Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/09

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2022

Redirect page & or create new

I was added new person in Wikipedia actually he was work many movies & still updated I wikipedia but show red colour name because these name don't have any page so please tell how can I update full page with remove redirect link Sameerdixit67 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sameerdixit67: Could you give us a little more information here? I don't see any other contributions from you on any project. Bovlb (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
OP is now communicating on my talk page, and it appears that this issue does not concern the Wikidata project. Bovlb (talk) 05:22, 4 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. Bovlb (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:UstupidSuckA

UstupidSuckA (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism, disruptive username. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)}}

  Done User indeffed as vandalism-only, and item semi-protected for a week. We have no local username policy. Bovlb (talk) 15:35, 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. Bovlb (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:92.48.108.149

92.48.108.149 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism, proxy (blocked on the English Wikipedia). Kleinpecan (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, but this is too stale. I'm not seeing much activity on this project, and proxies ought to be dealt with on a global level. Bovlb (talk) 16:01, 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. Bovlb (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:96.33.29.235

96.33.29.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) It keeps vandalizing albums' data. Horcrux (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

no additional vandalizing after Horcrux warned him. But his crosswiki contributions are not all reverted yet Estopedist1 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I warned him before noticing that it was vandalizing since two days and before noticing it is an LTA. --Horcrux (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Block and global lock for two weeks by Sotiale. Lymantria (talk) 13:52, 5 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. Lymantria (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:61.94.93.62

61.94.93.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Indonesian DOB vandal. Anr (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done 1 month block. Lymantria (talk) 13:51, 5 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. Lymantria (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Showing of deleted items

Is there a bot which cleanup deleted items from other items (e.g. Q110870281, at model item (P5869))? Estopedist1 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No, there is no such bot. These backlinks may implicate notability via "structural need". You thus need to review all of them, and remove them manually in case you decide to delete the item in spite of the backlink. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:32, 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Q110852539

  Moved to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Astronomy
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) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

IP block request

186.171.1.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Madamebiblio (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for one week Estopedist1 (talk) 07:24, 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

‎Q113290493: Restore my wikidata page about my website please

Hello, last month I created the Wikidata page of my website for a better understanding from the google bot about my website. There is no self-promotion through my work and the creation of this page. My company really exists and we have customers. Creating my company page on Wikidata, as small as it is, with information about the products it sells, does not make this act self-promotion. I based myself on ebay's wikidata page, does ebay do self-promotion on wikidata? I don't think so.

Please restore my page and the wikicommon link with my registered logo. MarcoFleshlight (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@MarcoFleshlight sorry, mate! We need serious sources about this company. For more info, see your talk page, and WD:Notability. If you have serious sources, then please show them, and we can restore your Wikidata page Estopedist1 (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thank you for your quick response! We don't have the necessary budget to be published in famous French magazines and newspapers. However we have a trust certificate here https://www.societe-des-avis-garantis.fr/masturbateur-masculin-fr/ and a museum of eroticism that talks about our products here : https://www.musee-erotisme.com/utilisation-de-masturbateurs-masculins-les-avantages-principaux/. Sorry for the thematic of my site/company which may bother some people MarcoFleshlight (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
could someone with French ability, check the situation, e.g. @Pamputt? Estopedist1 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@MarcoFleshlight sorry but it seems that your company does not meet WD:Notability, i.e. it does not fit the second point "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it
can be described using serious and publicly available references." Such references does not exist and so your company cannot have item on Wikidata. Good luck with your company. Pamputt (talk) 20:34, 4 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) 17:30, 7 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 vandal, lock evasion GM-27IT. Also harassed me on talk page. Please do consider range block. Jklamo (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of Italian telephone service providers, but I'm taking Special:Diff/1716120496 as an admission of block evasion, so indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to add: I cannot put a range block on a user account. Maybe checkuser can. See Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/GM-27IT. Bovlb (talk) 16:10, 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

request for protection on שלום כהן (Q16130004)

The vandalism continues. I use Google Translate, sorry. Look at revision history המאו"ר (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@המאו"ר Done, three months semi. --Emu (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! המאו"ר (talk) 14:10, 4 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:188.146.70.117

188.146.70.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: links removing vandal Jklamo (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Sotiale (talk) 02:55, 5 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:NdpoclP

NdpoclP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA: Vodafone vandal. Dorades (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done indeffed Bovlb (talk) 23:12, 5 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Report user: 45.237.52.48

45.237.52.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Madamebiblio (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked the /16 for a year. Bovlb (talk) 23:51, 5 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ELvergonXXX777

ELvergonXXX777 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account, offensive username. IP 158.122.37.5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) seems to be related. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

all theirs edits are reverted. ELvergonXXX777 is warned. IP edits are reverted. No additional contributions haven't been made by these users Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Just wondering, do we have a username policy? Asking mostly for my future reference, I guess – this user doesn't seem likely to come back, but the username is NSFW. –FlyingAce✈hello 00:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikidata has no local username policy. We are constrained by foundation:Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities. Putting this another way, because we are a central hub used by all projects, we are required to accept edits from all users on those projects without adding (unnecessary) additional constraints. The English Wikipedia is something of an outlier in the strictness of its username policy. Bovlb (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A00:1FA0:4692:97F2:0:56:E9E7:8601

2A00:1FA0:4692:97F2:0:56:E9E7:8601 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: image vandalism. --Perohanych (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 03:12, 8 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A00:1FA0:0:0:0:0:0:0/36

2A00:1FA0:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: image vandalism. 93.72.49.123 19:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

how someone has such IP? Blocking this IP may affect many users? Estopedist1 (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
recent contributions under this IPs are vandalism, some IPs are blocked. Some of these IPs have done good edits. I am not sure about range block. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done This IP range is used by a mobile server in Moscow, blocking single IP's or /64 ranges will not be sufficient. As recent edits are all vandalism and continuing for a few days, I think it is appropriate to block for 3 days. Lymantria (talk) 14:02, 9 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. Lymantria (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack

By a cross-wiki troll in my talk page [1]. This IP also adds BS content in Wikidata (cf. this). ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:15, 9 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:210.155.89.88

210.155.89.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Afaz (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a mixture of good and bad edits, no sustained periods of vandalism, and nothing for fifteen hours. Maybe a Japanese speaker should take a second look. Bovlb (talk) 16:08, 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) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Aluminum profile

Please indef block Aluminum profile (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), only here to advertise their wares. Please delete the User:Aluminum profile page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

user is warned. User page is deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 12:29, 6 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) 06:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:59.149.111.68

59.149.111.68 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) - Looks this user was likely removing the sitelinks on those items and haven't seen there's any reasons to removing them. Please revert of this user's edits and/or block this as for measure, thanks. Shinjiman (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done: blocked and everything should be reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 11:06, 7 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) 06:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User block request Godofwondersyouaresogood

Godofwondersyouaresogood (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Creating/created promotional only, non notable items Rockpeterson (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

user is warned. Let's see his further actions Estopedist1 (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The item you warned them about has already been deleted, but they still have plenty more to improve. Bovlb (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Apparently their response was to create a new account and start recreating deleted items, so indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 15:38, 7 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:00, 10 September 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))

Previously banned on August 4th for 31 hours and has sporadically continued vandalism after the block expired. All edits have been reverted. Dhx1 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked for a month. Bovlb (talk) 17:17, 7 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Q21219502

Please semi-protect, as the subject page was vandalized today by two different IP Addresses.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

two times reverted. We will protect if it will continue Estopedist1 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
vandalizing continued. One week semi-protected. Insulting comment is hidden Estopedist1 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:44, 8 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) 06:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A00:1FA0:400:45F8:0:5A:611D:5301

2A00:1FA0:400:45F8:0:5A:611D:5301 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Image vandalism. Anr (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked two weeks. All his edits are reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 05:28, 9 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) 06:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Gülkız Tulay

Gülkız Tulay (Q110777246) should be merged and redirected into Gülkız Tulay (Q22964628) as lazy Turkish Wikipedia users usually open items without making any effort to see if it already exists. Gülkız Tulay (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  merged Estopedist1 (talk) 15:33, 9 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) 06:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Spam

Talk:Q60772838 has been spammed by an IP. Veverve (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 12:31, 10 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. Lymantria (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Q105317501

By any chance, can an admin protect that page? It's a magnet for a WMF-banned pest. Thanks in advance, --SHB2000 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --BrokenSegue (talk) 02:32, 11 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. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Report Concerning Peace Tshuma

Peace Tshuma (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Creating non-notable promotional items Rockpeterson (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

They have received one warning (about notability) and have created no items since. I see no evidence that they are recreating deleted items. Bovlb (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
They are back and creating new non-notable items. I left a stronger warning. Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Some discussion is now taking place on their talk page. Bovlb (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:14BA:1AE5:5D00:E5CB:2865:AAEC:9DB1

2001:14BA:1AE5:5D00:E5CB:2865:AAEC:9DB1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Reasons: LTA. False information etc. Already blocked in fiwiki and enwiki (range block). Anr (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Anr this user has done massive contributions. Spotchecking shows that many edits seems OK. But probably lot of bad work also, e.g. duplicated Q113664894 with random statements. I would trust here enwiki collaborators (putting range block). Estopedist1 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Report User:77.137.68.120

77.137.68.120 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – A troll on the Hebrew Wikipedia who comes to visit here. I'm the admin who blocked him there, I'd love for him to be blocked globally. Thanks, התו השמיני (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@התו השמיני: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to block here solely because of actions on another project. Can you provide links to some objectionable edits by this IP on Wikidata? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. At the Hebrew Wikipedia we advocate in DNFTT absolutely, So any troll good editing is also deleted. If it's different here, I certainly accept it. Thank you and good day. התו השמיני (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I just read the Hebrew Wikipedia blocking policy and it is interestingly different. Bovlb (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This will interest you more. התו השמיני (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. It makes me think that we need a clearer policy here at Wikidata about what we call Long-term Abusers (LTAs). What is the process to determine that someone is an LTA? What is the necessary level of evidence to associate edits with an LTA? Is it possible to stop someone from becoming an LTA?
I was a little confused by the phrase "בפורומים מתרכזים הטרולים בחרחור ריב ומדון". Could you explain that?
The most striking thing to me about the HEWP blocking policy is the deference to veteran editors. You can't block them for >24h without consulting a bureaucrat. It sounds like a protection of veteran editors, but I wonder if it actually makes it easier and less controversial to block veteran editors under some circumstances. Bovlb (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
If you would like More explanation about it, feel free to contact me by email. התו השמיני (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ADSEnglishBot

Malfunctioning and operator is not able to stop it (User_talk:Feliciss). Please block the bot. Also please delete all claimless items created by the bot. GZWDer (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked and deleted about 500 pages but I think there are still more. Do you know when the malfunction started? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I deleted a bunch more. Earliest case was 2022-08-30 2022-08-29. Bovlb (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We Need A Page Protection

We Need A Page Protection Thisath Damiru (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thisath Damiru: For which page do you want protection? --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Q113946156 Page Also Please Look It And Could You Please Confirm There Is No Notability Issues,
Thankyou Thisath Damiru (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
If There Is Any Notability Issue Let Me Know Before You Delete It. Thisath Damiru (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
please don't answer at this thread, because this thread is already active right above: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_:_Bovlb_Deleted_Our_Wikidata_Page Estopedist1 (talk) 11:05, 12 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. Thisath Damiru (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Q691747

Another magnet for a WMF-banned pest. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for a month, three edit summaries hidden. --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:00, 12 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Prorossyisky Agent

Prorossyisky Agent (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism in Russian descriptions. He is blocked in Russian Wikipedia. Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

user hasn't made any edits in months? BrokenSegue (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
He didn't. But all his contribution to all projects is vandalism. Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

At https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Description Madamebiblio (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the edit from 2 July 2022‎. I think this was "good faith" edit. The related user hasn't been active recently, see Seikan Tunnel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Estopedist1 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
It was this. Anr (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
only one contribution. No need for block yet Estopedist1 (talk) 05:12, 8 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) 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:WikiUsr83

WikiUsr83 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA: Vodafone vandal. Dorades (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dorades: user is warned. But has good edits as well. Not sure about Q1343118 Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an account of GM-27IT (Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/GM-27IT), disruptive editing behaviour is going on for years. The logo in Q1343118 is not the same as in it.wikipedia, so it can't be referenced by that. --Dorades (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dorades: is not very constructive and finds excuses to have the freedom to do as he wants on Wikipedia, as I am the only one to stop his fake rollbacks which he justifies as vandalism (see his contributions, he rolls back to other people's changes as if he were a rollbacker). WikiUsr83 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add that the logo is the same, only the file name changes (probably an import error) WikiUsr83 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

please be fair

Q113793842 Kastriot Hetemi

https://www.biyografya.com/biyografi/28470

https://www.themoviedb.org/person/3686798-kastriot-hetemi

https://www.kimnereli.net/kastriot-hetemi.html

role in the movie;

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0845088/fullcredits/cast/?ref_=tt_cl_sm


Q113852046 Onur Gürler


https://www.haberfirsat.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir-h220802.html

https://akhisargundem.net/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://akyazisonhaber.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir-29611.html

https://www.asafhaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-73760

https://aydingazetesi.net/onur-gurler-kimdir-1801.html

https://www.borsakredi.net/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://dakikagundem.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1808.html

https://egirdirhaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-11936.html

https://faydahaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gazeteburda.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1726.html

https://gazetekocaeli.com/2022/08/12/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gazetemsanat.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1426.html

https://gercekcihaber.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir.html

https://gercekmagazin.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir-21466.html

https://gorushaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-4526

https://www.guid3rs.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gundemmanset.com/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gundemyonetim.com/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gungazete.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1676.html

https://gununmanseti.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1706.html

https://www.biyografya.com/biyografi/28469

https://eksisozluk.com/onur-gurler--5264573

https://www.tiktok.com/@onurgurler

https://m.youtube.com/c/OnurGurler/featured

I entered the source links in accordance with the site's materiality principles, the important thing is not that they have been created before, but how I entered the data correctly, dear admin, you are visibly deleting known well-known people. These contacts are publicly known and suitable for wikis. I contribute to the site and this has been blocked. Do you think this is the right move? I say there are the same similar data, there are confirmed data as I entered. How should I explain further? Can you please restore? One is visibly a phenomenon on social networks. The other is a player with visible evidence. Please be fair dear admins. There are hundreds of similar data, it wasn't fair for you to delete me. ed the source links in accordance with the site's materiality principles, the important thing is not that they have been created before, but how I entered the data correctly, dear admin, you are visibly deleting known well-known people. These contacts are publicly known and suitable for wikis. I contribute to the site and this has been blocked. Do you think this is the right move? I say there are the same similar data, there are confirmed data as I entered. How should I explain further? Can you please restore? I want you to be fair. Yozden (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

For clarity:
I deleted them most recently, largely on the basis that we have already made the decision to delete these entities, so we can't allow them to be recreated, except via a request for undeletion discussion.
CC deleting admins @ Lymantria, Ymblanter, HakanIST. Bovlb (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and all the previously creating users are indefinitely blocked, with several links to Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kapesthaa. Bovlb (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we have an admin that reads Turkish? My impression from these links is that the sources aren't serious. Many use the same photo and text and the pages are really spam-y. The auto-translated text doesn't make them seem particularly notable. Mainly seems to be a very minor youtuber. I would've also deleted this probably. (only talking about Onur not Kastriot) BrokenSegue (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikidata:Administrators, HakanIST and @باسم/Bassem read Turkish. Bovlb (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
But non-admins are always welcome to chime in on this board. Bovlb (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Please, note that I have had some discussion on my user talk page with this person. Lymantria (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to disclose my own talk page communication. To summarise, I declined to restore and recommended this request for undeletion. Bovlb (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Actor; https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q106415884

There is only imdb link. Active for 2 years. Edited and approved managers 

There are 4-5 resources in the player named castriot that I added. Player sites have player profiles, bio sites have a link. This person stays approved, is mine deleted?

I can give many more examples

You said badly watched youtuber for internet celebrity, I can show internet celebrities that are less watched and whose wikidata is approved. I serve Wikidata and have enough experience not to encounter negative people. Judging the past and no Turkish ruler? It would be wrong to close the issue by saying. I spend hours adding these people. And these people are known to the public. It is very normal for you not to know because you are not Turkish. I can compare you here with examples. The data that has been entered for years, which is much worse than the one I entered, approved by the admins. And I spent hours researching. If I am giving my time for free, I expect your understanding.

I'm looking for malicious intent here if the more infamous ones I've entered are approved by the admins or even corrected by the admins. If you have trouble understanding, compare. Because I did, and I don't think justice was done to me. I don't care about the past. You always advocate this. It's my job to properly enter this person on Wikidata. And don't you think it would be foolish of me not to enter the appropriate data because I know you will delete it? I know that if I enter the wrong inappropriate data, it will be deleted, so why should I spend my time researching inappropriate people. I ask for some empathy from you.

I see it from the admin talk page, I restore it, but you open the deleted data by saying please make improvements, and when it's my turn, you interrupt me by making sentences like absolutely. You are closing the issue. Was that fair? Is this the scales of justice for you rulers? No, I strongly disagree with this and expect a fair answer.

Read the articles I wrote carefully, carefully examine the links I have added, they are all valuable sites. You can't delete me while someone else's worse data remains. I saw it with my own eyes on the admin's talk page, ok I'm renewing, but it says add update links. Saying "no" to me when opening this person would be the beginning of injustice. Please read every article I write carefully, I even gave you an example link, examine that person, you will see that the people I open are noticeably more meaningful. Wasn't it deleted because the admin created it? this is injustice. I advise you to restore these contacts and even follow me for 1 year. If there are no meaningless deletions for no reason, you will see with your eyes that I will contribute until I become an admin, dear admins.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yozden (talk • contribs) at 9 September 2022 (UTC).

@Yozden: please give same examples of person items, which you think are fewer notable than your created (and deleted) person items--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Actor and influencer

Q106415884

Q46998218

Q57775056

Q78802606

These are the ones I opened;

Q113793842 Kastriot Hetemi

https://www.biyografya.com/biyografi/28470

https://www.themoviedb.org/person/3686798-kastriot-hetemi

https://www.kimnereli.net/kastriot-hetemi.html


Q113852046 Onur Gürler


https://www.haberfirsat.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir-h220802.html

https://akhisargundem.net/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://akyazisonhaber.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir-29611.html

https://www.asafhaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-73760

https://aydingazetesi.net/onur-gurler-kimdir-1801.html

https://www.borsakredi.net/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://dakikagundem.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1808.html

https://egirdirhaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-11936.html

https://faydahaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gazeteburda.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1726.html

https://gazetekocaeli.com/2022/08/12/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gazetemsanat.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1426.html

https://gercekcihaber.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir.html

https://gercekmagazin.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir-21466.html

https://gorushaber.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-4526

https://www.guid3rs.com/gundem/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gundemmanset.com/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gundemyonetim.com/onur-gurler-kimdir/

https://gungazete.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1676.html

https://gununmanseti.com/onur-gurler-kimdir-1706.html

https://www.biyografya.com/biyografi/28469

https://eksisozluk.com/onur-gurler--5264573

https://www.tiktok.com/@onurgurler

https://m.youtube.com/c/OnurGurler/featured

Are you convinced, will you act fairly now?

there is visible evidence, it's clear that my findings are important, the people I've entered are more positive than others. Waiting for your explanation.

Please restore what I opened, be fair, I will serve wikidata for a long time, dear authorities.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yozden (talk • contribs) at 9 September 2022 (UTC).

Thanks for the four items!

