Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/09

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protection of Q624017

Can April Jeanette Mendez (Q624017) please get semi-protected? Someone has been vandalizing the page on-and-off since May 2018, usually by changing the image to a non-genuine photo of the subject. The vandalism has especially ramped up since February of this year, encompassing most of the page's edit history. Prefall (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for 3 months. Esteban16 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Naftali Bennett (Q39318)

Multiple vandalism. need to be protected agains anonymous. Geagea (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Semi-protected for a week. --Esteban16 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Parc national du Lake District

lien s'il vous plait

✓ Done, deja fait--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Alidostoglu

Alidostoglu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is causing disruption in descriptions in Turkish.

  • Special:Diff/1491394660: Changing description to "LGBT member and anti-Islamic volleyballer".
  • Special:Diff/1490031595: Changing description to "Kurdish province in Eastern Turkey" (note that Q131495 is about the city, not the province).
  • Special:Diff/1491397229: Changing description to "Area of Kurdistan free of invaders".
  • Special:Diff/1490027624: Changing description to "Agreement made in the Swiss city of Lozan between Turkey and the Allied Powers which left Kurds without a status [without recognition]".

Needless to say, none of these edits were welcomed by the Turkish community. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Block Vandal

Please block user " Alidostoglu ". He used homophobic words for Turkish National Volleyball Player Ebrar Karakurt on him wikidata page. (15.15, 2 sep. 2021)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hide edits by 188.126.113.27

188.126.113.27 published what looks like home address in edit summary. --1Veertje (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Request semi-protection of Q63229830

Kozo Iizuka (Q63229830) - Vandalized several times since June. (protected Oct.2020-Jan.2021) Need semi-protection again. --Y-route (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

semi for a year --Emu (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for The Puzzle of Stalin's Death (Q58538588)

Please semi-protect The Puzzle of Stalin's Death (Q58538588). An IP is vandalizing this item's description. Best regards, --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

semi for two weeks (that probably won’t be enough …) --Emu (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Stalin's mysterious death (Q39521829)

Please semi-protect Stalin's mysterious death (Q39521829). An IP is vandalizing this item's alias. Best regards, --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Erling Haaland

Erling Haaland (Q28967995) is for some reason currently being vandalized by many different IP accounts.--Hjart (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Add archive links into entry

I would like to add de:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen/Archiv/2005 to Q17404785, but got rejected by the system. This is a legit archive page, please help add the page into the entry. —— Eric Liu（留言．百科用戶頁） 07:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 05:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Amazon (Q3884)

Excessive spammers activity and vandalism. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Jheremy De León

Jheremy De León (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism Ruy (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 22:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Violent term added in French concerning gay men

I saw this https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q104969456&diff=1450046302&oldid=1450046222 indicating in French "doivent mourir" as description, which means all gays "must die".Nattes à chat (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Texte en gras

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. –Yahya (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Pornhub (Q936394)

Highly visible page, long history of vandalism and spam. Please make the protection permanent this time --Trade (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Hazard-SJ (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Hazard-SJ (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

1.43.16.108

1.43.16.108 - blatant vandalism, mass adding of incorrect interwiki links (mostly small and low-active Wikipedias), improper merging of items. --Wolverène (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Globally blocked till October by steward علاء. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. -Yahya (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Q56236334

Q56236334
Moved from Wikidata:Project chat#Q56236334: Lockal (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, guys, and sorry if the question is in a wrong place or stupid one: not an active and experienced contributor here. We have this item Q56236334 that is used a source of the place of living of some people in Russia. It is highly used as @Marat-avgust linked it to lots of people as a proof of their address. Eventually, it is used as a source in Wikipedia via lists of people generated by @ListeriaBot, but it is not a reliable or even allowable source, as I think. I tried nominating it for deletion but @Emu suggested to discuss it here first. So, if you look to the history of this item, you would see frequent edits of the source address (zhytil.rosfirm.info, jutel.rosfirm.info, gytely.rosfirm.info and so on), the site is migrating and it is not an official source: it is based on the leakages of personal data of people living in Russia (we have various sites with telephone numbers, addresses, names and so on) and in my opinion it should have been even blacklisted (though it is migrated and the block wouldn't be sufficient). I am not unlinking this item myself as it would be a big set of changes. I want to hear the feedback, please. Rubin16 (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wipe it with a fire. But I think we need an assistance from admins to RevisionDelete (instead of just removing statements). It applies to 503 statements. --Lockal (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Related court decisions: https://ruzapret.com/?text=rosfirm --Lockal (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I deleted this, clearly non-notable. Please let me know if they recreate the item.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter thanks a lot. @Lockal do you know how to unlink 500 items here without manually editing, please? Rubin16 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: Done, I used the query above and submitted a bunch of "-STATEMENT" lines to QuickStatements. --Lockal (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at RFD - more admins?

Hi everyone. Please note that Wikidata:Requests for deletions has once again reached the point that it exceeds the template include size, so new entries at the bottom aren't rendered properly and thus harder to process. If admins have a few extra minutes to lend a hand it would be great - currently at 237 requests. I know that I had been neglecting RFD, and just processed a few requests myself after hearing about the backlog on IRC.

More generally, I think it might be helpful if wikidata got a few more admins? I know that an RFA can seem scary, and that if there are multiple going on that its slightly less scary, from what I understand - if anyone would like me to consider nominating them please send me an email, hopefully we can do a few at once. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

+1; there is easily enough to do for some more admins. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I’ve decided on dozens of RfD items in the last days, but it’s still not enough, so I agree: We need more admins. However, I think that the problem with WD:RFD is more complicated:
  1. On problem is the sheer volume of cases, that can be solved with more admins alone.
  2. Another challenge are some WD:N #2 cases. It can be really hard to decide if something is a “serious and publicly available reference” in some subject matters or geographic regions. People in connection with the film industry and the regions of India, Turkey and Nigeria spring to mind. More admins (or at least more experienced users) with a background in those areas would be ideal.
  3. Another challenge are streaks of similar RfD discussions where community consensus on notability is unclear or where admins are hesitant to decide for some other reason. Gymnicus often brings up those items, be it Wikimedians or single newspaper articles. While those are legitimate RfD, it often takes very long for them to be decided upon. More new admins won’t really help here, we need to find a way to discuss those topics more efficiently even though we don’t really want to discuss them.
  4. Then there are discussions that for some reason go on forever like this or this or this. One idea would be to have some sort of regular but informal hackathons where two or more admins (and other users) meet online and decide on the hard cases that are stuck in RfD limbo for too long.
--Emu (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, Nollywood and Bollywood are not that well covered in enwiki, so items about these tend to lack sitelinks there. OTH, they could easily be covered in other languages.
      Odd that some may insist on merging items in violation of Help:Merge. --- Jura 11:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the backlog on protected edit requests is worse .. Just noticed that MediaWiki_talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties/Archive_2 had the request template as MediaWiki_talk:Wikibase-SortedProperties got archived too quickly. Seems we lack admins interested in doing these requests. I suppose we need a few more interface admins. --- Jura 11:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    sorted properties are updated by normal admins, not interface admins - I've been taking care of keeping the list updated as new properties are created or labels changed, because I wrote a script for that. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we can use no consensus to delete for requests that are over a certain duration (1 month? 3?) automatically, just because it seems they would never get dealt with otherwise --DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    I do not think this is a good idea. There are reasons why some discussions are not being closed quickly:
    • Quite some cases are easy to close, but there is shortage of admins to look after them. Once they are not fresh any longer (1 or 2 days), barely anyone looks after them.
    • Rather few cases are complicated because the nominated item(s) should be deleted, but it needs some form of additional effort to close the case, such as for instance edits.
    • Some cases also need a more detailed closing remark, because they are special cases in some form.
    None of these cases should be archived just because some time has passed since the nomination (or since last comment in the section), as they indicate that there is an actual problem to solve.
    I personally do not find it difficult to close many of the cases that are sitting on the WD:RfD page for longer times. Roughly a year ago we had a similar situation with ~300 (or so) open cases, and I was able to bring the backlog down to effectively barely any open cases. Administrative experience (particularly in the deletion biz) definitely helps here, of course. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Petrik Eijou

