello 04:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done Semi-protected for a month. --Ameisenigel (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.248.62.132

193.248.62.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Only vandalisms since January 5. Already blocked 3 times in 2021... Thanks. Jules* (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 188.85.205.222

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:8:5::/64

2600:387:8:5::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Block evasion of 2600:387:8:7::/64, 2600:1700:3720:3770::/64. Repeatedly restores old versions of item that contain errors and sitelinks that have since been deleted. – LiberatorG (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 193.49.209.2

Two other IP vandals appeared, so I blocked one and semi-protected the item for three months. Bovlb (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 168.9.35.217

  Done both blocked. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user Luis Fernando Vinueza

  Done blocked. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:152.168.31.153

152.168.31.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 05:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism is mainly on Indio Solari (Q6024930). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done Blocked 6 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocks for socks

Please block In the forest.001 (talk • contribs • logs) and In The Forest 2000 (talk • contribs • logs) per RfCU. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Another one, per the duck test. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:180.252.175.158

180.252.175.158 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. BAJI 18:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Q27119011

Hi. Please can someone add protection to this item, as an IP editor keeps attempting to hijack it as their own bio, and then use this WD entry as the basis to change the article on EN.WP. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks MS! Lugnuts (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q14752155

Pedro Pascal (Q14752155) - excessive vandalism. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done semi-protected for a week Bovlb (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Akeporn

Akeporn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. – LiberatorG (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 88.12.9.98

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Block request

Hi! Can you block 150.241.155.239 some days for his vandalism on item Q30487 ? Many thanks in advance. --—d—n—f (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Juan Sebastian Hernandes de la Torre

Juan Sebastian Hernandes de la Torre (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. – LiberatorG (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning users 68.100.184.226 and Stowjanna

IP sock of Slowking4 (who was indef-blocked over two years ago for socking), as determined by similar behaviors like mass creating items of academic award recipients through a similar method with no gender statement and (oftentimes) Property:P973 statements without the required Property:P407 qualifier (Slowking4: [9]; IP: [10] [11]), and mass creation of Florence Nightingale Medal recipient items, a topic they had listed for creation on a thread on the sockmaster account's talk page. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I also found another account, a sock account named Stowjanna who has similar editing patterns to the IP sock, edited one of the items the IP sock created and is also blocked on another wiki as a sock of Slowking4 (permalink). ミラP@Miraclepine 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 130.93.122.21

  blocked for 31 hours. --Esteban16 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Iamirabar

Iamirabar (talk • contribs • logs) has returned as Amirabar7 (talk • contribs • logs) and is again creating vanity pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done by Minorax --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 177.232.89.170

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:1260:20D:8C31:94D6:F1BE:A0F5:4838

2001:1260:20D:8C31:94D6:F1BE:A0F5:4838 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism ~aanzx (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 105.154.117.88

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Bibiyamelech

Bibiyamelech (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Multiple vandalism incidents on topics of Nazism. מתקןמחשב (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Alexandrescu Tudor

Alexandrescu Tudor (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalises TV related items. Dorades (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 79.37.97.199

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2a0c:5a81:a202:ec00:c844:6e44:341a:f850

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user Malibu2020

IP blocked, user warned, discussion ongoing. --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Pidoras serbia1995

Pidoras serbia1995 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: The user was active for short in December. Alongside with good-faith edits, he added descriptions like 'Jew', <...> 'the only LGBT representative of Serbia, practised prostitution from a young age', 'the best Serbian politician, M2 Browning shooter, and lawyer' etc. His nickname is also contains the obscene word 'pidoras', Russian for 'f*ggot'. I'm not sure we could expect constructive edits by the user if he will return, mixing 'good' contribution with vandalism is not what we want, plus the nickname itself is stongly offensive. --Wolverène (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:36.85.30.202

36.85.30.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Brewster239 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please also semi-protect Haruka Tomatsu (Q50025). --Brewster239 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done blocked and protected. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Q61046571

Please semi-protect the page for a week or so because of the risk of a continual fan vandalism, like e.g. [12]. --Wolverène (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:176.12.81.211

176.12.81.211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: ongoing vandal account active in the last few months. I have reverted some of its most recent edits but a lot is still here. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection on Q28542151

Problematic aliases have been added to Q28542151 several times since the beginning of this month.--Tigerzeng (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Pamputt (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Twinklekrish

Twinklekrish (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adding spam links. – LiberatorG (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.137.138.2

2.137.138.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 150.241.155.249

150.241.155.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Persistent vandalism. Montgomery (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

discussion reopening

Can someone reopen the discussion at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P10083?

The closure seems to be premature as the listing just before Xmas didn't leave the community time to provide input nor was the problem addressed in the proposal discussion. Many older, similar discussions are still open.

I asked the closing administrator about it at [13], but apparently community input isn't what it's important. Given the administrator's comments about me, I'm not really convinced that of the neutrality of their closure anyways.

