Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2021/10

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

protection

semi protect wikidata page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108757856

✓ Done deleted by BrokenSegue --Emu (talk) 11:01, 3 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) 11:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoax

No WP links at the Ognian (Q108647995) vandalism at last! It is just the exact moment to delete this thrash. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done deleted by Hasley --Emu (talk) 11:02, 3 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) 11:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Tudor Arghezi (Q435755)

Recurrent vandalism. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 18:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by MisterSynergy
This section was archived on a request by: — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 19:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 19:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect for The Call of the Wild (Q476871)

Recurrent vandalism. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for 6 month by MisterSynergy — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect for Konstantin Malofeev (Q4278463)

Recurrent vandalism (Фашист/Fascist) — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ps: maybe not recurring, 3 vandalisms in 2 days. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done for a month by MisterSynergy
This section was archived on a request by: — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Giorgos Seferis

Some anonymous accounts has for a couple weeks repeatedly deleted/changed the well sourced birthday of Giorgos Seferis (Q165823). --Hjart (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected for 6 months. Lymantria (talk) 10:08, 5 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. Lymantria (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Malala Yousafzai

Malala Yousafzai (Q32732) is vandalized in various ways by different IP-accounts every few days. --Hjart (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done semiprotected for a month. BrokenSegue (talk) 13:48, 5 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. BrokenSegue (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandal IP

58.182.147.22 Creates hoax WP articles, each time one is speedy deleted creates another one. Please see how many days we have been trying to delete an item they created. Is it free to make hoax elements? If not, please block this IP here in Wikidata. (I hope WPs also do the same.) Thx. --E4024 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

already blocked.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

1.42.58.115

1.42.58.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Interwiki vandalism, must be blocked immidiately since s/he's vandalising right now. --Wolverène (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  • His/her IP is dynamic, and s/he already vandalised the pages of same topics at the beginning of September (too long to prove it but it happened), also involving the adyWP and dinWP pages, probably because those Wikis are in little-known languages and almost inactive so it is hard to define vandal actions from the first sight. --Wolverène (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Alaa blocked globally for a month. --Wolverène (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hande Yener (Q82199)

Can you please protect Hande Yener (Q82199) from IP vandalism? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done semiprotected for a week BrokenSegue (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


Promotional only accounts

Mic1263 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotional only account , please check all the item created by the user Rockpeterson (talk) 16:43, 1 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. --Hjart (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ekkin1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotion only account Rockpeterson (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I went through and nuked the more obvious promo stuff. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Guillerma3093

Guillerma3093 (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)). See the crosswiki contributions, this  incorrect birthday change and this unlikely claim of a German sportsman speaking Urdu. Sjö (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: I'm checking, but next time please file this at WD:RFCU immediately because we still need a record of the investigation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed and blocked; no sleepers found.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: I haven't seen any policy that states that socks must be reported at WD:RFCU, though there might be one that I haven't read. I reported the sock here because of the instructions at WD:RFCU: "Checkuser is a means to choose for difficult cases. If multiple accounts show clear behavior patterns or editing type, please post on the administrator's noticeboard." These socks are very obvious to anyone who have encountered them, so those cases aren't difficult. There is another reason as well: sometimes reports on WD:RFCU go unanswered for a very long time and I have found that a report here often is the best way to get results.Sjö (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 2603:6081:4140:6B00:6017:BF4B:6956:F516

2603:6081:4140:6B00:6017:BF4B:6956:F516 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has over the last 2 weeks regularly vandalized a number of items.--Hjart (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 09:29, 3 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. --Hjart (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

2001:EE0:22D:F8A2:4051:6834:D002:11A

Disruptive editing at Q25418198, Q5211857, Q10829234 and many others. Please revdel all of their edits as they contain nothing but pure vandalism. Unnamed UserName me 13:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I would like to request semi-protection at my talk page. Unnamed UserName me 14:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet: 2001:EE0:239:33AF:D702:9535:7C3:B40F, 2001:EE0:22F:D6EF:EC50:C39B:6684:D7DC. Unnamed UserName me 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:IP 81.185.168.112

IP 81.185.168.112 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: see this diff https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q588586&diff=prev&oldid=1492586392 Nattes à chat (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please protect

Yavuz Donat (Q6038429) and Haşmet Babaoğlu (Q6056712) from vandal IPs. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 18:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Urmomisfatbich