Petrik Eijou (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sockpuppet of Jecika Smith (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Both users made items about Lance Bachmann  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade (talk • contribs) at 11:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC).

Adding page to wikidata

Hello

Kindly add: Salah_Zulfikar to wikidata id Q7403450

Thank you  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) at 20:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

Semi-protection of Jill Valentine (Q840368)

After the last semi-protection, nothing has changed, the vandals are back again. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done semi for another three months, but @Kirilloparma: the exact birthday isn’t mentioned on PT.WP as the reference indicated. --Emu (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

193.207.192.234

Hi. This IP (193.207.192.234) did many changes related to Dutch footballers by replacing calciatore to scalciatore. I googled scalciatore and it may be a meaningless word (check here). I did a few reverts, but there're so much edit needed to undo so I leave them to you. Thanks! Nguyenhai314 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for mentioning. I have found some more IP's with similar vandalism. Lymantria (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Lymantria (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Q16890578

Q16890578 is receiving excessive vandalism. Tbhotch (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Jiteshoureducation9

The sole contribution of User:Jiteshoureducation9 to vandalize Chinmaya Mission (Q3522629) in June 2020. Aavindraa (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Fast-paced vandalism on Q4291812

Please, protect Q4291812 and block this vandal. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:8004:C82:D673:F1D4:97DB:9AA5:890B

2001:8004:C82:D673:F1D4:97DB:9AA5:890B (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Keeps adding the suffix "De Van" to items for different people called Gerard. I started reverting their contributions, but they are more than 50 just today; looks like mass rollback will be needed. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked their range (2001:8004::/33) for three months for such (cross-wiki) vandalism. Thank you for the report. —Hasley+ 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 31.4.238.245

31.4.238.245 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is an obvious sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), especially when you look at crosswiki contributions. Sjö (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 31.4.238.227

31.4.238.227 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is an obvious sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), especially when you look at crosswiki contributions, like ca:Assassinat de Gabriel Fernández where they write an article but change the dates. Sjö (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Kyrenia (Q206760)

Can you please protect Kyrenia (Q206760)? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q3090983

LTA. MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 19:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:180.252.171.47

180.252.171.47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: label vandalism, block evasion – LiberatorG (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Q24699193

Q24699193 should be restored: she authored Q108432832 (which is used as source and therefore structurally needed). Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC).

This item at the end mixed two different persons. Could you please create a new one.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

SP for Q98211889

Hello. For Villa Aurelia of Lake Como (Q98211889) : Addition of advertising statements, or at least unnecessary (probably a real estate agency). You have to constantly patroll the item to clean the item. Thanks in advance. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked User:151.20.7.234. Lymantria (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Kkardechlar gus

User:Kkardechlar gus, a single-purpose user, insists in marrying unmarried couples. No way he or she reads my revert edit summaries. I hate to report people here, but I also do not know how to stop this disruption. --E4024 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. --Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A serious reminder to WD:NPA

Hello,
I see this diff from Snackmurat. I also see his summaries and his User talk:Snackmurat, whose contents have been deleted several times. I think firm intervention needs to be taken. I let the administrative community judge the approach to be taken. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  • That wasn't a personal attack. That was sage advice from an old man to a young kid who was spamming his name across multiple websites, not just WMF. The editor in question has had all of those creations removed from WD, WP, and WC - before using an IP to re-create the same spam. And, not that it matters here, but they have been removed from most other sites as well.
Good day. Snackmurat (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Q108388886

Please delete this cross-wiki spam entry. Thanks in advance. Unnamed UserName me 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This should also be deleted for the same reason. Unnamed UserName me 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please use WD:RFD for such requests. Requesting deletion of items with sitelinks is futile. --Emu (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

RfDs by Gymnicus

RfD by Gymnicus - request for admin action

User @Gymnicus has been nominating notable items for deletion, damaging the project and risking demotivation of users. I warned him/her first at User talk:Gymnicus and now again at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q10379735. He/she was also notified by @Bluerasberry, @LAP959 and other on the talk page linked above. Please stop him/her from disrupting Wikidata this way, it's getting out of hand. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: you seem to be in conflict regularly. I appreciate your enthusiasm but we need a good outlet for you. If you care a lot about deletion practices, then would you consider drafting rules, guidelines, and policy so that when you make deletion nominations, you can point to a place for community discussion? If you did deletions more slowly with more conversation then I think you could have better outcomes. Going into conflict with less conversation may not be sustainable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál: So you want to silence a critic of Wikimedia merchandising with me. You would like that, but unfortunately I have to disappoint you. I don't give a shit whether you like my requests for deletion or not. The applications are justified and I am therefore not afraid of any punishment here. --Gymnicus (talk)
@Gymnicus:Please tone down your language and consider taking a break from editing if it helps you keep calm and civil.--So9q (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vojtěch Dostál: I agree that NKCR IDs generally imply notability but the RfD was created on 22 July 2021. The NKCR ID isn’t on VIAF and seems to be created on 2 September 2021 well after the RfD. So I don’t really see any wrongdoing on the side of Gymnicus in this particular instance. As for other RfD: I’m not really happy with their activities there (see for example here but not every unwise behaviour is disruptive … but of course I don’t know everything that’s going on on Wikidata. --Emu (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Decision regarding Q108042919

My fight against Wikimedia merchandising is getting bigger and bigger. After there was already a discussion about the relevance of tools on the WD:N talk page due to a deletion request from me, I was reported yesterday by Vojtěch Dostál for disruptive behavior here on the page, as you can see in the section above. Now there is also the fact that I want to have a decision on whether to keep or restore a data object checked. The following gives you a little insight into the history of the data object Manuel Merz (Q108042919)