Given that the property (and its endorsement by Wikidata) has the potential to drive away other institutions from Wikidata, I think others should be able to provide their input too. --- Jura 08:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jura1: I'd like to help you here, but it looks like you're the only one who has raised any objection to this property, and your objection is merely unsubstantiated innuendo. To get any traction here, I'm afraid you would have to actually explain what your objection is. Specifically:
  • What is the problematic nature of the website?
  • What is your basis for claiming that the website mainly host copyvios and the like?
  • Where does our policy state that we avoid linking to websites that mainly host copyvios and the like?
  • How is Wikileaks related to this property?
Unless you can address these points, there doesn't seem to be anything here for anyone to respond to. Bovlb (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this.
The question is if the deletion discussion should be reopened or not (or if it was correctly closed), not which arguments each of us consider relevant (or not).
BTW, I don't think I made all those statements in the previous discussions, but this isn't relevant. In any case, I don't want to get into a "don't stuff beans in your nose" type of thing. --- Jura 19:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading things here, the deletion discussion received two keep !votes in the first day and was then closed as keep 25 days later. This seems appropriate, especially given that nobody offered any reasons for deletion that weren't raised in the original property proposal discussion. The closing admin did not participate in any of the preceding discussions. If you're asking for it to be reopened because of some process violation, then you'll need to explain what that was.
You are correct to say that you did not make all of those statement in previous discussions. You stated the first one. The other three were merely implicated by your innuendo. This is not a very satisfactory way to present an argument. I don't see how beans are involved.
If one doesn't get a positive response to one's argument, this is generally because the argument is some combination of: 1) insufficiently read; 2) insufficiently explained; or 3) wrong. You are apparently raising the same vague argument in a fifth venue because you believe the issue is reason (1). I (along with the various others who have asked you for clarification) am asking you to consider reason (2) instead, that "the problematic nature of the website" lacks useful detail as an argument not to have an identifier property. Bovlb (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think creation was in line with Wikidata:Property_creation#Property_creation_criteria, possibly because most people just voted before and then didn't participate any further. This sometimes happens when a discussion is advertised elsewhere and people just come "vote" instead of to discuss.
As the argument was raised in the property proposal discussion, but not addressed, creation shouldn't have occurred.
Properties that are listed for deletion are generally advertised on Special:Watchlist. As you noted, hardly any participated in the discussion and it was only open for a relatively short time, and this during Xmas break.
If an administrator is impartial or not is not exclusively determined by the question if they participated in the discussion or not.
In one way or the other, we need to address the problem created by the property as it has the potential to drive away institutions supportive of the Wikidata. --- Jura 19:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that the deletion discussion should be reopened because the creation discussion was closed improperly.
You appear to be referring to this clause: All opposing points of discussion should be addressed before creation occurs. If there is still disagreement, it is up to the property creator to consider the thoughtfulness and logic behind points of discussion (i.e., an opposing voice with no thought behind it should not block creation, but a single reasonable opposing voice against many supporters may do so).. The proposal received five !support votes and one !oppose. The sole oppose vote did not advance any clear points, and a request for clarification did not yield a helpful response. The discussion was closed and the property was created three weeks after the last comment. Again, this seems appropriate. You can't expect people to wait forever for you to clarify or substantiate your objection.
I may not be familiar with all the process around advertising property deletion discussions, but 25 days seems like a reasonable time (given the policy is at least 7 days), even given the holiday period. The responses specifically addressed your objection, its vagueness, and the fact that you did not clarify it on request. You did not engage with those responses.
"If an administrator is impartial or not is not exclusively determined by the question if they participated in the discussion or not." - I read this innuendo as suggesting a violation of Wikidata:Administrators#Involved_administrators by a specific person. This is a serious allegation, and it should not be slipped into a discussion as an innuendo. If you seriously want to make this accusation, then you need to do so explicitly and back it up with evidence. Otherwise it's harassment and you should strike it out in this discussion.
If you believe that having this property harms this project in some way, my recommendation would be that you open a new deletion discussion, include a clear explanation of why the property should be deleted, and then respond appropriately to requests for clarification. I don't see any other way that this could possibly come out in your favour. Bovlb (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If it's ok to open a new discussion, I will do so.
I mentioned the other point on the admins talk page and they didn't voice any opposition to it. I suppose they are aware of their previous comments. Maybe I should clarify that it's the impression of impartiality that lacks, even if they well be impartial.
If you think discussions should be closed after 7 days on Wikidata:Properties for deletion can you close the ones from 2020 and earlier? --- Jura 20:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It's OK to open a new discussion, but only if you do something that you have not done hitherto: Provide a clear explanation of why this property is bad. Opening a sixth discussion just to point at your previous vague objection or to make complaints about process might well be considered an abuse of process.
I agree that you have placed a similar accusation-by-innuendo on the admin's talk page. That is also harassment and having done so there does not license you to do so here. I am asking you for a second time to strike out these sly accusations if you are not prepared to substantiate them. "Maybe I should clarify that it's the impression of impartiality that lacks, even if they well be impartial" - now you are trying to evade the implicature of your innuendo. You should not be communicating accusations via innuendos. You should not be making accusations you are not prepared to substantiate. Please stop.
You are correct that there seems to be a substantial backlog at Wikidata:Properties for deletion, although most seem to have comments more recent than 2020. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Consider the above comments striked out. I will contact WMF myself. It's probably preferable to solve that way. --- Jura 21:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
On your side, can you strike out the incorrectly contextualized quotes and the explanation they were implied (or "innu.."?) by myself as well the suggestion of harassment? Thanks. --- Jura 06:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. I don't see anything I have said above that it would be appropriate to strike out. Could you be more specific about what and why? Bovlb (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading this discussion I don't see anything worth escalating to WMF over. Generally I don't see a lot of value in reopening the discussion. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm baffled by this whole thing. Jura1 apparently has some strong objection to this property, but in two months of discussion in five venues they have been unable to articulate what the objection is, let alone provide any supporting evidence. Instead they have been wasting our time by repeatedly asking us to address the same unactionably-vague objection, while throwing around baseless accusations about anyone who dares to close a discussion. If Jura1 is truly interested in preventing/deleting this property, why won't they tell us what's wrong with it? I don't know what part of this they plan to take to the WMF, but I have to imagine they will also be baffled. Bovlb (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
So having had a look, I assume this is because the Offshore Leaks Database is (to quote from English Wikipedia) "a report disclosing details of 130,000 offshore accounts in April 2013," and presumably Jura is concerned about Wikidata hosting information from it causing reputational damage to the WMF. There's no harm in putting this on the WMF's radar as a minor risk, I suppose, but beyond that I don't think there's any reason to delete the property or to take any further action. Wikipedia has had German and English articles on the report since its release in 2013, so I have no idea why this would be an issue now. Theknightwho (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please protect Q1101455

