Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/08

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2022

Report concerning User:170.233.146.108

170.233.146.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Vandalism. --Ovruni (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done by Bovlb --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:17, 3 August 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) 06:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandal

User:חנריב. Intensive vandalism across various wikis. Reported on meta. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

one-eyed vandal חנריב (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:20, 3 August 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) 06:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Philip Copley2 and User:Joe Banfield-6.0

Philip Copley2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and Joe Banfield-6.0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) are the latest sockpuppets of Mike Matthews17, see also recently locked accounts such as Gareth Tucker40.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). I already requested a global lock [1] but you might want to block them locally in case the global lock takes a while --Johannnes89 (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done globally by AntiCompositeNumber --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:18, 3 August 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) 17:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted comment

Someone deleted my comment at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#adding_a_new_property:_description that was still online at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=1685466530 ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: It was archived by the bot here on July 26. Looks like @D3fk dev reposted their question on July 27. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:22, 1 August 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) 07:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:177.222.97.95

177.222.97.95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on Dino Bravo (Q374827). –FlyingAce✈hello 02:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked --Lymantria (talk) 07:05, 4 August 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) 07:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:191.95.40.245

191.95.40.245 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Block evasion by Samuelle Santiago (talk • contribs • logs) (by the way, the last request at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samuelle Santiago was never resolved). –FlyingAce✈hello 06:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. The Checkuser case you refer to may have earlier socks all stale. Lymantria (talk) 07:03, 4 August 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) 07:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:153.107.85.165

153.107.85.165 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, seems to be a school IP. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 31 hrs. --Lymantria (talk) 07:00, 4 August 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) 07:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for item to be protected/locked

Q18637166: Repeated vandalism which affects the highly visited Wikipedia pages. 12u (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done by Mahir256. --Lymantria (talk) 06:59, 4 August 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) 06:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:36.82.133.220

36.82.133.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: removing Freebase and IMDb codes without reason, changing birth dates without source. bdijkstra (overleg) 06:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 31 hrs. Lymantria (talk) 06:58, 4 August 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) 06:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.104.153.48

2.104.153.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 6 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 15:44, 5 August 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) 15:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Pamela colmán

Pamela colmán (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Keeps adding "Pastel mandi'o" (tapioca pastry) as a description to different items. Tried warning them in Spanish but the edits continue. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 17:25, 3 August 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, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Restoring deleted talk pages

Hi all! Today I have received from @Gymnicus: this request about restoring talk pages he created, which I had deleted when he was blocked in that namespace (see request). Since I don't know if there are guidelines or precedents in this field, I would like to ask your opinion about this issue. If there is no objection, I will be glad to restore these talk pages tomorrow. Thank you in advance, --Epìdosis 12:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to put it on record that I was never banned from the discussion namespace. The – let's call it – extension block only affected the Wikidata (i.e. e.g. Wikidata:Forum), Wikidata Talk (i.e. e.g. Wikidata talk:Administrators' noticeboard) and user namespace (i.e. e.g. User:Gymnicus). I was still able to publish editing requests via the discussion namespace, as can be seen in the example Talk:Q2240727. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Gymnicus is not blocked from that namespace, so is entitled to post there, and hence the deletion was arguably technically unjustified. On the other hand, these edit requests are part of Gymnicus' efforts to overwhelm us with evidence of how many good edits we're missing out on by keeping them blocked. It baffles me why they couldn't simply put that effort into getting unblocked instead. As a community, we don't seem to be able to spare much effort to service edit requests. (Maybe the category should be linked at the top of the page alongside unblock requests.) It is hard to accept that we should greatly increase the length of that queue in order to satisfy the ego of someone who is not prepared to do the minimum to be a collaborative member of the community . Bovlb (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
To my opinion, they have already spent too much efforts into getting unblocked, with five (or so) different requests. At some point, it is rather counterproductive to keep pushing. I think these pages should be restored. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Since there is an objection, I think we can wait for one or two more comments. --Epìdosis 10:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Don't hold back on my account. Bovlb (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
So   Done as previewed. Thanks for your comments, --Epìdosis 20:32, 5 August 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, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:179.6.29.141

179.6.29.141 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Harassment, probably LTA; please use redvel Ruy (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley + 02:18, 5 August 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, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:CB10:8CDC:EB00:F079:DB8D:C4DD:E310/64

2A01:CB10:8CDC:EB00:F079:DB8D:C4DD:E310/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Rayquachu (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done /64 blocked for 3 months, and some older stuff tidied up. Bovlb (talk) 21:31, 5 August 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, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Süryaniler = Aramäer

Hello, the turkish article Süryaniler is falsely Linked with « Assyrer » in German. In German we call them « Aramäer »

  Not done Content question, no admin action required --Emu (talk) 14:32, 8 August 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) 14:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:178.139.233.130

178.139.233.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Probably a sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Adds unsourced and ridiculous values, like [2]. Sjö (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, but this IP hasn't edited in 4 days. I have semi-protected a few of the targets. Bovlb (talk) 15:59, 4 August 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) 14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Wieggy

Wieggy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: In his comment yesterday from 8:07 p.m. in the section User: Gymnicus Concerns about good intentions / User: Gymnicus Bedenken hinsichtlich der guten Absichten here on the site, he insulted me very grossly from my point of view. I request a review of this matter. Gymnicus (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

English: Is a childish retort to my message from 06.08.2022 and should not end in an edit war. I apologize for the misspelling "Onanierer", there should actually stand "Optimierer"... But my opinion remains. And a deletion of my Wiki item was already rejected.
Deutsch:Das ist eine kindische Retourkutsche auf meine Meldung vom 06.08.2022 und sollte nicht in einem Edit-War enden. Ich entschuldige mich für den Verschreiber "Onanierer", dort sollte eigentlich "Optimierer" stehen... Aber meine Meinung bleibt. Und eine Löschung meines Wiki-Items wurde ja bereits abgelehnt. --Wieggy (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wieggy: Wenn es ein Tippfehler war und du ihn berichtigst, ist die Sache für mich aus der Welt. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Korrigiert. Bitte beim nächsten Mal nicht gleich nach einem Admin rufen, das kann man wirklich auch bilateral lösen, selbst während eines anderen Konflikts. --Emu (talk) 14:14, 8 August 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) 14:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:36.82.133.220

36.82.133.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: continued vandalism after initial block. bdijkstra (overleg) 14:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Another two weeks --Emu (talk) 14:28, 8 August 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) 14:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Jack Grey1403

Jack Grey1403 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: latest sockpuppets of Mike Matthews17, see also recently locked account Joe Banfield-6.0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). I requested a global lock [3] but you might want to block the account locally in case the global lock takes some time and vandalism continues. Johannnes89 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Luke Skinner1356 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) new account --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
First one   Done globally by AmandaNP, second one   Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:04, 10 August 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) 13:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Polyglot Lady

User:Polyglot Lady Created pages on various wikis that the campaign has released by opening multiple wikidata of that page.Prince ovy (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I am experimenting with translating articles, all are in progress and are adhering to the guidelines, to the best of my knowledge. Please do let me know if I am failing with anything. I'm still learning. It is my vision to have quality articles in even forgotten or less used langauges. --Polyglot Lady (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I have given the user some specific advice on their user page. Bovlb (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge request

Hello. Would it be possible to merge Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery (Q32875463) into Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery (Q15212561)? Q32875463 is a duplicate, but the script won't let me do the merge myself due to some conflicting properties. Thanks for your assistance. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this allowed me to do so. I hope everything is okay now. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:34, 7 August 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) 16:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User: Gymnicus Concerns about good intentions / User: Gymnicus Bedenken hinsichtlich der guten Absichten

Deutsch: Der User Gymnicus hat in den letzten 2 Tagen 50(!) Nutzerseiten zur Löschung vorgeschlagen. Ich gehe deshalb mittlerweile nicht davon aus, dass er damit gute Absichten verfolgt. Die WikiData wird dadurch nicht besser! Im Gegenteil, es werden Leute wie ich, die sich für Wikipedia & Co. engagieren, verprellt und vergrault. Ich bitte darum, dass der User keine Löschungen mehr vorschlagen kann, weil er durch sein Handeln die Wikis nicht bereichert, sondern verarmen lässt. Danke und viele Grüße, Matthias

English: The user Gymnicus has suggested 50(!) user pages for deletion in the last 2 days. I therefore do not assume that his intentions are good. WikiData is not getting any better as a result! On the contrary, it alienates and scares away people like me who are committed to Wikipedia & Co. I ask that the user no longer be able to suggest deletions, because his actions do not enrich the wikis, but impoverish them. Thank you and best regards, Matthias

Wieggy (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wieggy: the intentions and nominations of User:Gymnicus are correct. Items like Matthias Wiegandt (Q113441646) have no place on Wikidata. See Wikidata:Notability. Multichill (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If you take a look at the result of the "requests for deletion" for Q113441646 from 06/08/2022: "I think we should keep people with Commons Creator pages. One day their images will fall into the public domain and be free from the restrictions of the creative commons license. The only way to track that will be through their Wikidata entry." it makes sense to have f.e. me on wikidata. And for a lot of other sites too... So in my opinion, the named user, who has never uploaded anything useful to f.e. Wiki Commons, is not helpful for any Wiki-project, because he is on a way to scare away users f.e. me Wieggy (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wieggy Es gibt keinen Anspruch auf ein Wikidata-Item, nur weil man fleißig an einem Wikimedia-Projekt mitarbeitet. Wir müssen an unsere eigenen Mitarbeiter die gleichen (im Zweifel strengere) Maßstäbe anlegen wie an alle anderen Menschen. Sonst kann man uns mit Recht vorwerfen, dass unsere Daten dann nicht den gleichen Ansprüchen genügen müssen, wenn wir ein Naheverhältnis zu den Dargestellten haben.
Nebenbei gesagt: Keine einzige Aussage in Matthias Wiegandt (Q113441646) hat aktuell irgendeine Form von externer Quelle, geschweige denn eine unabhängige, seriöse Drittquelle. --Emu (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Sollte wirklich mein Wikidata-Item gelöscht werden, hat mich Wiki ein weiteres Mal enttäuscht und ich kehre allen Wikis den Rücken und versuche all meine Fotos zu löschen... Scheinbar ist nämlich ein unproduktiver Category-Optimierer [korrigiert, emu] wichtiger als jemand, der Input beisteuern will... Und nur so zur Quellenlage: auf meiner bei Wikidata genannten Webseite ist im Impressum meine Handynummer, email-Adresse und Adresse hinterlegt. Ruf mich an, schreib mir eine email oder komm zum Kaffee vorbei, dann siehst Du, dass die Quelle korrekt und ich echt bin... Wieggy (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wieggy Es tut mir leid, dass du das so siehst. Aber die Motivation hinter deinem Engagement sollte eigentlich nicht sein, ein Wikidata-Item über dich zu bekommen. --Emu (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Whether Wikimedian's merit Wikidata entries is a contentious issue. Nominating items for this or similar reasons is proper. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wieggy: Zu Beginn sei erstmal gesagt: Gegen deine Bearbeitungen auf Wikimedia Commons und gegen deine dort hochgeladenen Bilder habe ich überhaupt nichts einzuwenden. Sie sind gut und dienen vielen Projekten von Wikimedia. Deswegen finde ich es äußerst schade, dass du deine Bearbeitungen von einen Wikidata-Item abhängig machst, vor allem mit dem Hintergrund, dass du schon seit 2013 auf Wikimedia Commons aktiv bist. Von diesem Zeitpunkt bis 2022 hat es dich auch nicht interessiert, dass du kein Wikidata-Item hast, wieso dann genau jetzt?