Brief analysis:

Most of your URLs are not serious, but I don't speak Turkish hence I am unable to give ultimate judgment. Due to sizeable amount of URLs for Q113852046 (deleted by user:Bovlb) it may need undeleting or at least should be overwatched by a Turkish user--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yozden: The fact that other "worse data" exists does not mean we need to keep yours. It means we should go and delete the worse data elsewhere in wikidata. It is not a defense of your items to say "but this item is less notable". Also you said "It's my job to properly enter this person on Wikidata". Are you saying you are being employed to edit wikidata? I am having some difficulty understanding you through the language barrier. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, the listing of "worse data" examples, was requested by Estopedist1. Bovlb (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A manager is asking me to discard the data and another manager is making a selfish comment, I think you should follow your coworker's comment first. I guess just "Bovld" is being fair. I must say that making this comment is not a very healthy comment for you, "I approve of what I want." We have the right not to "approve" you, even if we approve of it. If you approach it that way, I will tell you this. Then give me back the time I spent on the site, financially or morally. There are 40-50 data in 1 month in the records I entered. If it wasn't for such things, I would enter hundreds of data. But it's not right for you to talk to me so loudly, you are doing your job really well. It is evident from the way he speaks. I say I will continue with a single account, I say you will see how much I will contribute with 1 year of follow-up, but you answer me with this style.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yozden (talk • contribs) at 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC).

I feel obliged to point out that, while this discussion has been open, the OP has created three new items, one of which I have also deleted as a recreation of a deleted item. The other two are Mert Yaran (Q113866862) and Q113866291, which are novel as far as my records go, but do not exhibit strong notability. Bovlb (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced comment moved from wrong section.

Will you restore?

Doesn't it show strong source? One of them is a phenomenon that even has a google information panel, the other is someone who has a connection to 4-5 player cinema profiles, and there is also a panel, sorry, are you doing this on purpose? You say a less-watched phenomenon, I add a phenomenon with a blue tick that plays in the movie with millions of followers and you say it doesn't matter. If you restore the deleted ones and then enter healing links for all the data, I will find it logical, please advise me to heal instead of deleting, because you have done this, I cannot enter data.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yozden (talk • contribs).

In the interests of moving this forwards, do we have any   Delete (keep deleted) or   Keep (restore) !votes for Q113793842 Kastriot Hetemi and Q113852046 Onur Gürler? Bovlb (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Links are for advertising purposes, are subjective and/or only show content provided by the topic itself."

There is no harm in restoring it instead of saying this, but it is not enough to restore it with the existing links. Make improvements to make the person available for more bibliography and Wikidata. Enter more details. Wouldn't it be a more professional approach to say "let's be completely convinced"? Taking a shortcut doesn't add + to the site - it does. I am not a manager, but I can interpret events objectively.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yozden (talk • contribs) at 10 September 2022 (UTC).

Admins are very undecided in voting, my humble opinion is this; the deleted ones should be opened back, but more or more appropriate and more complete bibliography should be added, provided that it is improved. I hope the esteemed admins will agree with my opinion.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yozden (talk • contribs).

Sorry, Yozden. We can't help you because they fail WD:Notability. The easiest way is to make articles in Turkish Wikipedia, and if they survive there, then they are automatically notable for Wikidata--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:05, 10 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User:103.255.6.95

103.255.6.95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) added some spamvertized or at least inappropriate external links masked as reference. If theres a spam blacklist for Wikidata you might want consider adding those. --Denniss (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

was active 10 minutes. No further contributions. All his edits are reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I wasnt requesting to block that user, just to blacklist the sites he used to spam here. --Denniss (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, addition to global blacklist requested. Lymantria (talk) 16:41, 13 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:87.237.161.109

87.237.161.109 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: only mischief, nothing useful contributed; LotHorizon (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked /24 for a year, and tidied up some unreverted vandalism. Bovlb (talk) 23:02, 9 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Chyco Siméon Wikidata

Hello I would like to understand the reason why I cannot create a page about the musician Chyco Siméon. If I did a mistake, please, explain to be sure that I don't do it again. I don't want to do any mistakes blocking the "future" of this artist. All the best Kolokete (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a request for undeletion for Q64577020, later recreated as Q113883961 and (after warning) as Q113884578. CC @ Minorax as deleting admin. Bovlb (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
See also Dorliss97200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), originally creating user. Bovlb (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
should be notable, e.g. serious sources maybe [2], [3], [4], also ISNI and BNF identifiers. And 5-members Commons:Category:Chyco Siméon Estopedist1 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
And can Discogs and Musicbrainz identifiers be considered as serious ? Anyway, if it is better that I don't touch it anymore to let someone more expert than me to care of it, I would do it. Kolokete (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
And I am sincerely sorry if I didn't understand that I've had to stop to insist, I really thought that I have to do it again without mistakes. Kolokete (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Kolokete: Discogs and musicbrainz are not generally considered very serious because anyone can edit them so they do not imply notability. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  Keep The references and identifiers seem sufficient to establish notability. Bovlb (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I would like to see a little more coverage in the item because I don't know how reliable allaboutjazz is and EBS SWEDEN doesn't seem like a great source. Does a BNF ID imply notability? ISNI doesn't. But doing some of my own research I found this source which too me is enough to establish notability. So   Keep BrokenSegue (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
BnF and LCCN should generally be enough,   Keep. --Emu (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see an LCCN though? BrokenSegue (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
LCCN n2022032812. It was in the VIAF cluster but not in the item. --Emu (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a brain fart moment when I was deleting this. Will undelete shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Kolokete : I have undeleted and merged the other two versions.
Sorry to make to this such a drawn out experience for you. Bovlb (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you and I really appreciate your way to be fair. I wish you all a good weekend. Kolokete (talk) 06:23, 11 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User : Bovlb Deleted Our Wikidata Page

User, Bovlb Deleted Our Wikidata Page (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q113910987&action=edit&redlink=1) Please Undelete It Globbook Team (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Globbook Team Please provide proof that this item meets our notability criteria (WD:N). It doesn’t seem notable at first sight. --Emu (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes There We Were Updating It So Please Undelete It And We Will Fix It! Globbook Team (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Globbook Team Please provide the proof here. --Emu (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
1It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons. Globbook Team (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
It Contains Wiki commons link Globbook Team (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
3.It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. Globbook Team (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I deleted Q113910987 primarily because it was a recreation of Q108934683, created by User:GlobbookCP and deleted by User:Stang. It had no sitelinks. For no apparent reason, it did have a Commons category (P373) to commons:Category:Logos of social networking services. It did have an incoming link from Q113910206. Bovlb (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
So Please Undelete It We WIll Fix It Globbook Team (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
There’s no point in shouting at us.
We’re having a discussion, reviewing the information you have provided, and will reach a consensus decision in due course. Please be patient with us. We’re all volunteers here. Bovlb (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
No There We Aren't Shouting At You Globbook Team (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Just Undelete It (Restore) Globbook Team (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The commons category link wasn't proper (it went to a generic category not one for the item). The item has zero references. This appears to be a case of conflict of interest editing. Yeah,   Delete sounds right to me. Unrelatedly, Bovlb how do you search to find out if an item is a recreation? BrokenSegue (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have built a prototype search engine of deleted content. I am working on finding a way to make this appropriately available to others. Bovlb (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I have recently been working harder to communicate with item recreators (example) about the deletion process, why recreation is bad, and the correct way to appeal. This explains the recent crop of requests for undeletion here, which I apologise for imposing on all of you, but which I think represents some pent up demand. I have also advocated (see previous discussion) for creators of deleted items (especially new users) to receive an explanation of the deletion process the first time around. Bovlb (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is the effort it takes to notify especially when dealing with a volume of deletes. Maybe we can make a gadget that notifies after a delete? Sometimes I nominate for deletion instead of just deleting exclusively because it notifies the user what happened. BrokenSegue (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
See the proposal linked above for a deletion notification bot. Bovlb (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yeah that is a good idea. Are you proposing to write it? It's possible I will find myself with more free time (in ~3 weeks) and I'm looking for an excuse to ask for more kubernetes capacity on toolforge. BrokenSegue (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
You're Talking Out Of The subject Globbook Team (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping to persuade MisterSynergy to write it. I want to concentrate on deleted search. Bovlb (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Are You Sure?(Will You Undelet It) Globbook Team (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
? Globbook Team (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah,
We Didn't Finish Writing It Globbook Team (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
If you have additional information to provide that will establish the notability of this concept, please add it to this thread. Bovlb (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok I WIll Globbook Team (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Are You Sure?(Will You Undelete It) Globbook Team (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
It will be undeleted if you establish notability. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
1It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons Globbook Team (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
1 Wikimedia commons sitelink Globbook Team (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
So Please Undelete It Globbook Team (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
the commons site link was not valid. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Why? Globbook Team (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Globbook_logo.png Globbook Team (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
the commons category the item linked to was "Logos of social networking services" which is not related to the item. The existence of an image associated with your item on commons is not enough to establish notability (that isn't what the commons category is for). BrokenSegue (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  Delete I've been holding off !voting in the hope that we might get some new information, but it doesn't look like it's coming. Bovlb (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Globbook Team (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  Delete hard to find serious sources--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
A different (but presumably related) user has recreated the item at Q113946156. Unlike the previous version, this version does contain claims to notability, albeit thin. It has a sitelink to commons:Category:Globbook_Logos (category contains two icons), two identifiers (Crunchbase organization ID (P2088) and YouTube channel ID (P2397); YouTube channel contains zero videos), and one external reference which is basically an automatic report. I don't understand why they weren't able to offer this evidence as repeatedly requested here in this thread instead of recreating the item again after warnings; we must be failing to communicate somehow. Bovlb (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree   don't restore. Lymantria (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  don't restore--Trade (talk) 13:43, 13 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you please restore the data of the famous businessman participating in the television channels?

Greetings, esteemed official, as a result of my contribution to the site, you deleted the data of famous business people, which appeared on well-known television channels, which are well known by the public. Could you please take a look at the bibliography and restore it. Since the deleting admin's talk page is extremely afk, I felt the need to open a topic here.


https://www.yenicagri.com/amp/ekonomi/onur-sar-dunya-capinda-fark-yaratacak-h306527.html

program broadcast on the television channel;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dA55taJ6Wys&feature=youtu.be&skip_registered_account_check=true

Biography;

https://www.biyografya.com/biyografi/28474

https://medium.com/@HaberMedyaTR/onur-sar-kimdir-95799819b2a1

https://www.dookuz.com/onur-sar-kimdir-nereli-kac-yasinda-celali-asireti-varisi-kac-kardes-onur-sar-biografi/

Chairman of the board;

https://celalilerder.org/biografi-onur-sar-11.html

deleted data;

Q113772608  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.42.24.130 (talk • contribs).

Pinging @Ymblanter: as deleting admin. However, in view of the item and the links presented, I think that the deletion was correct. --Emu (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A name that is constantly on the channels, if you wish, I can post more source links. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.42.24.130 (talk • contribs).

This relates to Q113772608, created by @Yozden, and proposed for deletion by @Kadı.
On a related note, it appears that Yozden has now been automatically blocked by the LTA 168 abuse filter, for attempting to create an item on "Muhammed Ali Acarzade, Turkish Business Person", previous created as Q113660838, Q113621511, Q113644615, Q113662758 by various users discussed on Wikidata:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kapesthaa. Bovlb (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I will report you for abuse of power. Because even people who are not remarkable in the lower class open back. I am not allowed to speak and he shuts my mouth and bans me indefinitely. I will complain about the tortilla and injustice on the site, you can ban indefinitely. from now on. Likewise, I am reporting you now. I will send 100 wikidata links without Wikipedia to all the higher authorities, just in case you say it is necessary, here I will say that 100 wikidata links and all of them have been approved, but your admins offer me this excuse for more noteworthy names. Then why are there 100 wikidata links without wikipedia? What are these admins trying to do? All approved Wikidata links, Top authorities should know that there is no justice on the site. thank you for listening to me  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.42.24.130 (talk • contribs).

We have been trying really hard not to block you and to allow you an opportunity to communicate. Unfortunately you fell afoul of an automatic filter that is designed to catch some of our worst LTAs (long-term abusers). Strictly speaking, we should be blocking you right now for "block evasion", but here you are, still communicating. This is the correct forum on which to report abuses of power here at Wikidata. We've let you speak. We've heard you out. I think you've been wearing out your welcome, however, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone were to block Special:Contributions/176.42.24.130/16 soon. Bovlb (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have 100 wikidata connections. In 2010, I served wikipedia for 3 years. Then I decided to quit. So I know what is right and what is wrong. I have 100 wikidata links, all approved, without Wikipedia, even without proper bibliography. For every person I entered with references, I was told that the links should be Wikipedia, and the links are not enough. Then why were those hundreds of people approved, dear admin, yes, let me listen, you are not the highest authority, you don't even know that I know the people above. You silenced me when I wanted to approach in good faith. There's no point in muting it right now. You blocked the last word from my mouth. If I'm giving my hours to this site, you can't block it bro. I have not received 5 cents from anyone, I have slandered, I have been banned and I will never be silent against injustice. You and you have superiors, be fair.

Look, they opened hundreds of people. Data entered worse than me is unacceptable, it's that simple my friend. If you are accepted, you should review me. It is a crime to accept them and exclude me. bribe? Or do you allow acquaintances? be honest dude! I will give my hours, it would be a shame to spend even 5 minutes if I do this with money. My eyes are bleeding, are you kidding me to come and block them? Don't see yourself at the top, everyone has a top. There is a production that cannot remain silent in the face of injustice. thanks for listening  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.42.24.130 (talk • contribs).

Reopening a deleted data means that the administrator deleted it without looking carefully at the moment of deletion. So he actually made a mistake, right? this means you can make mistakes if you are an administrator. Then you should know that you can make mistakes, that you are human and that you are no different from me. You are no different than a spamming vandalist. I'm sorry, I didn't look properly, you say let's fix it and you open it again. It means that a person can do his job incomplete, let's agree here first.

I get weird when I add it and add it with too many bibliographies. Because I have wiki experience and if you open the person who adds 1 link to the place where I put 5 links, you will make a double standard, either you do not open that person or if you do, you have to do the same justice. . . Two times two is four, my dear friend.

If you dig inside, a wolf comes out of everyone. Everyone is honest as long as the lies are not exposed. It is the word of a famous poet.

You say to a person you've carefully examined, "Yes, I'll open you up, but you need to improve the data." I have proof I took a screenshot

We are trying to contribute to the site, no matter what your task is, I walk the same path as you.

Unless you understand me correctly, you keep blocking me and I'm sure I'm running out of patience. Don't I know that word games are made? Unfortunately we won't be able to help you. You need Wikipedia, you say that if it opens there, it opens here. But you are helping hundreds of people :)

You want me to shut up, you want me to question. Pity, pity, pity the trouble.

And I'm going to complain because I'm running out of patience. Those who cannot do their duty with honor, no one can usurp the right of the time I have given to the site. As far as I understand, there is nothing you can understand with words.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 176.42.24.130 (talk • contribs).

you would be wise to write more concisely and politely. I have trouble understanding what you are saying in this manner. Yes, we know admins can make mistakes but the vast majority of admin actions are uncontroversial. Multiple admins have reviewed your case and come to the same conclusion. There are millions of items or people that meet our notability criteria that you could be working on. Try working on those for now until you have more experience and then come back to this. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Fatih Yigit Demirci

https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q113867492

Look, you opened it, you opened it back. There is only 1 bibliography link. There's a bibliography of what I've added. There are more references. There are more hardware connections. And my data is more valuable. This person's is opening, but mine is not. Let me know, admin.

What kind of decision is this? You say be nice to me, right? empathize, let's switch roles, I'm admin, you are a user profile, this is how I open others, I constantly send you deletion requests, what would your attitude be towards me?

You say that more than one person decided, there are 15 and 20 year old admins here, if I don't report that there is a double standard, it will continue to be a double standard. You do not examine me carefully, if you did, you would take care of me as well as the hundreds of people you opened up to this person. In addition, the admins you said you have decided were undecided in the voting. There are 3 admins saying they are not sure. These are his own words :)

Now I want to listen to you :)

If it doesn't open because it's constantly spammed, it won't be spam if you look carefully, I don't want to spam either.

But I open it, I open it again and again because it is a significant person, why are you deleting it. There will be no problem if you check it out.

I'm talking documents. I have reviewed and noted down everything the admins have done so far. Double standard usage that can be applied to someone else by deleting me, all with proof document 

Because being played against me constantly caused the ropes to break. you speak superficially.

Yes dear admin, do you have an answer again, won't you be solution-oriented again on this issue..

Is this what these admins say to everyone, I researched it, what should I see :)

hundreds of worse data opening...

You say policy, hundreds of opened data that do not comply with the policy :)

What do you expect me to do in this situation? If you are not solution-oriented, I will report all the admins one by one. Look, I say be solution-oriented, I entered 50 data, I do not say that you can open all of them, but I say that you should open all appropriate contacts.

yes i'm listening to you now

You have entered 50 people so far, look, we are in this strict rule because you are spamming, you are spamming unintentionally because it is constantly deleted. We have opened 20 more, we think there should be more resources for the other 30. If you have more resource links, please send them, if you say this is not possible, unfortunately we will not open them.

You have to say this.

You can't say you don't follow the policy,

The data you approve will be added to the list you mentioned :) so all the data you approve are included in this list you defend :) then the approval logic of the admins is arbitrary. Yes, this person has little bibliography, yes, no wikipedia, yes, but my taste would like to verify it. He doesn't want to approve of you. What's your logic? Does your logic work like this?

I'm trying to explain this, dear admin.

Then be honest and explain your answer to me now. Explain honestly without being silent please I'm listening to you yeah

If you find it difficult to answer, I will personally report this incident to the higher authorities along with the evidence.

This has gone way beyond the point of useful discussion. They are spamming this board with walls of text in unrelated sections and also spamming conversations on my user talk page, so I have blocked the /16. Bovlb (talk) 16:16, 13 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. Bovlb (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Why deleted?

What is reason? You delete and said nothing. Alamdarmanafov1 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Admins can't explain, is it because I'm right? I am really running out of patience, if my rights continue to be defeated, I will complain to the higher units one by one with their evidence. I have proof and documents, screenshots etc everything is available. If my right is defeated, I will never be silent.

Bovlb, I'm waiting for a reply from you for my latest posts?

Unrelated spammer Bovlb (talk)
This is presumably in relation to Q113877475 (Ələmdar Manafov / Advertising Advisor / Alamdar Manafov) which I recently deleted because it appears to be a recreation of deleted items Q113611229 and Q113558244. CC @ MisterSynergy, Minorax as deleting admins. The user has been pointed at our notability criteria and given other good advice. In particular, they were specifically instructed to include evidence of notability when making a request for undeletion here. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 13 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

bovlb please undelete what you deleted incorrectly

Kastriot Hetemi

Onur Gürler

Onur Sar

Muhammad Ali Acarzade

Tolga Dinler

Hijabi Machete

Everyone thinks I'm right because you keep quiet about what I wrote, please open these people back, just do it as an honest manager

Duplicate section. Nothing new here. User blocked. Bovlb (talk) 16:17, 13 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. Bovlb (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Amazing things are happening on this site,

https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Topic:X32hmdvaic8htdqh 

He took seriously the person who committed the vandalism with the insulting username of insulting the President of the Republic of Turkey, listened to his proposal and approved it. Unbelievable things are happening on this site, does the admin who listens and approves what this person says does not approve of my significant data? I will report you to such places that your mind will stop.

What do you think you are doing?