Neal Maupay (Q1101455) – lots of vandalism today. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tikhon1235

Заблокируйте вандала Tikhon1235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) --Mitte27 (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:6500:A040:B243:889:CF15:1937:C0C0

2A01:6500:A040:B243:889:CF15:1937:C0C0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: deleting statements from Q381397 windewrix (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tịnh thất Bồng Lai (Q109425443)

Hi, please semi-protect this item and revdel all recent revisions by IPs (along with this one by me mistakenly). Also, please block 2001:ee0:228:b978:3a93:1981:a5bd:3c9f/41 since the range seems to be their long-time IP range and I can hardly find any constructive edit in at least 2 years. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

semi-protection and revdel   Done. @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Could you have a look at the recent edits of this range at Phu Le (Q99747558) and Jack (Q97273318)? Using translator it looks like vandalism, but I would prefer if you can check it before I block the range. --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ameisenigel: Yes, that's definitely him (not necessarily Musée Annam, but can still be another LTA). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.37.97.199

79.37.97.199 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Has resumed making disruptive edits after expiration of block. – LiberatorG (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Buller1

Hello. New user Buller1's first three edits have been to create top icon templates and then to add an administrator top icon to his or her own user page. This has the effect of categorising the user into Category:Wikidata administrators. Could somebody please take a look at this? Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have welcomed the user and removed the incorrect icon from his/her userpage — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user Cheung_kin_yan

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 84.65.82.128

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:151.15.161.234

151.15.161.234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: IP address that reverts a lot without any discussion. Possible socket puppet of some blocked user. Jklamo (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user Diizkid

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 219.79.98.146

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Fan1keniaos

Fan1keniaos (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism only-account Ruy (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Wefrewe

Wefrewe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: I think this person doesn't really know what she/he's doing. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User warned. --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 2A01:5EC0:D801:522F:7A1A:7086:BCC8:FD41

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection for Q39476

A protection of Emma Watson (Q39476) seems necessary, reoccuring vandalism since the begining of the month. Gyrostat (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for three months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 67.218.229.243

  Done IP blocked and item semi-protected for a week --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 187.189.163.11

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 219.79.101.174

  Done --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ExistingAccountInTheDunya

ExistingAccountInTheDunya (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism (Examples: 1, 2) RXerself (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Virtually all of their edits are flame war. RXerself (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Note left on talk page by Ameisenigel — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Continued vandalism, user blocked. --Ameisenigel (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:93.167.105.31

93.167.105.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism at Robert Downey Jr. (Q165219). –FlyingAce✈hello 21:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 31 hrs. Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 64.56.87.247

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing War: Former President Mauricio Macri

Frodar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: I request that the Mauricio Macri (Q561837) Page be protected due to an editing war in which the user Frodar is persistently involved.

---Julian Aristiqui (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Frodar, Julian Aristiqui: I have protected the item for two weeks. Please read WD:EDITWAR and do not continue the edit war once the page protection is over. You may use the talk page to discuss the changes or reach out for other opinions at the project chat. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ameisenigel:. I'm a bit confused of which would be the correct procedure on this, so I'll start this exposing all the situation. First, the edition of this user (which I assume is @Julian Aristiqui:, who started the protection request) that is present in the current protected version of the article is wrong. Macri is not the 56th President of Argentina because there is no official order regarding the presidents of Argentina. The fact that the US and other countries have established their official order of presidents (Biden is the 46th, Trump was the 45th, etc) doesn't reflect in every country of the world. Second, the user Julian Aristiqui, made the same procedure that this time in the past, in another case of "order of presidents": there was some sort of edit-war in Q6800406 between he and me, trying to put a number of order to a President without solid references, I reverted him, so he didn't like my reversion, and requested protection, the protection was granted and the wrong description stands there. And when I tried to reach a consensus with him, he leaves the discussion.
Of course I don't want an edit war but I really don't want that wrong information remains in the description.
I write here because I think there is not gonna be a consensus reached between the user and me, having in mind that previous incident (why he'd want to discuss anything, if it's his edition the one that is in use? -and that's my main concern about the right procedures). If you consider I'm wrong and you don't want to revert the edition of this user, would you please move this thing to a more appropriate place where the community (and not just the other user involved and me) can discuss about it?
Thank you.--Frodar (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Frodar: I understand your point of view, but I cannot decide which description is correct (and admins always protect the wrong version). As I have already mentioned in my comment above, I would recommend to reach out for additional feedback at Wikidata:Project chat (and maybe additional the Spanish language version Wikidata:Café). If there is consensus for one of these two versions or maybe an alternative version, I will lift the protection of course. --Ameisenigel (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ameisenigel:. First and foremost, I want to make it clear that I believe that dialogue is the best way to resolve things, having said that, I also believe that the user @Frodar mixes the political sphere with Wikipedia by wanting to leave an informal description for both presidents, I also invoke Wikidata's policy that states the following on its official website: Wikidata official policy I am willing to continue debating I want to reach a definitive consensus on this, I am tired of this problem and it is not that I "Leave the discussion" as the user @Frodar: said, I simply have my work and personal reasons so I cannot stay all time on Wikipedia. Regards, Julian. ---Julian Aristiqui (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Continued at Wikidata:Project_chat#On_protection_of_items_with_wrong_editions_and_description_issues. Multichill (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

International link to Q207469

  Moved to Wikidata:Project chat
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:205.237.30.142

205.237.30.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long term vandalism. Cross-wiki abuse. SCP-2000 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done globally by علاء. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Zozz2022 vandalism

Can you block him ?