Wie man an den Kommentaren meiner Vorredner sieht, waren meine Löschanträge korrekt und haben auch eine gute Absicht gehabt, welche die Bekämpfung von Spam, Selbstdarstellung und Selbstvermarktung sind. Viele andere Nutzer stellen da, eher Unternehmer, welche anhand der Wikidata-Notabilitätskriterien nicht relevant sind, zur Löschung. Ich setze mich da eher gegen die Bevorzugung von Themen und Personen mit Verbindung zu Wikimedia ein. Dass dieses Vorgehen nicht bei jeden auf Gegenliebe stößt, ist mir bewusst und damit muss ich Leben. Nichtdestotrotz muss ich deine Aussage ein wenig relativieren. Ich habe keine fünfzig Wikimedia-Nutzer zum Löschen vorgeschlagen, es waren nur vierzehn Wikimedianer die ich zum Löschen vorgeschlagen habe. Von diesen wurden dann bis jetzt acht gelöscht. Die Entscheidungen zum Behalten der anderen sechs Datenobjekte, die ich zum Löschen vorgeschlagen habe, sind aber auch umstritten, wie man an dem der Diskussion User:Mike Peel keeping not notable items (nach der Archivierung hier zu finden) sieht.

Zum Schluss noch eine Anmerkung: Ich bin selbst jemand, der hier durch kriegerisches Verhalten aufgefallen ist. Trotzdem habe ich mich noch nie zu einer solchen Aussage wie du in deinen gestrigen Kommentar von 20:07 Uhr hinreißen lassen. Ich habe mir in einer älteren Diskussion einen ähnlichen Vorwurf aber in gemüßigter Tonlage anhören müssen. Über den Kommentar stand ich, aber die Äußerung von dir geht klar darüber hinaus und deswegen werde ich wegen dieses Kommentars hier eine neue Diskussion eröffnen, wo dann die Administratoren über eine mögliche Reaktion diskutieren können. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:10, 8 August 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) 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Concacne123

Concacne123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: cross-wiki vandalism minhhuy (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done indef'd Mahir256 (talk) 02:54, 8 August 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) 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Report Concerning BobbyBotten

BobbyBotten (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Vandalism-only account. Karim185.3 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 21:51, 8 August 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) 16:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing enWS link

Tried to change the English Wikisource link on Aminta to the versions (i.e. disambiguation) page for that work. It currently points to one of the versions. It stopped me because a badge is involved, but I'm confident a change like this is uncontroversial. --Arbitan (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Arbitan: As you appear to be in good standing on your home projects, I have granted you confirmed status here. This should resolve your issue with badges. Please let us know if it doesn't. Bovlb (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! --Arbitan (talk) 18:09, 9 August 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) 16:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Carlos Eduardo Vilchis Ayala 1

Carlos Eduardo Vilchis Ayala 1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. – LiberatorG (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed as block evasion for Carlos Eduardo Vilchis Ayala (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 11 August 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) 16:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.46.129.188

190.46.129.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeating vandalism Syunsyunminmin (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for 31h. Bovlb (talk) 17:37, 11 August 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) 16:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate

Hi, Q111279532 is a duplicate of Q740018. Could someone clean that up. Thanks in advance, Espandero (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, Q56311566 is a duplicate of Q3973926. Thanks in advance, Espandero (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done See Help:Merge, if you want to do it yourself next time. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:22, 12 August 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) 16:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:36.74.42.211

36.74.42.211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LiliaMiller2002 sock puppet. Please see this ANI thread--Trade (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done globally by Operator873 --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:04, 14 August 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) 07:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Mangbroson

Mangbroson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Mangbroson has been removing the Political stance on the Globe and Mail page without citing a reason. Several editors (including myself) have provided citations supporting the “Centre-right” political stance of the paper. I have asked Mangbroson to provide a reason for continually making the change. There has been no response. Luxphos (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Luxphos: This appears to be an English Wikipedia content dispute. Neither you nor Mangbroson have any edits on Wikidata. Bovlb (talk) 17:44, 11 August 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) 07:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting tags for applications

as per T155109 I'd like to request a tag for Wikidata for Web 🌐 and Wikidata for Firefox 🦊. I need it to work on wikidata and wikimedia commons. Is there anything you need to know? – Shisma (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shisma: What would you like us to use as a tag description? --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
how about firefox extension that extracts data from websites and browser extension that extracts data from websites? --Shisma (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Shisma: Done. Currently the link to "Wikidata for Firefox 🦊" is a redirect, just want to make sure if this is something you want. Stang★ 18:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thank you. It appears to work on wikidata. But it appears not yet to be allowed on Wikimedia commons. Do I have to apply there seperatly? – Shisma (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:39, 13 August 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) 07:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.57.131.64

2.57.131.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adds wrong information. Dorades (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Their contributions appear to be a mixture of correct and incorrect information, largely uncited. Is there a reason why you haven't made any attempt to communicate with this editor? I have invited them to join this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I don't see a reason to discuss with someone who makes up weddings of celebs. --Dorades (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:92.62.199.146

92.62.199.146 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sockpuppetry. Possible proxy. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:26, 15 August 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) 08:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Q110987929 and Q112584086

Please restore Q110987929 and Q112584086, they meet every requirement for a Wikidata entry. Please ping me. The deleting person appears to be ignoring Wikidata notability guidelines and !votes made in the deletion discussion. RAN (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Emu: as the deleting admin --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The second item: per Yandexwebcache , and the item contain only FamilySearch person ID (P2889) as external id, which have Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) statement. Matlin (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Duplicate signature added because another editor replied in the middle of a multi-line comment. Bovlb (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears that anyone can add "property that doesn't make you Wikidata notable" without much debate. The question: Is Familysearch, public and serious? Those are the requirements for Wikidata:Notability. The same goes for Findagrave, where we have an image of his tombstone. A tombstone is both public and serious. While we have no plans to have a bot add in every entry at Findagrave and Familysearch, those people are eligible. We also do not allow self-promotion, and dead people rarely engage in it. Deleting the entry also broke the depicts statements at Commons for the three items stored there. When we have items at Commons we have a structural need for the Wikidata entry. --RAN (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@RAN The answer to your first question seems to be pretty simple: User-generated content can never become a serious source (except for cases like Vienna History Wiki ID (P7842) since they require editorial approval by city officials for every revision). Even tombstones are essentially offline user-generated content, in most cases you can write whatever you like on any tombstone. User-generated content means that pretty much everybody can come and state anything, especially if there is no stringent identity check (which wouldn’t really make much of a difference, people claim all sorts of nonsense under their legal name anyway). That’s notability out of thin air. --Emu (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think you are trying to make the argument that tombstones are unreliable because they can contain errors. Every dataset contains errors, you will have to argue that the error rate is so high, that no information can be trusted that is sourced from a tombstone. We track the errors contained in the VIAF database. Egregious tombstone errors are so rare, we don't even track them. Birth years may be off by a year, but they can also be off by a year in the census, one of the other reliable sources we use to find missing birth years. While Familysearch can contain people adding memories about a person and pictures of a person, the Familysearch database is foremost a collection of scanned and indexed government documents like entries in the census; and birth, marriage, and death certificates; and an index to obituaries published in newspapers. Also Familysearch and Findagrave are under the editorial control of their respective parent companies, and have mechanisms in place to report errors and have them fixed. They are no more or less error prone than any other Identifier we currently accept. --RAN (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC) See for example:
No, I’m making the argument that a tombstone cannot create notability. --Emu (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Then you need to update Wikidata:Notability to say that tombstones are not "public and serious", perhaps convince the community that tombstones are "private and whimsical". RAN (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
James Andrew Lyttle (Q110987929) is notable (see archive.org copy).
It's another topic, but I think that admins shouldn't use speedydelete but first list every item on deletion-request list and delete it after certain period and voting, because everyone can evaluate that item is or isn't notable. We shouldn't use webcache, because probably not every q-element is archive in this way and it's harder to follow administrators abuses. Matlin (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@RAN: I have restored James Andrew Lyttle (Q110987929). I don’t think this item has any business being on Wikidata but given MisterSynergy’s interpretation of WD:N #1.4, this could technically be considered as notable. As for Q112584086: No, per Matlin.
Q112584086 (Rev. James Albert Lyttle Sr.) should also be restored, I don't see an argument by Matlin for deleting it, can you link to his comments, all I see is "We shouldn't use webcache". If we were to quantify how many public and serious references we have for Rev. James Albert Lyttle Sr. there are 17 documents on him at Familysearch. --RAN (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Two sidenotes:
  • You could have approached me on my talk page. You are free to use this page instead but it’s probably not the best use of everybody’s time and attention.
When a deletion can set a precedent, the more eyes on it, the better. --RAN (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Matlin I take it you are talking about hypothetical administrators abuses. --Emu (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
If we are deleting entries because they have unsourced statements, there will be over 100,000 Q-entries to delete. Just last year or so two more properties were added to the list of those requiring a reference. And yes, a url that leads to information on that person is a source of information on that person, that is why we have it. Also the urls are not random they specifically are about the person with the Wikidata entry. Here are some random urls courtesy of Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. --RAN (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Where have I called for a removal of all unsourced statements? Don’t fight a straw man. I have asked you for your help with those items. Consider Leslie Wolf (Q107290947), one of the items you are so eager to save. The place of birth (P19) is set to Julian calender (?!) and the only reference leads to a “person not found” error. Those are huge red flags for any item. This actually shows one of the biggest problem of similar items: They are almost impossible to manage. --Emu (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I never mentioned deleting "unsourced statements" I said deleting Q-entries for having unsourced statements, which was part of your rationale for deleting the two Wikidata entries under discussion. --RAN (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
When we stop having errors, we can get rid of the edit button, I fixed the error in the date, you can't view the Familysearch entry because the person is still living. If you like errors look at how many Wikidata entries we get each week for people who died before they were born: Wikidata:Database reports/items with P569 greater than P570. Check out how many errors are in a single New York Times article. --RAN (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add Hindi(India) Language