Urmomisfatbich (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account, the username leads me to believe they are not here to contribute constructively. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked by MisterSynergy BrokenSegue (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:桐生ここ

桐生ここ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: adding too much descriptive content on item Q148 Kethyga (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning a Philippine IP address

180.190.57.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross wiki vandalism by an anon editor with editing patterns that may be similar to a long term abuser. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Request protection for an item subject to vandalism

Naftali Bennett (Q39318). Long-term protection may be required. thanks, דגש - Talk 10:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done protected for a month BrokenSegue (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:195.169.119.74

195.169.119.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism Ruy (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by MisterSynergy.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:151.24.102.158

151.24.102.158 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: overusing of reverts without discussion, seems to be the same user as 151.15.184.98, 151.25.215.187 and 151.15.203.66 Jklamo (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Мистер котик

Участник:Мистер котик - вандал + страницу о певице Сандре надо защитить. Lesless (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Henrymorgan92

We have a dispute with User:Henrymorgan92 about item Q17430675. The user seems not to be serene enough to carry a discussion, or "edit war" if you so wish. He is removing sources like the Hürriyet newspaper, the most known newspaper in Turkey but that is not the question. Please look at the item history: He is shouting at me all the time and used the Turkish word sapık for me which I would be ashamed to translate. This is an unacceptable personal attack. --E4024 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Sapık means pervert, stalker. Which E4024 do. He check every edit I do and if E4024 doesnt like it, reverses it. I give direct sources like personel Twitter, IG and the organization she (Ezgi Sütcü Ercan) work for. But E4024 believes some unreliable (in this case ofc. newspapers are famous for writing peoples' names (like Atilla for Attila Sütçü for Sütcü, Topçu for Topcu etc.) E4024 shows wrong sources and wants me to accept this wrongness. I will never let him bully me with reverting and I will revert his reverts every time with reliable sources. --Henrymorgan92 (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I have protected the item for a week to allow discussion to take place.
@Henrymorgan92: You are hereby warned not to edit war and not to make personal attacks.
@E4024: You are hereby warned not to edit war.
You might want to seek a third opinion on a venue like Wikidata:Köy çeşmesi. Bovlb (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 10MAR1986

10MAR1986 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Block evasion, sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Dubious addition about the death of 108806592) (Evan James Winkenwerder) and an obvious sock when you look at the crosswiki contributions about dead people but with date of death changed, e.g. [Vrasja e Victoria Climbié]. Sjö (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 95.63.239.41

95.63.239.41 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) Another sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) as shown by the edits. 19:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User continues vandalism typical of the sock: an Iranian scholar supposedly belongs to an Argentian people, speaks a nearly extinct North American language and died from abdominal obesity. Sjö (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User Block request PangolinPedia

PangolinPedia (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Promotion only account , just creating items of a non notable person and his family Rockpeterson (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Indef. Lymantria (talk) 05:34, 7 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Q5040238

Telegram plea was ignored... --Infovarius (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Protected by BrokenSegue for 1 week on 7 October. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:186.113.75.64

186.113.75.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism to YG Entertainment (Q50595) CrystalLemonade (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 31 hours. Lymantria (talk) 05:24, 7 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.181.65.96

79.181.65.96 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Remove content of entities with no reason given Stang 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 7 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:2E02:98D2:3000:88B1:3224:5E0D:1172

2A02:2E02:98D2:3000:88B1:3224:5E0D:1172 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on different items. Premeditated (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 7 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:192.149.23.142

192.149.23.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism past final warning on gender identity (Q48264) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:45, 6 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. IP blocked. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:120.188.64.75

120.188.64.75 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalise Q19847637、Q108801995 Kethyga (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 31 hours. Lymantria (talk) 05:22, 7 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Restoring the data object Q108752749

The data object enpact (Q108752749) was deleted from the bot. However, the data object has a structural use, as can be seen at the GND entry of Marina Wyss. That's why I ask you to restore the data object and to add the club's official website (https://enpact.org/#/) so that the bot does not delete the data object again. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: ✓ Done. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Thank you very much. I created the structural benefit and expanded the data object a little. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Hhjkljkkl

Hhjkljkkl (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Keep changing colon to semi-colon in item Q104394 Stang 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:67.21.182.96