Susan B. Anthony

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192245

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malaria28 (talk • contribs).

  Done User blocked, item semiprotected for a month, as there was vandalism from other IP addresses/accounts too, it seems. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:119.160.58.140

119.160.58.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeatedly adding bad statements after multiple requests to stop (User talk:119.160.58.140). Also adding promotional descriptions. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Falakrecords12 is now editing the same items and adding the same bad statements. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
IP blocked, user warned. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Saragsmith

Saragsmith (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Posting advertising spam to project chat. SilentSpike (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User warned. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 137.101.150.189

137.101.150.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Vandalism after final warning [14]. Edit pattern including crosswiki vandalism shows that this is a sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Sjö (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Bobanchi

Bobanchi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Added a paint-edited drawing with vandalic purpose, affecting to some Wikipedia for some hours. KajenCAT (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User warned. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:219.78.81.161

219.78.81.161 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism + Cross-wiki abuse. SCP-2000 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Please consider blocking instead of just protecting one of the items as this IP seems to be vandalising more than one. LuciferianThomas (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done by MisterSynergy. --Esteban16 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection of Florinel Coman (Q24579254)

Please protect this item for a longer period of time. It's been protected before in October. Vandalism has been low in November and December because the player has been injured and did not play. Now that the season has resumed and the player is back with his team, the vandalism is once again in full-swing. —Andreitalk 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for three months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

please protect (or semi-protect) Alexandra David-Néel (Q230456)

there has been a lot of vandalism in the last month and so...

I'm not even sure I caught all of them... Thanks a lot ! Hsarrazin (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for three months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks ! Hsarrazin (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Justusseinvater

Justusseinvater (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: All edits without exception are vandalism, see contributions Mautpreller (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:A03F:C424:B200::/64

2A02:A03F:C424:B200::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Infrastruktur (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for semi protection of Q22713189

Accueil (Q22713189) appears to attract far more vandal edits than legitimate contributions. Vandal edits are made fairly regularly but are not always spotted and reverted. Can admins please consider a fairly lengthy semi-protection here? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for a year. Bovlb (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 213.89.115.38

IP seems to be no longer active. Item semi-protected for three months. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Hoingin

Hoingin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Potapt (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:87.127.214.62

87.127.214.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Disruptive removals as well as profanity and defamatory material that should be hidden. Best, Bridget (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, thank you for the report. Just simple vandalism, don't think it needs hiding. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ: sorry, I should been more specific - I think this one edit Special:diff/1568806336 should be hidden for defamation. Bridget (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Bovlb (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

vandalism ISSOU4EVERRIPRISITAS

ISSOU4EVERRIPRISITAS (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) doing vandalism.

Malaria28 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed, but it would have been nicer to see a warning first. Bovlb (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Zuzupet05

Zuzupet05 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Thanks. Jules* (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

+ also IP 80.124.25.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (same person). Best, Jules* (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
+ Ethan Dupont (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Still the same vandal. Jules* (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  Done Four blocks and four semi-protections. Bovlb (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user BabySwag228

  Done Bovlb (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:이가2

이가2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. – LiberatorG (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC) 14.49.67.182 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) same vandal. –LiberatorG (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done I already blocked both a couple of hours ago, plus some page semi-protection. This seems like a repeat of vandalism we've seen in the past. Bovlb (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi protect Q76364705

There's an edit war on an item for an individual understood to have introduced a hoaxed personal lineage into The Peerage and Wikidata (see Talk:Q76364705). Semi-protection would be useful. Harry James Albert Cavendish Taylor-Berkeley (Q76364705) - history --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected for a fortnight — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q3355

Please semi-protect Amelia Earhart (Q3355) - frequent IP vandalism, popular theme, indef semiprotection on enwiki. --Jklamo (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for a year --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please protect Q4391915

Jorge González (Q4391915) – plenty of IP vandalism today. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:152.172.154.159

152.172.154.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikidata:Properties for deletion

Please have a look and close discussions at Wikidata:Properties for deletion, since there's a backlog there. I've closed the ones I could see were kept or no consensus, but there are at least several that could be closed as delete, and also a number of trickier ones to resolve, some of which are several years old now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For some of those multi-year discussions the problem may be finding an admin who has not commented! Perhaps a panel of two/three could be convened for some of the trickier ones? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobel prize ID

I took a look and found one that I could close: P3188 (P3188). As a new admin I would appreciate a little more guidance before I hit the delete button.

  1. I have satisfied myself that every item is using the newer property Nobel Laureate API ID (P8024) so no data will be lost.
  2. I want to check that no Wikipedia (or other project) article/template is using the property before deleting. I know how to check this for an individual item, but I can't check hundreds of separate items. Is there a way to check this for property?
  3. Is it necessary to remove statements when deleting a property, or will this happen automatically?

Thanks for any advice. Pinging Salgo60 who has done most of the work on this migration — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, thank for closing.
  1. OK
  2. I do not know at all. Maybe the best is not to delete the property now but to change the label as "Nobel Laureate API ID (OBSOLETE)" for at least one month. So that, it allows users to see that this property will not be used soon.
  3. No need to remove everything. When you delete a property (or an item), all statements are automatically deleted.
Pamputt (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a bot that updates property talk pages with the template {{ExternalUse}}, when they are used in another project. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that is good advice. I have added {{Property being deleted}}, a template which I have just created, to the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Munkaila Sulemana

Munkaila Sulemana (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This new user links many stub from language "dag". They are just stubs but he/she associate them with badges of GA, QA, etc... not warranted. He should be stopped or at least warned by administrators and all his/her worked reviewed. Pierre cb (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: Adding the links are good edits, to be encouraged. Possibly they are confused about the purpose of the badges. Can I suggest you speak to them first? Their user talk page is currently blank. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Munkaila Sulemana: would you like to comment? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I prefer asking the administrators do the sensitization. Pierre cb (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Error item removal

I just created Q110657698 while trying to create an identifier (Q19829908) for geocaching.com (for example Q27998823 => https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8039V_parco-golfera where "GC8039V_parco-golfera" would be the ID).