  • August 10, 2021: creation of the data object by Azertus
  • September 2, 2021: deletion request for the data object by me
  • September 4, 2021: decision to keep the data object by Mahir256 based on the greeting from Mr. Merz
  • September 5, 2021: intervention from me on Mahir256's talk page
  • September 5, 2021: subsequent decision to delete by Mahir256
  • September 8, 2021: request to restore the data object by Azertus due to participation of Mr. Merz in Wikimania 2021 (Q63949333) and Data Quality Days 2021 (Q108461073)
  • September 8, 2021: restoration of the data object by Mahir
  • September 9, 2021: intervention through me on Mahir256's talk page again
  • September 9, 2021: request from Mahir to move my outburst to this page

That was the brief introduction to the data object and the discussion process for it. Regarding my first intervention, it should perhaps be said that at this point in time, from my point of view, the data object had not fulfilled any of the three relevance points of Wikidata. The data object did not link to a Wikipedia article or any other Wikimedia page through which one becomes relevant. The data object also had no neutral sources through which the second point of the relevance criteria would be fulfilled. In addition, the data object had no structural use at this point in time. Only at the third point has something changed. I find this structural benefit very, very questionable, which is why the intervention, which is supposed to deal with the following two points:

  1. I still don't understand how Mahir256 was able to decide to keep first. Mahir256 is actually a fighter against merchandising and self-expression. But Mahir256 does not seem to be interested in this point here. @Mahir256: Perhaps you can now explain again how you first decide to keep in this case?
  2. The data object Manuel Merz (Q108042919) currently has a structural benefit through participation in Wikimania 2021 (Q63949333) and Data Quality Days 2021 (Q108461073). But I doubt that simply attending an event makes a person relevant. You can also see very clearly how Wikimedia merchandising works. Using data objects that are relevant due to pages in the Wikimedia namespace, employees of Wikimedia and its sub-organizations are made relevant if they are not relevant by themselves. I think that should be stopped.

I hope that the outburst was not too strong and I look forward to your comments --Gymnicus (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

With respect to my being a "fighter against merchandising [sic] and self-expression" and tying it to my decisions on this item, unless Azertus is Manuel Merz in disguise or has created the item on Manuel's request, and in the absence of the types of information typically added by spammers/promoters on their items (such as social media identifiers for every platform or an inordinately large amount of personal information incommensurate with their natural exposure on the Internet), I did not consider the item self-promotional or spam. Other admins may think otherwise, and I will respect their decision should that be the case. Mahir256 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Am I getting it right: If a data object doesn't look like spam or self-expression to you, are you not checking the data object against the relevance criteria at all? --Gymnicus (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please be fair: That’s not what Mahir256 wrote and you know that’s not the way Mahir256 decides. There’s really no need to further escalate this situation. --Emu (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: Here's my thoughts. An RfD is a chance to improve an article/item. Thats what I did and that's all there's to it. Btw, he's not "simply attending" Data Quality Days 2021 (Q108461073), he's organising the event in the capacity of a facilitator. --Azertus (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notwithstanding possible other reasons for notability, Manuel Merz (Q108042919) is notable per WD:N #2 because of GND ID (P227) and Library of Congress authority ID (P244) identifiers. --Emu (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: Then the relevance is clearly given. As it looks at least for Library of Congress authority ID (P244), these data records have existed for a long time. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:186.152.166.176

186.152.166.176 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism DanielAlba15 (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 12:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Mdklkldmkas

Mdklkldmkas (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Account created to vandalize Sebastián Yatra (Q17478270) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by MisterSynergy. Lymantria (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:181.64.36.211

181.64.36.211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 31 hours. Lymantria (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Admin flag of ChristianKl

(Original: Esteban16 abuses his powers)

Esteban16 removed my admin flag without valid reason. I did engage in 5 admin action in the time frame, it's just that I care more about dealing with issues of the admin noticeboard that don't automatically make it into the logs then most other administrators. Rules dictate that administrators are supposed to be responsive and after taking my admin flag Esteban16 now for 7 days refuses to defend his actions. Removing the admin flag from other admins without previous discussion at a time when the discussions are about how we need more admins seems like a serious abuse of powers. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I aware, five *logged* admin actions/property creations are required as measure for admin activity. According to this report and also this tool result, you made four logged admin actions (and no property creations).
I understand that this is an unfortunate and frustrating situation, but to me it appears to be handled correctly. Moreover, the same procedure was followed with quite some other (ex-)admins who also had to experience this due to inactivity. Based on the policy, you need to request the admin flag again via Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator if you want to continue to act in admin role. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Flags can only be removed by stewards. Esteban16 is not a steward as far as I see.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Esteban16 requested rights removal at metawiki [1] and notified ChristianKl on his talk page. The right was actually removed by steward User:Tks4Fish based on the request by Esteban16 [2]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
ChristianKl: I'm sorry I didn't reply to you on your talk page, I didn't get notified. As said above, I acted according to the policy and placed the request at Meta-Wiki. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Where do you see the rule for 5 logged admin actions documented? I think the most trivial reading of admin action is that it's about those actions that need admin rights to be fulfilled. Handling requests on the Administrator noticeboard frequently falls under that category. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The relevant policy is Wikidata:Administrators#Losing adminship, which indeed does not mention logged admin actions. However, five logged actions is the threshold that was used for years; as a result, quite a lot of admins lost their admin rights via the exact same procedure as it happened to you.
Generally speaking, unlogged actions are difficult to quantify, since they do not appear anywhere in a countable manner; by far not every comment on the Administrators' noticeboard is an administrative action either. IMO the "losing adminship" policy does not make much sense if it does not refer to logged admin actions. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that this is true given that there was a time in the past where I lost and then regained the admin flag in a matter of days, likely because someone thought it through and noticed that I actually have been active.
The idea of the policy is to remove inactive admins. It's quite easy to note if someone is inactive by looking at their contribution. If someone contributes enough that it's really hard to tell, why would see they them as inactive?
Generally, it takes more effort to deal with Admin notice board issues then to go through Pasleim's list and delete 5 items. There's no good reason why that activity shouldn't be counted. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Last time someone requested rights removal of your admin rights (July 2018) it was done prematurely which was not in line with the policy (activity to be checked on the first day of each month). That's why you regained the right easily. It has simply been a fault removal request.
  • Wikidata:Administrators/Timeline#Former administrators lists former admins. As you can see, there are in fact plenty of admins who lost their rights due to inactivity.
  • The corresponding policy, as linked above, has not been changed for a long time, and it has not been discussed controversially either as much as I am aware. If you are unhappy with the current policy and you want to change it, you are welcome to initiate a policy discussion and possibly also an RfC. However, I don't think that it will help you in this case.
  • As mentioned earlier, you can re-apply for admin rights via the usual venue. Even this has been done by others several times in the past.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Q4196772 (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission)

Q4196772 has received many vandalism lately and I am recommending a protection for it. 114.10.20.221 04:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

protection for Q5729169

excessive vandalism without source لوقا (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q6276882 and related items

There is a troll vandalizing Jordan Peterson (Q6276882) and related items. They introduce offensive material, change labels, etc. Some of this vandalism is highly visible in a few Wikipedias and is indexed by search engines. The material stayed unreverted for months. Affected items are Jordan Peterson (Q6276882), Mikhaila Peterson (Q105754574), Robert O. Pihl (Q20006876), Walter Peterson (Q106100104), Tammy Peterson (Q100378079). MarioGom (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandal – Pokkyypokkyy