67.21.182.96 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Remove content from item Q107237064 with no reason given Stang 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they have stopped, so no action needed for now. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked by BrokenSegue for 31 hours on the day itself. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:62.83.146.96

62.83.146.96 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Ruy (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they have stopped, so no action needed for now. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 195.55.68.17

195.55.68.17 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is increasingly active vandalizing spanish descriptions of primarily footballers. --Hjart (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 year now. Lymantria (talk) 16:09, 9 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. Lymantria (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:79.140.120.9

79.140.120.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Remove content at Q102598785 with no reason given, warned Stang 08:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they have stopped, so no action needed for now. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Q2011456

Gaku Shibasaki (Q2011456) - BLP item being vandalised repeatedly by different IPs in the last few days. Please consider semi protection. whym (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:210.155.89.88

210.155.89.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Afaz (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Korean Wikipedia good article

Korean Wikipedia The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (video game) article has been voted a good article. Please correct it. 멜론트리 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Anon vandalism

Hello! This user: User:108.46.228.203 deleted user pages (example here and here etc.). Palotabarát (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Tm

Hospital Distrital do Barreiro and heliport (Q98713447) is a heritage site that covers both a hospital and a heliport. Here on Wikidata it's inapropriate to combine these two properties in one item and thus I've split them up: creating two additional items both for the heliport and the hospital. User:Tm is unwilling to aknowledge or discuss this. I think his edits need to be reversed and locked. --1Veertje (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Already the separation is pretty clear with the use of P518, and as the listings of portuguese heritage site lists on portuguese Wikipedia (with info about what are the sites, like churches, hospitals, heliports, ect) depends on the info on Wikidata, this deletions are unwarranted. Tm (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Heliports have an elevation level, different coordinates and function. Hospitals are important medical locations that have properties like the number of beds and facilities like a heliport. Combining them in one item is completely unacceptable. The item doesn't function as an instance of a hospital: no one will ever have "hospital and heliport" as the place in which they passed away. --1Veertje (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I so "unwilling to aknowledge" those two new itens that it wasnt me that added sourced coordinates, present and sourced status of the slab\helipad that they called heliport helipad, plus other informations to those two new items (where the specifics, of each item, like number of beds, type of facilities, etc should go, but without deleting the info of what they, [hospital and heliport], are in the heritage item). It must have been my double with the same name. Tm (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The way you describe this heritage site is that it is something that has the parts: hospital + heliport. An object in the universe can't simultaniously be a hospital and a heliport. Using instance of (P31) in this way is not how data is modeled. 1Veertje (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
That is why there is P518 ("part, aspect, or form of the item to which the claim applies") at your disposal, to specify what specific parts applies to what, as already added by me to that item. Tm (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for 36 hours because you two seem to be unproductively reverting each other. Take this conversation to the item talk page and solicit feedback from others if you can't resolve it. My personal view is that we have lots of items that capture dual aspects of something. I think the way this is currently modeled is acceptable except for the fact you two don't disagree on which is that you have it as an instance of cultural heritage (Q210272) which is an abstract concept not a place (compare to heritage site (Q358)). BrokenSegue (talk)

yes there are lots of items that are modeled badly. It makes it more likely to introduce errors: it won't be flagged as wrong if this heritage site is linked as someone's place of death. 1Veertje (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Even if we modeled them all as totally separate items you won't get a constraint error. They are all valid places to die. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:61.74.87.38

61.74.87.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Afaz (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 31 hours. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:6C40:5400:1D2B:E83F:89B1:6693:1000

2600:6C40:5400:1D2B:E83F:89B1:6693:1000 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: persistent vandalism at Thirst Aid Kit (Q65117820). Ameisenigel (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 15:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Vandalisme sur l'élément Q3068866

Bonjour. Je suis un des admin de wp.fr. J'ai protégé l'article Q3068866 Ferme de Bel-Air qui sert de défouloir depuis des années à un voisin irascible. Les vandalismes se sont déplacés sur wikidata. Pourriez-vous faire le nécessaire ? Merci. --Bertrand Labévue (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bertrand Labévue: semi-protected for a month, added to my watchlist --Emu (talk) 22:07, 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) 22:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Betemer2

Betemer2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on Squid Game (Q106582931); also creating unnecessary talk page for it CrystalLemonade (talk) 22:05, 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) 22:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:213.94.53.222

213.94.53.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Consistent disruptive editing. SixTwoEight (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 3 months. Lymantria (talk) 05:16, 11 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:KIkoili

KIkoili (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Hello,

This user added a fake picture (which has an impact on the wikipedias retrieving this information automatically), therefore this account hasn't been created to contribute in a good way to wikidata or any brother project.