However I think I made a mistake, I should have instead asked a new property in Wikidata:Property_proposal, is that correct? If that's the case please remove Q110657698. --Danysan1 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if you want a property then please start a new proposal at Wikidata:Property_proposal. You can set this item up for the identifier though. I'll see if I can add some statements. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing wars at Molly Stewart (Q98558683)

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

The IP's editings at Molly Stewart (Q98558683) resulted in a removal of valid and verified information. Some information added by the IP is related to The Totally Wholesome (Not Dirty) (Q109661501), and therefor it's more suitable to be on the podcast page rather than the creator of the podcast. I have added the information and updated both pages.--Crazy hat royal (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:여인영

Blocked indefinitely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Q229760

Requested semi-protection for Q229760. Persistent disruption. Tbhotch (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:14.49.67.235

14.49.67.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC) 14.49.67.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — same vandal. –LiberatorG (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/5.127.138.225

This IP

Requesting administrators deal with this information accordingly.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Blocked for a month, reported to stewards to take further actions.--Esteban16 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
And   Done globally by علاء. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

AF#30

Please change article_namespace and article_text to page_namespace and page_title respectively per AF rules format documentation. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I am not able to make this change since the tag for this filter (adding potentially mistaken label/description/alias) contains /. It seems like this is not allowed by the software anymore. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Q229760 -Rita Ora

IP 77.69.110.172 (and before 79.166.75.33) is constantly trying to either remove the stament or descrptions that she is an ethnic albanian from Kosovar or that trying to change the description that she is british to being english without any reliable source, even after being reverted by and other users and being asked to source what he claims. Tm (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User's info is false, already provided an explanation for my edits (and even compromised for the ethnicity), but still he is trying to push their edits by force. Ora is English since she was raised in England, British is a more general term. 77.69.110.172 (77.69.110.172)
This IP is also being blocked in english wikipedia for the same kind of shenanigans (with rationale "long term abuse", so a possible sock?), not once, but more than once? Of course it is nothing surprising Tm (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Admins have a superior knowledge when it comes to wiki issues but who said everyone is perfect? The other admin didnt even bother checking my edits before reverting them.
Your talking the one that already reverted\corrected your edits in the greek article about Rita Ota? Tm (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
No, about the previous articles you mentioned.