Duplicate section. Nothing new here. User blocked. Bovlb (talk) 16:17, 13 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. Bovlb (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms (Q63225180)

Hello, just reporting this behavior here, specifically from User:PBZE, don't know if this protection- or block-worthy. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q63225180&action=history (Removing valid information and responding unconstructively) Thanks AntisocialRyan (Talk) 00:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this page should just be temporarily protected AntisocialRyan (Talk) 00:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done for a month. Mahir256 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action! AntisocialRyan (Talk) 00:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Kiwi Farms is a neo-Nazi stalking website that doxxes people and harasses them to suicide. You really don't need to link to them, and doing so is a violation of global Wikimedia policy. Wikipedia is refusing to link to them for this reason. PBZE (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I support the taking down of that platform, for the record. No matter if the URL stays or goes, the page should be protected for a while. You also kept removing the founder. AntisocialRyan (Talk) 01:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@PBZE: What section of what global Wikimedia policy do you believe is violated by linking to it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
PBZE is being unhelpfully vague here, but there is some informative discussion at en:Talk:Kiwi_Farms#URL, with some links to ENWP policies (en:WP:ELOFFICIAL, en:WP:ELNEVER). There is some history of ENWP refusing to publish official links (e.g. 8chan, Silk Road, Sci-Hub). I believe you can squint at meta:Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities and see a restriction on linking to sites that are primarily copyright infringement, but I too would like to see the argument spelt out explicitly. Bovlb (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikidata:BLP states that we should only provide information about living persons that does NOT violate a person's reasonable expectations of privacy. The primary purpose of KW is to publish dox' on otherwise non-notable individuals and such linking to the site does not serve a purpose other than to help or otherwise incite others to harass said individuls in real life or worse. If people can get around the policy of BLP simply by posting link to someone's dox, it ultimately makes the policy ineffective
On another note, if editors can't bring up concerns of serious privacy violations without having accusations of 'censorship' thrown at them, it sets a poor precedent that are going to result in people ultimately not bothering to call attention to the issue. @Bovlb:--Trade (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
While I applaud your concern for the privacy of living people, I think it's a stretch to say that WD:BLP, as currently written, prevents us from having an otherwise appropriate official site URL because we judge that site's content to violate the privacy of unrelated entities. Such a principle would prevent us from linking to many "news" sources. Bovlb (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:1.46.135.42

1.46.135.42 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Adding importunately spam/nonsense at the project discussion pages. --Wolverène (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked by Stang. Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 14 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. Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 213.0.87.12

213.0.87.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Multiple vandalisms, most recently re Jean-Luc Godard (Q53001). Huñvreüs (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done and item semi-protected for a week --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:03, 14 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for Q110287719 protection

Repeated vandalism. Madamebiblio (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done BrokenSegue (talk) 00:25, 15 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. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Bola Tinubu vandalism

There has been ongoing birthdate vandalism on Bola Tinubu (Q3510872). I suggest protection until after the presidential election concludes on 25 February 2023. gobonobo + c 23:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 15 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. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.122.207.155

95.122.207.155 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism by banned GRP, Wikinger, or a friend.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, but I have given them a 31h block and hidden the edit summaries. This may be related to this thread on my user talk page. Bovlb (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Now globally blocked as open proxy. Bovlb (talk) 03:24, 15 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. Bovlb (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:114.125.156.107

114.125.156.107 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Disruption in project space. –FlyingAce✈hello 03:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like block evasion by Vice President Sony Esau Mbisikmbo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). 114.125.144.0/20 is range blocked on Commons for the same type of disruption. –FlyingAce✈hello 03:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done blocked the IP block. BrokenSegue (talk) 03:37, 15 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. BrokenSegue (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113978686 Batuhan Şahin. Reopening Request

Hello Dear Wikidata Officials,

Q113978686, Batuhan Sahin. I want to ask you the wikidata thread known as (Yeisso).

I got the information that the title I entered yesterday was deleted because it was created as more than one spam.

but this is the first time I am entering this data and I have nothing to do with incorrect data, incomplete and problematic data entries that others have made in the past. I created it for the first time.

I want to say this about the person whose data I entered.

Batuhan Şahin (known as Yeisso) is a nationally recognized figure in Turkey. As a publisher, this person's presence on Wikidata is a necessary contribution. All social networks have blue ticks. A Publisher, TikToker and YouTuber with a verified badge.

And like the common name of every publisher Batuhan Şahin (known as Yeisso).

YouTube Twitch Tiktok

Their accounts have been verified with a blue tick badge.

news sources;

Batuhan Şahin (known as Yessio) is on Youtube's list of top rising content producers. (top four)

https://onedio.com/haber/youtube-2021-yilinin-en-yeni-duyurdu-1028481

https://shiftdelete.net/youtube-turkiyede-2021in-en-populer-10-videouzun-acikladi

Who is where, biography news;

https://www.mynet.com/batuhan-sahin-yeisso-kimdir-social-medya-fenomeni-batuhan-sahin-kac-yasinda-110106938755

https://www.trhaber.com/kimdir/social-medya-fenomeni-batuhan-sahin-kimdir-batuhan-sahin-yeisso-kac-h41150.html

Social networks ;

Youtube channel (Verified Badge, Blue Tick account): https://youtube.com/channel/UCfQyCYVPbfT4sfd3SmZ1UMg

Twitch Profile (Verified Badge, Blue Tick account): https://m.twitch.tv/yeisso

TikTok Profile (Verified Badge, Blue Tick account): https://www.tiktok.com/@yeissoofficial?=tr-TR KhanFel (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I deleted Q113978686 because it was a recreation of deleted items Q112794857, Q112487419, Q112812895, Q112194327, Q112065546. CC @ HakanIST , Lymantria , Mahir256 as deleting admins. See also Topic:X36ectsu5qezzzbw and (for background on the OP) Topic:X2u8vd7ui1vclooc. Bovlb (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Aren't we here to prove it's notable? I don't care if it was opened in the past. It was opened incorrectly. Therefore, the negative decision was made. Why do you keep explaining the past to me? Is there anything that interests me here? The past is not a topic that interests me, as a contributor, I say that there is a good reason for this person to be on Wikidata. Please write in an understandable language. I do not understand what you're saying. KhanFel (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This person needs to be on Wikidata, dear admin, could you please carefully review what I wrote? KhanFel (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I have. There is no sign of notability to be found. --Emu (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Could you please explain a little more in detail? KhanFel (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
On what basis are you saying this? Can you explain?
All resources have been prepared in accordance with Widata notary policies. KhanFel (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
If you make a decision, you have to say why. It is an extremely wrong admin character to look out of the corner of your eye and make a decision, dear admin. KhanFel (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
This person's presence on Wikidata is essential to Wikidata.
All social networks of this person have been verified with a blue tick badge.
All bibliographies place him in the list of top publisher and top content producer. They are links that will be accepted by any sane person who sees the links. KhanFel (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Blue ticked social media accounts are not sufficient for notability. Lymantria (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
All bibliographies place it in the list of top publishers and top content producers. He has been admitted to the best publishers list. If you look at the links posted, you will understand. These are totally remarkable links. KhanFel (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let’s look at the four links you provided:
  1. per w:tr:Onedio this is user-generated content and therefore irrelevant
  2. 404 error – not found
  3. I don’t know what this is. User-generated content? Branded content? Some sort of low-budget press release? Either way, it’s irrelevant.
  4. same as 3.
“blue ticks” aren’t relevant. That’s all the concrete evidence for notability you provided. --Emu (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Did I enter an ad? Are these my paid articles? This must be a joke.
https://onedio.com/haber/youtube-2021-yilinin-en-yeni-duyurdu-1028481
Go to the link and hit find on page, type "yeisso" and see it's in the top 4 in the best publisher list. Did you believe?
https://shiftdelete.net/youtube-turkiyede-2021in-en-populer-10-videouzun-acikladi
login again, find on the page and type yeisso
top creators list
1-Babi is in the game
2-Sasuke Pubg Mobile
my 3 channels
4;
"Yeisso"
Did you see the article? Did I enter all the ones on the list with money? If I entered, I entered the entire list, then dear admin, from your point of view.
https://www.mynet.com/batuhan-sahin-yeisso-kimdir-social-medya-fenomeni-batuhan-sahin-kac-yasinda-110106938755
The biography article is also on the most powerful national site, believe it?
What more should I do for you to believe, dear admin? Shall I send a bibliography link on news sites such as Dozens (Hürriyet, Milliyet)? KhanFel (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Convince the Turkish Wikipedia create and article and then come back here. I am not sure how many admins you need to tall you that the person is not notable? Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Did I enter an ad? Are these my paid articles? This must be a joke.
https://onedio.com/haber/youtube-2021-yilinin-en-yeni-duyurdu-1028481
Go to the link and hit find on page, type "yeisso" and see it's in the top 4 in the best publisher list. Did you believe?
https://shiftdelete.net/youtube-turkiyede-2021in-en-populer-10-videouzun-acikladi
login again, find on the page and type yeisso
top creators list
1-Babi is in the game
2-Sasuke Pubg Mobile
my 3 channels
4;
"Yeisso"
Did you see the article? Did I enter all the ones on the list with money? If I entered, I entered the entire list, then dear admin, from your point of view.
https://www.mynet.com/batuhan-sahin-yeisso-kimdir-social-medya-fenomeni-batuhan-sahin-kac-yasinda-110106938755
The biography article is also on the most powerful national site, believe it?
What more should I do for you to believe, dear admin? Shall I send a bibliography link on news sites such as Dozens (Hürriyet, Milliyet)? KhanFel (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Please try to avoid repeating yourself. It doesn't advance the discussion. Bovlb (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
No, these are not the only concrete sources, there are dozens of links. If you search on Google, you will see what a remarkable name it is. Type "Batuhan Şahin" or, as it is known, "Yeisso".
I never thought you would comment in such a weird way to a verified publisher with badges that made it to the top creators list.
This person is an important publisher to be entered as a must-have contributor for Wiki data. KhanFel (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108355445
Batuhan Sahin,
The publisher, known as wtcn, whose link I left above, has the same remarkable status as Ferit Karakaya.
Don't stop saying "Wikipedia" anymore, I'm begging you please. It is clear that this is not necessary. I'm not a child
Publisher known as Batuhan Şahin Yeisso
Like this name, it needs to be approved. Because it has the same notable status.
How else should I explain? The discussion is prolonged because it is possible not to see the facts. I'm trying to survive with admins who don't want me to contribute to the site.
Invalid links, invalid blue tick on all social networks, invalid to enter the top content producer list,
What is your heart doing? Does it make valid decisions? KhanFel (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
https://www.ahaber.com.tr/galeri/yasam/fenomen-yeisso-ile-deli-mi-nenin-kavga-goruntuleri-ortaya-cikti
https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/fenomenlerin-partisinde-kan-akti-masa-ve-sandalyeler-havada-ucustu-yaralilar-var-42036850
https://www.sabah.com.tr/galeri/yasam/youtuber-batuhan-sahin-yeisso-ile-abdusselam-yilmazin-deli-mi-ne-kavga-goruntuleri-cikti
https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2022/gunun-icinden/fenomenlerin-partisinde-kavga-masa-ve-siseler-havada-ucustu-7054791/
https://www.ntv.com.tr/galeri/n-life/magazin/fenomenler-abdusselam-yilmaz-deli-mi-ne-ve-batuhan-sahinin-yeisso-olayli-gecesi,dd4aqhvVA0m1PgjTNEEq2Q
Summary: Battle in the phenomenon party: Table and bottles blown up
In the past weeks, social media phenomena, including Abdüsselam Yılmaz (Deli Mi Ne) and Batuhan Şahin (Yeisso), organized a party in a nightclub in Karaköy.
As a result of the fight, Batuhan Şahin and two other young phenomena were injured by the blows, and the fight inside and outside was reflected on the cameras. After the incident, Şahin, who was treated at the hospital and received a report of assault, later went to the police and complained.
Look at the news that Batuhan Şahin, who is the subject of all the press and magazines, fights and fights with the social media phenomena that are the subject of the tabloid news. What do I have to do now for you to believe? KhanFel (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Look, I am not sure why do you think we can not check your contribution and see that you are a single-purpose account, created to get this item into Wikidata. I do not know whether you are paid or not, but this does not make your argument any more valid. The item is just not notable. Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
are you okay? This is a very serious accusation, I ask you to prove it. The news sites I mentioned are the largest national newspapers. (Hürriyet, Sabah, Milliyet, Onedio, Haber, Sözcü, etc.) And it is forbidden to enter news with money on these news sites.
Previously deleted data does not interest me, this person is in the ranking of the best creators. Of course, it's perfectly normal for me to try to insert and enter their data.
It has a name in the top 4 in the best content rankings and has a verified badge on all social networks. This guy is telling a helpless person like me to enter wiki data for money, right? it reaches me. I'm a person at home drinking coffee and watching TV like this. It's a really good fantasy world.
You have to be living in a beautiful fantasy world to believe that. KhanFel (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
All the feedback so far is   keep deleted. We don't seem to have any new information forthcoming. The discussion has now degenerated into personal attacks. I think we can draw it to a close now. Bovlb (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
In addition I have blocked KhanFel for 24 hours in response to his personal attacks. Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 16 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. Bovlb (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Problems with Pi bot moving commons interwikis to the wrong place

This week I had been trying to sort out the parishes of Antigua on commons. The interwiki between the commons and normal pages was wrong. It was linked to a category instead of page which meant that the commons page could not be found except for the en: pages because there is an exact name match. The commons buttons use the main page entry to find the commons page.

For some reason Pi Bot decided to remove the commons entry and change it a category which means that with the exception of the en: all 29 other interwikis of Saint Philip Parish cannot find the matching the commons page with the pictures. Mike Peel refuses to admit that it is in error. I am aking for a shutdown of pi bot, because many pages are now being incorrect linked and corrected errors are automatically undone the next day.

It is a generic error by glancing of the contributions of Pi Bot. Yesterday commons<->wikipedia link was added for Sol Plaatje University. The English page can find the commons link because the name is identical, but af:Sol Plaatje-universiteit has no commons interwiki and a user cannot tell that images and media exist, because the correctly added commons link was removed by Pi Bot. KittenKlub (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The example you give is not an example of a mistake by Pi bot. The commons category is linked to the category item Q49792818. I opened af:Sol Plaatje-universiteit, it shows in the left side bar "Ander projekte" >> "Wikimdia Commons" with the correct link. I don't see any problem. Lymantria (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It appear after a refresh so maybe that was temporary. The whole point is that linking to the category instead of the page is a major problem. I've corrected it again, but Saint Peter Parish (Q386093) has 29 interwikis, but Category:Saint Paul Parish, Antigua and Barbuda (Q9709137) has only 4 interwikis, and the media on commons button does not work on 25 interwikis because it cannot find the matching commons link and leads to a page not found. And while we are talking the bots is merrily moving interwikis from one place to the next, and tomorrow everything has to be redone again. So please shut down the bot when objections are raised.KittenKlub (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I've added commonscat to af:Sol Plaatje-universiteit to the bottom of the page (my Afrikaans is rusty), and if you press the button: "This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page." KittenKlub (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There's related discussion at User talk:Mike Peel. The bot's working perfectly, it seems to be a misunderstanding of how Commons category links work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I still think that the whole premise is wrong and unless dozens of templates on dozens of interwikis are changed, moving the commons wiki to category produces many errors on many pages.KittenKlub (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The templates need to be updated. Most just use Commons category (P373) still anyway, not the sitelinks. For more general info, see User:Mike Peel/Commons linking. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
But still templates other than af: are not changed, and to be honest, I'm not even going to touch that code after looking at it, because I am bound to break 1000s of pages and this is far beyond the capacity of a normal user. The point still which remains is that pi bot is breaking pages which is a much more serious error.KittenKlub (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
If someone else could help explain things to this editor, I'd appreciate it, please - I'm on vacation at the moment, and don't have the time. If they continue trying to revert the bot, though, that's likely to introduce additional errors... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I've looked at your changes. The problem was first identified at nl:Sjabloon:Commonscat and that one is even more complex, and I'm not touching. The point remains that the bot is breaking pages and while the templates are not fixed, it should not be allowed to continue breaking pages. The whole world is being turned upside down. A bot is to serve humans. Humans are not there correct bots.KittenKlub (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm still off the opinion that PI Bot should be shutdown, because its actions are controversial.KittenKlub (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@KittenKlub I haven't delve into the topic. But general rule is that if e.g. enwiki has both the article and respective category, Category:Saint Paul Parish, Antigua and Barbuda (Q9709137) and Saint Paul Parish (Q386093) respectively, then Commons category goes to category item (i.e. to Q9709137) Estopedist1 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is with interwikis. Often there are far more pages than categories. Example of Saint Peter Parish (Q386093) 29 interwikis, but only 4 cats (Q9709137). The fast majority of commons cat button templates are not able to find the commons cat. You can insist that the templates need to be changed, but just glancing over the code of the af: template, it is beyond the capabilities of any normal user. The problem remains that in case of Saint Peter Parish, 25 interwiki will not be able to find the matching commons category. Again if commons:cat -> page then all buttons on all interwikis function correctly because the interlink is readily available from wikidata without the need for complex code. KittenKlub (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem isn't just limited to commonscat template. The Spanish wiki uses an authority control with a commons link (See: es:Parroquia de Saint John (Antigua y Barbuda)) I also created Saint George Gingerland. Everything seemingly looks fine because unlike those other parishes it's a unique name and there's a PAGENAME fallback. The Spanish wiki does use a different name and es:Parroquia de Saint John (Antigua y Barbuda) cannot find the commons like in authority control. Of course the template is fully protected, so the suggestion that you simple reprogram the tempolates with some illegible code severely falls short here. KittenKlub (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Pi bot is doing the job according to our policy, commons categories are bound to go to category items, if they exist for more categories than commons alone. If the commons category is the only category for the subject, then it goes with the subjects item. For interwiki links there should not be a problem. For instance Bothrosternus (Q14924191) has no commonscat or commons link, which is at Category:Bothrosternus (Q14961170). Still ceb:Bothrosternus, sv:Bothrosternus and war:Bothrosternus show the link to the commons category. The link is found through topic's main category (P910). Wiki's using authority control with a commons link should be able to program that correctly at their wiki in a similar way. Apart from that, if you think that policy should be changed, this is not the page to do so. We will not block Pi bot for running in accordance of our policy. Lymantria (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@KittenKlub: I can confirm that what Lymantria and Mike Peel are saying is correct. This is the long-standing practice of dealing with these links at Wikidata. (Personally I would prefer if all the commons category links stayed on the subject item, but that is a thorny issue and not how it currently works ...) However I think we could do more to support our sister projects to update the code in their templates so that the correct link to Commons is displayed. Could you list the templates which need updating and I and others may take a look and help update them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

ALL Commonscat template and their variants on all interwikis have to be checked. We are talking about at least 500 templates most of which cannot handle the current PI Bot implementation and fail to find interwiki for pages whose name is different and who have a category on a different wiki. The Dutch, German, and Spanish commonscat are clearly wrong, but that's the tip of the iceberg, because one can assume that most are copy pasta from another wiki and most are wrong. The templates are often fully protected, and you have surprise like the Spanish authority control which has embedded code to show the commons link, but that's the old software as well.KittenKlub (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I will personally update nl:Sjabloon:Commonscat which seems to be your top priority. The others should be similar — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@KittenKlub: please check your articles on nlwiki now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually I hard linked the other parishes as you probably had noticed. It works, but the point remains that there are bound to be many more. By sneaking in a {{commonscat}} at Saint Peter Parish and pressing preview, it was clear that most major wikis failed (except for Indonesia, Russia and other non-Latin wikis probably discovered the error early on, because the PAGENAME default obscures the error in most cases). (And the Dutch has three less popular variants. The English wiki has many more variants etc.)KittenKlub (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that most templates use P373 not the Interwiki links at the moment! Mike Peel (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q1450.