Thank you, --Daehan (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Daehan (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/ban evasion by Wikisaver199

Wikisaver199 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) just recreated the non-notable item that was previously deleted as Q108544406 and Q108779570 again, as Q108871007. Q108779570 was created by Jinglebell2022, who was banned by @BrokenSegue. It thus appears that Wikisaver199 is a sockpuppet of Jinglebell2022 for ban evasion. --SixTwoEight (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Confirmed though no sleepers found. @SixTwoEight: Please file at WD:RFCU next time, particularly if you aren't sure.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Item hijacking Q90160223

Pronoob69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Vandal and is hijacking item Rockpeterson (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Item restored; may be worthy of semi-protection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Blocked indef, item was semiprotected by Mahir256 for a year. Lymantria (talk) 13:48, 16 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. Lymantria (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:87.125.221.29

87.125.221.29 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Edits including crosswiki edits show that it is a sockpuppet of blocked LTA vandal LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Also vandalism on Grand Theft Auto III (Q149106) after final warning. Sjö (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Sjö (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --Lymantria (talk) 20:27, 13 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. Lymantria (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add intentional redirect to Q20251258

I got the message You are trying to add/remove badges to this item. At local Wikipedias adding or removing badges are done by consensus. Saving this edit was blocked and should be done only by administrators or trusted users. If you think you are correct, please contact an administrator. with a link to here when I tried to add an intentional sitelink to redirect (en:Afro-Finns) to Q20251258. Can someone add that intentional redirect to that item? Thank you. 5.187.4.99 14:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the article "Afro-Finns" in "en" redirects to the article "African diaspora in Finland" which already links to the correct item here (Q60630269). All one can do is link the redirect page in "en" to the item here (Q20251258). In my home wiki ("de") this only works if you change the redirect (only for a short time) to a normal text, then add the sitelink to the item here (Q20251258) and then change the text back to the correct redirect.
Since I'm not sure that this procedure is wanted in "en", I'll wait for someone with more experience there, who can change it that way. Mirer (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion request: Q100935694

Please could someone action the undeletion request (not mine, but I support it) at Talk:Q100935694? The deleting admin has been notified, but has not edited of over a month. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:109.126.245.48

109.126.245.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: persistent vandalism at Myriam Fares (Q1395526) Ameisenigel (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked 1 week, item semiprotected 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 15 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:154.236.153.94

154.236.153.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism of a random catalog item Jane023 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Weird since there seem to be no other edits by this ip. Jane023 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 10:57, 15 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. Lymantria (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Sayhihimynameishi

Sayhihimynameishi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: GoEThe (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Warned the user. Lymantria (talk) 07:42, 16 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. Lymantria (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User block request Mohdzaki 07

Mohdzaki 07 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
The person is just using wikidata for promotional purposes , looking at his user page he has written a full size biography about himself as well as creating items of non-notable entities as well as Wikipedia articles are used just for protection against deletion मार्तंड मल्हार (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 18 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. Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:165.139.179.181

165.139.179.181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism Stang 12:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, short block. --Sotiale (talk) 13:12, 18 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. Sotiale (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Davey2010