Only now i saw that already other user made the same complaint about the same IPs about the same Q229760, almost 24 hours ago] in this same page. Tm (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And without any surprise, same IP also blocked in greek wikipedia for the same reason. Tm (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy Thank you for blocking this IP do to "Edit warring". Tm (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
IP is back under a new IP making the same edit. Thank you. Tm (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked User:77.69.110.172 and User:62.74.10.101, and semi-protected Rita Ora (Q229760) for the moment. User:Tm, please do not be stubborn and hit the undo button all the time. Make a report and someone will have a look. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is in Wikidata it was necessary an previous report by another user almost 24 hours ago (and no action was taken meanwhile) and then it was necessary another report and dozens of reversions to anyone notice this vandalism, and yet the same IPs were blocked right after 2 vandal edits in en wikipedia and in 7 edits and in less then 1H30M in the greek wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for protecting Q229760. I now that almost all the administrators try to combat vandalism and false or irrelevant information, but given the disparity of eyes on "patrol" between here and other projects but IPs are more a liability than usefull in this especific project. Tm (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: ethnic group (P172) was unsourced, but it seems that is better to delete anything even when it is and was pretty easy to be sourced given that this singer is known in several parts of the world, in particular in europe and the uk. Tm (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tm The burden of proof rests within the user who tries to defend statements. There is no obligation of any user to find references for your claims, regardless of their relative ease to find them. Emu (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It was not me that added P172 and there is still the fact that her ethnicity and geographic origin is pretty well known at least in Europe, North America and Australasia and so nobody of the dozens of editors made the effort to insert any source of P172 for more than 4 years. Tm (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The ethnic group (P172) was unsourced. This should never happen, especially when challenged. I decided to delete this statement without further discussion. Please only reinstate it with adequate source. --Emu (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Did we forget to block the second user who was edited warring and inserted un-referenced P172 claims into Wikidata? Since when either of that is ok? @MisterSynergy: --- Jura 08:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not forgotten. I considered to do so, but figured that this would not be appropriate due to the asymmetry of the situation. Hence, User:Tm only received an informal warning above. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    What is the asymmetry? IP vs logged-in? I know you protect countless items to avoid that IPs edit then, but AFAIK Wikidata's editorial policies don't favor one over the other.
    It's clearly graver to repeatedly add unreferenced P172 to Wikidata than to remove them. --- Jura 09:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    The asymetry of the facts that this IP is blocked in two other Wikimedia projects for the exact same reasons and edits, the fact that it was not me that inserted P172 in 2017 about a pretty "obscure" singer (that has only articles in 63 languages wikipedias) that is not well know for being an ethnic albanian like the equally british Dua Lipa (that has only articles in 74) languages wikipedias or american Bebe Rexha (that has only articles in 51 languages wikipedias), two other preety "obscure" ethnic albanian singers, fact is that after Emu removed that statement with an explanation (and asking for sources for reinserting) it was pretty "hard" to find 4 reliable sources (that nobody of the dozens of editors made the effort to insert any source of P172 for more than 4 years).
    But it seems that there is an peculiarity only to Wikidata in that there are some users (and even some administrators) that prefer to be nitpicking and instead of fighting vandalism, want to punish any user that fights it because of trivialities. Having said that, forward from here i will not revert more than 50% of any vandalism that i see in any article, adding up to the fact that previously an administrator with that same kind of mentality made me stop fighting an IP hopping vandal of dozens of pages and now that articles have to be reverted by dozens of other users. Tm (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Data curation isn't vandalism. Do not carry over your disputes from other wikis to Wikidata. --- Jura 12:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, you repeatably re-added the P172 information to the description in various languages [15], places where it's rarely needed based on Help:Description. Maybe you care to explain why you did that and how it's needed to disambiguate the person for other singers with the same name. --- Jura 12:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is disputed the fact that there was a previous thread about this same IP, page and edits that was answered for almost 24 hours before i opened this thread? Is it disputed that this IP was blocked in greek wikipedia and has reverted his edits on the greek wikipedia reverted once before the opening of this page and another after the opening of this thread? That he was also blocked in english wikipedia for the same kind of shenanigans, not not in one article but in two different articles? Is it disputed that this same IP after being blocked in Wikidata returned in just a few minutes to repeat the same edits? Is it disputed that for that reason Q229760-Rita Ora is semi-protected until February 5? Also how many Rita Ora singers do you know that "it's needed to disambiguate the person for other singers with the same name"? And i did not added the descriptions, before or after or even during this IP´s vandalism. And is reverting cross-project vandalism now considered in Wikidatathis a content dispute? Tm (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    It seems you don't share other users view on the editorial issue at hand.
    You seem to revert edits merely because they are done by an IP possibly blocked elsewhere.
    If you revert a correction, you re-insert problematic data and make the error yours.
    That you attempt to have an IP blocked here, because of blocks or content disputes on other wikis is a reason to block you, not them, here. --- Jura 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    I see perfectly well what the editorial issue is at hand. IP is blocked and reverted in two wikipedias for the same kind of edits, even before this thread was opened, as he changed in wikidata descriptions about nationality (english instead of british, the same reason he was blocked in greek and english wikipedia), but you seem to think that fighting cross-vandalism is reason to block the reversors.
    You also seem to forget that i added 4 different reliable sources to P172 that proves what was stated since 2017 and is pretty well known.
    Trying to block others just because of things that do not happened or exist or was changed even before you wrote is nickpicking, for reason unknown, but also irrelevant to me.
    For me aswering you in this thread is over, as it is you do not seem to understand what the editorial issue is at hand. as you did not explain why was he reverted and blocked in three different projects and why Q229760 is semi-protected after his edits and you are calling his edits "a correction" and saying that i "seem to revert edits merely because they are done by an IP", when the diffs are good proof of why. Tm (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Please choose your words carefully. Removing unsourced claims and adjusting descriptions to fit convention per se isn’t vandalism. Fighting vandalism is praiseworthy but not every content dispute is vandalism und vandalism fighting is no reason to disregard data quality standards. Emu (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    As i said above to Jura1, the fact is that after you Emu removed that statement with an explanation (and asking for sources for reinserting) it added 4 reliable sources, so your acts with an explanation were not vandalism, contrary to the acts of this IP in three different IP´s, even if her ethnicity is not at all obscure but well known around the world. Tm (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we should either fully protect the item after deletion of the re-insertion of problematic information and deblock the IPs or block the second edit warring user as well. --- Jura 16:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Jura, the case is closed. I made the decision while being fully aware of all the details raised by you above as well. Mind that I am not here to punish users. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Can you explain the asymmetry in your decision and what you were trying to achieve? --- Jura 16:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sure.
    User:Tm made a report on this page that I consider a legit vandalism report. The report remained here unattended for quite a while, during which User:Tm engaged too much in the case. Yet, the aggressor is the IP user here. We also need to consider that there is much more at stake for User:Tm as a registered user—their reputation—compared to the IP user with a throw-away identity.
    That said, I would have preferred if User:Tm had made a report here, and waited for a response without reverting all the time. If one realizes that the vandal is really stubborn, there is little one can do without admin rights. In this particular case, it is obvious that at some point both parties did not realize any longer what they changed on the item page while reverting back and forth.
    The purpose of the IP block was to prevent damage from the project. They came back with another IP immediately (blocked as well), so a temporary page protection was necessary. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    The edits of both don't really seem optimal and in a field that is rather peripheral to what (I think) is a good use of the project. At least, we start seeing references for some of the claims. Vandalism problems with some IP edits are amalgamated with the user's editorial differences with others.
    The problem is that questionable descriptions on items of living people can damage the project even more when it seems to be done by logged-in users and supported by admin action.
    Can we agree that the corrections made by the IP to the es/pt/ca descriptions can be restored? This would partially undo [16]. --- Jura 09:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    I do not express any editorial preference with my admin actions.
    The item page is open for modifications by (auto)confirmed users; others can leave edit requests on the item talk page. In case of disputes, the usual procedures apply to find a consensus—or admins would need to close the item for modifications completely for a while. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    It seems that some of the IP edits are actually useful and by blocking them while letting the logged-in user continue, one could think you did support one view over the other. Possibly this was unintentional as the whole edit history is messy.
    Anyways, I spelled out some of the changes at Talk:Q229760. Let's continue there.
    This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 17:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC) --- Jura 17:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:151.24.126.169

151.24.126.169 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Reverting only IP address, see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/01#Report_concerning_User:151.15.161.234. Please revert all edits, consider rangeblock. Jklamo (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Q105096377

