Wikidata

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2023/07

< Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archive‎ | 2023

Report concerning User:114.76.230.66

114.76.230.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki LTA. Dorades (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. But some older edits are not patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

IP vandal

Special:Contributions/94.245.144.225. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:118.99.107.250

118.99.107.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism / SPAM (cross-wiki; related to unsolved request) Mykhal (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I still think the spam content/summaries should be hidden (see also edits from a IPv4 block from related request mentioned). —Mykhal (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I did note there was activity in the IP-range, so I blocked the /26 for 6 months. Edit: Both the .id and the .info domain is unregistered. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess even through these are not links, these are not random strings, and are seeded to wikis with some intent.
I can hide it myself, if you give me corresponding permissions. Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with the revision deletion policy, so I had to check. This isn't a right I'm able to grant. I guess the normal procedure with spam here is just to revert the edits. If you want I can grant rollbacker permissions since you have patrolled on Wikidata and is a sysop on the Czech Wikipedia with extensive anti-vandal experience. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Reason: Excessive vandalism Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 14:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 58.94.5.143

58.94.5.143 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Vandalism. –– Yahya (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

blocked. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2.57.131.64

2.57.131.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long term vandalic editions. Madamebiblio (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for 6 months. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:121.214.82.14

121.214.82.14 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Continued creation of nonsense articles after block. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Unsure how to approach this, if there's even a point to try and talk to the person. Ymblanter previously blocked him for a month. He's now busy again creating items which are indistinguishable from nonsense. Whois indicates the user understands english. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is nonsense. I think they should be blocked again for a longer duration. Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  Blocked Thanks. Blocked for 3 months - also did the same to 124.19.16.206, which shows an identical pattern. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning Shuvorajbisaws

Shuvorajbisaws (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Spam-only account. –– Yahya (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

user is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Stoopped after warning. –– Yahya (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotection for "2023–24 La Liga"

Some vandal using various IP-accounts has over the last week repeatedly changed the english and spanish labels and descriptions of 2023–24 La Liga (Q117246391) and 2023–2024 one-year-period (Q53386234) similarly to how 2021–22 La Liga (Q105770426) was vandalized a couple years ago. Hjart (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Both items semi-protected for a month because of continuous vandalism. --Wolverène (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.198.193.115

190.198.193.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Deleting roughly correct statements - to block and revert. Matlin (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 1 week. --Lymantria (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:46.48.255.100

46.48.255.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Inserting gibberish both in item labels and in project pages. This type of vandalism seems familiar – LTA perhaps? –FlyingAce✈hello 13:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that they are currently active, so I'll wait until they are blocked to continue reverting. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done by Matěj Suchánek. --Lymantria (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Personeneintrag Überarbeiten

Benötige bitte Unterstützung beim Ergänzen und Überarbeiten eines Personen-Eintrages. Wer kann mir bitte helfen? Danke :-) Foodknowledge (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Deine Frage ist sicherlich im Wikidata:Forum besser aufgehoben. Ansonsten ist für den Einstieg Wikidata:Tours hilfreich. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 19:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Pete Davidson (Q18097962)

Please semi-protect Pete Davidson (Q18097962) due to persistent vandalism (by the above mentioned IPs). Dorades (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done two weeks semi --Emu (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

SNP-Madrid

Mass edits without a bot flag. Does this violate Wikidata:Bots? — Tarkoff / 05:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

SNP-Madrid is the reincarnation of a banned user formerly known as &beer&love cf. this report. Stopped on his own on June 2nd, started with this new account on June 23rd. -- HvW (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done, blocked Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 19:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:FB1:157:D2ED:C945:A611:4E92:C707

2001:FB1:157:D2ED:C945:A611:4E92:C707 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalic IP Madamebiblio (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 19:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 200.84.42.251

200.84.42.251 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Vandalism. –– Yahya (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the third IP today with a similar pattern of removing images of celebrities. I blocked 190.72.168.139 and Lymantria blocked 190.198.193.115 also. From the description it sounds like the subnets belong to the same Venezuelan ISP. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I will keep an eye on these two (Special:Contribs/190.72.160.0/19, Special:Contribs/200.84.32.0/19) and report if a range block is necessary –– Yahya (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 08:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 189.195.193.49

189.195.193.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Reason: Vandal IP. –– Yahya (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  blocked for 31 hrs. --Esteban16 (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 08:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection for User talk:柏尾菓子

Please semi-protect User talk:柏尾菓子 due to persistent vandalism by cross-wiki LTA User:Sidowpknbkhihj (w:ja:LTA:HEATHROW). This LTA socks post messages which is not about Wikidata, though 柏尾菓子 says he/she will not reply messages which are not about Wikidata because that is out-of-scope; Special:Diff/1913453008 and Special:Diff/1927444150. I think semi-protection is required. For your information, 柏尾菓子 is a jawiki sysop who usually blocks this LTA socks. --郊外生活Kogaiseikatsu (talk,contribs) 09:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 6 months. --Okkn (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 2806:2F0:4020:E7E7:49D2:C2A:9149:9E8B

2806:2F0:4020:E7E7:49D2:C2A:9149:9E8B (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Reason: Vandal IP. –– Yahya (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done, blocked for 3 days. --Wolverène (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 174.212.228.118

174.212.228.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Reason: Vandal IP. –– Yahya (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 1 week. --Lymantria (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 16:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:94.245.130.75

94.245.130.75 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Inserting gibberish in item descriptions and project pages; see this report from a few days ago. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked by MisterSynergy. --Wolverène (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning Gamer0984

Reasons: Vandalism-only account. –– Yahya (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

blocked BrokenSegue (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done BrokenSegue (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Oddly, the same user has a history of useful contributions at Commons. Bovlb (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 2806:290:8800:548E:15F:8F95:866D:A30C

Vandal IP. –– Yahya (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Already blocked by BrokenSegue. :D –– Yahya (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

New RFP

This RFP was made earlier today, but not very visible: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Créateur de propriétés

Looking at the last property creations, it makes sense. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

SQcomp

Re-creating same non notable promotional item. See deleted contribs. –– Yahya (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

User:SquashCode1 is already blocked by Wolverène. –– Yahya (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done
Also as the final touch, they tried to vandalize/re-purpose items. --Wolverène (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I just deleted two more from IPs. We should also keep an eye on "Sagar Mondal". Bovlb (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 2A00:5400:F006:B32:EDB2:9DC9:52B4:CEC5

Reasons: vandalism. –– Yahya (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

SQcomp again

Reasons: see #SQcomp section above. –– Yahya (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorted out. --Wolverène (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Somsong Phoophom(SA)

Seems to be making a lot of nonsense edits. StarTrekker (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef as vandalism-only account. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semiprotect Nicola Porcella (Q19628813)

Please semiprotect Nicola Porcella (Q19628813) since there are constant vandalism edits by IP users. Thanks. --Ovruni (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

   Semi-protected for a month. --Wolverène (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning 87.3.97.240

Reasons: LTA (previous IPs: 79.41.187.6, 95.247.106.157 95.246.98.120, 79.36.107.239, 87.18.109.215, etc.). --Horcrux (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks sus.

Is the contributions of 154.160.21.148 legit? Links to the Ghana journal of science all have IDs that 404s. And the author strings are off. Infrastruktur (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It does look a bit suspect, but the author strings could be a tokenization error, and the journal links might work when logged in. I'd say to communicate with the editor, but it's a stale IP. Bovlb (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Properties created by user Harej are incomplete

Recent properties being created by user Harej are not complete. The creator is not including property constraints, linking the property to the subject item, or adding the property to the items for the examples given in the property. I think they need more instruction on how to properly create properties. Examples of this are BIBFRAME Hub ID (P11859) and QLIT ID (P11852). AdamSeattle (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Harej: Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I am relying on the documentation on Wikidata:Property creation. It does not do a very good job explaining everything that needs to be done. There are exactly two lines covering constraints, a much more complex area. I expect the people who have personal knowledge of this system to keep the documentation up to date. Harej (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
What would help me would be documentation of the relationship between the template parameters in {{Property proposal}} and the equivalent Wikidata data structures. Harej (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Guidance is plentiful, you only need to ask. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I am asking for documentation of what I am supposed to be doing. Telling me that I am doing it wrong, and that "guidance is plentiful," does not help me. Harej (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
It is generally expected from property creators to search for similar properties and model the newly created properties in a similar fashion. Wikidata is generally woefully underdocumented, users can’t rely on documentation to provide all the necessary information. Doubly so for users with elevated rights. --Emu (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Would anyone like to help be part of the solution? I can't document what I don't know. Harej (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There are help pages for all of the constraints: Help:Property_constraints_portal. Not all of them are used often but some very common ones are: single-best-value, distinct value, allowed entity types, property scope , subject type constraint and format constraint. The documentation is very minimal, but you can also inspect other similar properties to see how they are used, and ask if something is unclear of course. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
As for "the relationship between the template parameters in {{Property proposal}} and the equivalent Wikidata data structures", this is too generic to answer. If you have a more specific question, I'll try to answer that. Infrastruktur (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Lien direction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Rail Vers Union sportive du Rail Ouila94 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done in Wikidata. But you can do renaming request in enwiki as well Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:E0A:1AF:E790:DD7F:EF21:F2AA:E4DB

2A01:E0A:1AF:E790:DD7F:EF21:F2AA:E4DB (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: At least 9 vandalism performed by this user on the french singer "Wejdene" (Q97013816). I have reverted the vandalisms on (birth date, language, citizenship, heigth...). Regards GF38storic (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Doesn't seem like a continuous/insisting vandalism, so I'm not sure if we need to take actions like block or semi-protection after near half a day have passed. I've added Wejdene (Q97013816) to my watchlist for some term, going to see what happens next. --Wolverène (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism has repeated. The item is   semi-protected for two weeks. --Wolverène (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thiago2017

Vandalism-only account. –– Yahya (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

user is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:159.205.44.104

159.205.44.104 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: According to Special:Diff/1930698744, this IP seems to be used for block evasion of Matlin. I’m going on vacation tomorrow so I don’t have the capacity to follow through with any measures that might be necessary. --Emu (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Emu (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I blocked for a week, if someone thinks the evidence is insufficient pls feel free to unblock. Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:109.66.40.124

109.66.40.124 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism (all of their contributions in fact). E L Yekutiel (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The last activity was on July 1, the tendency of continuous vandalism from the IP is not obvious. No sense to block if the violator is not going to return, or will return anyway despite any block right now. --Wolverène (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.157.50.221

79.157.50.221 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on Q117725392. Could you semiprotect the element, for the matter? The person in question is officially single, rumours are not to be shared in Wikidata as facts. Brunnaiz (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong english label changes by User:LiaAve

LiaAve (talk • contribs • logs) , which until yesterday looks like added only wikilinks to armenian Wikipedia, in the last two days has been applying wrong label changes:

  • In many items it has removed without any apparent valid reason english labels (ex. Q63225363, Q213005, Q5593750, Q772494, ...).
  • In other items it has changed english labels to wrong values (I suspect in the armenian language) (ex. Q4794936, Q1392453, Q11505091, ...).
  • In some items it has only changed part of the label with the wrong value (ex. Q519800, Q115325409, ...).