Pokkyypokkyy (talk • contribs • logs) – global burn needed, they're spilling over from Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Lymantria blocked here, also blocked on Commons. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.223.9.44

83.223.9.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: All edits of this user are vandalism, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.223.9.44 Eroux108 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:AlbertoMartinezmkt

AlbertoMartinezmkt (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Publishing of ads with various sites as reference such as https://www.pdfandcreate.com — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Revision history of "User:HarryNº2"

Please remove all entries in my revision history and reset them to the original backlog. Thanks. --HarryNº2 (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@HarryNº2: Your user page (created on accident by someone attempting to write you a message) has been deleted. Mahir256 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thank you! --HarryNº2 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Giorgos Seferis

Today several different IP-accounts has repeatedly changed the birthday of Giorgos Seferis (Q165823) to a less accurate value, inconsistent with the sources.--Hjart (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, protected for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q83566876

Please semi-protect Ibai Llanos (Q83566876) - history of vandalism and protections. Best, Aranya (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Oscar de Jesús zagarra pantoja

Oscar de Jesús zagarra pantoja (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Keeps adding his name or other nonsense to unrelated entities. I was going to leave an escalated warning, but I see he is already blocked in four other projects. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked globally. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q28973866

Please semi-protect Vinícius Júnior (Q28973866) - high level of IP vandalism, living person, popular theme. --Jklamo (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, 1 month--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for extended soft protection Q6787643

Hi. It seems that the gambling spam sites are targeting Matka gambling (Q6787643). Could we please have extended soft protection for the page. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning JakirMiller40‎

JakirMiller40‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Obvious sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), especially when you look at crosswiki contributions. This is a typical edit, and so is creating new articles about murder victims on different Wikipedia versions, but changing important data in the articles. Sjö (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Please semi Q534251

for some time. Thanks. --- Jura 21:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —Hasley+ 14:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

unattended batch by User:Gamaliel

Please check Topic:Wgxjx85jorxn5d3x. --- Jura 19:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --- Jura 19:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 2a02:2f01:7107:3b00:99d2:3f03:7af6:86b6

2a02:2f01:7107:3b00:99d2:3f03:7af6:86b6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – Reasons: vandalism. Gikü (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:E0A:35A:D5E0:0:0:0:0/64

2A01:E0A:35A:D5E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeated removal of valid sitelinks after warning – LiberatorG (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Stephen Hawking (Q17714)

Can you protect (again) Stephen Hawking (Q17714), 4 vandalism this month, at least 12 this year. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by MisterSynergy
This section was archived on a request by: — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 19:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 19:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Laura González Flores

Q42322190 = Q105801786 = Q108477914, please fusion. --83.55.113.171 23:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC) --- please --83.55.113.171 19:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

→ ← Merged --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Francisco Mejía-Guinand

Dear Wikipedia team

I am writing to Wikipedia administrators with the purpose to watch carefully the article: Q25344964. This articles correspond to my name: Francisco Mejía-Guinand. As a living person. I considered the statements with the underline words sneaky vandalism my good-will as a person, architect and artist.

"Apparent New York based architect and visual artist born in Bogotá, Colombia. However, many doubts have been cast on the credibility of this person as an artist. Ranging from obvious near-copies to undocumented sales at auctions."

I would request to the team of administrator please nominate the words underlying in the article above for deletions. It is obvious vandalism, falsifying existing data with intent to disrupt me. I also appreciate if you carefully just check and add the following pages corresponding to my document records of my auctions and my activity as an architect and artist for more than thirty-five years of in-interrupted work. I present to your consideration some primary sources of my activity as an artist as a prove of my integrity.

Annexes: Mejía-Guinand at Auctions Records:

https://www.phillips.com/artist/1986/francisco-mej%C3%ADa-guinand

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2014/latin-american-art-n09152/lot.113A.html



https://artist.christies.com/Francisco-Mejia-Guinand--34968.aspx

https://www.germannauktionen.ch/en/auctions/164?page=5

https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Francisco-Mejia-Guinand/20EF2995CEF6EDFF


Critical Text:

https://static.arteinformado.com/documentos/artistas/846/Geometria_y_Niebla_2006_por_Juan_Manuel_Bonet.doc

https://www.amazon.com/Francisco-Mejia-Guinand-Ana-Maria-Escallon/dp/9588156041

https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/9953207443506421

https://library.answerthepublic.net/tag/Mejia-Guinand

Francisco Mejía-Guinand Press:

https://www.arteinformado.com/guia/f/francisco-mejia-guinand-846

https://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-3238789

https://www.revistaexclama.com/arte/geometria-multidimensional/

https://www.semana.com/christies-subastara-obra-colombianos-mejiaguinand/63078/

Francisco Mejía-Guinand Galleries:

http://www.promo-arte.com/eng/artists/30_Francisco_mejia_guinand.html

https://clairbykahn.com/2008/11/07/francisco-mejia-guinand-paintings/

Museums Collections

http://museum.oas.org/exhibitions/2000s/2003-guinand.html

If you need more information about my activity as an architect, painter and sculptor don't hesitate to contact me at: francisco@mejiaguinand.com

Sincerely Francisco Mejía-Guinand

I'm not an admin, but I have removed the disparaging language and restored the previous neutral description. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Korean Wikipedia "Battle of Middle-earth 2" Selected as a good article

The Korean Wikipedia article 'Battle of Middle-earth 2' has been selected as a good article, so please change it. 멜론트리 (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Huynhucc

Suspected sockpuppet of Mạc Thái Tổ. Unnamed UserName me 19:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Another one, but too stale: Lưu Dụ. Unnamed UserName me 19:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Please file your request at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser, so that checkusers can confirm sockpuppetry. Lymantria (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Data expired. I would like to request a duck block. Unnamed UserName me 17:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:216.71.230.196

216.71.230.196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: A known LTA currently blocked until May on enwiki is also active here, deliberately falsifying statements. There, I request a block for this IP. IceWelder (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The user continued its vandalism today and likely will again tomorrow. IceWelder (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The user remains active. IceWelder (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of common names of organisms in labels

Is there a policy somewhere on recording common names of animals, plants, and other organisms in labels? I ask because there is a wide divergence of practice, and when I recently changed some labels to remove uppercase, one insistent editor reverted all of my changes. Commonly used style manuals in English say not to capitalize common/vernacular names of organisms unless there is a proper noun in the name.

For example, The Chicago Manual of Style says:

For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.119. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: 

  Dutchman's-breeches
  jack-in-the-pulpit
  mayapple
  Cooper's hawk
  rhesus monkey
  Rocky Mountain sheep

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) says: The first letters of words in a virus name, including the first word, should only begin with a capital when these words are proper nouns (including host genus names but not virus genus names) or start a sentence. Single letters in virus names, including alphanumerical strain designations, may be capitalized. ... Examples: 

  Isolates of dengue virus 2 were obtained ....
  Detection of West Nile virus in human serum ....
  Salmonella phage SE1 was isolated ....
  Sida ciliaris golden mosaic virus (SCGMV) causes ....
  Aphids transmit potato virus Y (PVY)

Numerous other websites for English names give the same advice, for example https://www.dailywritingtips.com/when-to-capitalize-animal-and-plant-names/, https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/zo150/mozley/nomencla.html, https://mostlybirds.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/should-common-names-of-species-be-capitalized/, and https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/capitalization-of-animal-names.html.