Semi-protection requested for Q105096377: continuous vandalism from several IPs, with serious defamation to an alive person. These vandalisms come from Spanish Wikipedia, where the same article has been semi-protected. It seems these guys enjoy defamating this person. Thanks. PedroAcero76 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for a week. Bovlb (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Q4099923

Semi-protection requested for Q4099923. Vandalism and anonymous users post photos with a fake license. Skazi 13:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done for 1 month BrokenSegue (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Roni Bäck (Q43272838)

Please semi-protect Roni Bäck (Q43272838) due to persistent IP vandalism. –LiberatorG (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done for 1 month. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Fkcmdkvjchdhfhchd

Fkcmdkvjchdhfhchd (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: wp:nothere Jan Myšák (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:JaysonVera

JaysonVera (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: It seems like a spambot. Rosalina450280 (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User warned. It does not look like a spambot to me. Lymantria (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, 41.250.141.177 doesn't seem to be here to contribute peacefully. Thanks :) --—d—n—f (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Has been warned and has not edited since. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion moved to usernamespace

Mahir256 moved the entire discussion "Editing requests from a blocked user" from the project chat to my usernamespace User:Gymnicus/Edit requests on January 5, 2022. I didn't agree with that at the time and at least reversed the editing in the project chat. I was banned from Mahir256 because of this action of mine. I have to say that at the time I was not only responsible for the discussion, but also for the requests for editing. I didn't move them this time because they don't have to be archived in the project chat. What I would now like to have clarified here is: Was the postponement of Mahir256 justified or not? From my point of view it was not justified for the following reasons:

  1. The postponement was not justified simply because there was no reason for it being done by Mahir. He was not involved in the discussion and as you could see from the discussion there was no reason for the postponement. User Bovlb had suggested the user page and I hadn't even responded to it yet. So why the shift then? There was also no reason to think that I wouldn't accept this suggestion from Bovlb because I wasn't opposed to another location, I just wanted it to be easily accessible and this is in Bovlb's proposal due to given the inclusion in the category Wikidata protected edit requests.
  2. In my view, the discussion should be archived where it was held. In this case, I am only talking about the discussion and not about the processing requests. I don't know of any other case where a discussion was moved from the project chat to a usernamespace, or can anyone point me to one?

I would appreciate your comments on this topic and your opinions. Perhaps Mahir256 will also speak, but for that he has to swear his vow of silence to me. --Gymnicus (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that the discussion “Editing requests from a blocked user” has been archived correctly, I request that the page User:Gymnicus/Edit requests created by Mahir256 be moved to his namespace without creating a redirect, so that I can then recreate the page User:Gymnicus/Edit requests as I wish. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
It is a pity that no administrator is interested in this topic here. Nevertheless, I would still be happy about an answer and an administrative action. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  Not done This request has had sufficient time in the sun. It’s clear that no-one wants to act on it.
As already discussed, it was disruptive for you to maintain your own private “requested edits” section on project chat, and it was appropriate for Mahir256 to move it to your userspace. If you want to refine the format or move the contents to item talk pages (as conventional edit requests) you are free to do so.
We understand that you want to make a public demonstration of how the project is losing out from all the edits you would be making, if only you were unblocked. I happen to agree on that point, which is why I have been working so hard to try to get you unblocked.
Unfortunately, there is strong evidence that those productive edits would also come with disruptive edits. Rather than trying to demonstrate the potential benefits from unblocking you, your efforts would be better spent on convincing us that it would not come with those costs. Causing these disruptions here and at project chat does not help your case. Bovlb (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course, if this discussion doesn't go into the archive according to the motto "Nothing seen, nothing happened", then an admin who is involved in this dispute himself and therefore has no objective view of the matter decides. If one is biased, then one should refrain from making decisions in the matter in question. You, Bovlb and Mahir256, are welcome to understand this as an indirect reference to you. While this is likely to be considered disruptive behavior or editing again, I don't see the need to be dismissed so easily here.
“As already discussed, it was disruptive for you to maintain your own private ‘requested edits’ section on project chat [...].” – I would personally say that these edits were not annoying, just found annoying by others. This is also fine and I have accepted it, but I have asked the people who found my edits annoying to suggest an adequate replacement where I can make my edit requests and where they can then be found. It makes no sense to make editing requests that nobody sees. You, Bovlb, then suggested a possibility and as I wrote in my first comment, I agreed with this possibility. I wasn't able to express this, because Mahir256 moved the discussion along with the edit requests to my username space after just a little over a day.
“[...] it was appropriate for Mahir256 to move it to your userspace.” – Suffice it to say that it was an edit appropriate. But the difficult thing is to justify this. I don't want to accuse you, Bovlb of not being able to justify it. But at least you didn't give a reason and it's about this. As mentioned in my first comment, I see no reason for this postponement, especially after a little more than a day. Why didn't Mahir256 give me time to reply to your comment or to implement the editing directly? He could have given an ultimatum, for example. So, for example, he could have said: "Please say by … if you agree with the idea" And after my - as I said - positive answer, he could then have submitted a new ultimatum in the following form: “Implement this idea by ….” If it had not been implemented by then, then he could have made this postponement, but not after just a little more than a day.
Finally, I would also open up a possibility to shorten this discussion here. If you move the current page User:Gymnicus/Edit requests to the usernamespace of Mahir256 without forwarding, then the topic would be off the table for me without any discussion. Mahir256 can then do whatever he wants with the shifted page. In addition, I can then design the page according to my ideas for the editing requests. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Quesotiotyo