Please add Hindi(India) Language in this Article. Here is many people unable to read other language. In India(mostly north), 80% people read Wikipedia in only Hindi Language. English language are also good and easily readable in this article but if you are add Hindi language, most of the people can understand this article easily. Thank You! Abhay.mig87 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abhay.mig87: Could you give us a link, so we know what you are talking about? --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:33, 11 August 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) 09:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Creation of properties

There are a number of property suggestions that have now been marked as "Ready". I am wondering if there is any admin that would be able to create them? I am particularly interested in one that I suggested: "Miljørapporter" at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work. Once created, I can setup the metadata associated with the property, so that the admin do not need to spend his/her time on that work. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done - Created Miljørapporter file ID (P10930). Please fill in the missing information. Mbch331 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 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) 09:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Page protection for Influencer Q2906862

There is a lot of IP-vandalism[4][5][6][7][8]. It needs a long-term protection, thanks. KurtR (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done by MisterSynergy Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 14 August 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) 09:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hey Admins, can you please assist in undeleting the following items.

We are tracking them in the Name Suggestion Index project. The items in NSI are generally retail chains, health clinics, transit systems, or other points of interest which are found in OpenStreetMap. These are generally entities which exist in the real world more than 50 times, so we consider them notable.

Thanks for your help and for all you do!

--Archpdx (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done @Archpdx: The first four all had OSM Name Suggestion Index ID (P8253) which is a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316). The last Central Bank (Q113482320) is very poorly represented, and I recommend you improve it as soon as you can to avoid redeletion. Bovlb (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Courtesy CC of @ Mbch331, Mahir256, Lymantria, Emu as deleting admins. Bovlb (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I've improved Central Bank (Q113482320) and added the appropriate OSM Name Suggestion Index identifier (P8253) to it. Archpdx (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb I disagree with the outcome. See Property talk:P8253#Why_does_this_property_imply_notability? --Emu (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: Then I think your way forward is to convince the community that this property should not have that class. It's been that way for over two years. As it stands, having an identifier with this class appears to be evidence that an item satisfies notability criterion #2, so (all but one of) these items were not eligible for speedy deletion. Bovlb (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb Yeah, that’s why I wrote “with the outcome” and why I opened a discussion on the talk page of OSM Name Suggestion Index ID (P8253). I believe your decision to restore was correct. --Emu (talk) 17:18, 15 August 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) 22:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:180.251.101.35

180.251.101.35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism & editwarring. bdijkstra (overleg) 16:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:24, 16 August 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) 09:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:36.84.107.179

36.84.107.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: continuing the work of user:180.251.101.35. bdijkstra (overleg) 09:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done and item semi-protected for a month --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:31, 16 August 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) 09:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q101114860

Just having another encounter with the Vodafone vandal (last registered as CostanMauri), I am asking for semi-protection for Q101114860. Dorades (talk) 22:12, 16 August 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) 22:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User contributions for 2001:7D0:88F1:6B80:C9D2:6699:62B8:8570

Can you see User:2001:7D0:88F1:6B80:C9D2:6699:62B8:8570 I don't understand how these contributions should be considered.I want advice or a solution.thank you.Prince ovy (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific, please? Bovlb (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Ping @Prince ovy: --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I am asking for advice on what to do for those who are making such small items.Prince ovy (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Maniesmaili official

Maniesmaili official (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotional only account Rockpeterson (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. --Lymantria (talk) 07:38, 19 August 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) 07:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Amin hossein

Promotional/spam user page User:Amin hossein and talk page User talk:Amin hossein. (Promo item already deleted and vandalism on Amin Hossein (Q90545824) reverted.) –JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. --Lymantria (talk) 05:51, 21 August 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) 05:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Nathasha Anwar

Nathasha Anwar (talk • contribs • logs) appears to be here for self-promotion, using the account's user: and talk: pages to, err, self-promote. Probably nothing a couple of deletions and a permablock won't cure. See also https://twitter.com/Nathashanwar/status/1561619169870749701 --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 12:16, 22 August 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) 12:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Mike Peel keeping not notable items

In this village pump topic I noticed that Q112272529 was kept with the rationale of "has Commons category". We have a clearly established practice that just having a Commons Category doesn't make an item notable and this is documented on Wikidata:Notability (even had a RFC). Mike obviously doesn't agree with this and tried to expand the scope of the notability several times (recent example of where this failed). As an admin Mike should follow Wikidata policy, but currently he is clearly not doing that. What to do with this behavior? Multichill (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Mike Peel seems to use non community standards to keep items, for instance "wait for Commons images to be deleted before nominating it here". Perhaps they can explain here what he thinks justifies this use of admin power. Lymantria (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
No need to discuss it here. Matlin (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The data is in use on Commons, deleting it here first would break things there. I don't think it's a huge ask for people to get things deleted on Commons before deleting things here - that's what we expect for items with *any other sister project link*. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We have discussed this many, many times. Commons is effectively broken, no other project has similar problems with notability and the deletion process. (well, ceb.wp does but that’s a different problem.) Why should Wikidata volunteers be expected to fix problems on Commons? One might be inclined to speculate if your Commons adminship isn’t creating a conflict of interest here. --Emu (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: I hear this argument a lot, normally with 'Wikidata' in place of 'Commons'. It's all Wikimedia, just work across the projects, rather than inaccurate 'us vs. them' arguments. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
You get that a lot but you choose to ignore this suggestion because you are right and others are wrong? I’d like to remind you that admins have to carry out the wishes of their communities, not the other way round. --Emu (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: Try reading that again. I get it a lot about Wikidata. Mike Peel (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: according to your reasoning Commons:Category:Rdrozd should be nominated for deletion and be deleted before Robert Drózd (Q111724653) can be nominated here and deleted. Commons:Category:Rdrozd is a perfectly valid Commons category so there is no valid reason to nominate it for deletion, let alone delete it. So this means that if we follow your reasoning Robert Drózd (Q111724653) will never be deleted.
So you don't agree with these items getting deleted. That's fine, just don't close any of these deletion requests as   Not done and leave it to some other admin to handle it. Can you do that? Multichill (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
That is true, Robert Drózd (Q111724653) is notable and shouldn't be deleted. I can use {{Oppose}} or {{Keep}} rather than {{Not done}} if you'd prefer. Mike Peel (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I understood perfectly well in the first place. I don’t care if you are biased when acting as an admin on Wikidata (because you like Commons or en.wp) or when acting as an admin on Commons or en.wp (because you like en.wp) – it’s both problematic. That being said, I know next to nothing about your actions on other projects, so per AGF I assume that there is nothing to worry about. But to me it’s pretty clear that some of your actions reflect more your personal views than community consensus. --Emu (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I think this item does meet the notability requirements since Special:Diff/1016514835 (20 September 2019). User:Ghouston has made this change, but I find it concerning that I cannot find the discussion that this change is based on. There was, however, at that time quite some discussion regarding the problem on several pages, and some support for such a change. Not sure whether it was a majority, though. However, from my experience this phrasing of WD:N also reflects current practice regarding Commons-only sitelinked items that are considered for deletion (i.e. we usually keep such items).
That said, the issue here is that the item contains plenty of unsourced (and likely unsourcable) claims that everyone can challenge so that it requires serious external sources in order to add the claims again. This is generally the issue with Commons: its meta data is pretty much always unsourced; this may be acceptable if there are Wikipedia articles linked to it, which is not the case here. Every internet user can walk in there, claim to be anyone (else), and nobody can ever verify this information. We need to make sure that this does not become a pattern here at Wikidata after quite some users have lobbied to unconditionally accept unsourced information from Commons. "Its used there" is not a reason to keep all data here; if you want to host data at Wikidata, make sure to bring it here including serious sources. Otherwise host it elsewhere. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Okay, so the edit Diff/1016514835 by Ghouston means that a data item can become relevant if it has a Wikimedia Commons category. What would be the right approach for me or the opponents of this notability criterion to undo the addition of this notability criterion? Can we simply contest the editing of Ghouston, who never had admin rights and was therefore not actually authorized to make changes to the notability criteria? Or does it need a new discussion Wikidata talk:Notability or even a request for comment? --Gymnicus (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
One does not need to be admin in order to make edits to policy pages. However, changes should always be based on clear consensus. While I remember vivid discussions around the problem in that time, I am not sure whether there was consensus for the change. Maybe User:Ghouston can help us here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: From your point of view, how is the request for comments Allow for Wikidata items to be created that only link to a single Wikimedia Commons category (Wikidata notability discussion) to be evaluated in this context. The formation of request for comment started before the change of Ghouston and was then administratively closed by Pasleim last year. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Based on the timeline of edits, I think the discussion at Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive 5#Change to 1. 4. regarding Commons triggered this change. User:Ghouston wrote the last comment directly after modifying the policy page. It is worth to mention—again—that there have been plenty of similar discussions elsewhere at the time, and such a change was favored by several editors.
Btw. I am not a supporter of this change, but I accept that it does reflect the current state of affairs. It's unlikely that it ever will be undone again. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I have a question of clarification before commenting on this. Isn't the request for comment about exactly the same topic as the discussion you linked now and which I also found myself? --Gymnicus (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is. But the RfC process is kinda broken and sometimes not conclusive within predicable timeframes. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I dunno, the RfD seemed pretty conclusive at the time when this change was pushed through Wikidata talk:Notability. Also the discussion was about a somewhat obscure detail. --Emu (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
@MisterSynergy: I just looked at the discussion Change to 1. 4. regarding Commons and the request for comment Allow for Wikidata items to be created that only link to a single Wikimedia Commons category (Wikidata notability discussion). And I would now say that it's not about the same thing. So I would agree with Emu.
If, in your opinion, the sentence that was included in the notability criteria makes more "notable" than it should, then the correct option would actually be to adapt the sentence. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It looks like you found the discussion for the change I made (Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_5#Change_to_1._4._regarding_Commons). The problem I was fixing, which seems to have been successful, was that there was no way to link a Commons category item to Wikidata if the main item was already in use by a gallery page. Ghouston (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Not sure, I can't remember that this aspect in particular was discussed much. If I remember correctly, there was both support and opposition for substantially more notability via Commons category sitelinks, and the solution found here was meant to prevent tons of data items for more technical stuff such as intersecion categories (which would be of type Wikimedia category (Q4167836) and are thus not notable from a Commons-only sitelink in the current WD:N implementation). However, the change was made during a time when the Wikidata infobox was rolled out to plenty of pages, so there was some desire to offload data hosting on to Wikidata, rather than to put everything into Templates at Commons itself.
      While I have opposed such changes (and I still do so as of today), it is also clear after almost three years that this might have created loopholes that are indeed actively exploited by some actors, but more importantly it does not bring Wikidata itself into danger. I have thus no intentions to change the current policy.
      The core issue with Commons remains, however. The metadata over there is usually unsourced/crowdsourced, and many of the items that we have due to the presence of a Commons category sitelink have a problematic sourcing situation in turn. We need to insist on serious external sources for those data items in order to avoid hosting potentially problematic content (incorrect, promotional, etc.). A "serious source" is usually independent of the described entity, not user-generated content, and not predominantly promotional. Statements that do not have such a source can be challenged and should potentially be removed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
      • @MisterSynergy: So the solution could be to keep Commons category items but deny them their promotional or vanity value by heightened scrutiny of sources for non-trivial statements? Absent any chance for a change of WD:N, this seems like a good solution to me. This would also solve some of our Wikimedians items problems. But do you think this is realistic? --Emu (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
        Roughly like that, yes. There is certainly some period where our projects needs to learn and adapt such a procedure since we barely do this right now.
        The rationale here is basically that pages on Wikipedia usually contain sources that are helpful to derive the majority of information both in the Wikipedia article itself and the connected data item; Commons category pages, while having lots of conceptual similarities to Wikipedia mainspace pages, are usually *not* supported by sources (I guess because Commons started as an file hosting auxiliary wiki for Wikipedias and relied on sources therein as well). Absent other sitelinks or identifiers, we need to demand having sources in Wikidata directly if the data should be hosted here—even when we are kinda less strict with items that have a Wikipedia sitelink (which already makes them notable).
        When enforcing this, there will likely be highly promotional weblinks used as sources, just as it sometimes happens with spammers right now. The educated user, however, won't find it difficult to assess these sources properly as "non-serious". —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
        This makes a lot of sense and seems to be a direct consequence of Help:Sources and other pages. I have added it to my unofficial User:Emu/Notability. Let’s see if it sticks. --Emu (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