Is there, or could/should there be a written policy on capitalization of common names? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a matter for admins? unless you want something done about the user reverting you? FWIW I agree with you. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:TYC

TYC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: he reuse deleted items in some wikipedia for other things. Afaz (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I made a comment regarding this problem on their user talk page, and I am also undoing quite a lot of the mess created by this user.
Please leave this section here without a "resolved" tag for a couple of days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism following Google Doodle

Greetings. We're seeing a flurry of vandalism in Q164797 after it's been featured in a Google Doodle today, marking the 100th anniversary of Paulo Freire. Could you (semi) protect it, please? It's affecting mainly the mobile users, who see the one-liner description taken from Wikidata right below the title. Thank you. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mahir256: thank you for the protection [3]. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 193.248.62.132

193.248.62.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is regularly vandalizing French descriptions. I've rolled back a number of them. --Hjart (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 14:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism Homo ergaster on Wikipedia lt

Dear Colleagues. I send you this message to request your help. On lt Wikipedia, we have a vandal user who is an Administrator. It is Homo ergaster. This gentelman deletes everything he doesn't like with no dicussion. I give you one example : https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEC_Paris ; He doesn't answer when you ask : https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojo_aptarimas:Homo_ergaster#HEC_Paris , delete you when you ask explanation : https://lt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikipedija%3AForumas&type=revision&diff=6364104&oldid=6364099 and even block your account : https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojas:YtoSu just to make sure he can continue to do vandal things. What should we do to protect wikipedia? Thanks a lot in advance. --2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:A5BB:6215:6CA8:A62C 12:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC) PS : Maybe it is French racism which is worst : https://lt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinci_(construction)&action=edit&redlink=1 ; https://lt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint-Gobain&action=edit&redlink=1 (plenty of example like this ; all French related articles).

 Not done no apparent connection to Wikidata --Emu (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

82.78.75.213 and 86.122.114.47

Same vandal as Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/08#Report concerning User:86.126.160.106, Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/01#Vandalism by Special:Contributions/82.78.75.241 – the longer you'll ignore the harder it will be to mitigate, Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2020/09/27#unsourced junk/vandalism entries by IP, and many more (some possibly missed) instances. Gikü (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Until this time (last update 19:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)), these are the addresses I could identify:
I'd like to add that parallel to their Wikidata vandalism this person wreaks havoc at Commons and rowiki as well. COM:ANI request link: [4] What I mean to say is that if someone wants to help reverting, please check their cross-wiki edits too. Gikü (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:41.37.172.87

41.37.172.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:82.78.75.246 – known vandal, please block on sight

82.78.75.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Per 82.78.75.213 and 86.122.114.47 Gikü (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:BoomGaming654

BoomGaming654 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: creation of hoax FogueraC (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Lymantria (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

rating of Peerage ID

How is the The Peerage person ID (P4638) actually rated? So is it more like a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320)? An explanation of why it is so would be nice for me personally too. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think this is a matter for the admins. But my understanding is that historically all of the peerage was imported so someone thought the identifier implied notability. I think many people happen to disagree. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: Why shouldn't that affect the admins? You are, so to speak, the guardians of relevance. So if I suggest a data object with such an ID for deletion, then ultimately you decide whether it will be deleted or not. That's why you as admins have to have at least a tendency as to whether this property makes you relevant or not. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Some remarks:
  • Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) and Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) are liberally being added to properties by users and do not have any binding effect. These two items have not even been created based on community consensus, it was (apparently) more like a spontaneous attempt that works to some extent. But you shouldn't really rely on it—admins will probably not even look for these values.
  • TP is a bit of a special case here. We do not really have consensus to which degree genealogical databases imply notability here due to the difficulties related to them.
  • So it is up to the admin's discretion how to handle a given request. As much as I am aware, many admins are rather careful and do not delete when there is no clear consensus, unless other issues (e.g. BLP-related) matter as well.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Ah, I was not aware of the fact that the two aforementioned data objects were simply added like that. I thought the addition was based on consensus. But I also have to admit that I hadn't looked for it either, just assumed that there was a consensus for it. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
There is consensus in so far that their existence is widely accepted and the values are in line with the actual practice in most cases so that they do provide some guidance to users and admins. However, their creation have not been discussed in advance, and they are not part of any policy here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Good to know, thank you! --Gymnicus (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:186.169.59.84

186.169.59.84 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Regards --Masegand (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 17:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Katyń (Q714713)

Persistent IP-hopping vandalism. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Done by MisterSynergy. —Hasley+ 12:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q4055782

Please. --Infovarius (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (Q2908)

17 vandalism today, has been protected 4 times before. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Q97666474 has been the subject of recent vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, 1y semi. It's unfortunately not just a recent problem. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.207.145.88

193.207.145.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: BLP violations and vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 23:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.207.202.99

193.207.202.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Block evasion and vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Siddhant Baban Ghegadmal

Siddhant Baban Ghegadmal (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism on Q10596254 (seems to be going on since July 9) GeeJee (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks. Unfortunately the vandalism on item Q10596254 continues through various anonymous users. GeeJee (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Antimod

Antimod (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Serial vandalism on Israeli/Hebrew articles, seemingly created only to revert changes made by the user Mod. מתקןמחשב (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Anifowose12

Anifowose12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: spam FogueraC (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done already blocked. - Fuzheado (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Altorum2609

Altorum2609 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: spam FogueraC (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked. Fuzheado (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Middle-earth 2 Selected as a good article

The Battle of Middle-earth 2 article has been registered as a good article in Korean Wikipedia. Please fix. 멜론트리 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

And Durer's Rhino article was also selected as a good article by Korean Wikipedia. please fix this too. 멜론트리 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Lymantria (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Q3503829

Please semi-protect Sundar Pichai (Q3503829) - history of vandalism and two protections. Aranya (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for two weeks. stanglavine msg 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Lukeskywalker1978

Lukeskywalker1978 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: The user has some sort of weird thing for CAPITALIZED names. They have been blocked five times now on dewiki, three of which were for moving/"move warring" and edit wars on TV channels, trying to change, for example Warner TV Comedy (Q59244571) WarnerTV Comedy to WarnerTV COMEDY. They have also been blocked on eswiki and on commons (for unrelated reasons). When they are blocked, they continue here. This is the best I can do with the user edits interface to show relevant changes. See the enwiki and dewiki sitelink changes if you need proof that every RTL LIVING should really be RTL Living. The vandalism reports here and here are more detailed, but in German.

They do this at the moment the TV channel really does change its name, so it doesn't get reverted but fixed. I've previously engaged them in the nicest possible terms about a different issue (deleting old data instead of deprecating or adding start/end dates), but they just doubled down.