I had undone batch #75178 which removed at least 600 hundred instances of English family names utilized as given names. User:Quesotiotyo has re-executed this edit. In light of a previous noticeboard discussion (not one month ago) related to disruptive behaviour, I have no desire to undo this batch edit. Intervention is requested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Labattblueboy: it looks like @Quesotiotyo: is reverting edits right now? it would be good if they responded here so we know what the situation is. It seems you reverted their deletion of improper statements which confuses me. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize now that the reason I provided was unclear. I had removed around 630 given name (P735) statements that used a family name (Q101352) value. @Labattblueboy: undid this batch, thereby adding back the incorrect values. My reverting of that action was therefore re-removing the incorrect values.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Quesotiotyo: New given names coming or just deletions? I don't see how deletions are at all helpful in this instance.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The editing and lack of communication from @Quesotiotyo is concerning. They made a controversial bulk edit (without summary). Both Labattblueboy and myself immediately pinged them at this discussion to let them know that the batch edit was problematic, and Labattblueboy undid it. Quesotiotyo did not respond in the discussion, and instead edit warred to restore the batch. Someone editing like that should not be making bulk edits. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Any ping you may have sent was drowned out by six hundred notifications that my edits were being reverted. :( I did provide an edit summary for the QS batch (see https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/75178). I am not sure why the edit group says "(no summary)". I will respond to your other concerns at Wikidata:Edit groups/QSv2/75178 now that I am aware of them.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
When you see that 600 edits of yours have been reverted, that's a signal that something has gone wrong. It means you should pause, double check everything related to the edit, communicate with the editor who reverted, and make sure everyone is on the same page before proceeding any further. If you'd done that, you'd have seen the concerns. But you didn't—you immediately edit warred, creating another batch that will now have to be reverted. That's not good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Something went wrong but it was not on my part. It is not edit warring to correct someone else's mistake. Please be mindful when using that term.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Quesotiotyo: Please address the question above, is it your plan to replace those items deleted with new values and/or is there a plan in place do to so? If not I would argue batch #75178 should be reverted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
(I am taking "items deleted" to mean statements; I do not have the ability to delete items :))
Yes, I am in the process of creating new given name items (where appropriate) to replace incorrect P735 values. Some of the values that were removed should be moved to family name (P734) instead; I will correct those as well. I do appreciate your patience.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It is not edit warring to correct someone else's mistake Please familiarize yourself with the edit warring policy, which says no such thing. Your assertion that the reversion was a mistake is also questionable. When making any mass edit, it's your responsibility to demonstrate affirmative consensus if challenged. In your reply, you presented an argument. An argument is not evidence of a consensus, and indeed, the prior Project Chat discussion that I had already linked shows that further discussion is needed on how to handle this issue before consensus will become clear.
I am deeply concerned that, after having been brought to the Administrator's Noticeboard for the second time in a month, your replies do not indicate any understanding that your editing had problems. Instead, you are insisting there is no issue.
Given this, I support revert the batch and ban Quesotiotyo from making mass edits until they demonstrate understanding of the issues with their past behavior. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I too would like to see better communication from this editor. Before banning him from mass edits completely, can I suggest we give him the chance to fix the problems, as he has offered to do above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Quesotiotyo: so I can understand your position, can you explain your actions on James Cleland Richardson (Q6131423). Are you saying that "Clelland" is a given name or a family name (and do you have a reference for that?) I see that Clelland (Q37445360) is an instance of family name (Q101352). What is your plan to "fix" this particular item? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ: It appears that his middle name was actually "Cleland", not "Clelland". The item is now correct. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Labattblueboy: you added this statement in 2019. Do you agree that it is incorrect to add a family name to given name (P735)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
That depends but in the case above, I don't think so. The middle name is a famalial link to the Clelland surname. Starts to get a bit fuzzy as to whether you start dealing with an unhyphenated double surname situation or middle name/given name but I regress. The better question would be whether the given name is ever a first ordial given name. That said, this is off topic from the question of whether deleting these cases is a actually helpful. If the view is there should be separate given names than create them and replace the "error".--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Labattblueboy: The value you added breaks the constraint on given name (P735). Please avoid complaining about "disruption" when volunteer contributors have to correct your edits. --- Jura 11:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jura1: Complaining that adding middle names is "disruptive" because it causes a constraint violation implies that there's an agreed-upon way to do it "properly" that doesn't cause such an error. Per the prior Project Chat discussion and the edit group discussion, no such agreement exists. A very few editors have expressed opinions, but there is no clear consensus. It'd be extremely helpful if folks would further the discussion to move towards a consensus. But do that elsewhere—here at the AN, what we've got is a behavioral problem with an editor immediately edit warring on a mass edit to enforce their idea of what's right rather than even checking for discussion, and then refusing to acknowledge that there's anything problematic about that. That is the issue here, and if we don't focus on and address it, we'll soon be back here a third time for some other disruptive action. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the user complained about the cleanup of incorrectly added statements.
There is an agreed upon way to added P735 statements. That someone disagrees with that on some edit group discussion page isn't really relevant. --- Jura 06:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jura1:Your advisory to avoid addressing matters of concern in a community forum for resolution is onto itself problematic. I wont follow that advice. Quesotiotyo has already said they will make an effort to insert replacement values. Are we not able to leave it at that and move on?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit group discussions aren't the forum to discuss property definitions.
Please avoid deliberately adding incorrect values to Wikidata going forward. Can we count on you doing that? --- Jura 11:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
We can count on my continued positive contribution to this project. Regards.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I thank you for all of the contributions that you have brought to the project so far and am glad to hear that they will continue. I look forward to working alongside you in a more collaborative manner in the future.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Labattblueboy So you will try to improve data quality of your additions? --- Jura 09:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems like perfectly sensible maintenance. Ideally we should identify each editor who added incorrect data to Wikidata and ensure they wont redo such edits. Deleting incorrect statements is such a way. --- Jura 12:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2022/01&oldid=1577595589"