Its changes in the last two days to english labels should be reverted. I'm not sure if these are involuntary errors or vandalisms, in doubt I wrote on User talk:LiaAve, please apply the necessary measures to prevent further problems. Danysan1 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

shock block for two weeks. She is not communicating. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the bots

How can we stop this battle of the bots: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q15983722&action=history that has one bot adding occupation=Jesuit and the other deleting it? CPU time is precious and the battle is wasting resources. See: User talk:Frettiebot where the issue has been reported, but not addressed. It started on 5 June 2023‎, and reverts every 24 hours. RAN (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Frettie, Ivan A. Krestinin: Bovlb (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I know, I wrote you I'd fix it, I didn't see the message. --Frettie (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
If "Jesuit" remained in occupation as deprecated, Frettiebot would no longer add this data. This is the correct solution.--Frettie (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I have reviewed the RFPs for both bots, and it is not apparent to me how these edits fall within either of them. Bovlb (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The Autofix feature of KrBot, while nice, is also risky. If someone does a bad edit to an autofix template it can cause a ton of edits that is hard to undo, since they aren't tagged with editgroups, or provide a similar mechanism for rolling back changes. A review might have pointed this out. Infrastruktur (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked both bots from this page for three months, which should give plenty of time to resolve this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning Somsong Phoophom(SA)1

Somsong Phoophom(SA)1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Reasons: Vandalism-only account & apparently a sock puppet of Category:Sockpuppets of SAsod11.

-- Miwako Sato (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked indef Estopedist1 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Lake Como (again)

It seems like we just got rid of the last thread, but my filter got tickled by this editor:

Poking around, I found these:

IPs and their non-redirect sitelink-free creations

@Horcrux, Fralambert, AttoRenato, Tol: Are the above candidates for mass deletion? Bovlb (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The number of languages added to Filippinism (Q107297812) seem really suspect. But all these seem to look like Lake Como. Fralambert (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Still the same problems: badly-compiled items of unclear notability and possible hoaxes. For what concerns the last IP 151.12.220.156, I have manually checked and corrected its contribs and I think Vasco Frati (Q120330410) should be kept, you can just delete Q120329820. --Horcrux (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Q12899392) :) AttoRenato (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC) @Bovlb: PS: I've got a few other IPs in my pocket, may I add them to your list? --AttoRenato (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Go for it. Bovlb (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have cleared all the above IP creations. Here's another batch of candidates.

More IPs

Bovlb (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

deleted Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Batch 3 (from AttoRenato) (11/350)

No deletable items from: (3) Special:Contributions/151.21.156.19, Special:Contributions/31.190.197.121, Special:Contributions/47.53.102.62

Bovlb (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

deleted Bovlb (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential new candidate (actively creating):

Bovlb (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and mass-deleted,. Bovlb (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm joining this discussion after talks on Bovlb page where I went to ask for the restore of an item that had several other edits from other trustable contributors and included some external references. I think that automatic deletion should be avoided if the item has gone through some evolution after the creation. This would imply some huamn check; maybe we can define an auxiliary property to mark "suspicious items that require evaluation" and add it to those cases.--Ysogo (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional feedback and don't plan to embark on any new historical mass-deletions at this time.
Perhaps I should have applied a maximum age filter. Two of the three undeletions requested were created in 2021. Bovlb (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking the edits of the latest IP (5.89.5.170), I see that now he is altering items "moving" them from other parts of Italy to Lecco. I'm going to reverse them.--Ysogo (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:126.253.137.109, 126.157.97.242

126.253.137.109, 126.157.97.242 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12099615 (Serhii Datsiuk) Brunei (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not done Low number of vandalism edits of some time ago. Apparently the IPs stopped. --Lymantria (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
There are continuous attacks on a person's page in uk.wiki for his political views. As the page was semiprotected they moved to wikidata. I believe some action is necessary, as nobody watches page here.--Brunei (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The item has been semiprotected for 3 months. --Lymantria (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:178.139.230.113

178.139.230.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA LiliaMiller2002. Based on their previous behaviour, this IP will probably edit again in the next few days. Dorades (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

An IP user 5.179.170.233, 5.11.99.206, 5.77.84.180 from Italy, whose IP number changes each time he visits, is engaging in vandalism and is erasing wikilinks, references, statements and descriptions in each Wikidata page, I have contributed in. This person will very likely vandalize again under a new IP number, in each each Wikidata page I have contributed in. 31.200.13.45 16:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Blocks of the individual IPs and reverts/patrolled changes in progress, but no larger range block or strategy other than being on the lookout. Any other admins with ideas for being more proactive are welcome to give feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This person has also vandalized my contributions under the IP address 5.11.100.35.
31.200.13.45 20:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive user returns with two new potential sockpuppets

Following on from this previous issue, the item in question has been recreated at Q120441526 and there are two new usernames involved in the editing (User:FREDjans80, User:HansAnders80), along with one of the four usernames listed previously (User:ELOmar444). All statements have no evidence backing them up; the item appears to be a vanity entry claiming some unproven link to European royalty.

-- Dogfennydd (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this is "sourced" from Geni.com and WikiTree. The latter is self-published, so who knows if that has any validity, but I'm not 100% sure about the latter. Am I reading this about page correctly and it's all self-reported? If so, I will delete this item and inform these users/this user to stop putting in unsourced claims like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Geni and Wikitree are both "one world tree" sites which rely on user-submitted data (ideally sourced, but difficult to police especially with living profiles). Thanks. Dogfennydd (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done Item deleted as recreation of deleted nonsense. I haven't taken action against the user accounts yet: if they make more problematic edits, please let me know and I'll block. If the issue is more widespread, please pursue a CheckUser inquiry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:8004:1304:C192:A50E:AAA9:3A5:7C55

Can somebody give this IP some time off? GMGtalk 00:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please block the whole range 2001:8004:1304:C192:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – it was making the same pattern of edits yesterday, but only the single IP was blocked. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Esteban16: as the blocking administrator for this IPv6 network, please note that you must not block only a /128 address. It is useless, because IPv6 networks are typically allocated in /64 chunks--especially to single hosts. So the only effective rangeblocks begin at the /64 prefix, and count downwards from there.
There is no collateral damage from a /64 block, because, as I said, it often refers to a single host or CPE on the consumer ISP's network. Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
2001:8004:1304:C192:0:0:0:0/64 is blocked Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:DIEGOHJJACOBO

DIEGOHJJACOBO (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: x-wiki vandalism. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

only one edit in Wikidata. User is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Account has been globally locked. --Lymantria (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.77.36.111

190.77.36.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Multiple disruptive edits on hip-hop-related items. Mass content removal without reason or discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.77.147.135

190.77.147.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: See above report for same situation. Same Venezuelan ISP, same removal of properties from hip-hop artist items. No edit summaries, no rationale, not here to build a knowledge base. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. All his edits patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

good article badge on This Moment is Mine swedish wikipedia

Once again I am facing the problem that I cannot add a good article badge. This Moment Is Mine was recently elected as a good article on Swedish Wikipedia. Since I cannot, could someone add the good article badge. Best regards, KonstapelKatt (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

As you are in good standing on your home wiki, I have granted you confirmed status. This should enable you to add badges. Bovlb (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for protection for castling (Q102877)

Spam by IPs. Thanks. Madamebiblio (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:2F08:5818:ED00:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:2F08:5818:ED00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Returning vandal #Report concerning User:2A02:2F08:5312:2200:0:0:0:0/64 (archive link). Gikü (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Range-blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Protection request

Dylan Mulvaney (Q114860212) keeps being vandalized almost everyday with gender-related edits. Xharey (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for two weeks. Bovlb (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.237.32.214

190.237.32.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:2F08:5314:1D00:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:2F08:5314:1D00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Returning vandal Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2023/06#Report concerning User:2A02:2F08:5907:D200:0:0:0:0/64, likely has newer edits under different addresses that we haven't spotted yet. Gikü (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Y Blocked for three months. But his new creations are not yet deleted. Some seems OK Estopedist1 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Same person, different IP: Special:Contributions/86.120.159.166. @Estopedist1: should I report this address separately? Gikü (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
86.120.159.166 had only three edits (all related to one item) from 8 July. I deleted this item Estopedist1 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolve Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Chapters_of_Heidi

Can I please ask administrators to resolve this deletion request. It has been long enough unresolved.

Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My reason for asking is that if the guidance is not strong enough to resolve it then I will look top take it to a broader audience to have this clarified.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
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, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.167.151.1

83.167.151.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, Proxy (IPQualityScore, Proxy API Checker. Ciseleur (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:TortsMiller30

TortsMiller30 (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)). Adds improbable languages to an item that is often the target for this vandal, like other socks. See also interwiki contributions. Sjö (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked indef Estopedist1 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Уфимская губерния

Герб Уфимской губернии https://geraldika.ru/s/7357 https://old.bigenc.ru/domestic_history/text/4703697 https://megabook.ru/media/Башкирия%20(герб%20Уфимской%20губернии) https://runivers.ru/doc/territory/366441/ Барабас (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1390649 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q107417698 прошу вернуть нормальный герб по источникам.Барабас (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Барабас и @Dmsav у вас война правок за герб? — Tarkoff / 16:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Да. Я ставлю герб который указан в источниках. Но Dmsav почему то отменяет. И молчит не объясняет почему отменяет. Барабас (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Tarkoff.
Это откат действий участника, обходящего блокировку. Dmsav (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ого: откат действий участника, обходящего блокировку. Какого участника, обходящего блокировку? И почему тогда какой то избирательный откат? Этот файл например ВЫ не откатили мое обновление File:Coat of arms of Ufa.svg. Нет вас по каким то причинам просто не устраивает этот файл File:Coat of arms of Ufa province (1878).svg. А вот по каким? Файл по источникам. И я их указал. Барабас (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

С точки зрения достоверности внешнего вида герба по приведённым источникам. Я не разбираюсь в истории Башкортостана/Уфимской губернии, но вижу, что ситуация неоднозначная. В русскоязычной статье приводится цитата из полного собрания законов Российской империи: "В серебряном щите лазуревая (= лазурная/тёмно-голубая) бегущая куница <...>". Тогда может ли куница на гербе быть изображена тёмно-серой? В данном случае описание из первичного источника (свод законов) может быть более весомым, чем графическая интерпретация из энциклопедических (вторичных) источников, IMHO. С моим мнением можно не соглашаться.
Предлагаю обеим сторонам конфликта продолжить обсуждение именно в рамках проверки фактов. Войны правок недопустимы. В дальнейшем хотелось бы получать от участника Dmsav конкретные разъяснения по поводу многократной отмены правок, не ограничиваясь только аргументом "обход блокировки": во-первых, по состоянию на 11.07 это пока не доказано, во-вторых, обход блокировки (в данном случае предполагаемый), хоть и является критическим нарушением правил, на практике не обязательно гарантирует деструктивную природу всего вклада участника-нарушителя. С точки зрения ruWP, отмена правок на основании одних только подозрений могла бы быть истрактована как нарушение ПДН.
В случае продолжения войны правок я буду вынужден установить длительную защиту на элементы Q1390649 и Q107417698, пока не будет достигнут консенсус. На какое-то время они могут обойтись без изображений. С уважением, --Wolverène (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Можно поставить оригинал File:Уфимская губ МВД Бенке.jpg он вырезан наверно от сюда File:Уфимская губерния из Бенке.jpg Барабас (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:BroadwaySpain

BroadwaySpain (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: It looks like this account takes pleasure in removing images from items, see Special:Contributions/BroadwaySpain, while the images were good. JopkeB (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

user is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 06:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:2F08:5312:2200:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:2F08:5312:2200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Returning vandal #Report concerning User:2A02:2F08:5314:1D00:0:0:0:0/64 (archive link). Gikü (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Y Blocked for three months. But not sure about deleting two items Estopedist1 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –– Yahya (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Translations edits

Could someone better versed in the intricacies of translation please review the contributions of:

Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't say much for the 2nd and the 3rd IP's - the translations don't look at all suspicious but I don't really speak Indonesian and not sure if I'm going to mark the edits as patrolled.
What's for the Bulgarian IP and their translations, it looks a bit suspicious, in its turn - at least, as far as I know, the Bulgarian texts have a tendency to de-romanize/translate the Latin-spelled parts (Wikipedia->Уикипедия, Wikidata->Уикиданни/Уикидата, Scholia->Сколия(?), etc). I also can say for sure that it's not a vandalism, at the worst it may be a machine translation.
Unfortunatelly, we don't have a Bulgarian-speaking administrator, could I maybe ask some active Bulgarian-speaking users (Elkost, Vladimir Alexiev... I don't know anyone else), if they don't mind, to check these contributions? We'd be happy to get a help. Regards, --Wolverène (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Bovlb (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 16:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The translations of 77.85.81.32 to Bulgarian are well done. This IP is reliable. --Elkost (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. :) --Wolverène (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Appolon22

Appolon22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

The account @Appolon22: is doing nationalist POV-pushing for Morocco. I've already asked for his blockage on fr.wikipedia for "sock-puppeting". He is obviously doing the same thing here. Could you block him to avoid more damages ? DarkVador79 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not done as this is now stale, but if the problem persists, please let us know and feel free to ping me personally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for protection for Timothée Hal Chalamet (Q19877770)

Persistent vandalism. Madamebiblio (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  semi-protected for 2 weeks. --Esteban16 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 06:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning อีตูดหมรา

Reasons: vandal-only account. –– Yahya (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for a month. I'm giving them a chance to learn the Wikidata policy, next time the block will be indef. --Wolverène (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Locked globally. –– Yahya (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay then. --Wolverène (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

restoration of a deleted item Q119953714

I created an item that meets the notability criteria, but it was deleted because of "self-promotion." However, I have a lot of references that prove this item's notability. Here they are:

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/fitness-company-offering-diet-exercise-plans

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12223003/Who-win-fight-Elon-Musk-Mark-Zuckerberg-billionaires-agreed-fight.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-fight-date-b2366360.html

https://kcr.sdsu.edu/which-u-s-states-are-the-most-vegan/

https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/new-york-kids-are-packing-on-the-pounds-during-lockdown/


Our co-founder Issac Robertson is quoted in these references

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/valuables-look-thrift-stores-175848166.html

https://www.insider.com/guides/health/diet-nutrition/best-tea-for-weight-loss

https://www.menshealth.com/style/a19546067/25-best-jeans-for-men/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/valuables-look-thrift-stores-175848166.html


Our co-founder Michael Garrico is also quoted here:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/quality-of-diet-for-older-adults-has-declined-heres-how-to-fix-it

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/diets/1678203/weight-loss-diet-plan-healthy-foods-complex-carbs-how-to-lose-weight Totalshape-ts (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant items: Q119953714 (Totalshape-ts). CC deleting admins @Ameisenigel
See also Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2023/07/03#Q119953714 posted by @Rockpeterson. Bovlb (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) The deleted item had zero references so it's not surprising it was deleted. The first fox news reference might be enough for me. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done I have restored the item. Please make sure to add the references to the item, otherwise it might get deleted again. --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Added. --Wolverène (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
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, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.198.214.200

190.198.214.200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Same Venezuelan geo and same M.O. (removes images/adds "unmarried partners" on hip-hoppers and celebs) as prior reported IPv4s: 190.77.36.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and 190.77.147.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Elizium23 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked the range for 3 months. --Wolverène (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2404:160:8107:F1D0:1:0:9524:53EC

2404:160:8107:F1D0:1:0:9524:53EC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: deletions Mykhal (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Blocked 31 hrs. --Lymantria (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
potentially related: 2404:160:8106:DAC2:1:0:95B5:C206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Mykhal (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.. and 2404:160:8176:A939:1773:313B:6621:6BE0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Mykhal (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.. and 2404:160:8100:4AD5:1:0:95F3:66E2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (admins are sleeping?) —Mykhal (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.. and 2404:160:8028:71D0:1:0:BEB1:38D9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Mykhal (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.. and 2404:160:8132:79BE:1:0:955B:1E9F (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Mykhal (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.. and 2404:160:8137:DCD1:1:0:953E:D577 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Mykhal (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.. and 2404:160:8001:7CAD:1:0:BE1D:35FC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) —Mykhal (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. Blocked some ranges for a week. --Lymantria (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
please see also a pair of edits of 2404:160:8103:3DAF:5FC:9064:A589:4614 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) which cannot be normally undone —Mykhal (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Dealt with. --Lymantria (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
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, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q317521

Please semi-protect Elon Musk (Q317521) - frequent IP vandalism, living person, popular theme. Jklamo (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
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, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:210.99.134.135

210.99.134.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Korean vandal strikes again Jklamo (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for 31 hours by BrokenSegue Estopedist1 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Link a Farsi Wikipedia page to English version

I want to link this page to this one. But I don't have access to do so (Probably because this page is semi-protected). What should I do? Mokazemi (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Indeed semiprotected. --Lymantria (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Bash222

Bash222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: User has removed statements and repurposed multiple existing items, e.g. Q36252592, Q50451178. Have already reverted Q30292948 and Q92071241. Most likely a misunderstanding by a new editor but I don't have time to check and revert all of affected items. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed many cases for both bash22 and Alhassan Napari (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). The annoying thing is that this has been going on for months, many cases have been reverted by other editors, but I am the first to write on their talk page. Bovlb (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
OK. I think I have fixed all the problems. Both editors are warned. Neither has contributed in a while. Please take a moment to drop a note on someone's talk page when you fix problems. Bovlb (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 21:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested edit tag

I am building a new Python library to edit Wikidata based on the new REST API. I would like to use wikibase-patcher-v1 (or wikibase-patcher if that is preferred) as the tag. Harej (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

do we usually make tags for libraries? I don't think pywikibot has a tag? Usually it's been used for for tools like QS. But I guess OpenRefine has it? I would suggest letting your library supply additional tags/override this tag. But ok I made it. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The library does support additional tags, but the tags have to be defined on the wiki first; otherwise the edit fails. Harej (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
you should tell me what you want MediaWiki:Tag-wikibase-patcher-v1 and MediaWiki:Tag-wikibase-patcher-v1-description to say BrokenSegue (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
How about "wikibase-patcher" and "wikibase-patcher v1"? Harej (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you for the swift response. Harej (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 21:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.202.195.186

190.202.195.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA (cf. Special:Contributions/190.38.159.217 for example). Dorades (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, but I am not sure how to recognize the IP range. Is it 190.202.192.0/19 for this case? maybe there's a reason to block the whole range for a couple of months unless it will be too radical. --Wolverène (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Dorades is correct it's an LTA. I've asked Lymantria on how to deal with it. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I checked the edits of the /19 range, I think a 3 month rangeblock allowing account creation is appropriate and   Done. Infrastruktur identified some more, really huge, ranges. I don't think it is appropriate to block all of those. Instead I created a filter to try to stop this vandalism. Hope that will be sufficient. Keep in touch! --Lymantria (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:210.99.134.135

210.99.134.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA Korean vandal strikes again (see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2023/06#User:까까누) Jklamo (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Violeta Zü

Violeta Zü (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Only vandalic contributions Madamebiblio (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done indef --Emu (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Code Lyoko Evolution (Q2091691)

Please semi-protect Code Lyoko Evolution (Q2091691) due to repeated changes contradicting the references. Dorades (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dorades: I protected it. But last three revisions by IP are not patrolled. Not sure about adequacy of these three revisions Estopedist1 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I reverted the changes because they were unsourced. --Dorades (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:74.83.216.66

74.83.216.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Randomly removing good/featured article badges, interwiki links, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done with a block. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Special:CreateLocalAccount for Ioqt

Hi. ioqt is in the Wikimedia Discord, and noted that their IP range (IPv6 /40) has been blocked from Wikidata, so their account cannot attach to Wikidata. Their IP is highly dynamic within the /64 range, but is 2A01:E0A:581:8870:0:0:0:0/64. They do not appear to be a vandal. Could a sysop please consider forcibly attaching their local account using Special:CreateLocalAccount to let them edit through the block (they should not require IP block exemption, as the block is anon only). Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: I just unblocked the range so the user can edit. Multichill (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Request to permanently remove slandering discussion from talk page

A few days ago an administrator @MSGJ: started a discussion on my talk page accusing me of acting a rude way toward another administrator with the title "rudeness", which is rather insulting. Along with also being patently false. I don't think that using a discussion title as a way to call out users for their behavior is really appropriate even if I was being rude though. There's no reason MSGJ needed to use the title of the discussion as a way to accuse me of something. Especially since there is no way to respond to it. So I was wondering if the insulting and bad faithed title, along the with the rest of the discussion (since it isn't any better), could be permanently deleted somehow. Since I don't want it to be a part of my talk page history. If so it's at the bottom of my talk page archive. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes you are welcome to remove from your talk page (as you have done), but no it can't be deleted from the page history. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that it remains in the edit history that way. So people can see still it and bring it up as a way to win arguments or slander me more. Which I don't really think I deserve to deal with. So I'd like it to be deleted from the page history. Otherwise I'd like to know what other avenues or options there are for me to deal with this. Your the one who said rude behavior isn't tolerated and it was extremely rude and insulting of you to slander me like that in the title of the conversation. So I'd at least like something to do be done about it even if the discussion can't be deleted. Although hopefully there's a way to have it done. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think that calling somebody rude could be interpreted as slander, libel or defamation. I doubt that WD:REVDEL could be applied in this case. --Emu (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
No, it certainly does not apply. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
It's less that MSGJ called me rude per say then it is the way they went about it by putting it in the title and the fact that I wasn't being rude to begin with. If an administrator wants to leave a message on someone's talk page about their behavior and happens to say the behavior was rude in the process cool, but putting something like "BAD MANNERS!!" in the title just seems needlessly defamatory. Administrator's should be able to give people feedback about their behavior in a way that isn't going to needlessly cause them reputational damage or contribute to more issues later on. Especially if it turns out the person's manners were perfectly fine.
Aside from the title "Please stop your rude behavior. This will not be tolerated" is just overly aggressive, unhelpful, and makes me look bad when I wasn't doing anything to deserve being treated that way. All MSGJ had to do was put "project chat discussion" or something similar in the title and ask me to tone it down a little. I would have been fine with that. "YOUR RUDE BEHAVIOR WON'T BE TOLLERATED!" is just overwrought and antagonistic. I probably wouldn't care as much if it was from a regular user, but administrator's words carry extra credibility. So I just think it was slandering and defamatory considering the context and specifics of how MSGJ went about it. If nothing else can one of you at least tell MSGJ not to give people warning in such an overwrought and antagonistic way again? I'm totally fine with that as an alternative to the conversation being deleted if it's not doable. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m really sorry that this Project Chat discussion and its aftermath somehow got out of hand and I feel a little guilty because I probably had my share in causing this. But regardless of the specifics, MSGJ’s communication style was within an admin’s discretion. I think I can understand your frustration but while MSGJ indeed was firm in their wording and you might not agree with their opinion, there are no palpable repercussions for you (I think you grossly overestimate the damage to your reputation) and the wording wasn’t exactly out of line. My personal advice would be to treat this as words that shall never hurt you. --Emu (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe I was the purported target of the rudeness, and I just wanted to chime in and say that I'm happy to consider this all water under the bridge. We were talking at cross purposes, you weren't understanding the point I was trying to make, and it was obviously causing you a lot of frustration, some of which you vented in a less than ideal way. There's no hard feelings on my side. Let's move on and edit some stuff! Bovlb (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Just from my perspective it was rude and frustrating being repeatedly treated like I thought the item should be deleted when that wasn't my opinion. As I said to MSGJ on my talk page I just wanted you to answer the question of how to deal with a promotional item that can't be deleted because it contains a site link, which I asked you multiple times. I'm sort of at a lose to why you thought the answer to that was to repeatedly tell me the item was notable. Something being notable and promotional are clearly separate issues.
So it's not that I didn't understand the point you were making, just that your point wasn't relevant to the conversation (or at least not my side of it). I think I should be able to tell someone as much without being the victim of vailed threats on my talk page to. That said, I'm fine with considering this all water under the bridge if you and MSGJ are. if nothing else hopefully MSGJ will at least be a little more considerate in how they word things the next time they leave a warning on someone's talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm really sorry that you experienced so much frustration, and I apologise if I did anything that you felt was rude. I would love to be able to resolve the underlying confusion, but I just don’t think it is going to be productive to extend that conversation. I’ve stated my position, and I have nothing more to add.
My intent in posting in this thread was to pour some oil on troubled waters and to extend an olive branch, not to pick at the scab. I’m happy to let you have the last word. Bovlb (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Beto perezjdhd