On the flip side (WikiJournal editors)

I recently discovered that User:Mike Peel deleted two of our technical editors' entries (Q112583838 and Q112583809) on the rationale that neither individuals are notable. They are being used on Wikiversity's page to list out our group of technical editors. I believe it can satisfy criteria 3 by fulling a structural need in Q104167996. Can the 2 deleted items be restored? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Oops, sorry about that. I did check to see if they were being used, but that sort of use is rather hidden in Wikidata's UI. :-( Normally I'd undelete on hearing this, but since we're here, I guess we should see what others think as well? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem. The Wikiversity page was created with some sort of code wizardry on the back end so I don't understand it too much. I only see the final result when thing break and then follow the grapewine to troubleshoot why it displayed Q numbers instead of their names. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill & Mike Peel Would it be possible to temporarily restore Q112583838 and Q112583809 in the meantime whilst we work out the details? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: I've undeleted them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited I think the key question is: Would we accept similar items for members of any other volunteer group within any other similarly sized project? I don’t think so. That is why we shouldn’t accept them just because there is Wikimedia connection.
There is also no real need for those items, you can just use wiki syntax on Wikiversity. --Emu (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The flip side is that we are not any other volunteer group, and eating your own dog food (Q3033752) is important. Other volunteer groups' information also isn't frequently embedded in structured data, like Commons photographer information is, and how things like technical editor data could be used in the future (and already is being used on Wikiversity). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
You call it eating your own dog food (Q3033752), I call it nepotism (Q161165) or even a (non-criminal) form of corruption. --Emu (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Woah! What happened to AGF? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited To clarify: I don’t think that Mike or Richard or others are corrupt or that they are trying to corrupt Wikidata. I think I get where they are coming from and I have some sympathy for Inclusionism. But if you favor your own, that’s nepotism and/or corruption, even if you do it with the best of intentions (which I am sure my esteemed opponents in this discussion have). --Emu (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikidata:Notability item 4 is very, very poorly written: "Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with camera (P2033)." It is being interpreted two completely different ways: 1) We don't create a Wikidata entry for a person called Joe Smith, that has "Category:Images taken by Joe Smith" at Commons. 2) We don't create a Wikidata entry called "Category:Images taken by Joe Smith" at Wikidata, we just link the category to the Wikidata entry for the person. --RAN (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I think you replied the comment to the wrong section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I added it right below where my name is mentioned. We are still talking about if a person gets a Wikidata entry if they have a Commons category, right?
Not quite. We're now discussing Notability criteria 3 (structural need) in this new subsection. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@emu: I do see your point in this, but I think it's reasonable to invoke N3 structural need, since they're nedeed for WikiJournal technical editors (Q104167996) as well as pages like this and eventually queries that we're building on this page (example) and are going to be getting ties into items about articles via something like contributor to the creative work or subject (P767)+object has role (P3831). @Mike Peel, Multichill, OhanaUnited: Several were poorly annotated when put up, so definintely need more info included to be usable. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"that sort of use is rather hidden in Wikidata's UI" - How do you see external usage of that type when deleting? We ought to get a warning about, in the same way we get a warning about incoming Wikidata links. Bovlb (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: The usage is displayed on page info, see [9] and [10] in these cases. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I have started a discussion at Wikidata:Report_a_technical_problem#Deletion_does_not_warn_about_usage_on_other_projects about improving the deletion screen in this case. Bovlb (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I still don't see any notability here just because of this usage in the English language Wikiversity. In order to introduce the technical editors, there is no need for a Wikidata object, that also works simply via their user page in the English-language Wikiversity. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not just used in Wikiversity. It would also have be used in Q104167996. This is why I believe it has met the N3 criteria to be undeleted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:168.220.175.223

168.220.175.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Resuming vandalism after the block expired. Dorades (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Their main problems that I can see are: adding parenthetical disambiguators to labels and failure to respond to talk page discussion. They also have a lot of reverted edits; I could be wrong, but I believe that anon users are not notified of reverts. All of this is plausibly good faith error. Can you give some examples of edits that are clearly vandalism? Bovlb (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
For example, they changed the headquarters location of Buy 'n' Large (Q5736179) from New Jersey to Middletown Township to Newark to North Carolina to New Jersey to Weston to another Weston to Newark to Chicago to Washington, D.C. to Chicago within 31 minutes (cf. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5736179&type=revision&diff=1670049508&oldid=1371652547) -- either it's very complicated to determine it or they are just vandalising. Just today, they set instance of (P31) for the organisation Native American Public Telecommunications (Q6979946) to human (Q5). I see why you are assuming good faith in other cases, but what can we do about it if they don't answer?
On a side note: Is there a reason why IPs don't get notifications for reverts or for posts on their talk page? --Dorades (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
If they persistently made errors, don't respond to feedback, and don't improve, then we can block on the "competence is required" principle, but it's better to turn people into productive contributors if at all possible. The other point I read somewhere, but now cannot find. Bovlb (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
mw:Help:Notifications#Use says "Unregistered users cannot get notifications (except for talk page notifications, which are still shown to anonymous users in an orange bar).". Bovlb (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! You are absolutely right about turning people into productive contributors and normally (and also in this case) I try to communicate with users with a possibly good intention. I am thankful that you are more persistent than me in this matter and it's sad to see them not reacting at all. --Dorades (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any learning or communication going on here, so I have blocked for three months. Bovlb (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You should also be aware of phab:T240889, whereby anon users using the mobile interface don't get any indication that they have talk page messages. There's not much we can do about that from our end. Our path to communication is simply blocked in this case. Bovlb (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.229.87.25

190.229.87.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Ban evasion of 169171229622s (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Please see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/169171229622s --Trade (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.31.178.98

79.31.178.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Block evasion of 79.41.187.6, 79.13.96.38, and many others. – LiberatorG (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked, test template deleted, item semiprotected. --Lymantria (talk) 20:21, 23 August 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) 20:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:1.43.141.161

1.43.141.161 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandalism. Dorades (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for two weeks. This is a LTA who creates many useless stub articles across client projects to add to existing items. They've been blocked several times in the past. Is there an original user to associate with them? Bovlb (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
After some digging, I have blocked the /16 for five years. Bovlb (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I made a global block request. Bovlb (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The IP is now globally blocked, but only for two weeks and not the /16, so we'll need to watch out for them popping up again. Bovlb (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q338430

May you please protect Q338430? The entry is full of meaningless articles. Because I can't take this IP anymore! 177.73.98.170 20:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already blocked the IP that was causing the damage. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be productive to protect the item here. If we do that, we might end up with many duplicate items instead. The repair has to happen at the many wikis that were targeted. For that, we need local or global sysops. Bovlb (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

please protect Q338430

Q338430 Long-term abuse WikiBayer (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done I'm still concerned we'll end up with duplicates, but I have semi-protected for a year. Bovlb (talk) 21:02, 18 August 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) 14:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Restore Q5755742

Hi, sorry if my English is bad. I ask for a restoration of Q5755742. A non-experienced user, Claudio Ubilla, has probably deleted the only sitelink from this item which was w:es:Metropolitan Santiago Convention & Event Center. I can't confirm this because I can't see his deleted contributions, and the item was deleted because it was empty, but the Metropoltitan Santiago article on Spanish Wikipedia has been unlinked since then. Just in case: Metropolitan Santiago its the new name from Casapiedra, an event center in Santiago de Chile, so it's the same topic. I request the restoration and the sitelink to regularize the situation. Thanks and greetings, Rodm23 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done I have restored the item and the removed sitelink. Mahir256 (talk) 05:08, 17 August 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) 14:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q110017181

May you please protect Q110017181? The entry is victim of recurring vandalism ― most notably P106 filled with kooky entries such as "pornographic actor", "prince" or else. Webfil (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for three months. Doesn't look like it's worth blocking any of the IPs. Bovlb (talk) 17:44, 17 August 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) 14:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Neelamwikiv2