Q1450 has long-term problems related to vandalism. Tbhotch (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q100488578 receives collateral damage as well. Tbhotch (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done Items semi-protected for a year / month. --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:21, 16 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Yusufberk342

Yusufberk342 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Creating non-notable items Rockpeterson (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

user is warned. Possible that all his creations (seven items) should be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Q12618

This is an request to unblock this page. Due to the semi-protection status meanwhile a second page for the town Olot (Spain) was created (Q23994114). Also new interwikilinks like to de.wikivoyage.org cannot be created. Creando (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Creando protection is put by the bot with rational "Wikidata:Page protection policy#Highly used items". Given item (Q23994114) seems to be not duplicate, because standalone articles in svwiki and cebwiki, seems that settlement vs municipality question Estopedist1 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:3030:40C:9D6B:1:0:6292:DC43

2A02:3030:40C:9D6B:1:0:6292:DC43 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Really strange deletions of labels in some languages. Probably related to Wikidata:Project chat#Short_dash_to_long_dash. Based on the IP ranges and certain behavioral characteristics, our old friend Tobias might be back. --Emu (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC) Emu (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Warned and some edits undone but there is still more work to do. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:165.155.162.31, User:165.155.137.50

User:165.155.162.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), User:165.155.137.50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Protection for Talk:Q54275340 Supaplex (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked and page semi-protected for a week. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:20, 17 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.116.135.24

79.116.135.24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Harassment / Personal attacks --Trade (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Topic deleted. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:52, 17 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:180.246.18.191

180.246.18.191 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Indonesian DOB vandal. Anr (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:55, 18 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User:MahmoudHossam94 and User:ReviewerPro are disruptive

These two accounts might very well be from the same person. The editing is highly disruptive: high jacking an old item to insert data about a "coach". They're clearly trying to get that Google Knowledge Graph ID. 1Veertje (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Both blocked since MahmoudHossam94 already received warnings. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Debola23 is another sock puppet associated with this bunch. 1Veertje (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
And   Done by Lymantria --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:17, 18 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Block this IP range because of vandalism

Please don't just block 2A04:4540:7410:2100:891A:5F9C:7E9B:F732 (talk • contribs • logs) because of this, but the wider range.-- Archie Battersbee (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Archie Battersbee: what range? Special:Contributions/2A04:4540:7410:2100:891A:5F9C:7E9B:F732/50 only shows one edit. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know the details for IPv6, but in v4 it would be a /24 range.--Archie Battersbee (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't usually block for a single IP edit. Can you point us at another problematic edit that you'd expect to be in the range block? Bovlb (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe a /50 for IPv6 is bigger than a /24 for IPv4. And there's still only one edit. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not done Single edit. --Lymantria (talk) 03:56, 19 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. Lymantria (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

hiding personal information

Contributions made by 1.46.31.108 today and yesterday contain personal information like addresses, passport IDs, and phone numbers. This includes edit notices. Is this the right place to request removal, or should it go to Oversight? --El Grafo (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a sign at the top of this page specifically telling you to go to oversight instead of posting about it here @El Grafo:--Trade (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Trade Whoops, but you just did the same again below. Did you email Oversight now or do I need to find the password for my long forgotten wikipedia e-mail address? El Grafo (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
It was gone when i wrote the post below @El Grafo:--Trade (talk) 14:32, 19 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. forget it, it's been handled El Grafo (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:178.43.52.29

178.43.52.29 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Harassment / LTA --Trade (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

only one edit in user:Lymantria's subpage. Lymantria knows what to do Estopedist1 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Edit hidden. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:06, 19 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Middle river exports

Report concerning (that user)

Instead of addressing issues which may or may not exist with item Downtown Baltimore (Q3038329), this editor created a new item Downtown Baltimore (Q113785980), and proceeded to move the en wiki, fr wiki, en wikivoyage, it wikivoyage, and he wikivoyage site links to the newly created item. A similar situation has occurred with at least one more newly created item. Attempts to communicate with this editor have now ceased, due to a specious, offensive, disingenuous, and patently false insinuation/not-so-veiled accusation made by the editor on my talk page that my edits are "racially charged". ⚊⚊ DCflyer (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

My edits are explained clearly on User talk:DCflyer. The WikiVoyage pages cover a broader area than the official neighborhood boundaries of Downtown Baltimore. Wikipedia often merges related topics to a single article, and this is a case where the scope of the enwiki article has become more broad than the subject item.
My statement was not an accusation, but just explaining why I was wary of how those particular edits came across. Neighborhood names in this city are a sensitive topic; of the 200+ officially designated neighborhoods each of them have multiple names or are congruent with differently named neighborhoods. There is no reason why multiple names for.a neighborhood cannot be reflected on an item. Middle river exports (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Boundaries of "downtowns" are often vague even when there is an official designation. Is there evidence that the broader area you made an item for exists as its own item? Or is the new item just a conflation? And why did you move all the wiki articles along with the wikivoyage? And why not hewiki? I'm confused. It doesn't seem like having two items here is helpful. It is often the case that an article will stray a little from the exact topic of the item but we still keep it linked. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Evidence the broader item exists is available yes. On the item I have referenced the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, an organization sponsored by the city which maintains a specific list of neighborhoods it considers part of downtown. I have also cited the downtown residential neighborhood organization which maintains a similar list. Further links I could add include Baltimore DOT documents (they have a specific broader downtown area they reference, as the area has different traffic policy, particularly as it pertains to parking), and historical documents (there is an identifiable range of areas which have always differed in built environment which may be called downtown).
  • Much of what is described in the Wikivoyage articles in particular is not in the bounds of the Downtown neighborhood, and the banner image is of a building which is not in it.
  • The enwiki and frwiki articles do appear to cover a more broad topic. The hewiki article however actually mentions the street boundaries of the officially defined neighborhood, which the others do not. (I learned recently that Hebrew readers/writers have quite a strong preference against including other scripts within a body of text, hence "Martin Luther King Street" transcribed in Hebrew without reference to the English spelling.)
  • The census population data is specific to the boundaries of the Downtown neighborhood as defined by the city. Population data is rendered meaningless without clarifying what area it is bounded by. There is a link to a map where you can see 2010 to 2020 comparisons in the references along these boundaries; to say that this neighborhood grew more than any other in the same time is referenceable so long as it is clear what area it covers.
  • As an example, it should be possible to link the items for Downtown West, a separately defined area with its own population and housing statistics, to Downtown, without having to conflate the two. Having an item grouping downtown neighborhoods makes sense for this purpose. If we want to conduct a query that outputs a range of the total population in the general downtown area, with the minimum value being the most conservative definition, and the maximum including all areas which have been documented as part of downtown, we can do this using the general Downtown Baltimore item.
  • A number of place names / neighborhoods / localities are well known but do not have any official administrative or statistical status. For example, Harbor East refers to a small area of the Little Italy neighborhood but is commonly referred to as being downtown. It would be inaccurate to say it is located in the Downtown neighborhood, but we should be able to document the fact that it is generally referred to as part of downtown Baltimore using a broader item.
Middle river exports (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Bizarrely, the Wolfram Alpha reference on the new area statement on the Downtown neighborhood is based on a boundary I have never seen before, extending along a single protruding street.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Entity%5B%22Neighborhood%22%2C+%22Downtown%3A%3ABaltimore%3A%3AMaryland%3A%3AUnitedStates%22%5D
The link claims this comes from OpenStreetMap
The boundary on OpenStreetMap however comes directly from the city government data and looks like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12792276/
If someone were to derive the area from the OpenStreetMap relation and divide it with the population figure, and someone else were to get the area from Wolfram and divide it, they would get different results for the population density without much context for why the Wolfram boundary can't actually be used in a comparison against other neighborhood items. This just makes the data harder to use. Middle river exports (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This sounds to me like the boundary of downtown is not well defined. Not that there are two different "downtowns". You say it's outside the "official" boundary but who is defining this? Is "Downtown Partnership of Baltimore" authoritative? Does the "Greater Downtown" area have a name that you can find a reference for? I also still don't get why you moved all the wiki links minus hewiki. If wikivoyage was the odd one out then only that one should've been moved. Did you also check what the non-English wikivoyages discussed? BrokenSegue (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
> You say it's outside the "official" boundary but who is defining this?
The City of Baltimore. I already said this was in the references:
This is the boundary used for the population figures as well.
> Does the "Greater Downtown" area have a name that you can find a reference for?
This source puts it distinctly:
> Though Downtown encompasses a number of core Baltimore neighborhoods, the Downtown neighborhood is distinctly bound by Franklin Street and Lombard Street to the north and south, respectively, President Street to the east and Paca and Greene Streets to the west.
https://livebaltimore.com/neighborhoods/downtown/
The referenceable name for the greater downtown is simply downtown. It makes sense to use a qualified name for this item and not the official one, because the official one ends up on maps (in which the context of adding a qualifier makes the map more confusing, as the city should already be labeled separately), whereas the qualified name is congruent with how other parts of the city are generally described (West Baltimore, East Baltimore, South Baltimore, and less frequently, North Baltimore. Downtown Baltimore is what is left after you have described all those places.)
> Is "Downtown Partnership of Baltimore" authoritative?
I will repeat that they are funded by the city but are a separate entity. They are endorsed by the authoritative body.
> I also still don't get why you moved all the wiki links minus hewiki.
Because the contents of the articles are not the same. The hewiki article mentions the boundaries.
None of the information in this reply is absent from my previous comment BTW. Middle river exports (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring by (that user)

Editor also persists in removing/moving valid external identifiers. Please see Village of Cross Keys (Q7930723) and Cross Keys Village (Q113908650). ⚊⚊ DCflyer (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

These identifiers are for geographic entities; above user insisted on removing population and geographic data from these items, so I created a separate item for the geographic entity to hold this information in hopes this would be an adequate compromise. The Library of Congress entries and in turn VIAF entries that the user cited for the modeling of these items do state that they are not to be used as identifiers for geographic entities. I would have expected that this means GeoNames for example conflicts with an identity for a mixed use development in part of the geographic entity at hand.
I am willing to cooperate and discuss but it is unclear what this user wants or what the purpose of this dispute is, or why this page has become a venue for discussion of these items in lieu of other talk pages. Middle river exports (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113536726 | Request Undeleting

Hello,

I think the deletion of this Q113536726 was made by mistake. He is a notable Entrepreneur

There are some proves for his notability such as his Google Knowledge Panel https://g.co/kgs/wGZ6NY

There are many news and PRs about him also

Multiple news sources (PRs):

2. FLAUNT https://flaunt.com/content/enzo-savio-cusumano 3. closer weekly https://www.closerweekly.com/posts/meet-coaching-and-lifestyle-expert-enzo-savio-cusumano 4. OK! NEWS https://okmagazine.com/p/enzo-savio-cusumano-tourism-company-all-in-one-city-thriving 5. in Touch https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/how-taking-risks-led-enzo-savio-cusumano-to-the-top

7. crunchbase https://www.crunchbase.com/person/vincenzo-cusumano 8. Time Bulletin https://www.timebulletin.com/reasons-that-helped-enzo-savio-cusumano-achieve-staggering-levels-of-success-as-an-entrepreneur-and-trader 9. VERNA MAGAZINE https://www.vernamagazine.com/2021/03/30/enzo-savio-cusumano-is-the-leading-sales-and-marketing-coaches-who-has-excelled-as-a-trader-too 10. XING https://www.xing.com/profile/Vincenzo_Cusumano2 11. GOSSIP https://www.celebritygossip.today/enzo-savio-cusumanos-tourism-company-all-in-one-city-is-thriving

14. DATA SOURCE HUB https://datasourcehub.com/learn-a-few-rules-for-successful-trading-from-ace-trader-and-entrepreneur-named-enzo-savio-cusumano 15. CELEBNATION https://www.celebnation.com/news_feed/how-taking-risks-led-enzo-savio-cusumano-to-the-top/ 16. RESIDENT WEEKLY https://www.residentweekly.com/taking-over-the-world-of-entrepreneurship-and-trading-is-enzo-savio-cusumano

18. Stats Globe https://www.statsglobe.com/taking-over-the-universe-of-business-venture-and-exchanging-is-enzo-savio-cusumano 19. DATA SOURCE HUB https://datasourcehub.com/tag/enzo-savio-cusumano 20. LATEST TALES https://latesttales.com/business/interview-with-enzo-savio-cusumano 21. US TIMES NOW https://www.ustimesnow.com/the-fire-to-reach-the-top-made-enzo-savio-cusumano-the-most-successful-entrepreneurs-of-today 22. staeulalia https://ita.jf-staeulalia.pt/come-l%27assunzione-di-rischi-ha-portato-al-successo-21520

24. DATA SOURCE HUB https://datasourcehub.com/tag/enzo-savio-cusumano 25. wallstreet online https://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/14308145-concierge-service-deluxe-deutsche-erfolgsstory-dubai 26. Entretenimiento https://www.noticiasdeentretenimientogsr.com/como-tomar-riesgos-llevo-a-enzo-savio-cusumano-a-la-cima/


29. TORNADO STAR https://www.thestar.com/sponsored_sections/amir-bakian/business-mogul-enzo-savio-cusumano-shares-his-challenges-and-wis.html 30. The Open News https://www.openthenews.com/enzo-savio-cusumano-raring-to-reach-the-top-of-the-coaching-and-trading-space

33. T NEWS DESK https://www.tnewsdesk.com/dune-sequel-to-be-latest-film-adding-to-the-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector

35. TODAY CAST LIVE https://todaycastlive.com/dune-sequel-will-be-the-latest-film-to-add-to-the-growing-film-tourism-sector-in-the-uae 36. SUBBMIT FREE https://subbmitfree.com/index.php/2022/08/02/dune-sequel-to-be-latest-film-adding-to-the-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector 37. TODAY NEWS https://todaynews.upexampaper.com/health-white-paper-should-be-malaysias-collective-statement-on-health-reforms-kj-more-news 38. NEWSBEEZER https://newsbeezer.com/Philippines/dune-sequel-is-the-latest-film-to-join-the-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector 39. Borometer https://infotourism.news/doon-sequel-will-be-the-latest-to-add-to-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector 40. ENTERTAINMENT https://premiere.news/doon-sequel-will-be-the-latest-to-add-to-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector MahmoudHossam94 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113536726 (Enzo Cusumano / Entrepreneur) was deleted as a recreation of Q113536726 deleted by @Fralambert. Bovlb (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Fralambert Do you plan to weigh in on this? Bovlb (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I have dificulty to recreate a item when the article of the Toronto Star is pay by the person thesmelf. This seem more as spamming that actual notability. Fralambert (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
That's organic PRs for a notable person even Forbes made an interview with him to discuss tourism in Dubai as an expert
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/08/02/dune-sequel-to-be-latest-film-adding-to-the-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector/?sh=2ecaad6b7e30#:~:text=Enzo%20Savio%20Cusumano%20of%20All%20In%20One%20City%20on%20the%20phone%20in%20his%20apartment MahmoudHossam94 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I made a mistake by recreating a page that's already exist or removed ,my mistake,
I didn't know the guidelines as I'm new contributor here.
and I still think this is totally a mistake to remove the WIKI page
@Fralambert
I can support the page with more references too MahmoudHossam94 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The vast majority of these sources are incredibly low quality or don't imply notability. The ones that aren't are paid placements (e.g. the one in Ok Magazine / Toronto Star / probably others). This person has spent a lot of energy trying to make it appear that they are notable. I would say keep deleted as these sources aren't serious. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
What about Forbes?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/08/02/dune-sequel-to-be-latest-film-adding-to-the-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector/?sh=2ecaad6b7e30#:~:text=Enzo%20Savio%20Cusumano%20of%20All%20In%20One%20City%20on%20the%20phone%20in%20his%20apartment MahmoudHossam94 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
That link is broken for me. Is the article primarily about the subject, or are they merely an interviewee on a different subject?
Also, please try to avoid repeating yourself. It doesn't advance the discussion. Bovlb (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Try this link. Enzo is mentioned in the second part of article speaking about tourism sector
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/08/02/dune-sequel-to-be-latest-film-adding-to-the-uaes-growing-film-tourism-sector/?sh=2ecaad6b7e30 MahmoudHossam94 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
isn't forbes.com/sites a blogging service that anyone can contribute to? Anyways this article isn't really about Cusomano. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
see https://www.writeraccess.com/blog/3-deceptively-reputable-sources-that-arent-what-they-seem-to-be/ for details on why forbes.com isn't a serious source BrokenSegue (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113978686 Batuhan Şahin. Reopening Data Request

hello, the deleted person named batuhan sahin needs to be restored.

Turkish Wikipedia page: https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batuhan_%C5%9Eahin

Show TV, television news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ6S8-bKhfA&feature=youtu.be Takvim: https://www.takvim.com.tr/video/magazin-videolari/deli-mi-ne-kanalinin-sahibi-fester-abdu-lakapli-youtuber-abdusselam-yilmaz-gece-kulubunde-kavga-etti-siseler-havada-ucustu Masterorionpix (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bovlb: as the deleting admin Trade (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Q113978686 (46.154.209.109) was deleted as a recreation of Q112794857 (Werosd), Q112487419 (KemalSunal34), Q112812895 (Serbayyy), Q112194327 (DeepPolice), Q112065546 (Meunsal). CC @HakanIST, Lymantria, Mahir256 as deleting admins. The TRWP page was created yesterday (Khanwhiteday0) and has already been tagged for speedy deletion (@Wooze). Bovlb (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
This is Masterorionpix's first contribution to the project. Bovlb (talk) 15:06, 16 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. Lymantria (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear authorities, can you restore the Turkey representative of Oneproglobal, the famous business person?

Hello dear authorities, can you restore the Turkey representative of Oneproglobal, the famous business person?

Thank you

"Q113662758"


https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/people-in-the-news/muhammed-ali-acarzade-has-been-appointed-as-the-turkish-representative-of-the-global-fintech-company-onepro-dvq27319

https://aetoswire.com/en/news/0709202226861

https://www.dha.com.tr/ekonomi/kuresel-fintech-sirketi-onepronun-turkiye-temsilcisi-muhammed-ali-acarzade-oldu-2130198

https://www.ntv.com.tr/ekonomi/onepro-turkiye-pazarina-muhammed-ali-acarzadenin-liderliginde-aciyor,UDxYOlBVqUqIS_Wolqvd1w

https://www.timeturk.com/yasam/unlu-is-adami-muhammed-ali-acarzade-oneproglobal-turkiye-temsilcilisi-oldu/haber-1747601

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senzaten67 (talk • contribs) at 18 September 2022 (UTC).

deleting admin was user:Bovlb. I am not sure that any of these sources are serious, but hard to evaluate Turkish stuff. Maybe user:HakanIST can help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Recreated quite a few times. OneProGlobal does not itself have an entry on wikidata or any wikipedia, and I don't think they should. Lymantria (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a famous company in the Arab world. Can you review and comment in more detail?

https://ibsintelligence.com/ibsi-news/onepro-expands-its-sphere-of-influence-to-turkey/

https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/people-in-the-news/muhammed-ali-acarzade-has-been-appointed-as-the-turkish-representative-of-the-global-fintech-company-onepro-dvq27319

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220907005673/en/Muhammed-Ali-Acarzade-President-of-Acarzade-Group-Has-Been-Appointed-as-the-Turkish-Representative-of-the-Global-Fintech-Company-OnePro

No. I also suggest to close future Turkish threads, so far all of them have been span and/or paid editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
How about next time someone asks us to undelete the same Turkish item twice we tell them to use their previous account. Closing future Turkish related requests feels a bit problematic @Ymblanter: --Trade (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is fine with me. But having the whole series of users coming here out of the blue and pretending they are all different seems too much. Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 18 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. Lymantria (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User block request Gimrj

Gimrj (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Created promotional/non notable items, check all the creations as well Rockpeterson (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

only one item creation on September. I answered here: Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q113900647 Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
RFD is started Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at their deleted items, I see an overlap with Nextenco (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Bovlb (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Error notice on churhes in Norway

Widespread error notice on churches in Norway that are all listed as World Heritage Sites (see: Tønsberg Cathedral, property P1435 (heritage designation), which has a single reference: deduced from: Search for cultural heritage Wikimedia import URL https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2118647#P758 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P758#P2302. Urdangaray (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the error notice you are talking about? Are they not actually heritage sites? BrokenSegue (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Urdangaray: Are you still experiencing this problem? Bovlb (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost all Norwegian churches are listed as World Heritage Sites when, in reality, there are hardly more than eight sites in Norway, and only one is a church (see: List of World Heritage Sites in Norway). --Urdangaray (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Urdangaray: but they aren't listed as World Heritage Site (Q9259) but just heritage site in Norway (Q11970056). Are they not that either? BrokenSegue (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Only Norwegian Heritage, not a World Heritage Site in Norwege.--Urdangaray (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Discussions

So there's been an influx of these discussions. In principle they are good because we need to be accountable and give people a chance to appeal decisions made. But the discussions that have been happening have been difficult. A few thoughts:

  • I don't think this level of back and forth is sustainable. It's going to burn out people.
  • Can we encourage people to write less text. We've been getting people writing walls of text and being combative. All we really want are a list of serious references. Maybe a template? Maybe a Help page that provides instructions on how to write an effective appeal?
  • Should we move these discussions to a different page to avoid cluttering this one? In theory we want feedback from non-admins too?