I couldn't care less about the items in question, so I can't keep policing this across five wikis for single-day bans at a time. Focussing just on quality, a longer ban will always be better here than a shorter one. Karl Oblique (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked for a period of one week. - Fuzheado (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User Block Request Googlepanel5565

Googlepanel5565 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotional only account Rockpeterson (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  •  Not done I agree it looks promotional (especially with the username) and the edits are low quality but I'm not sure their contributions are bad enough to merit a block. Some of those items might pass notability. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User Block request Abiodunabiodun

Abiodunabiodun (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotional only account , please check item created Rockpeterson (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and checked. Also filed a CU request. Lymantria (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q16864

Please semi-protect Horacio Quiroga (Q16864) - high level of IP vandalism, popular theme. --Jklamo (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:208.111.94.50

208.111.94.50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, same as above. Maybe protect Q844675 for a few days? Jules* (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done IP blocked 2 weeks, item semiprotected 6 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Abiodunabiodun

Abiodunabiodun (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sockpuppet of Anifowose12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and Altorum2609 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) FogueraC (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Abiodunabiodun. Lymantria (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:95.39.226.28

95.39.226.28 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism at Gunther von Hagens (Q65896). --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Lymantria (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:93.176.130.252

93.176.130.252 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adding many spam references or statements with spam references in the past week Aranya (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The account Miguel Del Campillo (talk • contribs • logs) is also doing the same thing, except they are taking it a step further and creating and linking translated eswiki articles that also have a spam link (which I have removed). Aranya (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Same with these accounts: AlbertoMartinezmkt (talk • contribs • logs) and Ggdigo (talk • contribs • logs). It seems they are only adding certain statements so they can add spam websites as masquerading as references. This doesn't seem constructive - I think I'll request checkuser. Aranya (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked the IP going to look at the users now. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:‎Nitramartin Pérez Rico

‎Nitramartin Pérez Rico (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account. Regards Kirilloparma (talk)

I was about to report them myself. Would like to add that the user is showing the same behavior in Commons and es-wiki. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Gigi Hadid (Q16843706)

Can we protect Gigi Hadid (Q16843706) please? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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) 05:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2001:EE0:21E:FBE0:8261:FB52:F4F0:6216

2001:EE0:21E:FBE0:8261:FB52:F4F0:6216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Using descriptions as forum Jklamo (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hürrem Sultan (Q255809)

Is there a way to protect Ottoman women, such as Hürrem Sultan (Q255809), from the edits of visitors who see a Turkish TV series and come here to apply what they learn from a TV screen? Thanks a lot for a possible protection. --E4024 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for John de Lancie (Q550778)

Hi, repeted vandalism for the past 3 days. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

ps : the ip 70.162.236.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) acts on other items, it's probably the same user as the blocked ip 124.169.226.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
— eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Over 200 edit today on Q550778...
@DerHexer: since you blocked 124.169.226.46, can you look at this ? — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Item protected for a year and ip blocked for a month by MisterSynergy.

This section was archived on a request by: — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 20:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Prolific hoaxing sockpuppeter

Can somebody please block User:Sibinia and User:$ibinia as obvious socks of User:Kriestovo Nysian? This is a long-term cross-wiki abuser who was globally locked in 2020. All accounts have been pursuing the same hoax agenda. See my report on Commons [5] for some background. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

User:$ibinia is now indef'ed, after obvious abuse of editing priviledges. It still need some tidying now. I am also going to observe the editing of the other account and won't hesitate to block them indefinitely as well if it appears to be operated by the same person. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Just to clarify, after the recent outburst it's become rather clear that they are actually not the same person. $ibinia is most likely en:WP:LTA/Wikinger, a long-time vandal, who likes to impersonate other problematic users. Sibinia is highly problematic too, but for their content hoaxes, not for their personal abuse. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wholly reverted this painful AutoBUSE-r! 46.134.2.244 12:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: Special:Contributions/93.131.73.199 is the next sock IP of Sibinia/Kriestovo Nysian. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.48.47.37 is to be listed here in the case of a recurrent vandalism. 46.134.37.98

There is another BAN evasion: Special:Contributions/78.49.48.83. 46.134.189.93 08:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop blind reverts! Almost in all cases (at least in my watchlist) they worsen the content. --Infovarius (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverters are editwarring too! Especially IP ones. Admin actions needed. I propose to semi-protect the following items: Sviatoslav II of Kiev (Q469731), Reims Gospel (Q2657399), Vlad the Impaler (Q43715), Codex Marianus (Q1968471) and probably more. --Infovarius (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, edit warring stopped, now only plain corrections! 83.7.24.252 06:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Me too, no more edit warring. 83.26.158.23 07:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Not notable chess players

Since some weeks, the user:Игорь Темиров is creating a large bunch of items for not notable chess players. This topic was discussed here and previously deleted a large bulk of non-notable chess players there. I therefore request

  1. delete all items of non-notable chess players. They can be found with this query, starting with the QID Q108...
  2. block the user temporarily, since he is not responding to my contribution on his talk page
  3. administratively tell the user that creating non-notable items shall not be done.

Best regards. 84.137.75.18 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear administrators, editors and 84.137.75.18. I would like to update the data on wikidata with the data from the monthly FIDE rankings. In addition, I add cards for chess players from this ranking who do not have a card. I have not found a consensus solution, according to which they cannot be added. Can you please tell me where such a solution is? Until then, with your permission, I resume my work. Игорь Темиров (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Please immediately stop vandalizing items like Shakhriyar Mamedyarov (Q312267): You are removing valid sources, dates of retrieval, and identifiers with which the statements can be tracked in the source! 84.137.64.66 08:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Игорь Темиров: Please try to find consensus before large-scale editing operations. Please also try to build upon previous discussions and try to understand your colleagues’ motivation. --Emu (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Игорь Темиров

This user is vandalizing chess player items by removing valid sources. Please block him! Steak (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Any rating that has been published by FIDE is a valid rating, and therefore we should document it! And you changed the statements by removing the sources. Steak (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a monthly list of heads of state. Will we also add to everyone every month that he is the head of state?
If the rating has not changed, what useful information do we lose if we delete it? On the contrary, we create false information that the chess player was active during this period. Игорь Темиров (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing like a "List of monthly list of heads of state". But there is "Montly Elo rating list". You obviously have no fact-based knowledge of chess and chess ratings. You came to this topic, started your scripts, and produced a large pile of ****. Stop it! Steak (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Steak