Neelamwikiv2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oversimplification of item descriptions. Wasn't there was another user doing the same editing thing? CrystalLemonade (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@CrystalLemonade: Is there a reason why their talk page was a redlink? Bovlb (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I was in a hurry when I made the report. I certainly remember seeing another user doing the same oversimplification with item descriptions but I'm not sure about what was that user's name, but I was gonna make a message on their talkpage but kinda forgot to do so as I was carried away. CrystalLemonade (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, but in a case where it's plausibly a good faith editor, we need to try communication first, before we reach for admin tools. Bovlb (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Q560392

Please semi-protect Q560392 or ban user 113.185.40.0/21 (talk • contribs • logs) Nguyenquanghai19 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for two weeks. I don't think there's any point in blocking any of the IPs, and I don't see a clean rangeblock we could do. Bovlb (talk) 14:52, 18 August 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) 14:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:1700:3720:3770:A962:BFCA:C64F:15F5

2600:1700:3720:3770:A962:BFCA:C64F:15F5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I confused them with 2600:1700:3720:3770:600B:3983:2BAD:1F7F (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), showing the exact same behavior. Can they get range-blocked? --Dorades (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Also 2600:1700:3720:3770:9171:5530:1AFB:BB87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Dorades (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
And 2600:1700:3720:3770:3019:36C9:8BA2:E96D (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Dorades (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
And 2600:1700:3720:3770:4D1F:145D:6AF3:298F (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Dorades (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
And 2600:1700:3720:3770:D029:957A:1919:D51B (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Dorades (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
... continuing as 2600:1700:3720:3770:9051:14C7:935A:5B0A (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Dorades (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
2600:1700:3720:3770:20FD:58B3:3CD3:C7A8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). --Dorades (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:14, 24 August 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) 15:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

HermanHn

This user has been reported at the Spanish Wikipedia for disruptive article renaming (that also extended to WD), and a sysop resolved the user is prohibited for renaming articles. So, this prohibition should be also extended here for renaming item tags. Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Their edits here are just because of what they did on eswiki. So any measure on eswiki should be enough. Its quite possible that they even don't know about editing Wikidata. So nothing needs to be done here. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:05, 21 August 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) 14:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Protection for Q3341239

May you please protect Q3341239? The entry is regularly vandalized by IP addresses who remove entries which are duly sourced. Moumou82 (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 22 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

LTA report

Sockpuppets of 79.41.187.6, 79.13.96.38 etc. Horcrux (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. --Lymantria (talk) 16:37, 24 August 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) 16:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Please help

User:Hjart insists on adding the year of birth to a persons description. So in Andreas Kron (Q28970245). But only in danish persons items. He is constructing strange reason for this. I tried to get explanation, but it doesn't convince me. It's just a back an forth also in Mikkel Frølich Honoré (Q29462362). How to solve this conflict? --Tommes (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Help:Description is the relevant guideline, but there is no definite policy that requires or prefers either of the variants in question. Some users prefer inclusion of person data in the description, while other users prefer not to include this information. There are several reasons for both variants. Both of you and all other users involved in this conflict need to discuss this issue, otherwise you all risk to receive a partial block for this item (and if this spills to other cases, it might get extended to whatever is necessary). The recent page history of Q28970245 is not acceptable (also @Hjart, Hejsa). —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I checked some tens of cyclists and only danish people have this strange "born <year>" add-on. So it is not usual. Just a special way gone by a danish user. --Tommes (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Wrong, I have a great example here: Andrea Peron (Q16228892) and Andrea Peron (Q494696). And there are many more out there. If you use the Wikipedia App or make a search in a browser, it is very useful. No reason to delete it. --Hejsa (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hejsa Andrea Peron (Q494696) and Andrea Peron (Q16228892) are a special case as there is an actual reason for adding the birth year (namely disambiguation). (That wasn’t the reason for most of this batch, but beware: It’s hardly appropriate to undo this batch more than a year later without consensus.)
Further reading on this issue: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Use of dates in the descriptions of items regarding humans. --Emu (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tommes There's nothing "strange" about it. You calling it "strange" is nothing but a bad excuse. And the fact that not all descriptions have it, doesn't mean it's not helpful. Hjart (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
If there would be a conflict between items/persons name then an additional naming might be helpful, but you does in advance and only in danish peoples data. Why? It is a one man show. --Tommes (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tommes Several people (me, Hejsa, Vandcykel) have asked you to stop removing that info now. Please stop. Hjart (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tommes The reason I'm (primarily) it in Danish people data is because I'm a dane and I'm primarily interested in Danish people (of all sorts) and no, it's not a "one man show". I'm far from the only one who likes having dates in descriptions. Hjart (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure, that it is correct what you state here?
Sure it is strange, because I couldnt find an area of people like these danish cyclists which have unnecessary additional year of birth in description without needs.
This is not a poll. You have to bring arguments for every item/person why n year-add-on would be helpful. --Tommes (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy Tommes continues doing edits against the wishes of other contributors. Now it's 2022 Tour de France (Q98043180). Please block him. Hjart (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
So what's the problem there? They are adding statements and it is not at all obvious to me what is wrong with it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hjart, watch your character! Maybe you get blocked. I add data to the tour de France ranking. Why not. See the discussion, I told you already. There are tons of argument of what I am doing.
There is a built in limit in Module:cycling race, so the amount of data is not disturbing.
One can use a parameter |max_rank_displayed=... to reduce number of riders displayed.
Databases if private or by companies could give up every day or maybe reachable behind paywall in future.
There is not a limit of storage space in Wikidata.
The data might get used in future in ways you cannot imagine yet.
--Tommes (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Please! Tell User:Vandcykel to stop deleting data! --Tommes (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have protected 2022 Tour de France (Q98043180) to admin-only level due to the edit war involving several users. If this spills over to other items or continues after the protection expires (1 day), or if there is similar edit activity by individual users on other items, we need to make use of the user block tool. You all need to discuss this to a consensus before further edits can be made. Hints:

  • for User:Tommes: be careful not to disrupt the project. As much as I am aware, most of your edits are not wrong or vandalism, but it is sometimes wise to accept solutions other than those of own preference.
  • for all others involved (particularly User:Hjart, User:Hejsa, User:Vandcykel, and User:99kerob): you all seem to be undoing User:Tommes' contributions, almost always with no or little explanation and sometimes with inacceptably aggressive undo comments. As long as they are not vandalising/inserting non-sense, you need to explain the situation much better. From my position it does indeed seem to be the case that they are contributing valuable data, so it seems inappropriate how User:Tommes is being treated here.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy:: Thanks for the break. But it doesn't solve the problem. --Tommes (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The conflict needs to be settled between the involved users. I can watch the discussion and help if requested by anyone involved, but I am not going to side with either of the conflict parties. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy:: So they can go on? [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
And they deleted 120 kB of Data of the general and classification rankings in 2022 Tour de France (Q98043180). I please to set it back to full version. wtf, it took me dozens of hours to input it. --Tommes (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I request a ban for Hjart. --Tommes (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The 2022 TdF item has been protected at the revision that was the most recent one when I made the decision for a protection. As you surely know, it is always The Wrong Version.
  • User:Hjart, these kinds of edits are clearly part of the conflict, and it is clearly edit warring what you are doing here. Since you have stopped soon this morning and some time has passed, I am not using the block tool now. However, I am not going to hesitate when I see this again. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: relatively 2022 Tour de France (Q98043180)
  • A large amount of cycling data from Wikidata is used in local wikis via the Module:Cycling race module. Change requests or major changes are discussed. Accordingly, the module is constantly changing and requires updating in local versions.
  • Previously, the local wiki displayed all the results specified in Wikadata. And therefore, only the Top 10 was secretly filled.
  • In this case, a request was made to limit the default number of rows displayed in the results of the competition (Discussion just above the date 13:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)) To be able to indicate absolutely all results in Wikidata. User:Tommes started using this feature for the 2022 Tour de France.
  • User:Vandcykel has been told about this. Examples were also given. For some reason, his local wiki uses an old version of the module. No reason was given why he was using an old version of the module and didn't want to update it to take advantage of more features.
  • This whole situation is solved by simply updating the module in the local Wiki, which for some reason you don't want to do.

— GAN (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

On a general note, while Wikidata exists to service the data needs of its client projects, it is generally never appropriate to remove valid information from Wikidata solely in order to improve infobox formatting on a client project. Is that what's going on here? Bovlb (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I think yes. Moreover, in this case, there is a ready-made solution to a local problem (formatting information fields in a client project). — GAN (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Who will now decide to reset the deletion of hundred of items or claims or whatever I added and tell deletors to accept it; so (Jarraitor, Vandcykel, others)? --Tommes (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser backlog

Do we need more checkusers? We seem to have a seven-week backlog. Should we be calling on meta for assistance? Should admins be using their discretion more on behavioural similarity? Bovlb (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Counter question: do we need checkusers at all?
It's a fairly new position here at Wikidata that we have introduced just around two years ago. Can we somehow evaluate whether and how it has helped (or not) this project? It worked for 7.5 years without them, and I can't see what has improved since the introduction of checkusers. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
These appear to be the relevant previous discussions: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/12#CheckUser, Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining CheckUser, Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Sotiale, Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Jasper Deng. Bovlb (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask our local CheckUsers @1997kB, BRPever, Jasper Deng, Sotiale, علاء: if they need assistance. --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I must say that I think checkusers have been very helpful in demasking sock farms, often doing paid editing. I'm glad we have checkusers and generally they do a great job for us. --Lymantria (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I think we have caught up. Some of the case pages have become very long, so archiving the already processed requests within the case page would probably give the open requests more attention and save time. Thanks--BRP ever 01:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
We need improvement for requests that aren't being handled properly, but I don't believe it's due to a lack of checkuser. The mail notification settings don't seem to be working well, I'll manually check the page more often for now. --Sotiale (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagishsimon and telling new users to go away