Davey2010 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: I added an illustrative image to Q67212716 ("ball stretcher"). Davey2010 has removed this image six times [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This is a continuation of a dispute that began on Commons, where I was blocked for asking admins to deal with Davey2010's poor behaviour. Since then, Davey2010 has continued to harass me over this image at multiple projects. Cam someone please ask Davey2010 to stop harassing me? Thank you. Pack My Box (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The file is nominated for deletion at Commons and I removed it from one project prior to its nomination - PMB has since gone on a crusade to add the image on every project they can think of. I have since added a replacement image to these projects (inc here) but PMB still insists on edit warring and removing the file.
PMB is indeffed over at EN and on Commons for their poor behaviour and it would seem they're also trying to get themselves blocked elsewhere too. No harassment is occuring - Per BRD I'm simply objecting to their addition of this image without consensus, Thanks, Davey2010 (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
(uninvolved non-admin comment) I'm not seeing where the D part of BRD has taken place, given that the talk page for the item is empty. It takes two to edit war; I'm not denying that there may be disruption, @Davey2010:, but if that is the case it would have been better for you to bring up the issue here earlier. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Indeed it does and I've said the exact same in the past. As I said PMB has done this to make a point and I wasn't prepared to discuss this on like 3-4 different talkpages. They were told on my talkpage to seek consensus and although I did indeed too edit war I had tried to compromise by replacing it with what I believed to be a better image so for my part I had tried to resolve it. Thanks, Davey2010 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@FlyingAce: I don't think you understand. No discussion is possible with Davey2010 about this image. For unknown reasons, he wants the image deleted on Commons. Take a look, there is nothing wrong with the quality of the image. It is an appropriate image at Q67212716. For about a week, Davey2010 has been following me from project to project, reverting my edits involving this one particular image. That is textbook harassment. I would like it to stop. Pack My Box (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@FlyingAce: Davey2010 followed me to Japanese Wikipedia to revert my edits involving this image. Just now he wrote "Oh trust me If I were harassing you you'd fucking know about it". Following an editor and leaving rude threatening messages is textbook harassment. Do you understand what I am dealing with, now? This isn't a case of BRD. This is harassment. Pack My Box (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Given that you've been banned from two projects and don't seem to have any substantial contributions to either one, it seems like your behavior is the problem, not Davey2010. Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Yes, I was blocked (not banned) on Commons because I complained about Davey2010. After I was blocked, Davey2010 edit warred on my talk page to restore comments that I had removed. Eventually a Commons admin who is a friend of his started a complaint about Davey2010 because of it. Multiple people who are friends of Davey2010 tried to discuss it with him on his talk page but he told them to "fuck off". I won't be surprised if I end up blocked on this project also, but I am not the problem here. Pack My Box (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Wrong. You were blocked because you did nothing substantial at Commons other than get into arguments with everyone and spending the majority of your time at ANU. Like I said I'm not blameless here but you are the problem here PMB. Davey2010 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The image was on 1 Wikiproject prior to it's nomination - Since-nomination you've added it to 2-4 projects if not more ... so you were adding it not because of genuine reasons but to make a point - That alone IMHO is enough to be reverted, but as stated above I did try and compromise although I admit the compromise wasn't immediately however late's better than not at all. I tried working with you but you simply reverted me and wouldn't work with me.
Yeah I got fed up with the "you're harassing me" record being played 20 times - I appreciate you may feel harassed however I can assure you that isn't my intention here - Had you not spammed the image everywhere you wouldn't be feeling "harassed" in fact you wouldn't be seeing my ugly mug everywhere and we wouldn't be here now.
Instead of spamming the file everywhere you should've waited until an admin closed the DR as that way no one's time is being wasted
Also incase anyone's unaware an editor at the Japanese Wikipedia had reverted PMB too. Anyway I apologise for my part in the disruption caused here. Davey2010 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: I have just read Davey2010's latest message. "Had you not spammed the image everywhere you wouldn't be feeling "harassed"" Now the harassment is my fault? Literally followed from project to project because Davey2010 does not like one particular image and seems unable to allow the results of two deletion discussions (which both were closed as "keep") to stand. Gamaliel, is this what you want to support? Pack My Box (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
"Now the harassment is my fault?" Well yes it is. " Had you not spammed the image everywhere you wouldn't be feeling "harassed" in fact you wouldn't be seeing my ugly mug everywhere and we wouldn't be here now." (emphasis mine) I cannot make it any more simple than that.
The DR has only been closed once as far as I can see and as of writing this it's still open. You can twist this into harassment as much as you like but I know for a fact I've not harassed you in any sense of the word.
You spammed the file everywhere - I took an objection to that and reverted you - that's it. If I were harassing you I would be reverting you on every project (IE you recently made an edit here - Have I reverted you ? No, Do I have any reason to revert that edit ? No. So lets get our facts straight PMB - This is primarily about you mass-spamming the image everywhere so lets drop the harassment card and lets stop trying to twist this into something it's not. Davey2010 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not going to engage with Davey2010 here, but he being deceptive about the deletion discussion. The image was deleted. It was restored and the discussion re-closed as "keep" when I pointed out to the admin that the image was in use on a project. Davey2010 then removed the image from the project where it was in use and started a new deletion discussion, about an hour after it was closed as "keep". (This action is what lead me to report Davey2010 to the Commons admin board and the reason I was blocked.) That discussion was also closed as "keep". Without discussing it with the closing admin, Davey2010 removed the closure. The file has been "kept", twice. I do not know why this one particular file is so important to Davey2010 but his actions speak for themselves. Pack My Box (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I did indeed forget about that - Again the reversal of that closure goes back to my reply directly below (wanting the file to be judged on quality not in use). Again you were blocked because you did nothing but cause arguments and generally got on peoples nerves.
Anyway PMB has now been blocked for 24hours on the Turkish Wikipedia so that speaks volumes. Anyway I will cease to reply here as I don't wish to further ignite issues, Again I apologise for my part in this mess. Davey2010 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the best course of action here would be for PMB to quit edit warring, let the DR continue and if the DR gets closed as Keep then PMB can obviously mass-spam the files whereever they like but for the time being I would rather the image gets discussed on its quality instead of being slam-dunk kept because "it's in use". All of this arguing and bickering is pointless and nothing good will ever come out of it.
My only end goal with all of this is to have the image discussed primarily and only on its quality that's it - everything else is irrelevant. If we can discuss its quality merits and if people believe the quality is fine then fine I will accept that but I don't by any stretch of the imagination believe all arguments inregards to quality should be slam-dunk ignored because it's in use which is why I'm putting up such a fight over this. I hope this better explains my actions, and I again apologise for my part in this disruption, Thanks Davey2010 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Davey2010 has just nominated another set of penis images for deletion. Just like the image that Davey2010 is refusing to allow on Q67212716 (even though it is completely appropriate), the images were uploaded by a Korean user and show an Asian penis. In August, Davey2010 nominated yet another set of penis images uploaded by an Asian (Japanese) user. I have looked through the last year's worth of deletion discussions started by Davey2010, but I found no other ones involving images of penises even though there is no shortage of newly uploaded penis images. Davey2010 seems to be concerned only about Asian genitalia. This pattern speaks for itself. Pack My Box (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Roi Ben-David (Q86431843)