BrokenSegue (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m working on a “guide to requesting undeletion”. I’ll post a draft soon.
No objection from me to setting up a new board Bovlb (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Bovlb/Guide to requests for undeletion Bovlb (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree to have a new board. The problem we are encountering is that singe purpose or promotional, perhaps paid, editors are seeing their goal or income being attacked and they react accordingly. I'm afraid the guide will not really change that. Lymantria (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You may be right. My experimental deleted-content search engine (which I really need to open to other admins) has enabled me to be more effective in identifying recreated content, which in turn allows me to be more aggressive in deleting it. As a secondary effect, I think that this has taken some of the pressure off RFD, allowing others to process other non-notable items more efficiently. At the same time, I have been trying to wean serial recreators off their treadmill, partly by making it clear that we can see what they're doing, but also by offering the sop of an undeletion request. This approach has no effect on some spammers, as they continue to come back every day; some others seem to have abated. A minority have switched to berating us with walls of text. It's hard to see what the long term effect will be, or whether our entertaining these undeletion requests will change their behaviour at all. As Upton Sinclair (Q216134) said, “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." Bovlb (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I recommend undeletion discussion at deleting admin(s) talk pages. If admin(s) in question have problems, then he can notify at Administrators'_noticeboard. We probably need more administrative power (let's say 100+ admins) to open e.g. enwiki or Commons similar undeletion request page Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (Q13429672) Estopedist1 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes to more admins. But the accountability issue would probably be better addressed with a centralized variant of Wikipedia:Deletion review (Q4664130). --Emu (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Keeping undeletion discussions to the respective admin's talk page's will only serve to hurt transparency by making it harder for the community to add input--Trade (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The admin's talk page is fine for an initial request — the inevitable errors can be corrected quickly — but the path to final appeal should also be clear. Bovlb (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
In addition, we have pages by recreators deleted by several admins in those walls of texts and links above. The admin consensus may be obscured by restricting to admin's user talk pages, although an initial request is fine IMHO. Lymantria (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes. This is (unfortunately) the problem I face most often. I don't do notability deletions, but I do a lot of recreation deletions. Unless I see a substantial increase in indication of notability, I'm relying on the judgement of other admins (or RFD), and would prefer to have their concurrence (or a community consensus) to reverse the decision. Bovlb (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:137.101.64.56

137.101.64.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Similar nonsense edits, geolocates to Spain. Sjö (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for two weeks. Everything is reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:92.154.11.165

92.154.11.165 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeating vandalism. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for two weeks. Everything is reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q11892624

Leptodictyum riparium (Q11892624): species of moss: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Please semi-protect due to persistent vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  semi-protected for one month Estopedist1 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:45.117.246.236

45.117.246.236 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Should be range blocked .236-.244 are used. See e.g. history of Q1150083 Estopedist1 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done /22 range blocked for 2 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 11:22, 22 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. Lymantria (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:195.77.175.67

195.77.175.67 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism, multiple warnings Jklamo (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 1 year. Lymantria (talk) 11:25, 22 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. Lymantria (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113989825 | Request Undeleting

Hello,

I think the deletion of this Q113989825 was made by mistake. He is a notable Instagram/TikTok Comedian that has the blue badge verification on both his Instagram page and TikTok page.

He also has a Wikipedia page in the Igbo language (https://ig.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Kinsey) and this is the requirements for the creation of a wikidata page.

There are many news articles published about him on reliable sources:

Links to Sources that have written about him:

1. The Source

https://thesource.com/2021/11/15/influencer-paris-kinsey-consistently-goes-viral-on-tiktok/


2. The Guardian Ng

https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/meet-paris-kinsey-comedian-and-social-media-personality

3. THIS DAY

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/12/31/making-skits-on-social-media-changed-my-life-paris-kinsey/

4. NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

https://tribuneonlineng.com/content-creation-changed-outlook-on-life-%e2%80%95-kinsey/

5. East Coast Radio https://www.ecr.co.za/shows/carolofori/watch-crazy-ways-woman-tricks-her-brother-winning-bets/. Idoitrada (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would be me again. I deleted Q113989825 as a duplicate of Q110579793, created by Medialegendz and deleted by @Emu. The two items between them do have references (including those above and also [5], [6], [7]) and social media identifiers. Outside of these two deleted items, the OP has only edited one item in their 19 months here. Bovlb (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about the duplicate but my request for undeletion is regarding the one I created. I don't know what you mean by OP but are you trying to make it about me or are you trying to see if the subject is notable? Also just because a duplicate has been deleted before doesn't mean the subject is not notable for a wikidata page.Idoitrada (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You edited the first item before its deletion, some four months before its recreation. This entity is therefore two of the three items you have edited here, so I was assuming you might know about the duplication.
They may well be notable, which is what this discussion should determine, but we don't permit people to just keep recreating items once we've decided they're non-notable.
OP refers to original poster (Q11120075), which is you. We're primarily concerned with notability here, but user history has some secondary relevance. Anyway, my information was intended to provide additional background information for others joining this discussion, not seeking a response from you. Bovlb (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian (Q7738431) does appear to be a reputable source (though it reads as an ad). Nigerian Tribune (Q7033024) is also real. The article on The Source (Q2140254) is a paid advertisement so it doesn't count. No idea about THISDAY or The Source. But the existence of ig:Paris_Kinsey (for now) makes this kinda open and shut.   Keep. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Also nearly 15 million followers on tiktok is probably enough for me anyways. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
All sources seem to be ads / branded content / etc. Follower counts are famously easy to manufacture. But yeah, there’s a sitelink. --Emu (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Does it count if he's the one who created the Wiki article in the first place?@Emu:--Trade (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Trade Never thought about it but I guess, yeah, why should it make a difference? Especially when there is no active RfD in the other project. --Emu (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q334126

Please semi-protect Luis Sepúlveda (Q334126) - frequent IP vandalism, popular theme. Jklamo (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  protected for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:68.194.225.223

68.194.225.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Protection for Q2460511, Q2615221, Q126448 and Q2339636. Madamebiblio (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for three months. Everything should be reverted. We don't protect items if only one-two vandalisms by a single person Estopedist1 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:221.168.26.189

221.168.26.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism changing date of birth/death, eg. Special:Diff/1734987458 in Q786579. FYI, active globally [8] and blocked in en, ko, fr. Another IP 221.168.23.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) with identical behaviour, eg. Special:Diff/1734366742 in Q2850778. FYI, global activity:[9], blocked in ko, range blocked in en. Wotheina (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

blocked. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:06, 23 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. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User block request Peace Tshuma

Peace Tshuma (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotional only account, all item creations must be deleted Rockpeterson (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Although they are certainly creating items that do not clearly demonstrate notability, I have the impression that they are genuinely trying to cover an under-covered area in a part of the world where it is hard to document notability. I note that, with the exception of one empty item, none of their item creations has actually been deleted. Why don't you try either communicating with them directly or starting a deletion discussion on one of their items instead of starting threads here? Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@User:Bovlb: Sure, will keep this in mind Rockpeterson (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:185.80.140.145

185.80.140.145 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Advertisement spam / item hijacking on Windows 11 (Q107269746). Also seen as Special:Contributions/185.80.140.36 on the same item. CrystalLemonade (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done: item is protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Ideophagous

There's an unblock request at User_talk:Ideophagous that might benefit from wider review, especially from Arabic speakers. It appears to relate to a content dispute at Noureddine Bikr (Q12249129) between this user and the blocking admin. CC @باسم Bovlb (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t read Arabic but it sure does look like a content dispute. It’s also noteworthy that neither party added a source for the language claim. Also, there’s probably some backstory here. @User:باسم Is there any reason why you seem not to apply Wikidata:Administrators#Involved_administrators in this case? --Emu (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. With all due respect to Mr. Bassem, the way he behaved is not professional, and does not respect Wikimedia policies. Regarding the subject, I think that "Moroccan Darija" is available on Wikidata under the symbol "ary" If Mr. Bassem objects the existence of "Moroccan Darija" in Wikimedia projects, he can submit a complaint to the Wikimedia foundation. But as long as this language exists, he must respect it and respect the volunteers who develop it, instead of using power to suppress them and impose his own ideology on them. I hope that Mr. Bassem will become more open and receptive to the opinions of others, or give up his powers in case he insists on practicing this discrimination. Mounir Neddi (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The "Moroccan Darija" is an Arabic accent, not a separate language. We have objected and said this is an insult to the Arabic Wikipedia community and the Arabic language itself, and that acknowledging it as a sperate language is nothing more than Fraud. Will any reasonable English speaking person say that British English is a separate language from American English! why must we accept this as Arabic speakers! I will not accept this insult to my language and community, and - on a larger scale - to my culture. Sorry, I'm not negotiating any middle ground also. If the ary.wiki contributors want to consider this accent as a written language, then let them do so in ary.wiki itself, and not change facts on Wikidata-- باسم (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم: Thanks for responding.
To respond to one narrow point here: As a native English speaker, I often review edits where some actor is said to speak British English. I am not a big fan of such specialisation, primarily because it makes SPARQL query-writing harder, but I don't usually revert it, and I certainly don't block.
On the general point: If Google translate is assisting me correctly, you blocked this user for vandalism, lies, quackery, and sabotage. These are serious charges, and I don't believe you have adequately explained why you are not assuming good faith here. Nor have you addressed the point raised above by Emu about involved administrators. Bovlb (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: we have gone through this with some of the users active now on ary.wiki. we tried reasoning through Wikipedia and outside it, saying the things I have mentioned above. We tried reasoning through Arabic language experts, through books written by linguistics, that this is an accent not a language. We even had Moroccan users telling them this is wrong, and we got nothing but accusations that we are trying to force "our language" on them! Apart from that, the blocked user reverted my edits a couple of times, and I sent him a warning to stop that, and that both of us know why he is doing this, and that this is fraud, yet he reverted my edit again. As for Emu's question: this is not a personal matter between me and Ideophagous, I'm preventing the spread of wrong information! Arabic accents are not languages. When a person speaks Moroccan Arabic, or Khaliji Arabic, or Egyptian Arabic...etc., this is his spoken accent not his mother language as implied through this user's edit. The mother language is still Arabic, the accent is Moroccan. If any Arabic speaking person herd it, he would say: this is Arabic, a Moroccan accent. What this user is doing, is that he is making the local accent a mother language. Due to our previous experience on ar.wiki with such users and their denial of the previous facts, I had to be strict-- باسم (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This is only your opinion and that of some ideologically motivated users, including, unfortunately some Moroccans. If Moroccan Darija was only an accent, it would not have its own ISO-639 code like many other languages and dialects around the world, including Standard Arabic. Most linguists disagree with your opinion, and in particular I could cite the work of Moroccan linguist Mohamed El Medlaoui (Q110088043), who not only wrote a book about the grammar and phonetics of Moroccan Darija, but the book itself is written entirely in Moroccan Darija. The title of the book is العربية الدارجة (The Arabic Darija).
This however, is entirely beside the point. The option to add Moroccan Darija (aka Moroccan Arabic) as a value for property P1412 is available and correct in this case, and all you can do is ask for a reference, not use threats and intimidation to stop users from choosing Moroccan Arabic as a value. Regardless, the case has been escalated to the Bureaucrats' board, to ensure that you do not repeat this abuse of administrator powers. Ideophagous (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم You may or may not be right, I don’t know the merits of the case well enough and my knowledge of the Arabic language is very limited. But even if you are right, that’s not vandalism, that’s a different point of view. I would respectfully advise you to choose your admin actions in such a way that there is no question about the separation of content disputes and your admin work. --Emu (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Michel Bakni: can you please help explain the situation-- باسم (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
First I am an Admin in Arabic Wikipedia, I hope this is clear from the beginning.
Secondly, I do not understand why removing Arabic (which is the stated official language in the Moroccan constitution) and replacing it with the Moroccan dialect? For me, and taking the tension related to this subject into account, this is an ideological-based action, and should be reverted + warninging the user for Vandalism. If you are doing that with a good faith, why did not you simply add Moroccan dialect as a second spoken language? In short, why did you remove the Arabic language in the first place? if someone is Moroccan, he is assumbly Arabic speaker, unless you prove the opposite.
Thirdly, Arabic Moroccan is a dialect of Arabic. Although it has a strong local influence, it is still a dialect, like American English or British English, I do not understand someone removing English to put American English (Which also has a value in Wikidata). To add more, no grammar or academic work standardizes the Moroccan dialect, which is why it varies from one city to another. I do not understand how we can say that someone speaks this dialect objectively far from personal judgment. shortly, is there a standard way to tell if someone living in a border village with Algeria, speaks Moroccan dialect or Algerian dialect? Michel Bakni (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Please do not deflect this to a discussion about linguistics and what constitutes a dialect or language (by the way, the border dialectal overlap can also be found between European languages, such as Dutch and German). That's a discussion for Wikipedia articles. The subject matter here are the abuse of power by Mr. Bassem, and at best, you can discuss whether the claim is backed up by a source or not, which thankfully is the case, as I've already provided a source linked and quoted below. If you have an issue with Moroccan Arabic being an acceptable choice for P1412, you should take it with the Wikimedia Foundation. Ideophagous (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this isn’t the right place to argue the merits of the case. Ideophagous, I do however have to point out that you are doing this yourself right in the parentheses.
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t have anything to do with the values that are allowed to use with languages spoken, written or signed (P1412). At the moment, every languoid (Q17376908) is an acceptable value. If anybody wishes to change this, please find another forum to do so. --Emu (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Ideophagous (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey again,
I am not trying to change that, my question is why did Ideophagous remove the Arabic langauge? for me this is an ideological-based action. you can add Moroccan dialect, but why removing Arabic? Michel Bakni (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I replaced "Arabic" with "Moroccan Arabic" because there's no proof that the actor represented in the item is able to speak Standard Arabic, only Moroccan Arabic. It's not specified if he had formal education, or used Standard Arabic in his work in any of the sources I checked. If you have a reference showing otherwise, feel free to add Standard Arabic to the "languages spoken, written or signed" alongside Moroccan Arabic, which is already backed up by a source. Ideophagous (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Also not true, check here, this is a Morracan news website that states that he "يتحدث اللغة العربية"= speaks Arabic language. Michel Bakni (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The source I posted below says he speaks Darija. In this case, we can simply add both. Also French since it was mentioned in your source. Ideophagous (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the overlapping, this is not true, there is an official independent exam for German and Dutch, and you can easily tell how much a person masters each of the two. but can you do that in the case of Moroccan -Algerian delicts? my point here is to show that saying that someone speaks Moroccan dialect, or Algerian, is completely based on personal opinion with no independent relaibale way to prove or deny it Michel Bakni (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about the dialectal overlap on the border between Germany and the Netherlands. The existence of standard German and standard Ducth is due to institutional and historical choices made by each respective country. As per the distinction between Moroccan and Algerian dialects, that's actually pretty easy for a Moroccan or an Algerian, but I understand if it's hard or impossible for an outsider. Even within the same country, it's easy to tell from which region they come from the accent and the choice of words. But again, this is not our main topic. Ideophagous (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Bovlb and Emu. I was tagged in a related discussion so I am giving my opinion on the matter. In Wikidata, there is a field asking what are the languages spoken by the person. The actor is very famous in Morocco (he just died two days ago), and of course he spoke Moroccan Arabic (which is one of the choices in that Wikidata field, alongside many other choices), Arabic, and probably French. I do not understand why there would be a problem with that, and I do not understand why a user would be blocked for writing this very obvious information. Maybe I misunderstood the situation, but can it be better clarified, especially the procedure of how the blocking happened? Best regards -- Anass Sedrati (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Now unblocked by Mahir256. Bovlb (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
(ec) @Bovlb, Mounir Neddi: I have undone this block for the simple reason that a reference URL has now been provided for the language claim in question. I have instructed the user in another forum not to restore the claim at this time, however, and I will let other speakers of linguistic varieties derived from the speech of the inhabitants of a piece of land between the Red Sea and the Gulf situated to the south of Iran litigate the actual content issue without needing to resort to blocks. Mahir256 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Thanks for opening the discussion, and thanks to the admin who granted my unblock request. Concerning the content dispute, here is a link to an article stating clearly that the actor Noureddine Bikr (Q12249129) speaks Moroccan Arabic (also known as Darija). The exact quote:

نور الدين بكر واحد من أبرز الكوميديين المغاربة من الجيل القديم اشتهر بإتقان الدارجة باللكنة الأمازيغية

(Translation: Noureddine Bikr is one of the most prominent Moroccan comedians from the old generation, and he was known for his fluent Darija (Moroccan Arabic) spoken with a Berber accent)
@باسم could have easily requested a source to support the claim, which I would have happily searched for and provided, even though it's par for the course that a Moroccan actor would speak Moroccan Darija (or Berber in some cases), and any Moroccan would easily confirm that (some of his work is available on YouTube as well).
Unfortunately in this case, the actions of @باسم go beyond legitimate due deligence from an administrator. This administrator not only did not apply the anti-Vandalism procedures as outlined by the guidelines (especially considering his direct involvement in the case), but also his core disagreement is not over the content, but rather over the legitimacy of Moroccan Arabic as a language, and whether it should feature in Wikidata items. He tried to use threats and intimidation to stop users like myself from choosing the item "Moroccan Arabic" (Q56426) as a language instead of "Arabic" (Q13955), not specifically in this item, but in general. This is not something I would expect from an administrator who are supposed to be impartial, and rise above their own ideological leanings to uphold the principles and goals of Wikimedia projects. Below is a translation of the messages we exchanged in Standard Arabic:
Bassem:
لا تجعل اللهجة المغربية هي اللغة الأم لأعلام المغاربة.
translation: do not make the Moroccan dialect as the mother tongue of Moroccan personalities
... كلانا يعرف أن هذا كذب وتدليس. لو استمرّيت على هذا لن أتردد بمنعك. إفعل ما تشاء في الموسوعة الدارجة، لكن أن تُعمم الأكاذيب على أنها حقائق فهذا لن أسمح به.
... we both know this is falsehood and falsification. If you continue, I will not hesitate to block you. You can do whatever you want in the Moroccan Arabic Wikipedia, but I will not allow spreading lies as truths
وأرجوك لا تقل لي أن هذه ليست لهجة والجهة الفُلانية تعترف بها على أنها لغة، كل هذا لا قيمة له، وكلانا يعرف أنه كذب ولو صدر من أكثر الجهات تخصصًا في العالم. أتمنى أن لا يتكرر الأمر مُجددًا
And please do not tell me this is not a dialect or that some institution recognizes it as a language, all of that has no value, we both know this is a lie, even if it's issued by the most specialized institutions in the world. I hope this will not be repeated
Me:
الحقيقة هي أن الدارجة المغربية هي اللغة الأم وليست العربية، كما أن الشخص المعني يُمثل بالدارجة المغربية و ليس بالعربية الفصحى، و هي متاحة كاختيار في قاعدة البيانات ولا يوجد سبب لمنع استعمالها. في حال استمرارك في التدليس أو تهديد المساهمين بهذه الطريقة، سنتخد المساطر اللازمة
The fact is that Moroccan Darija is the mother tongue (of Moroccans) not Standard Arabic, and also the concerned person is an actor whose work is in Moroccan Darija, not in Standard Arabic, and it (Moroccan Darija) is available as a choice on the database, and there's no reason to ban it. If you continue this deception, I will have to follow the proper procedure (against it)
Bassem:
منعتك لثلاثة أيَّام بسبب تخريبك المُستمر. ليكن بعلمك أنني لن أتهاون معك أبدًا في هذا الكذب والدجل (أنت وغيرك). فإما أن تتوقف وإلا سأُمدد لك المنع بحال عُدت للتخريب تحت أي حُجَّة من حُجج تفرُّد واستقلال اللهجة المغربيَّة
I have blocked you for 3 days for constant vandalism. Know that I will not tolerate it such lies and quackery (with you or anyone else). Either you stop or I will extend your ban if you return to vandalism for any reason regarding the uniqueness or independence of the Moroccan dialect.
Either way, this will be escalated to the bureaucrats' board, as I believe Mr. Bassem should stop his abuse of adminship for ideological purposes or otherwise. Ideophagous (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Info This matter has been taken to Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Complaint_against_User:باسم_for_abuse_of_adminship. --Emu (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect, I think that's premature. I think you'll find that the bureaucrats prefer to enact a community consensus, and will be reluctant to step in while a discussion is ongoing. Bovlb (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. This wasn’t the smartest move. (Just to be clear: I just posted the   Info, I didn’t take it to WD:BN.) --Emu (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Bovlb: @Emu:, which concensus are we trying to reach here? I think the source I provided is pretty clear (the same phrase I quoted is used by other sources by the way). As to the abuse of power by Mr. Bassem, that seems obvious as well. His answers also show clear bias in the matter, and the fact that it's not a content dispute, but an ideological settlement of accounts. The bureaucrats can decide what procedures they want to apply from that point on. By the way, his colleague User:علاء just flagged 5 photos I uploaded on Wikimedia Commons for purported lack of persmission (when I clearly specified that they were either my own work or sent to me by the author). You can draw any conclusions you want from that. Ideophagous (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for providing sources.
The point I was trying to make is that this is the primary venue for discussing administrator misconduct on Wikidata. Bovlb (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
We have no jurisdiction over Wikimedia Commons and very limited scope to respond to actions there. Bovlb (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been reviewing some other blocks by باس. Most are unobjectionable, but two stand out as potentially indicating a pattern of behaviour.