When I read the comments of Tagishsimon in the project chat they often feel to me unnecessarily aggressive. In https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Merge_request_for_Toyota he told a newer user to "Go away" when I don't think the inexperienced actions by the new user warrented any hostility. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@ChristianKl It is well known that Tagishsimon doesn’t always use the full toolbox of cordiality and courtesy towards other users. But in this case SSHTALBI’s “Since these pages have been created, you should add them to the Toyota Wikidata page. Please add them.” could be construed as an order which isn’t exactly the most appropriate behavior towards another user. It might be a language barrier issue but I don’t think that Tagishsimon deserves any form of administrative action in this case. --Emu (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm certainly not supportive of rudeness, especially towards new users, but Special:CentralAuth/SSHTALBI provides some interesting context here. Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems like SSHTALBI got mainly banned for not speaking the relevant languages and uses machine translation. For Wikidata I think it's fine to have users work on content where they don't speak the relevant language. I don't think it warrents telling a user to "Go away". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It's relevant because that thread concerned the addition of small-wiki sitelinks to an article. Of the four sitelinks added, two (qu, bar) have already been deleted (by @Praxidicae). The other two (sw, br) were recently created by SSHTALBI. My concern is with the cross-wiki issue of a user creating articles across multiple projects that are going to be deleted soon, with Wikidata in the middle.
Regarding Tagishsimon, I have blocked them in the past for repeated personal attacks. I'm not sure it did much good. What administrative action are you seeking here? Warning? Block? Redaction? Bovlb (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb I do believe that repeated personal attacks are a valid reason to block people. They make the Project Chat unwelcoming and there's a good chance they reduce the willingness of people to engage with it. I have not looked into the previous admin actions enough to make the call whether a warning or a block is the right step at this point in time. Banning him from the Project Chat would also be an option. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Since I was pinged: SSHTALBI is a disruptive editor (and I suspect sock), which is why they are being blocked in numerous places. As far as the OPs complaint about Tagishsimon, I have no comment but SSHTALBI has also been disruptive here as well. Praxidicae (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

request for protection on Shalom Cohen (Q16130004)

There is a lot of corruption about it, I would love protection. המאו"ר (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I use Google Translate, sorry.
Look at revision history המאו"ר (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@باسم could you check the situation? Estopedist1 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1:   Done. The page is now protected for a single week. Best-- باسم (talk) 05:15, 24 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting range block against User:64.121.241.6

— Reasons: Block evasion and self-promotion. Please see Q113489079. @Lymantria: --Trade (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done. --Lymantria (talk) 05:59, 27 August 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) 05:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:82.78.75.11

82.78.75.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long-term cross wiki abuse. See Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/09#82.78.75.213 and 86.122.114.47 as well as the more recent Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/06#Report concerning User:82.78.75.72 and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/07#Report concerning User:86.120.190.41. Gikü (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:88.236.66.133

— Reasons: Block evasion and self-promotion. Please see Q112996234. @Lymantria: --Trade (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Involved in the same items  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade (talk • contribs) at 01:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC).

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 05:30, 29 August 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) 05:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata collecting Kurdish Article of „Albanians in Turkey“, Kurdish Version: „Albanên Tirkiyeyê“

Wanted collecting Page of „Albanên Tirkiyeyê“ to Wikidata, so that Page is recognized.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:871:210:2d03:5913:f67d:ccd3:7582 (talk • contribs) at 01:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC).

  Done--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:31.223.138.213

31.223.138.213 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Please, hide this revision's summary. Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  hided Estopedist1 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, vandalism continues from another IP. For details on this particular vandal see also w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for a month --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:42, 29 August 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) 20:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Italian corporate vandal again

Italian corporate vandal (aka Vodafone vandal aka GM-27IT) strikes again, see WiiisbetterthanPS4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Jklamo (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out to dear administrators that @Jklamo: is duplicating already existing items (some items have been merged by other admins after the delete request) WiiisbetterthanPS4 (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for two sitenotice banners in the frame of Wikidata's 10th birthday

Dear Wikidata admins,

In the frame of Wikidata:Tenth Birthday, my colleagues and I prepared two banners that I'd like to display on Wikidata to encourage more people to contribute to the activities and to join the birthday celebration events. As I would like to display them only on wikidata.org, if I understood correctly, I don't need to go through m:CentralNotice/Request and I can post here instead. It's the first time I'm doing this kind of request, so feel free to correct me if I didn't follow the correct procedure :)

1. Collaborative video contribution banner

2. Events announcement banner

  • Phabricator ticket, preview TBA (it will be the same design as the first one)
  • Target: wikidata.org, registered users only, no other filter
  • Dates requested: from October 1st to 31st
  • English text: "Wikidata is turning 10 in October 2022, and the community is organizing plenty of decentralized birthday events all around the world. You can join one of them or organize your own!" with buttons "Events schedule" and "Run an event"
  • Translation: the text of the banner is also translatable and the content will be displayed in the user's browser language if available

If you have any questions or need more information on these banners, let me know. Thanks in advance! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Correct me if I am wrong, but admins cannot create banners. We can just use sitenotices. Banners can just be created by CentralNotice admins on Meta. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I got some more information about the difference between Central Notice and Site Notice. I created the requests on Meta: collaborative video, events. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:15, 29 August 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, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Kafit85148

Kafit85148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Mass spamming Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

user is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:49.36.209.210

49.36.209.210 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Offensive vandalism of AZD1222 (Q95042269) CrystalLemonade (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for one week Estopedist1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 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) 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What has been the purpose of two deleted templates (or modules)

The deletion log refers to Special:Diff/1166369242 but those items are not occurring there or in the days before or after.

TIA PerfektesChaos (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Added: I guess now they are belonging to

Please restore the contents now and add those sitelinks in case they happened to have been missing yet, in order to prevent further deletions. Thanks

@Romaine: As deleting admin. --Emu (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The two items had instance of (P31) Wikimedia module (Q15184295) and were without any sitelinks. There were listed on the module page for to be deleted. I just restored them and add the sitelinks. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, fine --PerfektesChaos (talk) 15:41, 28 August 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) 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Addy555

Addy555 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism, adding random languages spoken, written or signed. Dorades (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Very likely a sock of LTA account LiliaMiller2002. Sjö (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Lymantria (talk) 18:56, 30 August 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) 18:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Request to block User:2A0D:6FC2:10B8:C00:8074:409B:A03B:FC4 and User:77.125.243.98

2A0D:6FC2:10B8:C00:8074:409B:A03B:FC4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), 77.125.243.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism continues for several days in several articles in Wikidata and in Hebrew Wikipedia. התו השמיני (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Stang★ 11:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you very much! התו השמיני (talk) 14:51, 24 August 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. Stang★ 11:17, 24 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Requesting semi-protection for fellatio (Q8401) and cunnilingus (Q8402), both because they're attractive vandalism targets, and because an anon keeps trying to add videos to them. Trivialist (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trivialist cunnilingus (Q8402) is protected for 3 months. fellatio (Q8401) seems to be not excessively vandalized. By the way, the same video is also in en:fellatio Estopedist1 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Trivialist sorry mate, not video but image. But the video in question is used at some Wikipedias, e.g. zhwiki.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Q21289431

Luigi Pisani (Q21289431) was deleted as it was empty, but it had been merged to Luigi Pisani (Q3266518). I have undone the edit that merged them, as they are not the same (19th century painter and 16th century bishop); if Q21289431 is notable please restore. There was a Union List of Artist Names ID (P245) (which doesn't say whether it indicates notability) but based on the information from that source I couldn't find anything else. Peter James (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping @MisterSynergy: as deleting admin. C. f. this Google Book Search. Maybe a mixup by the museum. --Emu (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I had missed the incomplete merger while deleting this item. It is now restored, and the merge edit is undone. @Peter James: please have a look at it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.57.131.64

2.57.131.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism, adds unsourced and often incorrect information. Dorades (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. Lymantria (talk) 14:54, 31 August 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) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Madina2217

Madina2217 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons:Spam --Trade (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Lymantria (talk) 16:27, 31 August 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) 16:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.63.117.128

95.63.117.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Many dubious unreferenced edits; possible block evasion by 137.101.64.238 (talk • contribs • logs) (same country, same edits to Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Q3874799)). Kleinpecan (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. 95.63.117.128 is blocked for 1 month. I hope that unconstructive edits are all removed. In addition: user:Madamebiblio thanks for reverting, but please don't delete statements one-by-one, but all together, like you did in here: Special:Diff/1715660039
  2. @Kleinpecan all edits by 137.101.64.238 is reverted. His last contribution was on 20 August, so I didn't block the IP.
Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 31 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Please block BboberBot

Bbober’s bot performs a large scale operation adding IdRef ID (P269) values based on VIAF ID (P214). The bot is authorized per Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/BboberBot but it seems that Epìdosis’s concerns were not considered in the batches.

I have raised my concerns on User talk:BboberBot and pinged the user. The user is not responsive. Please block and apply sanctions (I won’t do it lest I shall be accused of conflict of interest). (CC Kolja21) --Emu (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: A block has been applied to the bot (for a month right now). Mahir256 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Emu, Mahir256: Note that the bot flag had not yet been granted! Lymantria (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I'm discussing and explaining to Bbober what's happening on Twitter. He can't answer here because his IP address is blocked. I just gave him the link to Wikidata:IP block exemption. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, my first concerns (the most important ones, regarding how to structure the references) have been correctly addressed; however, my second concerns (duplicate references, identical for stated in (P248) and VIAF ID (P214) and different only for retrieved (P813)) have not been addressed and the duplication is effectively a burden for the items; while they aren't wrong stricto sensu, they can be damaging in adding bytes of nearly-duplicate infos. Although I think no specific rule prohibits the presence of two references identical in every part except retrieved (P813) (but I would support it) and I think we have no bot clearing them (but it could be useful), it would be better to avoid them. Also, while batches adding IDs through QS are quite common and often don't pass through bot procedure, since in this case a bot procedure was open I think it was necessary to wait for the bot flag. I have understood that this import is being done through QS using in fact OpenRefine, and it is unfortunate that OpenRefine isn't (yet) able to avoid adding nearly-duplicate referencing (different only for retrieved (P813)); probably we can distinguish through a query items already having IdRef ID (P269) with a reference containing VIAF ID (P214) and simply exclude them from the import, this could be a good solution for this case IMHO. --Epìdosis 11:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Just another brief comment: while the only problem that was noticed in the procedure (and still unsolved) regards nearly-duplicate references, I see that @Emu: correctly noticed other problems in the user talk page. I will comment about them in the bot procedure. --Epìdosis 11:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I beg to suggest that since the user is now responsive, appraised of, and generally understanding of the situation - this twitter thread - the block has served its purpose in protecting WD. Continuing a month-long block serves no good very purpose, strays way into punitive territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Note however that the user chose to ignore what I’ve proposed in the bot approval process. Now, I might of course be wrong, but this isn’t terribly reassuring if lack of communication was a reason for blocking in the first place. --Emu (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Some Berlin IPs