Roi Ben-David (Q86431843): I think the item must be protected permanently or for a longer time from IPs. If there are interested people who claim to be him, they should create a username and we should be able to discuss with one permanent user and not IPs. I just merged a recent duplication (which used the name "Roi-Ben-David" which has no sources at all, but shares all the other data with "Roi"). Time to take this item to some sort of "hospital bed" and cure it. --E4024 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s already semi-protected. I blocke User:Israelinfonews for hijacking. --Emu (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Emu They hijacked Roi Ben-David again just at the end of you block. I blocked them twice the time of his last block, but I wonder if we sould go longer. Fralambert (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Fralambert: Thank you. The next one should be indef. --Emu (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of valid references

Gymnicus has been removing valid references off of pre-existing identifiers at least here. I reverted it and while leaving a message on their talk page about it, they reverted it, redeleting valid references. It's been a month and no explanation as to why they have decided to do this. This is affecting quite a few projects, including, but not limited to screwing up project metrics. Any advice? -Yupik (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked @Gymnicus: from editing the main, property, and lexeme namespaces (as those places where references exist) for a week. This may be prolonged if no explanation for the removal is given to @Yupik:. Mahir256 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: You are blocking me for such a triviality. Or rather triviality is far exaggerated because I haven't done anything wrong. The handling of references for identifiers is not clear. There was also a discussion either here or in the forum, I'm not sure anymore. At that time, however, I handled it a little differently, because I had removed the self-referencing, like here or here, at the time. In addition, at the time I added to the identifiers VIAF ID (P214), GND ID (P227) and Library of Congress authority ID (P244) still – I'll call it – Wikipedia references. However, through the discussion at the time, Emu convinced me that references are not required for identifiers. That is why I am now going the way of deleting all references to identifiers, exceptions are identifiers that do not or not really link to a page, such as the identifiers ISBN-13 (P212), Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) and EU VAT number (P3608). From my point of view, it is more important that the statements are provided with references than the identifiers. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Since in your opinion they are more important on statements, please feel free to add them to statements while at the same time leaving the ones on identifiers alone. Your actions are not trivial and as stated above, are negatively affecting projects even if you don't think it is. -Yupik (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yupik: „Since in your opinion they are more important on statements, please feel free to add them to statements“ – If you knew me and my work, you would know that I've been doing this for a long time. I could unpack a lot of examples now, but I'm only posting two examples due to time constraints (Example 1: bevore → after, Example 2: bevore → after). If you want, feel free to pick out even more examples by looking at the list of my edits. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would identifiers like VIAf or LOC need a reference? What is the purpose of the reference in these cases? And if they did, how is Wikipedia an appropriate reference? I'm not trying to start an argument, I just don't see how it is useful to add "references" to identifiers. Pack My Box (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is being *added* to them at this stage; they have already been added and they are now being deleted. The fact that we don't know why they were added to VIAF and LOC is *not* a good reason to delete them. (If you want to know why they were added, please contact the people who added them.) Gymnicus is not even restricting themselves to just VIAF and LOC, if you look at the diff in my first message. Some of those have been added by Wikidata projects and deleting them screws up project metrics, etc. as I explicitly stated in my first message. I fail to understand how screwing up projects just for the fun of it because someone doesn't understand not to do so, is in anyone's opinion a good idea. -Yupik (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Since my name has been mentioned: Although I can’t find the discussion at the moment, I do remember writing that external identifiers generally don’t need references. I do not remember writing that it’s a good idea to delete references if they are there. I’m generally not a big fan of deleting references, although there are exceptions. --Emu (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: „I do not remember writing that it’s a good idea to delete references if they are there.“ – As far as I can remember, you didn't say that either. But I don't think I wrote it in the way that you said it. But if it still came across like that, then I want to apologize for it. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Emu, for clarifying that point. -Yupik (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Would you then remove the lock or explain why I should have deleted good references? What I deleted are bad and unnecessary references. As I have already written, the block is completely overdone. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As I stated already in the first message, you believe them to be bad and unnecessary, but not all of them are. I will reiterate: you are actively screwing up project data for some of the ones you're deleting. The fact that you do not seem to understand that is a problem, but there is an easy solution: stop doing it. -Yupik (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yupik: Why should I stop removing bad and unnecessary references? It would be better for you or Mahir, who probably has the same assessment due to the reason for blocking, to explain why these references are good. Self-referencing like here or here is only intended to promote your own product, and Wikidata loves to help with that, as you can see here. With Q465, Q51711 or Q64139102 and many others, I can't prove anything at all, but the projects are promoted via the associated identifiers due to self-referencing. Such a self-promotion is not desired here on Wikidata and therefore I am deleting these unnecessary and nonsensical references. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I was informed about this discussion by Yupik, and I am completely against removing references. Although an authority ID reference may be self-referential, the reference is often deliberately added to provide context. That is the case in the reference I was given https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7270&type=revision&diff=1495580263&oldid=1488382746. Removing the reference completely undermines the systematic work an organization has tried to set up to provide provenance for their work. Stating that one thing is the same as another is by far not uncontested. Furthermore, we work with this organization and do not wish their work to be unnecessarily hampered. Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Susannaanas: „Stating that one thing is the same as another is by far not uncontested.“ – As far as I can see, the opposite is not claimed here either. It is the case, however, that a reference does not change anything, because the assignment can be controversial even in spite of the reference. Because we as Wiki-data are independent of the organization, we can also overrule their assessment and place the identifier on a bad rank. Such controversial assignments often exist, especially with regard to Integrated Authority File (Q36578). As an example, I could name hearing range (Q351087) and auditory sensation area (Q108858474), for example. According to Wikidata, these are different things, but according to the GND identifier 1080671595, it is the same. This is why this identifier is used for both data objects and declared as bad because it is a conflation (Q14946528). (Note: I forgot this declaration for data object Q351087, but if my block is canceled, I will do so immediately.) --Gymnicus (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Susannaanas: „Furthermore, we work with this organization and do not wish their work to be unnecessarily ham-pered.“ – In other words, this means that we receive grants from this organization and we do not want to risk them and that is why they are allowed to do what they want here and promote themselves as they want without our controlling it. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
So this all boils down to:
  1. You're asked to stop doing something that is actively causing projects harm.
  2. You admit to doing it.
  3. You refuse to stop.
  4. You try to deflect attention away from what you were doing and the damage it was causing.
  5. You spread falsehoods about the nature of projects you have no idea about and are not part of.
And yet you want the ban to be lifted. As I see it, it's actually grounds for a more permanent ban. -Yupik (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Yupik: You still do not provide any explanation why the references I deleted should be good references. You only pinn other users like Susanna Ånäs who confirm your point of view, but still don't give an answer to my questions. Why should these references be needed? The only logical explanation that you are just talking about the bush is that these references are not needed at all. You were also lucky that Mahir made the decision here. No other admin would have responded with a block here. I will have this - from my point of view - completely exaggerated decision by Mahir checked again here. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I've added references on identifiers in cases where a database provides both its own and one or more other identifiers - for example the INSPIRE-HEP database often also provides ORCID id's which may be otherwise hard to pin down. So references on identifiers can be really useful. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: That is true, of course, also at BnF authorities (Q19938912), for example, the ISNI (P213) and – if I am not mistaken – also the ORCID iD (P496). But actually it is true that the identifier should speak for itself, otherwise it wouldn't be an identifier, would it? Nevertheless, I don't really have anything against something like that. But if unnecessary self-referencing is systematically added to the identifiers associated with DBpedia (Q465), Quora (Q51711) or KBpedia (Q64139102), you cannot speak of a benefit. The projects just want to increase their "reach" through a high number of links here in Wikidata, so that they can be found more easily and, as already said, that is promotion and dying is not wanted here. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Some ORCID profiles are set to "private", so it is only possible to verify the identity of the person to whom they refer by reference to third-party sites. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It happens that identifiers get messed up and then it's useful to have references to understand how certain identifiers get linked together to debug the problem. Generally, Wikidata runs on consensus, given that Gymnicus doesn't seem to understand that deleting data against consensus is bad, it makes sense to keep the block in place. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Giorgos Seferis