Beto perezjdhd (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Hide edition Madamebiblio (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hid. User is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 06:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

User Mgb0ssi making odd mass edits

User:Mgb0ssi (Contribs) is making mass edits to labels and descriptions, changing 200 at a time. Many if not all the edits seem to be wrong, such as claiming that a person is a "Wikimedia template": [1]. I left a couple of message to them, but I don't know if they see them because they're using the mobile interface. kyykaarme (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

   I've warned the user. --Wolverène (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Wolverène: Looks like the user made another incorrect edit after being warned (diff). –FlyingAce✈hello 02:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I see.   Blocked for 3 months. An earlier unblock may be requested via email. --Wolverène (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. The user replied to my comment. I think they might just not understand how the AutoEdit script works. (How does a new user even find such a script?) Could you or someone with rollback rights revert the remaining edits by the user until 06:38, 22 July 2023 (Wikipedia:Editor). I think it's safe to say that at least the bigger edits with more than 1K change are practically all incorrect. I reverted the older ones but there are too many to do manually as I don't have rollback. -kyykaarme (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kyykaarme: you have now rollbacker's rights. Thanks for the maintenance work here in Wikidata! Estopedist1 (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Thanks! I'll go through them. -kyykaarme (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
As I understand, gadgets like AutoEdit are available for all (auto)confirmed users. The options while using the gadget are fully selectable by an editor. It wouldn't be a problem if they tried it as test on several pages, but if there are nearly a hundred of such edits it looks like a conscious play with fire. --Wolverène (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. kyykaarme (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:107.77.209.0/24

107.77.209.0/24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, edit warring. bdijkstra (overleg) 06:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for one week. --Wolverène (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Kingdom Somsong Phoophom

[[User:Kingdom Somsong Phoophom]] is vandalizing. They have been warned on their talk page but continue to make bad edits and should probably be blocked. LydiaPintscher (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked indef, new vandalism-only account. --Wolverène (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

212.31.99.4

212.31.99.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))— Reasons: Vandalism. מקף (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. All edits reverted/patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 06:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by 36.65.44.60 and 36.68.185.251

Please check the contributes by the following anonymous users:

—TKsdik8900 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked IPs for three months. User has done one edit. User is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please check it out

Thanks Pallor (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

   I've semi-protected Judit Bodnár (Q112873978) for one month. --Wolverène (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of a deleted item

Hello, Item Bolarinwa Kashif Ololade was deleted. I want it restored because it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria: it is a material entity. Please help retore the item. Thank you. Mistarflyy (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant items: Q120599808 (Mistarflyy), Q120557001 (Mistarflyy), Q120648279 (Mistarflyy).
I was the original deleting admin. OP did not contact me about undeletion before coming here. My deletion reason was "no strong indication of notability; fake reference; non-fake reference is lightweight puff piece; created by SPA; self-promotion." Bovlb (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The recreated item similarly contained a fake reference and the same weak reference, but it also contained a new reference that seems a little more substantial from Nigerian Tribune (Q7033024). None of the items contained any identifiers, but I suspect some could be found using the handle "Mistarflyy". Bovlb (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry about not contacting you before coming here. The reason for those was because I have not gotten my information right and just rushed into creating the item. The references I have is from notable publisher (The Punch and Tribune), I will make things right with the reference and no, it is not a self promotion.
Thank you. Mistarflyy (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when you say that "it is not a self promotion", are you claiming that you have no personal connection to Bolarinwa Kashif Ololade aka "Mr Fly"? Bovlb (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This would be a good moment for you to offer any other evidence of notability, such as more references, or some identifiers such as LinkedIn, CrunchBase, or a website. Bovlb (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright, but is it here or has the item being restored? Mistarflyy (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Please put them here. As you should have already learnt from reading Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion, you are expected to offer the evidence before the item is undeleted. Please let us know if you think this could be communicated more clearly.
On another note, have you found your talk page yet? Bovlb (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I saw it when you sent the message saying the item has been deleted but I can't seem to find where is anymore. Mistarflyy (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
There should be a link called "Talk" near the top right of every page. It's also linked in your signature. Bovlb (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Seen. Thank you. Mistarflyy (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This are his website url
http://flyfitnessfactory.ng/
http://supportifly.ng/ Mistarflyy (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Those seem like websites for related organizations, but I do see [2], [3] and [4]. Bovlb (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The websites are his company's websites. Mistarflyy (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
OK. All this seems very borderline. There's one good news article, some social media identifiers, and a stink of self-promotion.
Happy to let someone else jump in here. Bovlb (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
What about Linkedin? Mistarflyy (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Please present your best evidence. Bovlb (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that Mistarflyy merely comes up with company websites, social media accounts and alikes. A simple search gave me some news footage that seems to show some notability: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Lymantria (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I already told him about having notability from publishers in our previous chat. I was just following what he asked about providing website and all. Mistarflyy (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
What happened was I have not gotten my facts right before jumping to create Item which made me continuously create new item with the same information. Mistarflyy (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done Restored, links added. --Lymantria (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Mistarflyy (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Lymantria
@Mistarflyy Do you have any suggestions for us on how the "request for undeletion" process could be made easier for new users to navigate? Bovlb (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this method is okay. I went through the admin because I could not find the notification given which was as a result of me not scrutinizing the page well. Mistarflyy (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 16:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Protection of Q2425736 and Q4095231

These two items seem to be targets of TyMega (enwiki sockpuppet investigation here). Granted, they're a bit stale currently, so protection may be inefficient, but it could be worth at least watchlisting in case usernames with "Default" pop up. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

New request against Appolon22

Some days ago, I posted a request to block the account @Appolon22. The request was archived, but he is doing the same thing again (POV-pushing on the subject of Morocco). Could you block him to avoid more damages ? DarkVador79 (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the most recent edits is somewhat suspect, but otherwise the contributions look fine. Recommend you leave the user a note if their edits are too slanted. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This account belongs to a serie of POV-pushers and blocked accounts on Wikipedia-fr, I saw it thanks to the number 22 at the end of the name. Usually, they doesn't answer, but I sent him a message on his talk page though. We will wait and see... DarkVador79 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Things could change if the French wiki CU has come to a conclusion. --Lymantria (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. Appolon22 is part of the serie : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:V%C3%A9rificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requ%C3%AAtes/juillet_2023#Appolon22,_Sultan.22M_-_14_juillet. DarkVador79 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  Blocked indef, together with socks identified at frwiki. --Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:586:CC37:5922:BDFE:A67B:323C:B432 . Removal of data. FocalPoint (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

   I've semi-protected Marianna Vardinoyannis (Q3557966) for one month. --Wolverène (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Zainabilah

Zainabilah (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Could something be done with user Zainabilah. Their account was already blocked on the English Wikipedia for vandalism and such but is currently engaging in cross-wiki abuse. Here are a few examples 1, 2 & 3. Pretty much all their edits are ultranationalistic vandalism. Thank you. 119.239.173.216 15:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account, and reverted some edits. Some look fine, but given the xwiki issues and sockpuppetry I don't imagine warnings will help here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:8004:E00:B0DA:8C6D:830C:B87D:6E66

2001:8004:E00:B0DA:8C6D:830C:B87D:6E66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Oversimplification of names and descriptions into letter clumps CrystalLemonade (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Endorsing this. Admins, please remember to block 2001:8004:E00:B0DA::/64 as per IPv6 best practices. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done The IP range is blocked for three months. --Wolverène (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:121.166.18.139

121.166.18.139 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA Korean vandal strikes again (see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2023/06#User:까까누 etc.). Jklamo (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for one month. --Wolverène (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:201.243.36.118

201.243.36.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: removing statement Saroj Uprety (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. All edits patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Selma 1990 (2)

Selma 1990 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Reasons: Since the previous admins' noticeboard report and subsequent block, the user still keeps adding either incorrect or incomplete descriptions with no signs of correcting their edits or stopping. I would advise either a longer or a permanent block, though I'm unsure as to what the local policies for this sort of vandalism are. – Srđan (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked indef. Not communicating. Possible vandalism / bad contributions after warning. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:8004:E00:B0DA:0:0:0:0/64

2001:8004:E00:B0DA:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on talk page while blocked. Please see User talk:2001:8004:E00:B0DA:DCA7:E336:4009:3811. Leonidlednev (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 05:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Excessive vandalism. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 10:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 10:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2601:801:103:FA00:E099:5929:D6D5:2DE7

2601:801:103:FA00:E099:5929:D6D5:2DE7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism, removing statement on 2020 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Saroj Uprety (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for one week. --Wolverène (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 22:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning Kingdom SomsongPhoophomMaharaj

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

Reasons: Vandalism-only account & sock puppet of Category:Sockpuppets of SAsod11.

-- Miwako Sato (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional request: Is it also possible to create a filter here to prevent new users & IPs from adding these words "Somsong", "Phoophom", "สมทรง", "ภูพรม" to any page & edit summary? Filter 138 recently created at the Thai Wikipedia proves to be very effective. --Miwako Sato (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as a known returning vandal. As for the additional request, I have no experience with setting such filters, so let's see what other administrators say. --Wolverène (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done Filter created Special:AbuseFilter/239 (not publicly visible, based on the thwiki filter). --Lymantria (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2607:FB91:43C:CFCD:6939:CD9:8C18:29C2

2607:FB91:43C:CFCD:6939:CD9:8C18:29C2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: removing statement Saroj Uprety (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. All edits patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2607:fb91:22c7:9b3:ac39:b712:b3e7:cbce

2607:fb91:22c7:9b3:ac39:b712:b3e7:cbce (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long-term abuse across wiki projects; undoes valid edits by the editors he targets; Note: this LTA hops IP addresses Kittycataclysm (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Blocked. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Please observe best practices and block the /64 range. You were told that this is LTA, address-hopping behavior. Never block a single /128 IPv6. Elizium23 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
If you can block the range, go for it. Why would I never block a single IP? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
You've blocked nothing at all.
Because IPv6 works like this. en:IPv6 address#General allocation, MediaWiki: Range Blocks, en:User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64: will typically assign IPv6 networks to end-users in a /56 or a /64, even for single-home consumers. A host (device) is typically assigned IPv6 addresses by the /64 range. So this user will have control of 2607:fb91:22c7:9b3::/64. The interface ID (last 64 bits) will change to unpredictable values, and typically beyond the control of the user. So IP-hopping in IPv6 is not a sign of abuse, but rather a sign of normal operation. I would be surprised, in fact, if an IPv6 address did not change its Interface ID on a regular basis.
So, you've blocked nothing, and taunting me won't help prevent this LTA's abuse, but it looks kind of shitty on you as an administrator. Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I in no way "taunted" you. Could you please not make allegations? The method of range-blocking is not always obvious to others and if you want to be helpful, this is not the way to do it. I have done range blocks before, but I am conservative about doing that in order to not catch anyone else in the block. And yes, I have blocked something, even if it's not definitive. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good and please assume good faith. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
While I don't condone the way Elizium23 is expressing themselves here, I believe the "taunting" comment refers to "If you can block the range, go for it.", which does seem like an odd thing for an admin to say to a non-admin. Bovlb (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to thank @Lymantria for resolving threads above by following up with proper, effective /64 IPv6 rangeblocks, as per best practices. Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@Elizium23: next time just give us /64 and we will do a range-block. If there is only one IPv6 address I cannot use IP-range calculator: https://ftools.toolforge.org/general/ip-range-calc.html Estopedist1 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
With IPv6 addresses you can always block the /64 range as if it were a single user, see also discussion above. --Lymantria (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 06:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2806:2A0:1512:866E:C958:363D:4548:39E4