  • In 2022-06, User:Levis K. Ellingsworth was blocked (twice), apparently for edit-warring with باسم about whether Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco (Q175176) had Berber (Q25448) as a native language.
  • On 2022-03-18, User:Masry684 was blocked for vandalism. I cannot find any related edits, but the talk page message says (Google translated): You were banned from editing Wikidata for your various sabotages and forgeries in the elements related to Egypt, the most important of which is the history of the Egyptian homeland. What you are doing is nothing but a distortion and distortion of facts based on a narrow racist view that I have already warned you about in the Arabic Wikipedia. I hope you stop this after you get back, or else you'll be banned for a longer time

Bovlb (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The first one seems OK to me, or at least the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, as it seems far-fetched, though not impossible (Q175176's mother is Berber). The second one I can't make any comment on without context, as I don't know what the edits were about. Ideophagous (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks.
@باسم: For the Masry684 case, I see that this user is blocked on a couple of projects, but can you identify the specific edits that led you to block them here? Also, can you explain why you think it's appropriate to do so with comments like those? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb: that was due to his historical inaccuracies out of his pride in Egypt. For example here he made Saladin "the Sultan of Syria and Egypt" (that seems OK in English, but not in Arabic, because we don't use the word "Syria = سوريا" to reference the Levant region, we say "Al-Sham = الشَّام" or Bilad Al-Sham", and Syria is used only to describe the modern republic or the Roman province), also here he describes Aybak as an Egyptian Mamluk Sultan (again its not accurate in Arabic, as our traditional and modern sources never describe the Mamluks as Egyptians or Syrians...etc. We only refer to them as Mamluk Sultans = سُلطان مملوكي or "rulers of Islam from... to ..." or "Sultan of the state of Egypt and the Levant (Mamluk Sultanate) = سُلطان مصر والشَّام). Same here with Baibars. Another Example is here here, where describes the Battle of Ain Jalut as a battle between the Egyptian army and the Mongols. We never use this in our sources, we say: the Muslims army = جيش المسلمين or the Islamic army = جيش الإسلام or the Mamluk army = جيش المماليك.
This user had a history on ar.wiki of changing such facts out of his pride in Egypt, including changing the identity of certain celebrities (if an Egyptian actor of example is of Egyptian and Turkish roots, he would remove the Turkish side). I wrote him a couple of times explaining that this is historically inaccurate and that he should stop. You can't give an identity to a historical person or a state when the idea itself never existed. for example, if it was said that a person is Egyptian (Masry = مصري) back then, this meant one of two things: he is from the City of Masr = مدينة مصر (Modern old Cairo) or from the land of Egypt, not from the modern Arab Republic of Egypt. I also tried explaining that what might be acceptable in English sources (or any other language) won't be necessary acceptable in our sources, and that we should stick to our terms not foreign ones. Add to that i tried reasoning with him that his denial of any non-Egyptian roots to an Egyptian person is pure racism. Naturally he didn't listen and kept on doing this, and later i noticed that he moved to Wikidata and started changing things as he pleases, and i had to block him to stop this-- باسم (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم Would you act in a similar way again, both in the Ideophagous case and in the other two cases? --Emu (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: when they are vandalizing and spreading lies and inaccuracies you mean-- باسم (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess that answers my question. Although I have to say that this answer is fairly concerning to me. Please try to separate content disputes from your admin work. --Emu (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia has language codes for British English. When it comes to German dialects, the dialect spoken in Baveria even has it's own Wiki https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hoamseitn . Historically, there's the view that a language is a dialect with a navy and I can see that from the perspective of pan-Arab nationalism there's a desire for not treating Arabian dialects as their own languages, but Wikidata is not the place to declare the ultimate truth of what's a language. If there are sourced claims of someone speaking a certain language that's all that's required for it to be listed. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I’d love to hear wider input, but I feel we can conclude the following here:

  1. It is not inherently vandalism to make claims like languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) Moroccan Darija (Q56426), although it may be viewed as contentious.
  2. Nobody should be edit-warring.
  3. Editors should add references to claims, especially when they are contentious or contested.
  4. Administrators must be careful to separate their content disputes from their administrative actions.
  5. All editors should be careful about allowing ideological bias to affect their contributions here.
  6. Editors in general, and administrators in particular, should not throw epithets like “vandal”, “lies”, “racist”, “sabotage”, “forgery”, “quackery” at other editors where there is a plausible basis to assume good faith. These are reasonably interpreted as a personal attack or harassment and may lead to a block.
  7. The block of Ideophagous was inappropriate.

@باسم: Can I please get your agreement on at least some of these points? Bovlb (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I agree to the 3rd, 4th (again I don't have a personal issue with Ideophagous, and I explained why I blocked him), 5th (partially and I'll mention why). I admit that I shouldn't have used some harsh words, so I agree to the 6th as well. I don't agree with the last point, because its related to part of the 5th. If my action was considered ideologically motivated, then so is believing the Moroccan accent to be a separate language-- باسم (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم: First of all it's called the "Moroccan dialect", neither you not anyone can change that. Note that in ISO-639, actual accents have a hyphened code where the first part is the code of the language (eg for British English it's en-gb) whereas dialects have their own code (ary for the Moroccan Arabic, mey for Hassani Arabic, arq for Algerian Arabic, etc). We rely on verifiable information, not opinions. Whether they should or should not be separate languages is mostly a matter of politics, and is out of the scope of Wikimedia projects. I fail to see how somebody from the Levant should weigh in on a subject they're clearly not qualified to talk about, concerning the Moroccan dialect, and try to suppress the expression of a culture, claiming it is "an insult to their own community". Actually many editors on arywiki contribute to arwiki as well, there's no competition here. Ideophagous (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ideophagous: get me an Arabic School teacher (not a university professor or a linguistic) and lets hear what he has to say-- باسم (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Linguists are the ones qualified to talk about dialects and languages and their structures and differences. Teachers just teach. That being said, there are teachers and courses of Moroccan Arabic in Morocco, usually for foreigners who want to settle and integrate into society. Ideophagous (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I just want you to revise point 1, or make it more clear because it can not be interpreted or translated into Arabic, where the conflict mostly exists. In Arabic, we clearly separate the accent from the language, we use different and distinguished words and these can not be mixed, leading to the fact that this will continue to create the same conflict again and again. Michel Bakni (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Point 1 seems fairly simple and translatable to me. What revision would you propose? Bovlb (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello again,
I do not have solution, I am refering to the source of the problem. You need to think from Arabic point of view to understand what is the problem.
Please also note that I am explaining the origin of the problem only, and I am not discussing it, this is just for the sake that we are all on the same page. P1412 is read in Arabic: Spoken languages (and not dialects), while Q56426 is read in Arabic: Morrocan dialect (and not language). The problem is when you put a dialect item in language propriety, in Arabic, at least, this does not work because the two are completely distinguishable and have two separate words, from two separate origins, and the two have different meanings. Arabic has tens of dialects, even the Morrocan dialect has its own subdialects, this diversity is a feature of the language itself, and all dialects are Arabic from the grammatical point of view, which is why it is called English: Morrocan Arabic. Historically, please note that dialects exist always in Arabic, from the beginning, it is part of its evolution. In this context, Arabic is not like Latin. Michel Bakni (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Michel Bakni So your point is that the Arabic description of languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) semantically doesn’t allow for dialects? Then I believe the Arabic description isn’t precise enough. The property as of now accepts every languoid (Q17376908). This does include dialects. And I think there is agreement that Moroccan Darija (Q56426) is (at least) a dialect. --Emu (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes exactly.
I was searching for the word languoid. I could not find any Arabic equivalent for it. Although I searched in three linguistic dictionaries. The etymonline dictionary could not also identfy this word.
but the English description of P1412 excludes dialects as well, it reads: language, variety of a language, or group of languages. Correct me if I am wrong. Michel Bakni (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Variety in a linguistic sense includes dialects (see w:en:Variety (linguistics)) --Emu (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Point 3. I would say "Editors should add serious references to claims". And if the claim is contentious or contested, then editors must add serious reference(s). By the way, we also have statement supported by (P3680) VS statement disputed by (P1310)--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I am wondering how we can have serious sources for a dialect: no grammar, no standard writing, and no written materials. If two individuals, pronounced a word differently, there is no standard way to tell which one is right, or even if the two are right or not.From my point of view, this is an epistemological problem. Michel Bakni (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Moroccan Darija has grammar and many papers and books have been written about it. There are several dictionaries of it as well, 3 of which at least have been written by Moroccan linguists (one by Mohamed Chafik محمد شفيق, one by Mohamed Boussellam محمد بن البشير بوسلام, and another by Abdellah Chkairi and Abdelouahed Mabrour عبد الله شكايري، عبد الواحد مبرور). Hence my early statement to Mr. Bassem, unless you're specialized in linguistics or you're a Moroccan who searched a bit into these topics, you're not really qualified to talk about the Moroccan dialect. The standard form is the work of political institutions and academics, and it usually does not arise spontaneously. No language would have a standard form without a State to enforce that standard. Ideophagous (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Your claim is not true, Basque (Q8752), I have not heared of a basque kingdom. Can you please refer to some of these journals and books written in this dialect? Michel Bakni (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
For Basque there is this royal institution Q202042. It doesn't have to be the sole official language of a kingdom or republic. Ideophagous (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
We've compiled a whole list of works written in Moroccan Darija here Q108603387. It includes novels, non-fiction, newspapers and magazines, as well as dictionaries and glossaries. Poetry collections and theater plays have their own lists since there's comparatively too many of them. Course books were not included so far. Of course the fact that we can compile these into a Wiki list itself shows that there arent't that many of them overall (you can't compile a list of Arabic or English books for example), but publications in Moroccan Darija do exit and there's more of them every year. Ideophagous (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Why should the lack of standard grammar, standard writing or written materials (the last one is an astonishing claim given that there is a Wikipedia in that language) be an obstacle to find serious sources? Note that we currently have 352 different dialects used with languages spoken, written or signed (P1412), including 4732 for Egyptian Arabic (Q29919) and 211 for Moroccan Darija (Q56426). The property also allows sign languages, languages without any writing system, … --Emu (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello again Emu,
I think the key word here is "Standard", not "spoken" and not "writing system". Standardization is important because it provides an independent way to verify the information being addressed. Without standardization we are falling into subjectivity, the only way we can be sure about the fact is that we trust the editor who adds it.
Dialects are good for daily life communication in small communities and groups. but when talking about creating structural knowledge, dialects fall far away behind, because they lack the technical words to describe topics.
For example, when I checked the page referred to by Ideophagous I was able to read every single word in the article. this is not because I master the Morrocan dialect, but because all the words were borrowed from Arabic, English and French.
To put a summary, dialects do exist in Arabic, and they are heavily used in daily life. However, they can not be used reliably to describe the knowledge, any kind of knowledge, because they are subjective and lack standardization, in fact, they were never meant to do so.
I hope this is clear. Michel Bakni (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Please forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that a discussion of to what extent we can definitively know things about a particular language is not relevant to this case. If we have reliable sources clearly stating that someone can and does speak a language, that's surely enough, regardless of how standardised the dialect may be. Bovlb (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is related to Point 3. Fr me, not standardised = not serious (in best case hard to be accepted as serious) from epistemological point of view. Michel Bakni (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
You can discuss your epistemological point of view with the Foundation. The main topic here are transgressions and abuse of adminship of @باسم:-- Ideophagous (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Michel Bakni: We all hold opinions about a great many things and we are entitled to those opinions. But your point of view is certainly not the mainstream view in linguistics and epistemology (both fields I studied at university, although I didn’t enter those field as a researcher). And even if it were, that’s not what we mean by “serious”. So in the end it might be another language problem in the sense that you (and possibly the Arabic language, but that’s pure speculation) have a different understanding of the semantics of the word. --Emu (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree with that.
In linguistics, I have no idea what mainstream is. But in epistemology, I think I can argue that standardization is essential for building structural knowledge. I do not think it is disputed. That's why we have dictionaries in the first place.
We are discussing what a "serious source is". I want you to answer my question clearly. If a source uses a specific word, and we are not certain what this word means. Objectively, what can we do in this case?
Is this considered an unverifiable source, if yes, are unverifiable sources "serious"? Michel Bakni (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Let’s cut to the chase: Ideophagous has provided a source. Nobody even tried to discredit or question the source instead resorting to philosophical musings. There is no reason to open a discussion about our discussion of “serious” which is indeed famously elusive but doesn’t seem to be in this case. --Emu (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
You still did not answer my question.
But Ok, I defended well my point of view. You can add a conclusion. But please be precise. Michel Bakni (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Dictionaries don't define languages. They usually don't list all meanings that a word has in it's actual use. Common knowledge among linguists happens to be that natural lanuages are very complex and have a lot of details that are not easily written down in a standardized way.
If you want an objective standard for what a language happens to be, ISO 639 does that. It's is a standard for what a language happens to be and what isn't. It lists codes for langauges. At Wikimedia we also have https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee which makes decisions about what we add to our lists of languages. They decided to add the language code for ary. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It's interesting to read the successful Moroccan proposal and also the unsuccessful Algero-Moroccan Arabic proposal. Bovlb (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Why I pinged here (Assume bad faith!)? Regarding Wikimedia Commons files, please see this. Best --Alaa :)..! 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@علاء: The timing of the flagging of those 5 pictures I uploaded on Commons is suspicious (given the above), but regardless, the matter has been dealt with and clarified on Commons. Ideophagous (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

How to move forward

How should we move forward with this? I suggest the following:

  1. Lift the implicit quasi-protection of Noureddine Bikr (Q12249129) so that statements with sources can be added. (Note that this is different from Mahir256’s approach since it seems that there have been no efforts to resolve this conflict in a proper forum.)
  2. Accept the fact that Bovlb’s efforts to find common ground with باسم did not (fully) succeed and باسم seems to be no longer responding for more than 48 hours (note that there is no presumption about their ability or willingness of lack thereof).
  3. Hope that this content dispute will be resolved in full accordance with our policies, guidelines and informal understandings. This includes but is not limited to our expectations about proper admin behavior.
  4. Stress that the community has ways to enforce those rules if they are not respected.