Telefonica Germany. Possible socks of Tobias Conradi. GZWDer (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to act here as long as there is no disruptive editing from these IPs. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:116.74.32.80

— Reasons: Self-promotion --Trade (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trade I deleted theirs promotional contributions Estopedist1 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:177.81.24.222

— Reasons: Self-promotion --Trade (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Trade only one item by this IP, and not obvious self-promotion (see possible media coverageserious source at [16]). Please make RFD Estopedist1 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
the sole item is deleted by user:Lymantria.--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:TNT88

TNT88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA: Vodafone vandal. Dorades (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for 3 days Estopedist1 (talk) 11:01, 30 August 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) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 59.149.111.68

59.149.111.68 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: All edits are vandalism and have been reverted. Kwgulden (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for 3 days Estopedist1 (talk) 12:04, 30 August 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) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion of Q113652785

[17] - I accidentally edited Q113652785 while logged out, so can someone hide the IP from the history, please? (I'm posting here because I don't have imminent concern. This is mostly a precautionary measure for me. I don't think oversight is necessary.) whym (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:53, 30 August 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) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sportsdomeindia

Sportsdomeindia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam only account, crosswiki. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Only one contribution in WD, which was already deleted by user:Lymantria. Crosswiki contributions are already deleted as well Estopedist1 (talk) 11:12, 31 August 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) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection on Ibad Ullah Khan

Ibad Ullah Khan (Q18764133) was quiet for a while, but was vandalised again this week. Perhaps semi-protection would help? Oravrattas (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done semi-protected for 3 months Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 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) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Jeff G.

Hi. Please semi-protect my user talk page due to vandalism by GRP or a friend.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done semi-protected for two weeks and user blocked. Bovlb (talk) 15:12, 31 August 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) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Lymaintria

Impersonation of my account. Although I did delete the information suggesting that this user were a bureaucrat here at wikidata, I prefer a second pair of eyes before blocking. Lymantria (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Behavioural evidence suggests a sock of Dr.blader (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), whom you recently blocked. Bovlb (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Following the chain of repeatedly deleted entities also implicates:
Maybe it's time for a checkuser request. Bovlb (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding them to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kapesthaa now. Bovlb (talk) 15:28, 31 August 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) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:46.154.149.65

46.154.149.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons:Recreation of Muhammed Ali Acarzade (Q113644615), block evasion --Trade (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and deleted. Bovlb (talk) 20:58, 31 August 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) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop user:Jarraitor from deleting data​

See History of 2022 Vuelta a España, stage 8 (Q110158951). Reason as mentioned above. --Tommes (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

IP block request

122.161.243.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
117.222.180.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
2409:4054:501:2397:dd09:69a7:3a0c:55c (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
2409:4054:291:1aa:f8f7:9a6c:a6ee:b1c9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Engaged in promotional item creations of both related entities

Rockpeterson (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rockpeterson we are helpless in such requests, if the items in question have a sitelink (in these cases Santali Wikipedia). It seems that small Wikipedias are good "solution" to hold (self-)promotional stuff. However, there should be Wikimedia-wide users who can delete anything in any small Wikipedias Estopedist1 (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:58.178.195.14

58.178.195.14 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Envlh: Have you tried talking to them? For example, this change appears to have been a good one. Remember that anon users don't see reversion notifications. Bovlb (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Hello! No, I think it's pointless to discuss with someone who is vandalizing Wikidata by removing random statements. Even if one of these removals is correct, clearly by accident (just look at the history of the item). About this removal, as you removed this statement again, did you notify the user who added it, so they can be aware of the issue and avoid to do it again? Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I agree with Envlh. Every day he may have a different IP. If he continue to vandalize under this IP, we block him Estopedist1 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Envlh: "as you removed this statement again, did you notify the user who added it, so they can be aware of the issue and avoid to do it again" That's a great question, but unfortunately we don't know who actually made this edit. It was made by Reinheitsgebot apparently on behalf of an unidentified user of the mix'n'match tool. Because Reinheitsgebot doesn't credit the user, we cannot follow up on errors. I have previously proposed that bots be required to credit proxy edits. Bovlb (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: If I'm understanding you correctly, because this user may have a different IP address in the future, there is no point in attempting to communicate with them, but they can instead be effectively dealt with by blocking their IP address. Is this a fair summary of your argument? Bovlb (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb I guess that communicating with IP addresses are quite unproductive approach (side-notice: I almost never ping them as well). But if the same IP has done contributions in longer period (let's say, over 1 month), then the communication can be productive. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: IP editors cannot be pinged; they receive no notifications. They do receive talk page indicators, but only on the desktop UI. I agree that communicating with IP editors is hard and often unproductive, but it does sometimes produce a positive result. If an anon editor is likely to change their IP, then it is important that any message be left promptly. For these reasons, I encourage everyone to post at least one message on the talk page of an editor before bringing an issue to this noticeboard. Bovlb (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Frequently-deleted items

I've been doing some analysis of deleted items, and I wanted to share this report of English labels that have been deleted at least five times in the last 3 months. Bovlb (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
Md Ashraf Malik 11 DBplus (Q112920923, Q113116283, Q113171030)
RajaBhai77 (Q112208726)
106.77.186.232 (Q112796300)
2402:8100:2595:819F:2443:FFAD:21AB:32EA (Q112494869)
Dgdgghn (Q113454340)
Joeetr32 (Q112585680)
Tonny noatia (Q112245404)
2402:8100:258F:56AF:7CFC:8A5E:BB3D:C2F7 (Q112247878)
2402:8100:2581:52D3:DC4F:A84A:8BFE:3FBF (Q112284040)
Jackie Zuk 9 Albertxonea (Q112782326)
Jobeswisla (Q112705092)
Jakeriewa (Q112443575)
Jobeekglq (Q112902954)
2402:8100:2047:5DF:0:0:566:823D (Q112631126)
Ahdjxmks (Q112657188)
Jsldjee (Q112964722)
2402:8100:2046:57A5:0:0:217B:6E5A (Q112251264)
Jakesjin (Q112290563)
Mustafa Altun 8 Serbayyy2 (Q112961641)
Güzelinsanlar (Q113435248)
Narkoss (Q113029260)
Desder63 (Q112971599)
Gülermehmet (Q113506711)
Devereerrem (Q113194726)
Llooki1 (Q113154859)
Ayşemehmetmehmet (Q113241994)

Sercanps (Q113653366)

Abdolrahman Sarraei 7 130.193.227.14 (Q112867934, Q112834777)
کردستان دایلی (Q112181910)
130.193.247.107 (Q112673232)
130.193.239.22 (Q112576775)
130.193.227.172 (Q112657260)
130.193.245.192 (Q112976612)
En 7 Debola23 (Q112749799, Q112750552, Q113026778, Q113554618)
Goldenjerry (Q113291858, Q113243987)
105.112.181.251 (Q112800985)
Marsuki 7 103.167.34.151 (Q112761445)
MrZucki (Q112577049)
Hyrocima (Q112907952)
ImanueI NS Uen (Q112875420)
112.215.245.149 (Q112841228)
Marsukismil (Q112264562)
102.91.4.249 (Q113129879)
Mark Sommerville 6 Amzadk23 (Q113577554)
Sommerville91 (Q113336585)
Hasibkhan1 (Q113459345)
Jahidkhana (Q113470122)
Marksommerville (Q113535415)
MarkB91 (Q113552012)
Mohammad Saleh Hesami 6 Mohammad.saleh.rj (Q113396400, Q113396420)
91.99.137.133 (Q112860757)
2.147.48.162 (Q112844996)
Mohammadsaleh hesami (Q112269603)
Mohammad official.rj (Q112225626)
Yusuf Sait Sevgi 6 Uedelp (Q112625343, Q112657895)
Werosd (Q112794637)
Kapesthaa (Q112813326)
Narkoss (Q113029290)
Desder63 (Q112971470)
1 5 Younes.bashiri80 (Q112875055)
83.120.120.47 (Q113330492)
Lwmusic (Q113502652)
60.241.199.206 (Q113554236)
Yazdanmoradi80 (Q112234272)
Adib Chaarani 5 Greenfriday (Q111271178)
DiamonodFriday (Q111271236)
AhmadGhaddar93 (Q112132471)
Iamtheone97 (Q112303690)
14julybirthday (Q112865636)
Adnan Berber 5 Deepwe67 (Q112731176)
KemalSunal34 (Q112440137)
Cosy46 (Q112840752)
DeepPolice (Q112225640)
Grovse (Q113166877)
Ahmet Akbey 5 Uedelp (Q112729427, Q112635976)
Ratkovic0 (Q113002803)
Grovse (Q113166902)
Veliahmet (Q113243865)
Amir Mohammad 5 Moha9w8 7 (Q113550914, Q113552869, Q113554645)
151.234.207.94 (Q113552848, Q113552849)
Arda Kaçar 5 Werosd (Q112794606)
DepPll (Q112337117)
Kapesthaa (Q112812932)
Narkoss (Q113029295)
Desder63 (Q112971534)
Chitrak Shah 5 Babesways (Q107484377)
Jonysinslovley (Q112782486)
Jobeswiddlelk (Q112706492)
Aligewrgt (Q112923291)
Asdxvcgh (Q112657712)
Ftesa Hazrolli 5 DeepPolice (Q112164566)
KemalSunal34 (Q112309472)
Cosy46 (Q112843011)
Veliahmet (Q113303685)
Dreat00 (Q113006247)
Jahid Hossain Pinkel 5 144.48.110.90 (Q113438421, Q113004332, Q113130377)
144.48.110.94 (Q112845541)
144.48.110.93 (Q113303830)
Jonathan Tjoa Algreen 5 Ayishksel3 (Q112219834)
Sidheoemra (Q112189043)
Waldonjobes (Q112714330)
Jaldonejale (Q112628154)
Anthonyjobes (Q112607404)
Maryna Rybakova 5 Aliaheolgha (Q112157309)
Alawaderecha (Q112307900)
Aliqwed (Q112225328)
Aliaesdf (Q112964409)
Jamesbondsakipb (Q112256728)
Name the different types of dogs 5 181.177.219.36 (Q113137808, Q113137809, Q113137810, Q113137811, Q113137812)
Oscareduardo10 5 179.19.49.252 (Q112163512)
179.19.7.116 (Q112671567)
179.19.92.15 (Q112437288)
179.19.24.86 (Q112876806)
179.32.121.117 (Q113367880)
Sadra Zandieh 5 Mmdsadra (Q112762107, Q113027174)
Sadra Zandieh (Q112186840)
2A01:5EC0:1803:A5F1:D9BA:9373:8783:E90 (Q112224510)
Nima Moradi Springer (Q113119228)
Salah Eddine Saadouni 5 160.77.123.159 (Q112292504, Q112292508, Q112292520, Q112292532)
Pi bot (Q106612420)
Sedat Oğuz 5 DeepPolice (Q112145469)
KemalSunal34 (Q112309392)
Dreat00 (Q113000087)
Veliahmet (Q113206494)
Grovse (Q113142040)
Soheil Bayat 5 Soheilxorg (Q112960889, Q112962158, Q112967261)
Wikisoheilx (Q113003303, Q113005348)
Tufan Değirmenci 5 Werosd (Q112795377)
KemalSunal34 (Q112342696)
DepPll (Q112307117)
Kapesthaa (Q112817088)
DeepPolice (Q112225576)
Vessel Technologies Inc. 5 64.121.241.6 (Q113620613)
68.83.94.206 (Q112960245)
70.177.90.220 (Q113486952)
75.161.139.149 (Q113489079)
2601:580:C000:D760:6031:C59C:48FB:9E9 (Q113251323)
en-value 5 2A02:2454:480:2800:2756:566F:CE44:FC61 (Q113557036, Q113557044, Q113557084)
37.182.76.61 (Q112144189, Q112144227)
list of Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League players 5 GZWDer (flood) (Q56274126, Q56274127, Q56274128, Q56274144, Q56274146)
Ömer Elaldi 5 DeepPolice (Q112166609, Q112229771)
KemalSunal34 (Q112441307)
Orhanovk (Q112875345)
Uedelp (Q112659821)