This user is vandalizing chess player items by returning duplicate data. Please block him! Игорь Темиров (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh cmon! Please understand that statements of published Elo data is not "duplicate data", independent of the rating changed or not. Steak (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
They carry the information that the rating stayed constant and is not simply missing. This is sufficient information for itself. Secondly, it is not possible to identify falsly missing ratings if a lot of them are missing intentionally. Lastly, it makes it possible to query monthly rating lists. With missing ratings, you cannot do that at all! Steak (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I just can and do. Every month I check if the rating of each chess player has changed. And if it changed, only then I add it to wikidata.
And learn to put asterisks to distinguish your lines. Игорь Темиров (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
You are in the small minority of people that put asterisks at the start of contributions. You cannot generate with the query service a montly rating list if all players whose rating has not changed are missing. Steak (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You belong to a very small minority of people who do not separate their lines from the previous ones in any way.
This can be easily done by comparing the rating for this month and the previous one. Игорь Темиров (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you can support me and we will remove duplicates? Игорь Темиров (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
It not easily be done, because up to 2011, there were not every month new ratings published. It was every second month, before that it was four times a year, and before that, it was once a year. But obviously you don't know that, otherwise you would not suggest to "compare to previous month". And, by the way, if you want to work like a bot, get yourself a bot flag! Steak (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
You also worked as a bot, why not get yourself a bot flag? Игорь Темиров (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Probably I should have used a botflag, yes. But that's the past. I don't need a bot flag currently. You do. Steak (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I don’t see any reason for an administrator to intervene as this is essentially a modeling and content dispute. @Игорь Темиров: Please don’t ever call anything “vandalism” unless you are absolutely sure that there is both malicious intent and damage to the project. --Emu (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The difference is, that I just reverted to the status quo. In contrast, you did major changes / removals without discussion. So accussing me of vandalism is indeed bullshit. Steak (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. But it wouldn’t hurt anybody to limit the v-word to the most egregious cases in the future. The reasoning behind the actions of both parties seem well-intentioned to me as an outsider. --Emu (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Udmurt MainPage redirection

Dear admins (ihterface admins)! Please note and processing this request. Maybe this should be made for other languages also. Kaganer (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Akadunzio

Akadunzio (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: The user is still relatively inexperienced (<1000 edits) and attracted attention yesterday because they boldly removed sourced statements from at least the data items Rodolphe Poma (Q2000747) and Oscar Taelman (Q2544880) repeatedly, while User:Hjart and myself restored the claims in question. The issue was discussed and explained in detail at User talk:Akadunzio#editing in Q2544880. Nevertheless, today they are proceeding with their editing [6][7][8].

Since I have editorial interest in the affected items, I am not going to act in admin role here, of course. Thus I am requesting a thorough warning of the user in order to stop their disruptive editing/edit warring against project consensus. MisterSynergy (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

In both cases the data on Wikidata are completely false. This can be validated in their birth certificates which can be read in the State Archives of Belgium. Everyone has only and just only one birth date and therefor every information which is not the same as in the birth certificate is false and should be removed. Apperantly Hjart and MisterSynergy are not able to register and the proceed with their undoing of the correct information. I think Administrators should act against them. Akadunzio (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, they continue with the edit war [9][10]. Please also have a look into the corresponding item page histories. Anyone, please? —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Formal warning posted on User_talk:Akadunzio#Removal_of_sourced_information. --Emu (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I formally disagree with this warning. MisterEnergy continues with an edit war and should be warned. Sports-reference and Olympedia are unsourced and therefor their data are to be considered as not verifiable. Birth certificates are verifiable and correct. Correction of birth certificates is only possible over court, not over Wikidata. Akadunzio (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Duly noted. Just to be clear: Deleting the same or similar information would be grounds for a block.
On a more informal note: I think it would be a really good idea if you try to understand why we store “wrong” dates: It helps with identifying people and avoiding duplicates, in some cases it reflects a developing understanding of people’s biographies. Even and especially if the references are less than stellar. It’s not that uncommon for birthdays to have several conflicting values for one person. --Emu (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know someone has only one birthday and not several ones as you think. Oscar Taelman is only born the 5th of October and not on the 6th. And the rower Rodolphe Antoine Pierre Thérèse Poma, sun of Oscar Poma, a tailor from Gent, Veldstraat/Rue du champs is born the 12th of October 1885 in Gent. Rodolf Jozef Poma is born in Pittem the 26th of November 1884, but he was never a rower. I think it is not a great idea to store "wrong data" which are taken over in several Wikipedia pages. I have personally never seen a biography of a person with different birth days, so you are pioneers in nonsense. Akadunzio (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I also looked in the rules of Wikidata and I didn't found the rule that false information should be kept. I think this is a false interpretation of a rule which alows different values for some characteristics. Akadunzio (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Emu, I think there are 2 possibilities. You shouw me the rule where is stated that false information should be kept or you cancel this formal warning. I find it unappropriate that you protect your colleague who is apperently unable to check accessible information and therefor prefer to start an edit-war. Akadunzio (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
To quote myself at Topic:Wh8xm11xmsbavl7y:

I have already asked you to consult Help:Ranking and Help:Sources. Those pages highlight the basics of ranking and sourcing in Wikidata and explain why we do things the way we do. The rest is common knowledge for any experienced users (a lot of Wikidata is tacit knowledge that isn’t formalized in any way).