Admins and other users: What’s your opinion? --Emu (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we add a fifth point to acknowledge that Ideophagous was not banned for failure to provide a source? But because he added Moroccan Arabic as a language @Emu: --Trade (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Trade I wouldn’t, mostly because we don’t know why Ideophagous was blocked because we can’t look into the blocking administrator’s head. --Emu (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: his words on my talk page betray what was in his head pretty clearly I believe. If you doubt my translation, ask someone else who understands Standard Arabic, or use Google Translate for an approximate translation. As they clearly show, Mr. Bassem did not ask for a reference and did not even address the veracity of the claim itself (that the actor spoke Moroccan Darija or not). His motives were purely ideological. I understand the reluctance to accept this given the lack of cultural context, but in the Moroccan Darija Wikipedia community (and among advocates for writing in Moroccan Darija in general), we are pretty used to these kinds of views and insults, usually espoused by pan-Arabists and some Islamists. I'm just shocked that an administrator on Wikidata would have such views and flaunt them on the platform, expecting their actions to go with impunity.-- Ideophagous (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ideophagous Note that I didn’t say that it wasn’t true that you were blocked for improper reasons. I’m also actually sympathetic to your impression that you have been wronged (although I don’t speak Arabic and can’t be sure). But I’m trying to find a consensus for the consequences the community should draw from this situation. Facts can’t really be decided by the community; actions can. And yes, I think that we as a community should move cautiously, probably more cautiously that you have hoped for. But I’m still optimistic that this content dispute can be solved in a way that’s acceptable for all parties in good faith. --Emu (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There is one thing still sticking to me about the communication by @باسم: to Ideophagous, where in Ideophagous' translation into English it reads "And please do not tell me this is not a dialect or that some institution recognizes it as a language, all of that has no value, we both know this is a lie, even if it's issued by the most specialized institutions in the world". If indeed we must see this as a correct translation of their words, this hits at the heart of wikimedia values. We rely on sources, certainly if issued by the most specialized institutions in the world. If admin actions are based on such argument, we may consider that as wrongly used admin power. I want to stress that I do not use "abuse" here, because I think it is clarified above that there may be an idiomatic issue at the base of this case or perhaps some regional or ideological bias. I would be interested to see if باسم in retrospect is willing to admit that their act in this case may have been less than accurate and that there might have been alternative options that in retrospect might have been preferred. Lymantria (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lymantria: Feel free to copy the Arabic text and put it through Google Translate for comparison. Also, Mr. Bassem did make additional comments above, which make his views pretty clear I believe.-- Ideophagous (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lymantria: indeed, it is a lie and I can't stress this enough. I advise everyone, and I'm so serious about this, to communicate with an Arabic teacher from Morocco itself, and ask him: is the "Darja" a language or an accent of the Arabic language? Also, how many Moroccans apart from the Berber people who might or might not speak Arabic as a second language, consider this to be true. Again, blocking Ideophagous was not just because of this lie, its because we at ar.wiki tried reasoning before, and we got nothing-- باسم (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
باسم First of all, we have already established that it doesn’t matter if it’s a dialect or a language for languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) purposes, so please stop making this argument, it’s not helping. Second of all and much more importantly, would you agree that you blocked a user because of a content dispute (after all, a “lie” is a question of truth) and because of their behavior on other projects? Because to me it seems that that’s what you just said. --Emu (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: it does matter in our case. A lie is a lie. You either help spread it, or stand by the truth. There is no middle ground. And I told you how can make sure: ask the opinion of an Arabic teacher-- باسم (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم No it does not. Anyway, please answer my question: Would you agree that you blocked a user because of a content dispute and because of their behavior on other projects? --Emu (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: yes it does. And no I don't agree-- باسم (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم Could you explain how blocking Ideophagous was not just because of this lie, its because we at ar.wiki tried reasoning before, and we got nothing doesn’t imply that it was about a content dispute (what you call a “lie” – which by the way wouldn’t change much) and about behavior on other projects (ar.wp)? --Emu (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
We have three problems here: i. value-type constraint (Q21510865) constraint of languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) restricts to a languoid (Q17376908), not a language (Q315). In particular a language variety (Q3329375) is allowed as value. Your classification of someone having as being a "lie" would deny language variety (Q3329375) to be a language variety. ii. We have , which is sourced. Although you consider this a lie, a sourced claim should be treated as such. You seem to hold on to facts, that seem to be opinions instead. iii. IMHO blocking because of a discussion in another project not having been fruitful is a faux pas. Conclusion: Your behaviour and reflection on it shock me. Lymantria (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@باسم: The simple fact that you keep repeating that we should "ask an Arabic teacher" shows that you have no qualification in the subject. That's not at all how you decide if something is a language or not. In fact, most of the 30,000 languages that have ever existed have never been written, and had no official grammar. That doesn't change the fact that they are/were languages. Moroccan Darija deviates from Standard Arabic on significant points (phonology, grammar, vocabulary and sentence structure) making it difficult to understand to speakers from the Middle East especially, but also some North Africans in other countries. And the fact is that a Moroccan Darija Wikipedia (arywiki) exists and will continue to exist as long as there is a community interested in developing it. The rest (standardization, official status, etc) is a matter of politics, not linguistics. We have a Wikipedia-level standard spelling which is established by community consensus, and for the rest we rely on the work of linguists who studied Moroccan Darija.
One more thing. I've never spoken to you or discussed this subject with you, nor did any of my colleagues in the Moroccan Darija Wikipedia, as far as I was told. I don't know why you claim that "we at ar.wiki tried reasoning before, and we got nothing", reason with whom, about what exactly? How do you "reason" about anything, when you explicitly reject reliable sources and the expert linguistic point of view about what constitutes a language/dialect? Ideophagous (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Also about this "how many Moroccans apart from the Berber people who might or might not speak Arabic as a second language, consider this to be true."
I'm not aware of any survey that answers this question nation-wide, but I can assure you that there are plenty of native speakers of Moroccan Darija who support writing and standardizing it, not just Berber native speakers. There are also those who oppose it, simply for ideological reasons, or because of what in my opinion are widespread misconceptions. I don't speak practically any Berber by the way. My mother tongue is Moroccan Darija. Ideophagous (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Commenting just on the use of admin rights, not on the content dispute, I can identify a clear misuse of admin permissions, without any acknowledgement by the administrator in question that this has been a mistake, even upon being explicitly asked. In case this kind usage of the admin tools continues, I believe a de-adminship procedure (as outlined in our admin policy) would be the correct way forward. The content dispute at least has to be resolved by other means. --Vogone (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I just read this whole thread (but that's it; unfortunately my time is limited). Certainly the behavior of the admin is less than stellar. Especially the unwillingness to separate the content dispute from their admin powers. I know nothing about Moroccan Arabic but even if the comparison to British English is apt; I would not ban someone for adding it. I would consider a revert. Perhaps there's some political element to this distinction that I'm missing. Could we not list both Moroccan Arabic and plain Arabic. All this to say that I don't know which way I would vote if deadminship were put to a vote. BrokenSegue (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Some pan-arabists are against treating Arabic dialects as seperate languages because they see it as sowing division or discord in the Arabic world. And some muslims are against it because they see it as a form of nationalism since Arabic are supposed to be the Lingua franca of the Ummah. Not calling him either of these two by any means but these are just common reasons @BrokenSegue:--Trade (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with your 1, 3, and 4. regarding 2, I did not intend my proposed findings only for باسم. I'm a little surprised that so few people were prepared to agree with any of them. Bovlb (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Emu, Bovlb: It's been 4 days since the last comment on this topic, and @باسم: had enough time to respond and explain himself. I believe we should move to the conclusion and action part, so this debate doesn't drag on forever.--Ideophagous (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ideophagous I think the facts are pretty clear now and several admins have commented on باسم’s behavior, some in a pretty unambiguous manner. That’s all that can be done in this forum. If there is another similar out-of-policy block, an admin removal procedure will probably have to take place. But I’m not sure about the results if such a procedure is started at this point in time. --Emu (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
While it's true that this is the first time this is proven to happen, I think the attitude of the admin is so grave that it makes no sense that he'd get away with it with a slap on the wrist. As commented above by @Lymantria:, Mr. Bassem does not even care about verifiability and sources, which is the very basis of Wikimedia projects. That's not mentioning the conflation of his opinions with facts, using admin rights to settle a dispute he's involved in, etc. If a comparable attitude had been shown by a normal user (disregarding the rules of Wikidata and the very spirit of Wikimedia to further their agenda), they would have likely been blocked immediately. I suggest deadminship as the most lenient response in this case. Ideophagous (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Emu:. sorry for mixing between editorial and adminship actions. I'll avoid this in the future. Best-- باسم (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ideophagous: If you suggest deadminship, you should file a request at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal. I myself, I am aware that having strong opinions may be hard to override when confronted with opposing opinions. Although I have been clearly criticizing the actions and initial justifications by باسم, I do think that an administrator may make a wrong judgement, given that (eventually) awareness is shown that it was not correct use of admin power. I think باسم has shown this awareness in their latest message. Lymantria (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
A pretty weak response from Mr. Bassem if you ask me. "Mixing between editorial and adminship actions" is the least problematic issue here. I'm rather baffled that this is being treated as some kind of misunderstanding when it's clearly a much more severe transgression than that. Nonetheless, I'm willing to let it go this time, and hopefully Mr. Bassem will learn to respect and uphold the principle of verifiability, and not treat his own opinions as facts.--Ideophagous (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring Oursana

Oursana (talk • contribs • logs) is edit-warring with me. Please also review my edits Wurmseher (talk • contribs • logs). Any native German-speaker which is willing to engulf himself in the subtle word-meanings of Restitution is welcome to judge.

I'm slightly appalled by the self-opinionated behaviour of this user, it would be fair not to revert before the points in debate have been exchanged.--Wurmseher (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

2 years ago https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1156800&type=revision&diff=1267141209&oldid=1255242389&diffmode=source I created the German text for this item which was accepted all the time. Now a new user comes along changing the text without any reference or arguments. My text ist in accordance with https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution, the item is a legal term which user:Wurmseher does not see or accept. I explained my revert on the disc, so I do not see any vandalism on my side, but on the side of Wurmseher.--Oursana (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto VI (Q23648408)

@Matlin: accuses me of 'removing sourced statements' for removing non-existent video game (Q73548809) from GTA VI

The source from the statement is literally titled Rockstar Confirms The Next Grand Theft Auto Game Is In Active Development yet Matlin keeps claiming that it somehow proves that the game does not exist

The description from Q23648408 reads: 'video game project, development (or announcement) of which is not officially confirmed by authoritative sources, or it's not confirmed by video game developer itself' which is disproven by the very same article--Trade (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:1.46.31.108

1.46.31.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Posting sensitive information --Trade (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for two weeks. Summaries are hidden Estopedist1 (talk) 18:43, 19 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I'm relatively new here. I noticed that via the IP address 80.28.98.53 vandalism has taken place over a period of five years (2016-2021). Most of it seems not to have been taken care of. Thanks. Kleon3 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I just went through all the edits and they all seem to have been taken care of. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:26, 19 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed interwiki links

Hello, please have a look at

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/98.114.13.32&target=98.114.13.32&offset=&limit=500

a lot of interwiki links have been removed for unknown reason. M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I skimmed through the edits and they all seem to be reverted. Thanks. I also blocked them for a day. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:38, 19 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Cartofi prajiti

Cartofi prajiti (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeating nonsense edit. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 20 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:BILL1

BILL1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reason:Mass changes and edit warring in merely an hour to Josephine, Tamta, Eleni Foureira, Valery Meladze and Elina Tzengo's nationalities without consensus and with editing that goes against wikipedia's MOS:BLPLEAD rule which says previous nationalities/descents should not be mentioned in the lead. 46.177.143.81 15:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

anonymous user please don't play this game with user:Bill1. Bill1 is also warned Estopedist1 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
1) They started edit-warring 2) A block would have been more appropriate for 50+ consecutive reverts but anyways. 46.177.143.81 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:208.98.222.126

208.98.222.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, vandalizing the same items:
Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
all three blocked for two weeks. Items are not protected yet. If multiple vandalism will continue, we will protect the item(s) as well Estopedist1 (talk) 19:06, 21 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:207.188.139.182

207.188.139.182 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA messing around with items related to airports and other locations in Spain. Can't remember the previous range, but Q114081273 is a recreation of a previously deleted item. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Found 'em! 213.94.52.36 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and 207.188.143.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) belong to this same user. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Q114081273 is a recreation of Q112625953, Q113976670, Q112817863, Q112971430, Q113085004, created by 93.177.120.86, 207.188.139.182, 213.94.52.36, 207.188.143.3 Bovlb (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Item deleted and IP blocked for 2 weeks. Bovlb (talk) 21:08, 21 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:1234678900poiuytrewsdfgbn cftyhn

1234678900poiuytrewsdfgbn cftyhn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. – LiberatorG (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed as vandalism-only account. Bovlb (talk) 21:53, 22 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Can't language link this module on the mk wiki

Would appriciate if you language link this module Module:Cite LSA/styles.css with the macedonian language wikipedia page. It says it is protected from doing language links Thank you --Инокентиј (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Инокентиј you probably mean enwiki en:Module:Cite LSA/styles.css. I guess that we don't create items for module subpages. Module:Cite LSA (Q22911570) should be enough. However it is maybe possible to manually add mk interwiki to this enwiki subpage. But this should be asked in enwiki, not in Wikidata Estopedist1 (talk) 07:20, 23 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing history

Hope this message finds you well. Please remove this edit, as it is very abusive. Meghmollar2017 • Talk 09:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  removed Estopedist1 (talk) 11:00, 23 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning user 80.196.98.114

80.196.98.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has on several occasions this year, including 4 in the last month, vandalized various primarily Danish items.--Hjart (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for six months. All recent edits should be reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 23 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Binance0000

Binance0000 (talk • contribs • logs) keeps adding what I assume is a referral code to Binance (Q51403327), similar spamming also across multiple wikis. TFerenczy (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Indeffed. Bovlb (talk) 16:54, 23 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Maraboutaguessi22

Maraboutaguessi22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism, replaced French descriptions by spam (revoked but account should probably be blocked) VIGNERON (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 24 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Add good entry badge for Guangde

A few months ago, Guangde was selected as a good entry in the Chinese Wikipedia. But I can't add this badge to the wikidata, showing that editing is blocked and asking me to contact the administrator. So could you take the time to add it? The number is Q1198031. 183.165.34.239 17:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done badge added Estopedist1 (talk) 17:26, 24 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.248.62.132

193.248.62.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Seems to specialize in disruptive edits. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done for 2 years. —Hasley + 23:25, 24 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:87.125.221.54

87.125.221.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: disruptive editions. Madamebiblio (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked not obvious block, because many edits are OK, but also massive gibberish, e.g. to Q108757235 Estopedist1 (talk) 05:22, 25 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concering 87.125.221.54

87.125.221.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) LTA vandal adding nonsense or blatantly incorrect like https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6337248&type=revision&diff=1735735776&oldid=1730054761 or https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q114164865&type=revision&diff=1735683811&oldid=1735683464. Sjö (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked same request as just above. Good patrolling, mates! Estopedist1 (talk) 05:32, 25 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

serious vandalism in Q132537

There is currently severe, partly criminal vandalism in article [10] (Robert Oppenheimer) by IP:2001:16b8:1843:ba00:815b:12f2:e0ef:6f54 and IP:2001:16b8:18b4:2300:815b:12f2:e0ef:6f54. It has been reverted, but neither has the article been protected nor have the IPs, which seem to relate to them same person, been blocked. This issue is publicly discussed in de:Wikipedia:Kurier (Hitlergruß auf Wikidata).--Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Related to that discussion I have created Special:AbuseFilter/177. --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
IP's blocked. Lymantria (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 26 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Attacks by banned Wikinger

I just reverted Wikinger. Please protect Q1190012. 185.248.199.106 11:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for a month. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:47, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Blanked user talk

I think this incorrect. Машъал (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not forbidden to blank the own talk page. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Машъал, Ameisenigel: in general, yes you can clear your talk page. But some info is not allowed to be deleted (e.g. unblocking requests). More info here en:Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings Estopedist1 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It's rule in Enwiki, not Wikidata. Машъал (talk) 15:29, 26 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

d:Q132537

Hello, please protect d:Q132537 due to vandalism:

Also see:

M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not done @M2k~dewiki. See discussion right above ("Serious vandalism in Q132537"). If vandalizing will continue, we will protect the item Estopedist1 (talk) 17:37, 25 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113639378

Some vandalism (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q113639378&oldid=1736305900, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q113639378&oldid=1736292321) were acted in Q113639378 related to a case in RIZIN. More vandalism might be acted in the page related of that case, so please protect the page. ( ja:ごぼうの党 has been already protected. ) --Linuxmetel (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not done @Linuxmetel only two vandalism since the creation of the item. If vandalizing will continue, we will protect the item Estopedist1 (talk) 17:40, 25 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Undeletion of Q113989825

Per the discussion here I undeleted Paris Kinsey (Q113989825). My understanding is that the existence of the ig sitelink makes it meet our notability standards by default. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support should be correct understanding. Unfortunately these mini-Wikipedias are "excellent tool" to (self-)promo any topic, because deletion may take many months or even years Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 26 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 128.131.238.99

Vandalism in Annalena Baerbock, Q564328. --Mautpreller (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) And in other items! Please stop it at once. --Mautpreller (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

THX.Mautpreller (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done @Mautpreller: IP is blocked, Q564328 is not protected because only one vandalism during one month Estopedist1 (talk) 05:27, 26 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning Brunnaiz

Brunnaiz (talk • contribs • logs) is removing or modifying all sex or gender (P21) of cisgender woman (Q15145779) and cisgender man (Q15145778) to be female (Q6581072) and male (Q6581097) without discussion. I believe that could qualify as vandalism, but I'm not sure. --William Graham (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@William Graham Why is their talk page a red link? Bovlb (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I will try their talk page first. --William Graham (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Cispersons are usually indicated by female (Q6581072) or male (Q6581097). A lot of searches and statistics will fail if it is changed to cisgender woman (Q15145779) and cisgender man (Q15145778), so I would more inclined to qualify the few uses of the latter (also without discussion as far as I know) as vandalism. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need trans man (Q2449503) and trans woman (Q1052281) (or the more specific variants). Since we have them, it would be more consistent to use cisgender woman (Q15145779) and cisgender man (Q15145778) where it is known, and use female (Q6581072) and male (Q6581097) only in cases where we don't know whether they were cis- or trans-. Bovlb (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Aidil281200

Aidil281200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalizing Wikidata to find security issues. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Envlh please notify himself, using {{subst:uw-vandalism1|QNUMBERHERE}}. If he will continue then notify at Administrators' noticeboard Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Estopedist1. When I saw your reply, you already had deleted their contributions and notified them. Thank you! I don't really know what to think about this case, because it's not the first time this user is vandalizing Wikidata or another Wikimedia projects. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 06:44, 29 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. Envlh (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Daffidak19

Daffidak19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

user is warned on 26 September. If he doesn't explain his edits, then we have to block him Estopedist1 (talk) 16:57, 26 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) 07:55, 29 September 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) 14:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for one year. Not first time Estopedist1 (talk) 17:02, 26 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) 07:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request

Special:Contributions/104.235.92.150 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 29 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.157.103.66 and User:Dfsafabjbjkjbjbjjkj

79.157.103.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reason: repeating vandalism in page Q56400459. --Martorell (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Also: Dfsafabjbjkjbjbjjkj (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) by same reason. --Martorell (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Vandalizing same item. So I protected the item for two weeks. Short period because only two vandalizing during six months--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 29 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. Emu (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Rosalía (Q28843759)

Requesting semi-protection for Rosalía (Q28843759). Has vandalism from IP addresses. Thanks. - Premeditated (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done 6 months semi --Emu (talk) 13:51, 29 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. Emu (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

RfD Wikidata talks

Okay, I really didn’t want to escalate this discussion further and I also fancy the current (almost empty) state of WD:RFD, but I also fear a precedent. Could somebody uninvolved please have a look at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/09/16#Bulk_deletion_request:_Wikidata_talks? One could probably argue about the merits but should Mike Peel really be the one to close this discussion? (CC Estopedist1). Thank you! --Emu (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: The discussion seemed to have stalled, with clear no consensus, and no-one else taking on closing it. I'd welcome others input on this though! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel You closed this discussion in April after only the item creator and me participated in the discussion. Then I reopened the discussion. Another user questioned the notability. On 29 August 2022 you wrote that you “won't try again” to close this RfD. Another admin chimed in, stating that deleting would be the default decision. Only the item creator (and possibly you) seem to oppose deletion.
It’s well known that you try to expand notability for Wikimedia-related people and projects (see Wikidata talk:Notability#Wikidata_information_is_being_directly_used_on_another_Wikimedia_project). Although it’s not a classic case of Wikidata:Administrators#Involved_administrators, I do think that this merits a discussion. --Emu (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: I was hoping that someone else would close it, but they didn't. I'm happy to see this discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Emu: It's worrying that no-one else seems to be willing to provide input on this here, same as on the RfD. Could someone comment on this please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel It’s indeed a sobering experience. --Emu (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
It's just not very important in my eyes. Personally I think they should be deleted but I don't feel it's worth fighting about. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally comment on something with just "I agree" without providing my own argument, but since you explicitly requested input, I'll say that I agree with Emu's interpretation and have nothing further to add. (BTW, it's possible the general lack of comments is due to other editors feeling this way as well; perhaps the wider matter of notability that's causing this particular problem should be put to a vote?) Silver hr (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I think we should keep those items for now, in spite of being of someone internal nature. It is clear what is described and sources are there in most (or all?) cases as well. Some of the data is also being reused at Wikimedia Commons, thus "structural need" is given as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning sockpuppets

  1. ChristopherHiken (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: AAShemul
  2. AAShemul (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: AAShemul

:: both of AAShemul are blocked--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Esthopedist1: Would you consider a indefinite block? That is usual when sockpuppeting/promotion only. Lymantria (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@User:Lymantria not correct pinging, but I found it.   Done: changed to indefinite Estopedist1 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
My apologies. Lymantria (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. Oluwafunmilayo23 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23
  2. LucaNeumannEntrepreneur (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23
  3. TheEntertainerXOXO (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23
  4. HansMasterCLS (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23 -   Not done single item, not recreated. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  5. Josh Frekan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23 -   Not done single item, not recreated. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  6. MistaEntertainer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23 -   Not done no edits. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  7. Opeyemizzy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oluwafunmilayo23 -   Done Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. Xghvnj (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Mudslushi -   Not done single item, not recreated. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  2. Afjtuy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Mudslushi -   Not done single item, not recreated. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  3. Godsbrains82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Mudslushi -   Done Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. Miladrashidi741 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Miladrashidi74 -   Not done single item, not recreated. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  2. Miladrashidi7415 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Miladrashidi74 -   Not done single item, not recreated. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lymantria, Bovlb:--Trade (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC) --Trade (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

See above. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was asking for them to be blocked for being sockpuppets, not for recreating items @Lymantria:--Trade (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I understood so, but as not being a checkuser I was not convinced about the ones I marked not done based on (lack of) edit patterns alone. Lymantria (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning 2A00:1FA0:4A21:BC66:0:59:939F:4701 (range)

This person, currently editing as 2A00:1FA0:4A21:BC66:0:59:939F:4701 (talk • contribs • logs) has been targetting the same couple items of politicians for several weeks. Other IPs 2a00:1fa0:400:45f8:0:5a:611d:5301 (talk • contribs • logs), 2a00:1fa0:4a66:90bc:0:47:c5fb:1601 (talk • contribs • logs), 2a00:1fa0:4a25:a550:0:5e:b178:8801 (talk • contribs • logs) and 2a00:1fa0:86e:98b5:0:6e:cbbf:ea01 (talk • contribs • logs). Is it range-blockable? If not please semi-protect affected items Jen Psaki (Q12066523), Nancy Pelosi (Q170581), Victoria Nuland (Q1188501), Condoleezza Rice (Q47216) and Olaf Scholz (Q61053) for a while. TFerenczy (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done; 1 month, thanks for reporting —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:55, 26 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Approve translation for a page

Hi,

I tried to add translation for the page: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%8A

to english: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohdw04/Omar_Wari

but i can't seem to be able to do it nor add the pictures and resournces.