2806:2A0:1512:866E:C958:363D:4548:39E4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: removing statement Saroj Uprety (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked for three months. All edits patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:117.2.185.77

117.2.185.77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Please block spammer. Jklamo (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done, blocked for a month Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

OsvátA

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

User:OsvátA removed all interwiki links except huwiki from Q276620. 2A01:36D:1200:45FE:8D5D:8C0C:694B:C946 12:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

OsvátA appears to be a trusted user who doesn't seem to be prone to such a behaviour. I believe it was some misunderstanding. --Wolverène (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:8004:1301:421B:6574:76E4:E2D1:3AE2

2001:8004:1301:421B:6574:76E4:E2D1:3AE2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Removing text and replacing it with acronyms. IP is blocked on Wikipedia as used by long-term vandal. Blythwood (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks to be the same user from this report. Note that for this particular report, the vandal has already moved to another IP within the /64 range (2001:8004:1301:421B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))); however, adding this IP to the one in the previous report gives me a range of 2001:8004::/35 which seems to be quite large. –FlyingAce✈hello 02:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Upon further inspection of the larger range (2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/35 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))), there is plenty of vandalism going back to at least June, with very few productive edits. –FlyingAce✈hello 03:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done Thanks. Unfortunately the range is too big for a rangeblock, but other measures have been taken. Doing a simple block for this one. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Blythwood (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Mechfields accounts

Hello; I came across the user Dlear Abdulwahab, who created invalid ID (L1143214) (which seems to be an invalid lexeme and likely spam for Mechfields), and the user MECHFIELDS (MECHANIC FIELDS LTD), whose username (and creation of a promotional userpage) suggests the single purpose of promoting Mechfields. I believe this to be likely sockpuppetry (I don't think CU is necessary, given these accounts popping up to promote the same thing 10 minutes apart). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 09:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done --Lymantria (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
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) 11:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism driven by sexism

The user keeps changing the gender of Wikimedia Commons entries.

As a sister project female gender is the norm for Wikimedia Commons, we can see it at commons:Página principal (Main page), Commons:Primeiros passos (first steps)..., also "mediateca" is also a female word... He has a history of sexism in other communities and is dragging it to here.

I don't interact with him for fundamental values, so I will not send him a message, so please, take care of our community. Thank you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Also noticed others driven by xenophobia

He is removing the way that is written in Brazil from Portuguese entries, and not including an alias, he is simply vanishing the Brazilian variation from several entries. This is not pt-pt, or pt-eu to him remove pt-br, even from the alias. He also has a xenophobia historic, I was not expecting that I was just seeing if he enter here to do changes to Wikimedia Commons entries, well, I was right. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton Hi! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you please add a link for where you have tried and failed to resolve this issue directly with the user, and another for where you have informed them about this discussion? Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I do not interact with him, he has sever toxic behaviour, so I avoid to all costs. But as you can see, even in a middle of discussion he creates an edit war: [13] Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Commons is a repositório, which is a masculine word in Portuguese (dictionary). The above user has been systematically trying to change it, without any basis and against consensus. That being said, the "sexism" and "xenophobia" accusation such user brings here (and in edit summaries) is the most bizarre, absurd and nonsense thing I've witnessed on my 12 years in Wikimedia projects. Not surprising, though, since that same user has a history of blocks in his home wiki for systematics insults, offenses and rude language. Never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for people to accuse others with completely made up stuff and get away with it as if nothing happened. JMagalhães (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

hijab in Iran (Q117472135) this entry is not needed Baratiiman (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this user should be warned against making baseless accusations of "Vandalism". He is intentionally mixing up two different entries, compulsory hijab In Iran (Q20110834) is a facet of hijab in Iran (Q117472135) and each have their own pages. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Baratiiman You should not be describing good faith edits as vandalism, even if you disagree with the content choices.
If you want third-party input on a content issue, then Project Chat might be a good place to ask for help. Please try to describe the issue neutrally. Bovlb (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about content choice 😐 this is just one article why would they be not connected make as many data items as you want just don't disconnect one page from en.wikipedia.org and fawiki Baratiiman (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

QRZ Function not working

Hey there. I have recently noticed that when clicking on the amateur radio operator property link for a person, the API or search doesn't appear to be forwarding correctly within QRZ. For example, I have just added a valid Callsign and it finds it within QRZ when searching from their home page, but not when using the facility via Wikidata.

Please can admins look into this and see whether it is an error or just for the one profile? HHJ23 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@ HHJ23: the link appears to work for the people listed as examples Property:P5143. BrokenSegue (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Right to be forgotten

Hi,

Marie-Claude Lemaire (Q89127676) contacted us (via the mail-list) and want this item to be deleted. Not sure what to do exactly in this case (most data are widely public) so I'm leaving this message here.

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Author on many represented academic publications. Award recipient. Many valid identifiers. No properties that raise any obvious privacy concerns. It's hard to see how we could do anything here to significantly address privacy concerns.
I believe the correct process here would be to post this on RFD for discussion, but I can't see it getting deleted.
Better advice for the individual would be to work on getting the other identifiers disabled. Bovlb (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
There is a "right of erasure" in de EU by art. 17 of the European General Data Protection Regulation (Q1172506), that has replaced the "right to be forgotten". I don't see how Q89127676 brings any privacy issues, it doesn't contain much personal information, except perhaps sex or gender (P21) and country of citizenship (P27) and more far fetched academic degree (P512), field of work (P101) or occupation (P106). But most of this is readily seen from the awards won, the linked scholarly articles, ... Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation has some legal advice? --Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Please point people to WD:BLP in such cases. They should contact privacy@wikidata.org if they want to remove personal data. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I think privacy@wikidata.org may be the "mail-list" that OP is referring to. Bovlb (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
this issue comes up from time to time and I wish we had a more clear policy. generally we've refused to delete. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I looked through meta and foundation and could not find anything helpful for GDPR, right to be forgotten, or right of erasure. Bovlb (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing meta:Right to vanish Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Those apply to editors rather than article/item subjects... –FlyingAce✈hello 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps she could register as an editor here, and then take it all with her! Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all, I did explain most of this to the person who claim that the item should disappear and that she didn't consent to it (and so on). This person seems to be a bit confused about the nature and operation of Wikidata and still adamant to disappear from Wikidata.
For the record there is now also Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q89127676.
By "mail-list", I was speaking of wikidata lists.wikimedia.org (obviously not giving a link for privacy, you should be able to find it easily) and pointed to privacy wikidata.org.
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I should point out that pageviews went from 6 to 269 after the initial post, predictably. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=wikidata.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Q89127676 Infrastruktur (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is highly improper that this item has been deleted out-of-process, and while a deletion discussion was in process. See that discussion for more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Elizium23

Editor @Elizium23 replied to a discussion with the following: If you can't be bothered to read things I link to then what the fuck? This insult and failure to assume good faith is unacceptable behaviour which is in direct opposition to Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct. DCflyer* (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I misunderstood the situation with the items concerned, and I inappropriately thought I had found a resolution to the warning message issue which had been raised to public attention, but I only moved the technical error to another location. I reverted DCflyer several times before realizing my errors and that DCflyer is correct in every aspect of evaluating the issue. The deprecation of values, as DCflyer proposed, turns out to be the accepted method for resolving this, and I was remiss in acting before obtaining all the relevant facts of the case. I am sorry for the disruption that I caused. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Elizium23: I think the other question, reviewing the language you used, is not appointed yet. I judge it unnecessary rude and by that unnecessarily escalating. Consider this a civility warning. --Lymantria (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:ActiveWindows

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

@ActiveWindows: User:ActiveWindows is making unreferenced changes to topics related to the King of the Mosquito Nation, causing cascading errors. I wonder if this is related to the person who was adding the fake images of the kings last month, this is a very obscure topic. The only reliable reference we have on the kingship is File:Kingship of the Mosquito Nation by Philip A. Dennis and Michael D. Olien.png and other papers by the same author. Perhaps some of the additions by the editor are correct, but I worry it may be nonsense, since they are changing the numbering system from the reliable reference. I don't know how much to reverse. See for instance where they change the Wikidata entry for the 1st king into the 2nd king here, causing cascading errors in the numbering of the succession chart, I have reversed the most egregious errors. See: Talk:Q113244809. I suspect it is the same person who was vandalizing the same topics at Wikipedia. See: here, using multiple accounts. See also: User talk:Thecaribbeancoast and a few IP accounts where they changed the numbering system in 2022, also without references. One of the clues we are dealing with the same person is that they write all proper nouns without a capital letter. See: Battle of the Black River (Q4872851) for instance. I can't tell if they are citing their own original, unpublished research, or just vandalizing. The incorrect numbering and the fake images lead me to suspect vandalism. RAN (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  • I am going ahead and reverting the changes to King of the Mosquito Nation back to the peer reviewed and published source Kingship Among The Miskito (Q56389051). These were the same changes made in 2022 by another SPA, both accounts have not responded to requests to provide a source for their changes. I still can't determine if it is deliberate vandalism, or an editors faith in their own unpublished original research. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrator not following civil or due process

I have pretty much had it with Bovlb. I have now been given two incivility warnings and in my case both are, in my opinion, unjustified. [Apart from the fact that the use of your templated warnings are just butt ugly, impersonal and unhelpful, and in their method of application uncivil in themselves.]

First occasion I disputed that person's hard block on an experienced user, as I thought that an administrator had other components of the admin toolkit to be used than just a hard site block. I asked for that blocked to referred to the community, per WD's policy, and a right of a user without a conflict of interest. Despite my request, it was not referred to the community, and should have been referred whether I was civil or uncivil, I followed the requested process. There was a discussion in situ to the block conversation (per User talk:Tagishsimon). The upshot of that block has done as predicted, with the user having stopped editing at WD.

Second occasion, I was removing links from subpages at enWS that should not be linked to items as best understood for how enWS operates, and the guidance developed around links--WD:Books and WD:Wikisource and its establishment conversations. The admin reverted my removals with templated warning that they are valid links, while making no justification for that assessment, no questions on my user talk page, no pointing to criteria for the assessment about the validity, just that ugly application of the template.

It is not the job of administrators to be the arbiters of what is, or is not, a desired link from the sister sites to WD, that is a community decision. The guidance exists, and there is the communities at other sites that have clear input into these matters. That is overreach by an administrator.

Please refrain from removing valid links from items. Your edits do not appear to be constructive, and have been reverted. If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox. Thank you

IMO that is a rude, insulting joke from an administrator with 73k edits, to an editor with 10 years experience at WD, 300k primarily personal edits, 10k+ items created. I am worthy of a civil conversation and exploration of an idea, not the facile throwing of templates.