Bovlb (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you! --Emu (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:@mahir256

@mahir256 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: @Mahir256 is blocking people who try to create lexemes in the Aragonese language, including me. Its justification is that the lexemes have little content, something that also happens with many other languages, especially if they are languages in danger of extinction such as Aragonese, which is only spoken by 25,000 people in the world and there are no resources to do everything we wanted. Can you unblock me and allow me to continue creating lexemes in Aragonese on Wikidata? I would like to contribute to Wikidata with this wonderful language. Of course, my intention is to continue contributing content and enriching the lexemes in Aragonese in a near future but for me it is easier to do it this way: first create the lexemes and then continue contributing content to the lexemes created. Uesca (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

CC @mahir256, also block log. There appear to be two affected editors:
There is relevant discussion at User talk:Uesca and Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/AradglBot. Bovlb (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The question at issue appears to be whether we should encourage the bulk import of lexemes without either senses or any external identifier that might help us to establish senses later. It appears that Aradgl has just recently revealed the source of the data, and Mahir256 is now requiring that they create an identifier property and fix up previous imports before proceeding to create new ones. Bovlb (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb, Uesca: I have undone this block and that of Aradgl since they have demonstrated that they are aware of messages addressed to them. I will not hesitate to reinstate either block, however, if they continue to create empty lexemes without demonstrating that they have either a source for senses or an external source to which these lexemes could be linked. (Should this source be the same source that @Aradgl: claims to be using, then I will insist first that the existing Aragonese lexemes be linked to that source first before any new lexemes are created.) Please do not consider my block an attempt to stifle your language; I have stated multiple times to Aradgl that I would like to see more Aragonese lexicographical data, but I am not of the opinion that creating thousands of empty lexemes without (some certainty that there will later be added) any other information is the way to do it. Mahir256 (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
As a gesture of goodwill, I have proposed the property Wikidata:Property proposal/Aragonario ID which I will insist @Aradgl, Uesca: add to the lexemes they created first before creating any further new ones. Mahir256 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
They have only blocked Aragonese for this reason, they have not done so in any other language.
Creating the lexemes first and then providing them with content is not against the rules and there are thousands of other lexemes like this and they have not been blocked.
This is extremely unfair and very detrimental to the Aragonese language. Uesca (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Uesca: What is your objective here?
  • If you're trying to get unblocked, then you have succeeded and can move on.
  • If you're trying to raise a complaint about Mahir256's administrative actions, then in my opinion their actions and subsequent response seem reasonable and within the normal bounds. You'll have to do better at explaining why any further response is required. I don't see any evidence here that Mahir256 is pursuing a vendetta against the Aragonese language.
  • If you're trying to argue in favour of batch creation of lexemes with neither sense nor external identifier, then you're not doing a good job of it, especially given the recent revelation that external identifiers do exist. Hint: We're not very receptive here to the argument that it's alright to cause new problems because we already have similar problems.
Bovlb (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, in case this wasn't clear, while we do appreciate bulk imports here, we want them to contain as much information as possible about the source of the data and to link appropriately to external identifiers. It's very common practice to require the creation (and use) of an identifier property as part of approving a bot request. Bovlb (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Gymnicus

This long-pending unblocking box is quite annoying. I have a plan related to User:Gymnicus. Because 95% of Category:Wikidata protected edit requests are requested by this user, then we unblock him in order that he can only resolve his own requests in this category (touching of other items are prohibited!). If he has fulfilled all his requests without doing any mistake/disruptive edit, we will reconsider the situation. Thoughts? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok for me. Pamputt (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we need to move in some direction on this, and this is certainly a creative way out of the morass. A couple of concerns: This does not resolve the issue raised by @Yupik; and such a restriction should allow for the possibility of communication (user talk, item discussion, etc.). Bovlb (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb@Yupik: Yupik's concern is actual only then if Gymnicus is fulfilled his protected-edit-requests at Category:Wikidata protected edit requests. Communication concern is not actual because talk namespaces are not blocked for Gymnicus. The only concern is, do Gymnicus accept my proposal. Estopedist1 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Deutsch: @Estopedist1: Okay, ich soll mich melden. Also ich kann aktuell nicht sagen, ob ich deinen Vorschlag annehme oder nicht. Für mich sind da noch sehr viele Fragen offen. Die wichtigste Frage ist: Was bringt mir dieser Vorschlag? Wenn ich mir deinen Vorschlag durchlese, machen wir, nachdem ich meine Bearbeitungswünsche abgearbeitet habe, am gleichen Punkt weiter wie wir jetzt sind, nur mit dem Unterschied, dass die aktuellen Bearbeitungswünsche (Stand 01. September 2022) nicht mehr da sind. Da ich aber nur die aktuellen Bearbeitungswünsche durchführen darf und sonst keine anderen Bearbeitungen im Datenobjekt-, Lexeme- und Eigenschaftsnamensraum durchführen darf, könnte es neue Bearbeitungswünsche von mir geben.
English: @Estopedist1: Okay, I'm supposed to report. So I can't say right now whether I'll accept your proposal or not. For me there are still many unanswered questions. The most important question is: What does this proposal bring me? If I read through your proposal, after I have processed my processing requests, we will continue at the same point as we are now, only with the difference that the current edit requests (as of September 1st, 2022) are no longer there. However, since I am only allowed to carry out the current edit requests and may not carry out any other editing in the data object, lexeme and property namespace, there could be new editing requests from me. (PS: The official version of the message is in German)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Gymnicus (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gymnicus sorry I can't speak Deutsch. If you really can process properly all your own processing requests (about 140 requests), without doing any disruptive edit, then it is already great achievement. We definitely don't block you straightaway after this massive work. Then you are free to improve any item in Wikidata until first disruptive edit. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: With that clarification, I can accept your proposal. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Could another admin unblock User:Gymnicus? He accepted the proposal. If no one cares, I will do it myself after 48 hours.--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I care. We really do want to find a way to get User:Gymnicus back on the right side of the community here. I'm fine unblocking on these terms but anyone should feel free to reblock if they start causing trouble. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Fine. Let's hope there will be no reason to reblock, but I'm a bit sceptical. Lymantria (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I'm already somewhat regretting this decision. They don't seem to be able to play nice even with stern warnings. Maybe we can just unblock them for 24 hours every 6 months... BrokenSegue (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: no need to regret. I answered here: User_talk:Gymnicus#Discussion_4. I hope user:Gymnicus can avoid GND ID topic at least one month. Let's see, may he can :) And please, user:Kolja21, try also to be calm, and don't accuse/defame user:Gymnicus in any GND ID-related comment--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not only calm, I'm out. [18] If a user can harass you for weeks and still is unblocked you have to live with him, not me. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Kolja21 I did this revert, not user:Gymnicus. And user:Emu gave a good reason why sometimes removing of GND ID is acceptable Estopedist1 (talk) 20:12, 3 September 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop user:Vandcykel from deleting data

Concerning him deleting data repeatedly in 2022 Tour de France (Q98043180). In this board my submissions have been approved, but there was no decision concerning his vandalizing actions See: <Please help>. --Tommes (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tommes @Vandcykel @Jarraitor I haven't deepened in this edit warring-like case, but every time you make a significant revert (like this Special:Diff/1715590094), then always give a proper reason. When giving a proper reason, everything can be understood and solved better Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Estopedist1, I gave the reasons more than one time. All one can easily see is they do delete data. I added the full Tour-de-France-ranking and other rankings of stages also of other races (Tour de France Femmes, Vuelta á Espana) more than only to the top 10. There are good reasons for it and there is absolutely no reason to delete this data down to ranking #10. --Tommes (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I wrote a comment on Vandcykel's talk page. The block tool will be used if this does not help. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. --Tommes (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Matlin incorrect identifiers and communication issues

Matlin (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools) has a history of adding incorrect identifiers, not responding to issues raised and not taking responsibility for incorrect edits. For this behavior the user was blocked by Mahir256, Bovlb and by me. I blocked the user again for the same issues as last couple of times. Can another admin have a look at User talk:Matlin? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For some history, see Topic:Wm6qjhy18eoieqo7. Bovlb (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Great people, I ask for help and out of the 50+ admins I get no help at all. I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with this so I just unblocked the user to not be bothered anymore. Multichill (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill I actually looked into it but there is really nothing to comment on. I believe your block was justified. I even started to write something about the case but in the end I decided not to: There is very little hope that Matlin will suddenly understand why their behavior is problematic. --Emu (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I read your initial request ("another admin") as seeking review from someone other than Mahir256 or me, but perhaps I misunderstood. Bovlb (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Matlins recent behaviour is starting to feel like he's harassing or trolling me. Here he created a duplicate entry and then here, here, here and here he wrote my username and made more pointless edits. bdijkstra (overleg) 20:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2022/08&oldid=1728913037"