Thanks, Mohammad Wari Mohdw04 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mohdw04: The enwiki page is in your user namespace. You cannot connect it with the other pages until it is moved to the main namespace. --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ameisenigel how can i move it? i can't have an option to do that Mohdw04 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Modhw04: If you want to publish your translated article to the English Wikipedia, you should use the en:Wikipedia:Article wizard to create a version in Draft space, which is the first step towards making it a live article in mainspace. See en:Wikipedia:Drafts for more info about the draft process. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:53, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Timaniha

Timaniha (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Recreating items about Tiago Vieira Barbosa despite being warned --Trade (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done User blocked. Item deleted. Bovlb (talk) 01:32, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:KIKI Nolan

KIKI Nolan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam-only user Xiplus (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

user is warned. Probably sockpuppet of user:Binance0000 (already blocked) Estopedist1 (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  blocked by user:Stang. All edits are reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 18:21, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Interwiki link to userspace for WikiElf userbox template

I attempted to migrate the interwiki es:Usuario:Userbox/Wikielfo from en:Template:User wikipedia/WikiElf to q14347240, but was stymied because it's in userspace. So is that template, effectively, so would someone be able to override the notability restriction there? Thanks. FeRDNYC (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We should not be. A link to user space is excluded to be valid: To be valid, a link must not be a talk page, page in MediaWiki namespace, special page, file, translations page, page in User or Draft namespace (...). Lymantria (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lymantria: I'm not a regular (or even irregular) Wikidata user/editor, and I freely admit I don't know how things work here. In truth, I don't know why the interwikis from that template were transferred over here at all — a bot did that. But, since they are here, it's somewhat frustrating and confusing to now have to have the interwikis split between the Wikidata entry and the template docs, because all of them have been migrated here except es:Usuario:Userbox/Wikielfo.
The other thing is... confusingly, that interwiki arguably isn't in userspace: es:Usuario:Userbox isn't actually a user account, it's a space they've reserved for their userbox templates, to keep them out of the es:Plantilla (Template) namespace. (That's explained, in Spanish though Google Translate did a passable job for me, at es:Wikipedia:Etiquetas de usuario, which is where es:Usuario:Userbox redirects to.) FeRDNYC (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand that is somewhat frustrating, but the eswiki choice prevents these userboxes to be linked through wikidata items. Lymantria (talk) 20:23, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete edits

Hello! Could you please remove these edits https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6840240&oldid=1606501498 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6840240&oldid=1606501813 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6840240&oldid=1606502275 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q6840240&oldid=1606502761. They were made due to errors and ignorance of how history works in MediaWiki Артём 13327 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Артём 13327: we need a Oversighter who can delete revisions. But I am not sure the action is really needed here, because edit summaries are already hidden Estopedist1 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact the edit summaries / user names have already been oversighted. --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:33, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:201.236.134.195

201.236.134.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: see contributions windewrix (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked, all edits are reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 18:31, 27 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:114.26.170.235

114.26.170.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Harassment --Trade (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the single edit at talk page of user:Bovlb. If he will continue we will block him Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

He's changing IP's. Please consider a range ban. Or at the least blackling the URL's locally

@Estopedist1:--Trade (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:188.119.43.126

188.119.43.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Recreating items despite warnings --Trade (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked Estopedist1 (talk) 07:44, 28 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Quevedo (Q112913522)

Due to repeated vandalism. Dorades (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  protected for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 11:49, 28 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.202.214.191

95.202.214.191 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeating vandalism. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for one month Estopedist1 (talk) 17:24, 28 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:45.80.89.44

45.80.89.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism. Wolverène (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley + 17:04, 28 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Q3938

This page has been semi-protected, and can edited by autoconfirmed users.

And what is your request? --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:38, 29 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:

[[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Eddykmwanza (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eddykmwanza: Please provide a user name or IP. --Ameisenigel (talk) 17:04, 29 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Q3546129 / Typhaine D

Hello, the Q3546129 item is regularly vandalized via an IP address, the latest being: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A01:CB15:82D0:7B00:C99B:EC93:E18A:8A74 . Is it possible to protect the element or to block the vandal account? Thanks a lot. Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done I just blocked the /64 range. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ameisenigel:. The vandalisms come from fr-wp, where the article is semi-protected. There have been numerous vandals with various IP and accounts; imho it would be safer to semi-protect the Wikidata item for at least a month, as this person is subject of harassment including on wikimedia projects. Best, Jules* (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  protected for two weeks. By user:Ash Crow Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jules*: All vandalism on Wikidata came from one IP range and I have blocked that range. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:42, 30 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:176.57.193.6

176.57.193.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeating vandalism. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for one month. Item's protection may be needed if vandalism will continue Estopedist1 (talk) 11:20, 30 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:103.169.170.140

103.169.170.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  blocked for one month. Everything should be reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 18:55, 30 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit in Abashiri district rejected

Hi, I tried to change the German label and description of Abashiri district, but unfortunately my edit attempts have been rejected as spam. The message tells me to inform an administrator, which is what I do hereby.

The reason for the edit is that “Abashiri Bezirk” is not proper German (“Abashiri Bezirk” is grammatically wrong, and a Japanese Gun is a “Landkreis” in German, see de:Gun (Japan)), so what I wanted to do was to move “Bezirk” out of the label and add a description telling that it is a “Landkreis”. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:143:75D3:C23C:64EB 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed. An abuse filter rule related to a completely different situation has prevented you from making this edit. That said, it seems you are using some sort of automation to make edits. Can you please do this with an account only? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I will do so in the future. (Those were some 250 items, something I do not want to do manually. The labels were probably generated by a bot, which, I hope, will not reinstate them or create more.) --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:143:75D3:C23C:64EB 19:44, 30 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Momo Hirai (Q23779926)

Just got vandalized immediately after protection expired. Permanent protection would be optimal. Lectrician1 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done; 1y semi-protected —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:32, 30 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:176.12.81.211

176.12.81.211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism CrystalLemonade (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done; 1y blocked as it is apparently a long-term problem —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:03, 30 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. Ameisenigel (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Duyguaktel

Duyguaktel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeatedly trying to hijack pages/entries (also xwiki). CU request on Commons is pending confirmed him to be a sock of User:Bakay022 who is vandalising here as well. --Achim55 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to undelete Q105099543

Hello.

I would like to request the undeletion of Q105099543 (Deletion requested by @EugeneZelenko on 14:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC) .

I'm happy to add more notability information if need be on the item.

This item was created in order to link openstreetmap points of interest to wikidata. It is used in the name suggestion index ( https://nsi.guide/index.html?t=brands&k=shop&v=houseware&tt=a#alicedelice-1b912f ) and is already used in 13 locations ( https://overpass-turbo.eu/ ). Some more should be added.

Example of newspaper article describing Alice Délice : https://www.lavoixdunord.fr/art/region/en-dix-ans-alice-delice-le-cookshop-lillois-a-conquis-jna19b0n784532 ( "since its creation in 2002 rue Esquermoise, the store has taken up space in our daily lives and has conquered the whole of France...")

Alice Délice branches exist in most big cities in France.

Note that I have no commercial or interest link of any sort with Alice Délice.

Nuxper (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have undeleted this item.
At the time of deletion, it had OSM Name Suggestion Index ID (P8253), which is a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316). The deleting admin was @ Mike Peel. Bovlb (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bovlb, Nuxper, BrokenSegue: I have no objections to its undeletion, but would suggest adding more references/authority control IDs/links from other items so that it doesn't have the same fate in the future. One link to a paywalled news article, and one property that may or may not confer notability, is not really enough. Also pinging @EugeneZelenko: who asked for the item to be deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Bovlb, @Mike Peel. I've added links to two additional newspaper websites without paywalls. I liked the "Voix du Nord" because it's a well known newspaper in France (3rd most read in France). "Ouest France" is the most read newspaper in France, even if the link I used is about one branch of the brand.
SIRENE ( Q3509449 ) is the French catalog of companies published by the government. I believe it's also a pretty good proof of existence, even if maybe not sufficient for notability. It references >200 employees and 25 branches.
I hope that's enough Nuxper (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Report concerning User:BILL1

BILL1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Continued edit warring over nationalities on various pages, currently on Giannis Antetokounmpo and Alex Antetokounmpo. User was previously reported on 20 September for the same reason. 46.177.31.36 23:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Giannis has Nigerian nationality, Alex too. I kindly ask you to first inform yourself about what applies, so that you are sure of the categories in which you will proceed. Friendly, BILL1 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BLPLEAD clearly says : previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. He is notable as a basketball player, not for being of Nigerian descent. 46.177.31.36 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes but it isn't "previous" BILL1 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Neither the main one. All sources mention them as Greek and wikipedia/wikidata should strictly follow what sources claim. 46.177.31.36 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I blocked user:Bill1. Reason: edit warring after warning. I think comments by anonymous user are relevant Estopedist1 (talk) 08:05, 29 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) 05:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

EuropeanCommissionBot

Hello. EuropeanCommissionBot is a bot, owned bu DD063520, working without permission, and adding duplicated statements. Its owner has been notified on User talk:DD063520#EuropeanCommissionBot. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Envlh thanks for notifying! I blocked the bot for a month. By the way, I discovered this failed request Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/EuropeanCommissionBot Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1@Envlh Hi, sorry I miss-understood somehow the approval process. The edits that we made are basically creating links between Wikidata and "The EU Knwoledge Graph" (https://linkedopendata.eu/wiki/The_EU_Knowledge_Graph). We are using a property that was created exactly for this reason namely https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P11012. We noticed that we introduced some duplicate statements. In order to correct this and continue the process could you activate again this account? We currently would like to align all these concepts https://query.linkedopendata.eu/#SELECT%20%3Fs%20%3Fid%20%3Fn%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%3Fs%20wdt%3AP1%20%3Fid%20.%0A%20%3Fs%20wikibase%3Astatements%20%3Fn%20.%0A%20%20FILTER%20%28%3Fn%20%3E%204%29%0A%7D%20order%20by%20%3Fn.--DD063520 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1@Envlh I think I got it. I created this request https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/EuropeanCommissionBot_1 for the task--DD063520 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you DD063520 for your quick actions. @Estopedist1: the bot EuropeanCommissionBot can probably be unblocked so the test run can be performed? Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Envlh@DD063520 unblocking is done. You can now perform test edits Estopedist1 (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspicion of autobiography in Q78195083

Hi, Antoine Dusséaux (Q78195083) was not created by A455bcd9, who I beleive is the person itself, but was heavily modified by them with a lot of unsoursed informations. How should I deal with it? Fralambert (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fralambert, yes I did contribute to the entry about myself after I noticed someone created it. Is it forbidden? If so, I didn't know and I apologize. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@A455bcd9 It's not forbidden, but item most respect Wikidata:Autobiography and Wikidata:Living people. So at least statement must be sourced by publicly available reference. Fralambert (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've just added some references. Merci. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Q114341125 Can you please restore the deleted internet celebrity.?

hello good day,

(@Lymantria, HakanIST)

Biographies and references that Kaan Akgün is an internet celebrity. instagram.com/kaanfel tiktok.com/kaanfel https://www.youtube.com/kaanakgun https://www.beyazgundem.com/kultur-sanat/kaan-akgun-kimdir-nereli-kac-yasinda-h1538890.html#:~:text=Social%20media%20phenomena%20olan%20Kaan,%C3%BCreterek% 20%C5%9Fu%20regained the current%20%%C5%9F. https://www.kapsamhaber.com/kapsam/kaan-akgun-bu-yilin-en-iyi-cikis-yapan-tiktokeri-oldu-h68149.html https://www.biliyo.org/kimdir/kaan-akgun-13018 https://open.spotify.com/artist/7z0zvulKBHiNCrDeQizVoX https://g.co/kgs/3QGV6T https://www.kimnereli.net/kaan-akgun.html

While adding Kaan Akgün's information to wikidata, the page was suddenly deleted. I haven't finished the data entry yet. This is the first time I am entering the name Kaan Akgün on Wikidata, I have no information about previous data entries. I would be very grateful if you could help me understand what the problem is. 193.192.107.174 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Continuation of Topic:X453mny5a5qeqe87. Bovlb (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping of @Lymantria, HakanIST= Bovlb (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I se not reason to undelete. Lymantria (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleted search

As I have mentioned before, I have an experimental tool for searching deleted items. It still has a number of known flaws, and I have yet to document it, but I wanted to get a version of the tool into the hands of other administrators, so it's not just me using it. Please double-check what it tells you, and don't just blindly trust it.

https://wd-deleted.toolforge.org/

Because this tool exposes the content of deleted items, I believe that current policy prevents me from opening it to non-admins. Bovlb (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I haven't tested it intensively, but this tool may be a breakthrough! Massive sockpuppeting is really annoying :) Estopedist1 (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll give it a month or two before the puppets starts applying to become administrators--Trade (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There isn't that much to see, honestly, but it can be helpful in some situations. The tool does expose quite some data that is not publicly available anymore to non-admins post deletion, thus I think the restriction to admins is necessary. An alternative could, perhaps, be to reduce information in the results for non-admins (i.e. only list Q-IDs and public information from the deletion log, but no content from the item).
Generally, the UI is still quite raw, and I don't understand the function of the input fields. I also see a lot of results that are seemingly unrelated to the search query. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not a UI developer. I threw it together last night. I wrote a little documentation. Bovlb (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Labels, descriptions, creation user, and creation time are all "secret" information. Technically a search match on label/description/alias is also using secret information, but the exposure there seems fairly mild. So under your proposal, a non-admin user would have to rely primarily on the deletion reason, which often does contain label, description, and creation user.
BTW, I have a lot of other information in the index (essentially all claims and sitelinks) that I'm neither searching on, nor reporting in search results. You can access some of them via "advanced" field search, but I haven't really documented my schema. Bovlb (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Metadata of deleted items such as Qid, creator and creation timestamp are publicly available on the archive table anyways and exposed via other tools as well (xtools for instance). What's not publicly accessible anymore is all content within the item page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
If the community feels that it would be alright to open this tool to (say) autoconfirmed users with the label and description hidden, that would work for me. Bovlb (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
if we really want to share this tool, then probably not more than for rollbackers--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Rollbackers sounds good. So is there community support for me to make this tool available to rollbackers provided that I filter out labels and descriptions? Bovlb (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I support it. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Me too. Lymantria (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It is done. Rollbackers now have limited access to the tool. Bovlb (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I added a feature whereby you can just enter a QID (of an existing item) to see similar deleted items. Bovlb (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
QID search can be invoked using a simple user script: User:Bovlb/deleted-search.js Bovlb (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The tool has had a long-standing problem whereby it sometimes could not resolve the hostname of the backend search service because of a short TTL on a dynamic DNS service. I have now switched to a new dynamic DNS service with a longer TTL, and have regenerated the certificates. Should be more stable now. Bovlb (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
In September, the following users created five or more items that were deleted:
ADSEnglishBot (751), Pi bot (141), M2k~dewiki (87), Chabe01 (56), JerusalemcinemaBot (31), NPImporterBot (12), Abubakar Yusuf Gusau (9), Epìdosis (9), Mmargherita97 (9), Godofwondersyouaresogood (7), Mohamed El Andam (7), Supaplex (7), Yahiaelroby (7), Islamc (6), JAnDbot (6), Metoverse (6), ScienceVolks Limited (6), Acsofak1 (5), Aishat Akintola (5), Mohamad mohafezat kar (5), Naimaakbd (5)
the following IP addresses created five or more items that were deleted:
79.46.69.220 (22), 207.188.139.182 (19), 95.49.72.23 (15), 93.144.14.69 (8), 174.240.235.100 (7), 2.199.183.28 (7), 41.220.147.130 (7), 204.101.131.130 (6), 2A01:CB08:8E02:1E00:1121:1C3:3AA9:92B8 (6), 188.211.177.172 (5)
and the following English labels were created and then deleted at least five times:
Fairmetrics/Metrics: Fair Metrics, Evaluation Results, And Initial Release Of Automated Evaluator Code (696), Mesoscale Modeling of the Circulation in the Gale Crater Region: An Investigation into the Complex Forcing of Convective Boundary Layer Depths (55), HIGHTICKETCLIENTS.COM (16), Fun888TV (12), milad rashidi (10), Memenachten (9), Metacoms (8), Cbouiref arezki 1913 alger 2474 (7), MILADRASHIDI (6), Tiago Vieira Barbosa (6), Cory Chamberlain (5), Ivan Gonzalez Barrasa (5), Luxury Bookings (5), Rasel Shikdar (5), Soji Oyetayo & Co. (5)
Bovlb (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
In the month of September, there were 10,204 deletions, 340 per day, 14 per hour. Of these, 47% had no instance of (P31) claim. Top classes were: human (Q5) (19%), Wikimedia category (Q4167836) (17%), Wikimedia template (Q11266439) (3%), Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) (2%), Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) (1%), statute (Q820655) (1%). Top occupations were: entrepreneur (Q131524) (1%), association football referee (Q859528) (1%), politician (Q82955) (1%). Top countries were: Brazil (Q155) (1%), Croatia (Q224) (1%), United States of America (Q30) (1%), Iran (Q794) (1%). Bovlb (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Top properties were: instance of (P31) (53%), sex or gender (P21) (15%), occupation (P106) (12%), date of birth (P569) (11%), country of citizenship (P27) (7%), country (P17) (6%), place of birth (P19) (6%), Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671) (6%), given name (P735) (5%), Instagram username (P2003) (5%), official website (P856) (4%), family name (P734) (3%), image (P18) (3%), Facebook username (P2013) (3%), Twitter (X) username (P2002) (2%), sport (P641) (2%), languages spoken, written or signed (P1412) (2%), educated at (P69) (2%), Freebase ID (P646) (2%), YouTube channel ID (P2397) (2%), title (P1476) (2%), inception (P571) (2%), main subject (P921) (2%), applies to jurisdiction (P1001) (1%), LinkedIn personal profile ID (P6634) (1%), category combines topics (P971) (1%), headquarters location (P159) (1%), ORCID iD (P496) (1%) . Bovlb (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the interesting metrics! Lymantria (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the tool to provide a summary of matches for each search result. Rollbackers can see this summary, but only the parts that match the query; they cannot see non-matching portions of the deleted documents. I hope this is an acceptable privacy compromise. Bovlb (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2022/09&oldid=1751138289"