Administrators are meant to be helpful to the community, not police. They are meant to be acting based on the consensus of the community--either from an immediate discussion, a widely discussed agreed conversation that determines a way to proceed, or the determined policy of the community. They are not meant to be acting in a threatening means that discourages established and respected members of the community from wishing to partake, which is where I am now situated.

I have done plenty in WD for over 10 years, especially in the initial phase of bringing WSes onboard, and my personal conceit is that I have an expectation that I am worthy of that conversation and the time for that conversation. Yes, I will challenge you, and yes I can occasionally get prickly, but as an imperfect human being I have both strengths and weaknesses. I also know as a long-established editor and advanced rights holder through WMF communities that you AGF and work with people who have promise. So similarly, yes, I will take being challenged, and yes, you can get prickly, and yes I will work with you where you are trying to make things better, even if I am never going to be your friend, as I can separate my emotions from the job we do together and what we are trying to produce.

Yes, it is the task of administrators to make deletion decisions, however, it should be based on a properly formed item that complies with the site, not based on something incorrect "frozen in time" item. The deletion of an item is independent of whether a link should exist. The removal of incorrect links is not against the policy of this site.

I put this matter before the community of administrators.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There’s a lot to unpack there, so I’ll try to go through it point by point. Sorry about making this response so long.
I want to preface my remarks by pointing out that, as an administrator, I see it as my job to protect the project from disruption and enforce the consensus of the community. Am I perfect? Certainly not. I’m sure that I make plenty of mistakes, and there have undoubtedly been cases where I could have done better. I welcome feedback from all sources and always strive to improve.
  • Regarding the block on Tagishimon. I am sad that they are no longer contributing here, but at the same time, we cannot accept arbitrary levels of abusive behaviour from editors, just because of their positive contributions. Dealing with abusive behaviour from otherwise productive editors is one of the hardest and most thankless tasks for an administrator to deal with. I would love to know a better way of dealing with such cases.
  • The history of events is fairly clear from User talk:Tagishsimon, but in brief they behaved atrociously to both Paucabot and Data Consolidation Officer (with a civility warning in between), so I gave a short block. Tagishimon did not acknowledge either the warning or the block.
  • During the block, Billinghurst leapt in with an extremely aggressive response (in both content and edit summaries). I tried to respond as fully and fairly as I could, but I declined either to modify the block or to escalate the discussion to another forum in the absence of an unblock request from Tagishimon. If Billinghurst wanted to escalate the discussion at the time, they could easily have done so.
  • I really don’t know why Billinghurst chose to insert themselves into Tagishimon’s block discussion in the way they did. Notably, they evaded my questions about that, and they had a curious lack of interest in discussing the abusive behaviour that was the basis for the block.
  • As a separate matter from the block discussion, I also asked Billinghurst to be more civil in future communication. With hindsight, it might have been better for me to involve another administrator to deliver that message, as Billinghurst might have found it easier to accept that message from someone else. The main outcome of that discussion for me was that Billinghurst said that it is important to listen to other people and take criticism. I found that to be an encouraging start and encouraged them to seek wider input on the matter from people they respected.
  • Billinghurst says that they have received two civility warnings. To the best of my knowledge, I have only given them the one described above, so either I’m forgetting one, this is referring to one received from someone else, or they were editing under a different account.
  • Three days Five weeks ago, Billinghurst nominated a number of WikiSource subpage items for deletion. They also deleted the sitelinks from all of the items. As is normal practice at RFD, I restored the sitelinks and asked them not to do that in future. In closing the discussion, Ameisenigel reiterated the same point.
  • Today, Billinghurst nominated a number of WikiSource subpage items for deletion and again deleted the sitelinks. I again reverted and noted it in the RFD thread. RFD has a fast turnover, and it is easy to miss responses there. Assuming good faith, I thought that it was possible that they had missed the fact that multiple people were asking them not to do this and the reasons presented. I also wanted future administrators dealing with Billinghurst to know that this issue had already been raised. That is why I also added a talk page message, and yes I did use a templating mechanism. With hindsight, there is probably some better way that I could have expressed the same idea, but I felt it would be redundant to add yet another lengthy explanation. It seems hyperbolic to describe the use of a standard user talk template as “a rude, insulting joke”,
  • In the paragraphs above, Billinghurst makes much of their status and experience, with the suggestion that this should perhaps afford them some special treatment or extra courtesy. They made similar points earlier when I asked them to be more civil. I believe that I have treated Billinghurst the same way that I would treat any other editor, veteran or newbie, productive contributor or would-be spammer. I don’t think that seeking special treatment like this is an appropriate way to behave here.
As I said at the start, I welcome feedback, and I always want to learn how to do better. Bovlb (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I am responding only having read what was written here and having participated in the discussion on User_talk:Tagishsimon. Generally my thoughts are:
  1. I recognize that billinghurst is a valuable user who has contributed a lot.
  2. The block of Tagishsimon was legitimate and unfortunate. billinghurst refused to answer my questions in that conversation. If Tagishsimon had asked for an unblock I would've seriously considered it (I generally like to give lots of second chances). They did not (as far as I can tell).
  3. The civility warning was fine though I personally wouldn't do so
  4. Your quoting of "300k primarily personal edits" and so on feels totally out of place. As Bovlb said, we should be treating everyone as equally as possible. But if you really want to compare experience / impact to Wikidata... well Bovlb is honestly one of the few people holding this place together. I barely know who billinghurst is (I just don't see you around). And I say this as someone with >2x as many edits as billinghurst (note: edit count on Wikidata is close to meaningless which is why citing it is so out of place)
  5. Using templates to leave feedback is fine. Sure a custom note would be preferred but wikidata is a high volume place. Try not to take it personally.
  6. Removing sitelinks from a page before listing for deletion is improper. Deleting information before listing for deletion will give the reviewing admin the wrong idea about the state of the item. While I check the history every time before deleting not every admin does and if you assume the item just naturally had no sitelinks you may decide to delete for wrong reasons. I have personally warned users about deleting sitelinks/statements before listing for deletion. If you think the sitelinks are wrong for some reason make a not of that in the nomination for deletion. This is a all a minor issue of procedure though.
BrokenSegue (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I just wanted to add that, had Tagishsimon made any sort of unblock request, I would almost certainly have either granted it or escalated it here to AN so that other admins could review.
I also recognise that billinghurst is a valuable user who has contributed a lot. Bovlb (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Let me first say that users mentioned above all have valuable contributions to Wikidata. Still awareness may grow that typed communication might be received more heavily than spoken communication. More strongly so when native speakers of English use their full language skills communicating with non-native speakers like Paucabot.
I think the blocking of Tagishimon was appropriate. Yes, the block could have been a shorter one or a partial block just to two namespaces, but I am pretty sure I would have made the same or similar judgements, as from the edits I have seen I would not expect them to have cooled down quickly. The reaction by billinghurst to it was IMHO over the top and hardly justified, despite the fact that a question about a block is always justified. They were not really posing a question, but using strong words. Not asking a reconsideration, but requesting to take the decision to the community.
I do understand however that the message by Bovlb If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox to a user who is hardly a newby, be it from a template or not, is considered an insulting joke. I myself would consider it that way as well, athough I think I would keep my coolness. It is the danger of using impersonal templates. However, comparing numbers of edits is not at all a way to discuss that. It is fairly unimportant who is the alpha male here. Please. --Lymantria (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, the sentence "If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox." was clearly not applicable to this situation. The other three sentences were. (I note that the "warn this user" tool does not present a preview of the message being sent.) When I am sent a template message, I accept this as a time-saving convenience and don't nitpick whether all of the wording is applicable to my specific context.
As I said before, I should probably have taken the time to write a custom message here, but I was already a little burnt out from restoring eleven sitelinks, and I had real-life commitments that were demanding my attention. I also thought, apparently incorrectly, that it might be safer to stick to the tried-and-tested phrasing.
I might be wrong, but my understanding from what Billinghurst said above is that it was the fact of their receiving a templated warning that they objected to, rather than the specific wording of the template, although it's also possible that our templates are "butt ugly, impersonal and unhelpful". I have never been a big fan of the idea that certain editors cannot be templated, but I will definitely give this more thought if I find myself in a similar situation in the future.
If our templates are that bad, then we shouldn't sending them to anyone. Newbies deserve as much respect as veterans. I note that, for the handful of user warning templates I personally have authored (Uw-notability, Uw-merge, wd-deleted, ETA Uw-empty), I have worked hard to make them friendly and helpful, but it is impossible to avoid the inclusion of parts that may not apply to all cases. On the other hand, Wikidata is a language-independent project and the simpler the message, the easier it is to translate, so I can understand the pressure to keep these templates short. Non-English speakers also deserve just as much respect. Bovlb (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
We don't have a user warning template that matches the specific case of a user who blanks an item with good intentions because they think it should be deleted. The template I used was really written with a different situation in mind. I sense that I'm getting a little off-topic here, but I sketched out what such a template might look like. I think it provides the information that OP was lacking. Bovlb (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
uw-blanking

Hi! I notice that you have blanked an item (either fully or partially), by removing some combination of sitelinks, claims, and labels, or by replacing labels with strings such as “DELETE THIS”. I realise that you may believe that this item ought to be deleted, but I’m afraid that’s not how we do things here. If you want to request deletion of an item, please do so at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Even once you have done this, you should still not be changing the item to anticipate its deletion. There are several important reasons for this:

  • An administrator (and possibly others) will want to review the item to assess whether it ought to be deleted. If you have already removed information, then that may make it harder for them to determine correctly whether the item is notable. In particular, a sitelink ususally implies that the item is notable so needs to be reviewed carefully.
  • An administrator may decide to decline your deletion request. In this case, your removals will need to be reverted. The same thing applies if the item is deleted and later undeleted.
  • It is possible that the item may be found to be a duplicate of another item. In this case, the two items will be merged using a special tool. It is helpful for this merge for the item to retain as much information as possible. Incorrect labels like “DELETE THIS” may end up in the result.
  • Wikidata administrators have access to a special searchable archive of deleted items. This is used, for example, to determine if a newly-created item is a recreation of one that has been created in the past. For this reason, it is helpful if the deleted version of an item is as complete as possible.
  • If we remove a sitelink, but the article remains on the client project, then someone on that client project may end up creating a new item, duplicating the original.
Bovlb (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Honestly I'm kinda confused about the comment that the templates are "are just butt ugly". Like... does the aesthetics of the template matter? And what exactly is ugly about a bunch of text? It feels needlessly rude. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Rough language. --Lymantria (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Billinghurst is obviously angry, and this is reflected in their choice of language. Let try to focus on the underlying message and not get distracted by the emotional rhetoric. Our user warning templates undoubtedly have room for improvement.
Since Billinghurst apparently wants to continue the discussion of Tagishsimon's block, I think it would be productive if they could answer some of the outstanding questions related to that:
  • Have you reviewed the evidence supporting this block? Do you believe it was acceptable behaviour and deserves no sanction?
  • Why did you choose to take an interest in this specific block? What drew it to your attention?
Bovlb (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Template:uw-blanking has been created. Bovlb (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
While completely unrelated to the issue of removing sitelinks, another factor that complicated the handling of billinghurst's deletion requests is the fact that N1.5 is explicitly silent on the question of subpages in WikiSource. It would be really helpful if an editor well-versed in WikiSource could lead a community effort to resolve that problem. Bovlb (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually, billinghurst is such a person. May be we can open an RfC and add the clarification there? Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I find it strange that billinghurst opened this discussion and then promptly ignored it. People put time into reading and responding and we get silence in response. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It does seem a little disrespectful.
While we’re waiting, I’d like to expand on the questions I posed above. I originally posed them in Tagishsimon’s block discussion because I thought they might hold the key to understanding why billinghurst acted as they did. From billinghurst’s apparent unwillingness to answer them, I have to suspect that the answers will reflect badly on them. Bovlb (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It does seem bizarre that billinghurst has nothing further to say here. They’re clearly still editing.
As I said above, I’m always willing to listen to feedback, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to bring big accusations to a public forum like this and not be prepared either to substantiate them or to defend their own actions. Why would someone start a topic like this and then just disappear? They said above, "I will take being challenged [...] as I can separate my emotions from the job we do together", which seems poles apart from what we're seeing here.
Billinghurst has a long-standing reputation across many projects for being level-headed and showing good judgment. Now this. It just doesn’t add up. Bovlb (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
One more thing has been nagging at me about this. Billinghurst's complaint led with "I have now been given two incivility warnings", but I'm only aware of one. No evidence has come forward of anyone else giving them a civility warning (at least on this project), and no-one has suggested any other action of mine would meet that description. Obviously billinghurst has not returned to clarify that point.
It's possible they they construed the sitelink removal warning as a civility warning, but that doesn't make sense because it would imply that they don't understand the word "civility".
The only other civility warning involved in this saga (and the only other one I can recall giving recently) was the one I gave to Tagishsimon before their block. That doesn't make sense either because why would billinghusrt refer to that as being given to them? Bovlb (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I can say that I am neither happy nor comfortable with the responses so far. No signs of enquiry, seems to me just defences.