You seem to have a different opinion although it’s still not quite clear to me how you think the aforementioned help pages somehow demand deletion (and that’s what’s in question) of all references linked to Olympedia.
Also I would kindly ask you not imply that my actions are based on MisterSynergy being an admin. Being an admin should not and does not help in content disputes and saying otherwise wouldn’t be an accusation that I wouldn’t take lightly. --Emu (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Where two (or more) sources have two (or more) values for a statement, we should provide both, including the sources. It is then up to the reader which source is more reliable, and which value should be used for their specific case. It is not up to us to delete unwanted values and to decide where the truth is, and what is false information. In general Olympedia and Sport-Reference are reliable enough sources to be used, showing that other sources indicate a discrepancy should be sufficient. If it is really important that we keep only one value, then the golden route would be to make Olympedia and Sports-Reference change their wrong values. That this is a time consuming process should not be a reason to just delete unwanted data to make Wikidata look nice. Edoderoo (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It is impossible to correct Sports-Reference. Should we keep their failures forever? And Olympedia reliable? You must be kidding. The golden route is to make that unsourced references change their wrong values? It is of course not to us to decide what is false or wrong but when information is clearly against reliable and verfiable sources like newspapers or birth certificate it is clearly false information. Why not immediately correct the wrong values in Wikidata? I found following failures in Olympedia for Belgian rowers, but also for athletes or cyclists I already found similar failures:
  • Lucien Brouha: false place of death (already corrected)
  • Jules George: misspelled familyname (already corrected)
  • Philippe Van Volckxsom: false date of birth and death (already corrected)
  • Jean van Silfout: was not coxswain in 1924 (already corrected), also missing birth date and date of death updated, misspelled family name
  • Marcel Dessomville: misspelled family name (already corrected)
  • Rodolphe Poma: information taken from the wrong person (already corrected), was also coxswain in 1900 (in discussion)
  • Prosper Bruggeman: wrong given name (already corrected), doubtfull birth date (in discussion)
  • Marcel Van Crombrugge: was not killed in action (already corrected)
  • Guillaume Visser: was not coxswain in 1920, because he stopped in 1919 (already corrected)
  • Maurice Verdonck: information taken from the wrong person (in discussion)
  • Oscar Van Den Bossche: information taken from the wrong person who has different parents as his brother Georges (in discussion)
  • Oscar Taelman: date of birth certificate as date of birth (in discussion)
  • Georges Willems: false place of birth und uncertain date of birth (in discussion)
I'm still checking several rowers but the failure rate is very high. I don't know if this is a general problem but it seems they are guessing. Akadunzio (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
To avoid confusion: this is not an administrative comment.
You seem to be on a mission here, I suspect based on your repeated negative claims regarding Olympedia.
You can in fact report mistakes to the operators who are usually very happy to receive feedback. Some are even Wikimedians themselves, so you'd not even have to leave Wikimedia projects to get in contact.
Aside from that, I repeat some of the ideas that have already appeared in this discussion in some way:
  • We use references to indicate provenance of data. Sources do not need to be historical sources (such as birth certificates) as for instance required in some social science branches. "Olympedia" is a perfectly valid source here, just as countless similar ones. It has flaws just as many others and some data is probably incorrect in some way, but this does not make it less valuable for this project.
  • Wikidata is from the beginning designed to handle conflicting data, even if technically only one date can be "correct" (as for example "dates of birth"). We have editorial tools to make the situations useful to data users, they have already been discussed here. This is reflected by the "secondary database" character of this project, which is for instance mentioned in Wikidata:Introduction.
  • "Wrong data" can be used by (usually external) data users to curate their own databases. This is a valid use case for Wikidata, so sourced "wrong" data should not be removed.
I understand that you do not like this situation, which is okay. But mind that this is a collaborative project, so the community expects you to act according to project consensus nevertheless. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
My mission is to write articles about Belgian rowers. Therefor I made a lot of research and compared this data to Olympedia apperently the only source on Wikipedia and on Wikidata. Each time I see mistakes I try to correct them. I also have reported them to Olympedia, otherwise they were never corrected. And my resaerch doen't start in birth certificate archives but in newspapers. But Wikidate is not suited to put old newspapers as reference because you think that every information is accessible over an url. Birth certificates are very easy to check data because they are always right. Mistakes in birth certificates can only be corrected by a decision of a court. When two brothers have different parents there is surely something wrong. When then also in newspapers the age doesn't match with the birth date on Olympedia it is clear that Olympia has taken information of another person with the same name. I have strongly the impression that you are loosing yourself in your silly rules. When you state that someone with less than 1000 contribs is less than someone with a million ones, you should talk about a collaborative project, but a closed project, which apperantly doesn't accept any criticism. My only goal is to improve the data and Wikipedia. Your driver is not to impove the data, but to improve the rules. Akadunzio (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:76.68.150.146

76.68.150.146 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Numerous vandalisms. Jules* (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.26.156.214

83.26.156.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: posting inappropriate links to user talk pages. –FlyingAce✈hello 07:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Higan (emulator) logo image display and output error.

Currently, in WikiData, logo images are well output and displayed, but when viewed in public categories, logo images are not output or displayed.

Symptom: [[File: | 110px]] It comes up like this.

This is a problem in which logo images in the wiki data frame are not output or displayed in the Higan (emulator) category of wikimedia commons. Gameposo (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a problem by the local template used @Commons (Commons:Template:Wikidata Infobox). Lymantria (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:E0A:35A:D5E0::/64

2A01:E0A:35A:D5E0::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Has resumed vandalizing sitelinks after expiration of previous 1w block. – LiberatorG (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Rockstarpapus

Rockstarpapus (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Block evasion (see this report above). –FlyingAce✈hello 01:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Batch deletion tool?

Trying to service this request Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request:_Duplicates and I was wondering if there exists a way to delete a bunch of QIDs in one go (without writing code)? BrokenSegue (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: You can add MediaWiki:Gadget-massdelete.js to your common.js for that. Once you do, visiting "Special:MassDelete" will allow you to delete a list of QIDs. (Be sure to check for backlinks on all items before performing such a bulk action with this tool.) Mahir256 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
awesome thanks for the pointer. how can I possibly check the backlinks for over a thousand items reasonably though? BrokenSegue (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Since this is about duplicates, I think we should simply merge the duplicates in order to keep all potential backlinks and the information in the item pages (FYI @Sebastian Berlin (WMSE)).
Since I have done this by myself in the past a couple of times, I can offer to do this pretty much immediately. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Hm, looks like User:Vogone did not hesitate and deleted all of these items a few hours ago. Since many of the deleted items seem to have been in better shape than the pre-existing duplicates, this is an unfortunate outcome. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Batch undeletion tool :P. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Vogone, please comment here first before this is an option. I'd like to understand your motivation for this action. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry, I missed this discussion. Since these items were all Sebastian's, I deemed this deletion request safe to act on, especially since backlinks etc. are unlikely. Reading the solution offered here, I agree it might have been worth merging them, if there is indeed useful information that got lost this way. Feel free to implement your solution (I guess it would not be impossible at this stage since the list of Q-items that were deleted is available), if you deem it worthwhile. Or I can do it, if you prefer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Vogone (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2400:2200:423:7E26:6D48:32FE:27EF:E597

2400:2200:423:7E26:6D48:32FE:27EF:E597 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: All edits are vandalism. 匿名100 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:F:4633:0:0:0:0/64

2600:387:F:4633:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandalism. Was vandalizing earlier as 2600:387:C:7230:0:0:0:0/64; both ranges appear to have long term blocks in several other projects. –FlyingAce✈hello 07:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Still vandalizing within the same IP range. –FlyingAce✈hello 06:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Blocked by MisterSynergy for 1 week on 1 October. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning LTA vandal LiliaMiller2002 socks

178.139.231.68 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) and 178.139.224.211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) are connected by one starting editing right after the other and by crosswiki editing of the articles about Bronius Kutavičius and Hayko. This and this are typical edits of LiliaMiller2002. Karan Armstrong died in 2021, as far as I know she was an American citizen all her life and Mari Luz died in 2008. Sjö (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Lymantria for 3 months. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Ccgreenvn

Ccgreenvn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Only spam account. Nguyenhai314 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the spamy items they created. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Hjart (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Same person described by two pages

The pages Rémi Tronchin (Q96410888) and Rémi Tronchin (Q108743187) describe the same person.--Sapphorain (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: the two items have been merged. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. --Sapphorain (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q6276882 and related items

There is a troll vandalizing Jordan Peterson (Q6276882) and related items. They introduce offensive material, change labels, etc. Some of this vandalism is highly visible in a few Wikipedias and is indexed by search engines. The material stayed unreverted for months. Affected items are Jordan Peterson (Q6276882), Mikhaila Peterson (Q105754574), Robert O. Pihl (Q20006876), Walter Peterson (Q106100104), Tammy Peterson (Q100378079). MarioGom (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Posting this again, since previous report went unanswered. Could an admin protect these items? They get vandalized very frequently by the same LTA, changes propagate to the article in a dozen languages, and stay cached in search engines for a long time. MarioGom (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: semi-protected items with recent vandalism history, put the rest on my watchlist. --Emu (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! MarioGom (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Emu (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2021/09&oldid=1514151024"