Firstly. I was putting out a case, not entering into a debate. I am happy to let my initial set of words play out. I have no need to get into an incessant argument, like some, to bang on and labour your point, nor throw in distractions. No one has actually asked me a question, nor asked for clarification of what I said, nor posed something to me, so what do you want? I was editing at enWS, with the absolutely bare minimal interaction with this site as possible, however, no interaction is difficult. I was also undertaking the myriad of xwiki tasks that I perform.

Secondly. Nowhere has anyone provided any evidence that the link removals were or are against policy. None. You can quote your practice at deletion discussions all you want, however, you should be citing policy that states that links are not to be removed.

Thirdly. I was removing links as they should not have been there. Fullstop. That simple. It was not so the items were to have been deleted. As I have already said, you can keep or delete the items, I care not, that is this site's decision. The links though should not have been there and they should never be restored, they are just wrong. There was no basis for the creation of the links, there is no basis for their being re-added through reversion. No one can point to the correctness or the basis for the link creation as being correct. [How many times do I need to state that to be heard?] From now, I will undertake the practice of just removing incorrectly made links to the WSes, and will not be nominating those pages for deletion. There is no means to indicate the purpose of link removal. I will leave you can to manage those items yourself, to clean up your own mess.

Fourthly. A blanket rule for subpage linking from the Wikisources cannot be made, it is unfortunately not that simple, hence the non-descript wording. Some pages are notable, and some pages are not, it depends on the parent work, the authorship as explained on other guidance pages. It is not about whether it is a subpage or not, it is about the content of the page. The Wikisources are not the WPs!!! I have explained that on numerous occasions, especially in the case of Heidi. You haven't informed yourself about the subject matter or the Wikisources, you have your brains stuck in WP-infogoria. Obviously you are not listening to someone who has the experience and knowledge about the subject. You are too busy telling me that I am wrong about the site and its links, and yet that is the site where I produce output and link it here. I have cited the discussions from 2013 about why subpages were not distinguishable and why the comment was written as it was. I have cited Wikidata:Books as a better place to identify how works are done and more akin to suitable notability guidance.

Fifthly. Those administrators who comment about a person's motivation to comment on another's block. Come off it. It is not solely up to the blocked user to question a block. Admins should never be defensive, or worse, offensive when asked to justify their actions, or when asked to take it to the community. No where are we? What I said would come to pass, has come to pass. What more needs to be said? You had better alternatives, and you didn't use them. You used a sledgehammer to crack the nut, not an iota of nuance. [Experienced admin speaking.]

Sixthly. Civility warning. Bovlb. You put that second warning under the civility warning. Check the history of my talk page. Don't obfuscate.

Seventhly. With regard to the block of Tagishsimon. Wikidata:Block policy has the paragraph

"If any block or unblock is controversial, a short discussion should commence via the administrators' noticeboard on which course of action to take. Administrators should be mindful of both any past consensus that has been established in regard to blocking the user, and any relevant policies related to the block."

which to me was what I was asking the administrator to do with referring it to the community. Seems entirely appropriate way for me to raise that in the block discussion on the user's page to the blocking administrator. Weirder for me to step here to do that for a 3rd party block rather than at the block discussion. What did you do? You went on attack on that page, and on my user talk page. Enquiry? No. De-escalation? No.

Eighthly. Preferred treatment? No, I didn't ask for preferred treatment. I asked for fair treatment according to the policy, and I asked for the policy that my doing link removals was incorrect to be cited. I asked for consideration. If that use of your tools is your equitable treatment, then all I can say is hand back your mop.

Ninthly. My roles elsewhere. Bovlb, you initially broached the matter of my advanced rights elsewhere, first. You tried to throw it in my face, you tried to school me. If you start that sort of approach, then expect a reply based on experiences of those advanced rights. Don't get in a harumph and come back and tell me that I am lauding my experience over you. My experience is my practice, my enquiries, my learnings, my failings, my growth, through that time, are all part of my experience and inform my opinion.

Tenthly. Trash templates. Bot operators are responsible for the work of their bots. Well, if you put the template on a page, you are responsible for the words that it says and any interpretation of that template. If it is widely inaccurate, and/or inappropriate to the scenario, then don't add it. If you don't know what it says, then don't add it. Don't blame the recipient! Own it.

Eleventhly. Business. Not a reasonable excuse. I understand we get busy, feel pressured, want to have a resolution, etc. and we make quick/half-guessing/rash/... decisions. Been there, done that, possibly still do. It is always your choice, it is an explanation, never an excuse. Be reflective, own your decisions, and the issues that they cause. Learn to listen to the other person, to defuse, get off your administrative mop, and converse. Stop. Listen. Assess. Reflect.

I am now assessing the scope of my future contributions to this site. I'll still be here, as I need to be as the Wikisources made the clear decision to data populate here and use that data at our site. Outside of that ... <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Much of this has already been addressed above, so I'll just reply briefly now. Please let me know if I'm missing anything major.
  • Blocking policy indeed says that controversial blocks should be discussed here. I can see that an argument could be made that a single person posting as you did is sufficient to qualify, but I really have trouble seeing that a block is controversial when the person blocked does not themselves controvert it. In particular, I believe that this part of the policy is intended to allow for a blocked person's case to be heard by the community when the blocked person is otherwise restricted from communicating because of the block. I don't think it's intended to save a third party the trouble of starting the discussion. I'd be glad to hear other opinions, but I really don't think that there's any issue here with my declining to start a discussion for you that you could easily have started yourself. Given that you apparently thought it to be extremely important to have the discussion, why did you not start it?
  • "It is not solely up to the blocked user to question a block." — I completely agree. "Admins should never be defensive, or worse, offensive when asked to justify their actions" — Again, I completely agree. This also applies to non-admins. I hope I was able to respond to all of your questions in Tagishsimon's block discussion without being either defensive or offensive, but I am always willing to learn how to do better.
  • "What I said would come to pass, has come to pass." — I'm happy to see that Tagishsimon has now resumed editing.
  • "No one has actually asked me a question" — @Billinghurst I would be glad if you could respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you above.
  • "use of your tools" — Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe the only use of tools here was the block on Tagishsimon. I don't understand why you are suggesting that I used admin tools on you.
  • There's something I didn't bother to mention earlier, that is perhaps worth bringing up now. On two occasions, I restored sitelinks after billinghurst removed them. On both occasions, billinghurst then reverted at least one of my edits in order to remove the sitelink again. I did not restore those sitelinks a second time because I did not want to get dragged into an edit war, and I did not want to get into the position of having to use full protection or partial blocks against billinghurst. Instead I backed off and left it for someone else to deal with.
  • " Be reflective, own your decisions, and the issues that they cause. Learn to listen to the other person, to defuse, [...] and converse. Stop. Listen. Assess. Reflect." — This is good advice.
  • "I am now assessing the scope of my future contributions to this site" — While I would be sorry to lose your contributions, I don't think that this is an appropriate way to try to win an argument.
  • This response gives me no confidence that we won't see more improper sitelink removal from billinghurst in the future.
Bovlb (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
“There's something I didn't bother to mention earlier” — I apologise for not properly explaining the purpose of this bullet. I shared this for three reasons:
  1. Billinghurst wants to characterize me as being an admin who reaches for admin tools first and does not seek de-escalation. These observations show the opposite.
  2. If we consider the two incidents, including the original deletion of sitelinks and then the round of reversions, then billinghurst has had at least four rounds of deleting sitelinks. The first may be innocent, but the other three show a willful disregard for our processes. (In fact, this is not the first time that an administrator has raised the issue of sitelink deletion with billinghurst. See User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2018#Wikisource.)
  3. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but throughout this entire incident, I’ve felt like billinghurst has been trying to provoke me into a reaction so that they have some bad behaviour to point to, but I have been consistently failing to take the bait. It’s hard to see any valid purpose for the re-deletion of a sitelink except as an attempt to goad me into an edit war or perhaps “involved” use of tools.
Bovlb (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Nowhere has anyone provided any evidence that the link removals were or are against policy. None. You can quote your practice at deletion discussions all you want, however, you should be citing policy that states that links are not to be removed. Would it change your mind about this if we held an RfC to add a line to Help:Requests for deletions or Wikidata:Deletion policy about this? Generally "not removing statements/links to items you nominate for deletion" is understood as a rule for the same reason as you shouldn't remove statements from any general item. But if adding this as a concrete rule will make you happier I will gladly open an RfC to have it clarified.
  • No one has actually asked me a question, nor asked for clarification of what I said, nor posed something to me Really? I wrote does the aesthetics of the template matter? And what exactly is ugly about a bunch of text?
BrokenSegue (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
"From now, I will undertake the practice of just removing incorrectly made links to the WSes, and will not be nominating those pages for deletion." — This really sounds like billinghurst is threatening to stop doing the thing they were doing correctly (nominating for deletion), but to continuing doing the thing they were doing incorrectly (improper sitelink removal). The effect of this would be to magnify the downside effect of the sitelink deletion. Are they really trying to declare war on Wikidata? This is not going to end well. Bovlb (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sitelink removal

“From now, I will undertake the practice of just removing incorrectly made links to the WSes, and will not be nominating those pages for deletion. I am deeply concerned by the fact that billinghurst is clearly threatening to cause more disruption in the future. If they follow through on this threat, then we’re going to have to find an appropriate way to protect the project from them. Do we want to get ahead of this problem or would it be better to ignore the threat and wait until they actually start doing it again?

I know that we don’t do this a lot here, but would it be useful to impose an editing restriction? Say that billinghurst is not allowed to remove any sitelinks from items except either as part of deleting the linked article or when moving the sitelink to another item? This would be a minor restriction as there’s seldom a legitimate reason to do that.

Arguably such an editing restriction is redundant, because it’s already clear that no-one should be removing sitelinks in anticipation of deletion, and editing restrictions are usually used only for behaviour that would otherwise be permitted. I’m suggesting it here because it might help billinghurst if they can see that the community is unified on this issue. No-one wants us to get to the point where we’re imposing blocks, and I’m trying to think of anything that might avoid it. Bovlb (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an edit restricition in this phase of the "conflict" is appropriate. Let's first see what billinghurst will be actually doing. It might be a good idea to mention in the header of WD:RFD that emptying items or links before deletion is not to be done. Or perhaps it is sufficient in cases like this one to point to Wikidata:Be bold. --Lymantria (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
OK. I threw the idea out there because I was trying to think of anything we could try that might reduce the likelihood that the "conflict" escalates to the next level.
Agreed with adding to the RFD header, although I see little evidence that people read the text that is already there. (For example, we see a lot of deletion requests for duplicate items.) How about something like:
Do not blank items in anticipation of deletion. In particular, do not remove sitelinks, even if you have requested deletion of the underlying project page or if you think that sitelinks of this type should not have Wikidata items.
Bovlb (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. People might not read it (or be intentionally deaf for the content), but can be pointed to it. --Lymantria (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
OK. I've inserted it into Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Header/text. Not sure how long it will take to show up. Bovlb (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
It's in. Thanks FuzzyBot! Bovlb (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary

{{section resolved|1=[[User:Lymantria|Lymantria]] ([[User talk:Lymantria|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)}}

I would agree that this topic has likely run its course. Many remedies have been discussed and some have been implemented. We are unlikely to get useful further input from the OP. Nevertheless, as this topic contains allegations of misuse of tools, I would prefer that an uninvolved administrator closes it with a summary of the discussion. Bovlb (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

To assist, I’ll offer a summary that I believe reflects the discussion above.
  1. The block of Tashishsimon by Bovlb was appropriate.
  2. The intervention of billinghurst into Tashishsimon’s block discussion was uncivil.
  3. Controversial blocks should be discussed by the community, and any administrator reviewing an unblock request should give this serious consideration. There is no such obligation when the block is contested only by a third party who could start a discussion directly.
  4. Items should not be blanked in anticipation of deletion, and sitelinks that are appropriate to an item should not be removed.
  5. We strive to treat everyone in our community with courtesy and respect. We should not give preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of their contributions or status.
Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for Review - Deletion of Page (Page ID: Q120838505) with Valid Source and Accurate Information

Dear Administrator,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a review of the recent deletion of the page with the title "Ahwelal Records," which had the Page ID: Q120838505. The deletion occurred due to reasons related to "spam / advertising," and I firmly believe this action was a misunderstanding.

I contributed to the page by adding valuable and accurate information, all of which was properly sourced from MusicBrainz (Label ID: a30e8049-060b-4da1-bae5-cd5bc0cd4f44). The content I provided for the page was as follows:

"Ahwelal Records is a young music label est. 2023, empowering diverse talents & fostering creativity. Committed to shaping the industry with innovative contributions."

Additionally, I included the relevant details of the label's country of origin, Germany, and its founding date, 20-01-2023.

I assure you that my contribution was not intended for spam or advertising purposes but rather aimed to provide meaningful and informative content to your esteemed platform. The MusicBrainz source validates the accuracy and legitimacy of the information added, making it a valuable addition to the page.

I kindly request that you thoroughly review the deleted page, taking into consideration the sourced information from MusicBrainz and the relevance of the details provided. I am confident that upon reevaluation, you will find that the content adheres to your website's guidelines and is in no way promotional or spammy.

Please know that I hold great respect for the community guidelines and the integrity of your platform. I am eager to work collaboratively with your team to resolve any concerns or misunderstandings regarding my contribution promptly.

I sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a positive response and a possible reinstatement of the page.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Abdullah Bakkar

User:abdullahbakkar1 Abdullahbakkar1 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant items: Q120838505 (Abdullahbakkar1). CC deleting admins @Wolverène Bovlb (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
CC @Madamebiblio as RFD proposer. Bovlb (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The item had a Instagram username (P2003) and a MusicBrainz label ID (P966). The Instagram has no posts yet. MusicBrainz show four releases.
@Abdullahbakkar1 Have you had a chance to read Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion yet? In particular, I draw your attention to the advice that you should bring all notability evidence to your appeal. In particular, while these two properties may serve to identify, they don't demonstrate that the item is sourceable. Do you have any news items about this record label? Does it have a website? Are any artists signed up with it? Bovlb (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Bovlb,
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your guidance regarding providing evidence of notability for the deleted page titled "Ahwelal Records" (Page ID: Q120838505).
Upon reviewing the Wikidata Guide to Requests for Undeletion, I understand the importance of showcasing reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate the notability of a subject. While "Ahwelal Records" does not have an official website, I would like to offer the following additional evidence to support the significance and sourceability of the record label:
  1. Recognition in Music Community: Despite not having an official website, "Ahwelal Records" has garnered recognition within the music community. This recognition can be evidenced through discussions and mentions in music-related forums, reputable music blogs, and social media platforms where music enthusiasts and industry professionals discuss emerging record labels and artists.
  2. Artists Associated with "Ahwelal Records": While "Ahwelal Records" does not have an online presence, it has managed to sign and work with notable artists. One such example is the artist "Ahwelal," whose work has been released under the label. This association with notable artists is indicative of the label's significance within the music industry.
  3. Track Release on Major Music Platforms: "Ahwelal Records" has recently released a track titled "Al Mostaqbal" by the artist "Ahwelal." This release is available on prominent music platforms like Spotify. You can find the track at the following link: https://open.spotify.com/track/2WHd0T0qii0HlFd3bpW9QD?si=9d1d48de2e634e14. This provides a legitimate source of the label's activity and involvement in music production and distribution.
  4. Media Coverage: Although the label does not maintain a website, there might be media coverage or press releases that mention "Ahwelal Records" and its activities. Such coverage could provide further evidence of the label's notability and presence in the music industry.
I understand that an official website serves as a substantial source of information for a record label's notability. However, in the absence of a website, the aforementioned evidence highlights the label's significance and activity within the music community.
In light of this new information, I kindly request that you reconsider the deletion of the page "Ahwelal Records" (Page ID: Q120838505). The content added was sourced from reputable and verifiable platforms, and I believe it contributes valuable information to your community.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. If you require any further details or have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your understanding, and I am hopeful for a positive resolution and the possible reinstatement of the page.
Sincerely,
Abdullah Bakkar Abdullahbakkar1 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abdullahbakkar1 Thanks for following up. I'm afraid that the ideal thing for you to provide here is specific links that establish notability. It doesn't really help us for you to just suggest that such resources might exist. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Has Ahwelal Records signed any artists other than Ahwelal? Bovlb (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Bovlb,
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your guidance on providing specific evidence to establish the notability of "Ahwelal Records" (Page ID: Q120838505).
Regarding your question about other artists signed with the label, I regret to inform you that "Ahwelal Records" has not worked with any other artists besides "Ahwelal." However, I can confirm that the label has multiple tracks released by "Ahwelal" available on various music platforms.
Specifically, "Ahwelal Records" has several tracks by "Ahwelal" distributed on major music platforms like Spotify, https://music.apple.com/de/album/al-mostaqbal/1697432949?i=1697432950&l=en-GB. These tracks showcase the label's commitment to supporting the work of this particular artist and demonstrate its presence in the music industry.
While there are no additional artists associated with the label at this time, the collection of tracks released by "Ahwelal Records" serves as tangible evidence of its activity and contributions within the music community.
I hope this information helps provide clarity on "Ahwelal Records" and its notability. I understand the importance of precise and verifiable evidence, and I am committed to offering the most accurate information possible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I appreciate your consideration for the reinstatement of the "Ahwelal Records" page.
Should you require any further information or have additional inquiries, please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
Abdullah Bakkar Abdullahbakkar1 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide sources that demonstrate this record label is notable. Nothing you've supplied thus far is sufficient. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The problem of understanding notability continues: Q120897464 CC @Bovlb Madamebiblio (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Madamebiblio Thanks for noting this. I was actually wondering when that would show up.
While I agree with you, my personal bar for instant deletion is pretty high and this doesn't pass it. My preferred path is to take such things through RFD where multiple editors can collaborate to reach a decision. Bovlb (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bovlb Agreeeee. I restrained myself from marking for deletion and searched for identifiers... RFD will be a good option. Madamebiblio (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  Keep deleted Per BrokenSegue. It doesn't look the OP is going to provide any additional evidence of notability. Bovlb (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:1811:340B:6900

2A02:1811:340B:6900::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This IP range is used by User:Huster to "align" WPFR data with Wikidata. I say "align", because in doing so they completely disregard whatever source was supporting the previous value. This often result as the source saying something else that the new value they are entering. While the user is certainly of good faith, I have already warned them on their talk page on FRWP, without answer. Perhaps a block of their IP adress, and a word on the talk page of the actuel user here, might make them reconsider their actions. Among the IP used, I know of:

  Comment Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with IP-users on highly dynamic ranges such as this one, which is what we'd normally do for good faith edits. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism driven by sexism

The user keeps changing the gender of Wikimedia Commons entries.

As a sister project female gender is the norm for Wikimedia Commons, we can see it at commons:Página principal (Main page), Commons:Primeiros passos (first steps)..., also "mediateca" is also a female word... He has a history of sexism in other communities and is dragging it to here.

I don't interact with him for fundamental values, so I will not send him a message, so please, take care of our community. Thank you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Also noticed others driven by xenophobia

He is removing the way that is written in Brazil from Portuguese entries, and not including an alias, he is simply vanishing the Brazilian variation from several entries. This is not pt-pt, or pt-eu to him remove pt-br, even from the alias. He also has a xenophobia historic, I was not expecting that I was just seeing if he enter here to do changes to Wikimedia Commons entries, well, I was right. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton Hi! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you please add a link for where you have tried and failed to resolve this issue directly with the user, and another for where you have informed them about this discussion? Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I do not interact with him, he has sever toxic behaviour, so I avoid to all costs. But as you can see, even in a middle of discussion he creates an edit war: [18] Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We need a resolution on this, letting the bot archive, and not solving the issue, gives a real problem to the lusophone speakers to deal with, and has no protection from troll attacks. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Ancient Warrior History

Ancient Warrior History (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adding WP:CASTE (Indian caste)-based racist nonsense to descriptions all over Wikidata. E.g. here (shudra is a deogatory and offensive term), here (Mulla is a highly offensive term for Muslims which the vandal replaced the latter with), here (adding a made-up and disparaging "Mugalputana"), here (adding a description meaning "son of a whore"). All edits are either simply vandalisms like here or other (Yadav/Ahir caste) POVPUSH. Very offensive conduct, the user needs to be restricted from editing. Gotitbro (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Gotitbro (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Also True History 369 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), The Real History Page (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), Gamachuiaaa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), Yaduvanshi_ahir's (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (the latter two confirmed as such and blocked on enwiki), are highly likely to be a sock of the above; adding the exact same casteist cruft as the above. Please see if a CU can be conducted to look for other sleepers. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not capable of judging this request. Perhaps another Hindi speaking user (@BRPever:?) can shed their light on this request? Also, a CU request can be done at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser, you can do that yourself. --Lymantria (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@1997kB:? --Lymantria (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Lymantria: In the meantime, can the martial race (Q1627674) be semi-protected. Edit-warring has been entrenched on that item with caste-warriors editing the description and the like to suit their version of a discredited British colonial era racialist policy. Gotitbro (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  Done --Lymantria (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ancient Warrior History, a CU at Wikidata confirms the sock nature of Ancient Warrior History and Great Aryan Boys and between the latter and True History 369 as possible and between True History and Narayana-Narayana as also likely. I have been redirected here for assesment of the behavior of the accounts which have not been blocked (i.e. beyond Great Aryan Boys and Warrior):

Unmarked edits are those of either the listed sock or the master (Warrior). Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Been pretty busy lately. I will have a look at it in upcomming days. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2023/07&oldid=1952757012"