The well sourced birthday march 13 1900 of Giorgos Seferis (Q165823) is again being vandalized. The last semiprotection ended a few days ago.--Hjart (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hjart, Nikos run: I note that the competing birth date is supported by a source (versus four or five for the other). Normally, if reliable sources differ about a birth date, I would recommend that we have claims for both dates, with the sources carefully listed (e.g. Q117425#P569). In this case, I wonder if we're suffering from a Julian vs Gregorian confusion here. I believe 1900-02-29 Julian is the same as 1900-03-13 Gregorian, which may be the source of this dispute. (See also Help:Dates#Entry_of_exact_dates.) Also, while I commend you for bringing this issue to a wider audience for more input, neither of you should have been edit warring. CC @Lymantria, Ymblanter as admins who have protected this page recently. Bovlb (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
That seems to the case, see for example w:de:Giorgos Seferis. Greece switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1924. --Emu (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikos run continues with their editwar, deleting well-referenced statements. I don’t want to do it because I worked on the statements in question, but a (short) block might be appropriate. --Emu (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have given a final warning. Bovlb (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I have blocked @Nikos run from editing that page. Bovlb (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Two elements of the same (television genere) ?

We seam to have 2 element about the same televison genere: television comedy (Q7696995) and comedic television series (Q22812458). Maybe we should delete on, or redirect.--Ezzex (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:49.146.44.123

49.146.44.123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism on GIF (Q2192). Maxlath (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No edits since. Lymantria (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:204.184.47.150

Please block this user or semi-protect my talk page. Reason: user is engaging in targeted cross-wiki harassment and stalking against me [7]. Two of their IPs were just globally blocked for harassing me; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Block_IP_user_User_talk:2600:6C40:5400:1D2B:8CBB:F80B:2C2D:4BB0 I prefer semi-protection of my talk page since they are jumping from IP to IP. --Citrivescence (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, I protected the talk page for 2 weeks and blocked the last IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection request (again)

My request for protection of Help:Introduction to Wikipedia (Q29057070) was completely ignored. Is anyone watching this page? It's really not a good look when the administrators' noticeboard goes inactive. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, protected for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter, the issue that is causing the disruption (test edits) isn't something temporary, so it's pretty much guaranteed to resume after the protection expires. Could you make it indefinite? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the first protection, and I am reluctant to make it indefinite. Let us wait until it expires and see whether disruption resumes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Q77286976

Please protect RaptorGamer (Q77286976) - vandalism and reverts make up most of its ~150 revisions. Aranya (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 6 months (last time it was for 3 months). Pamputt (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2409:4064:4db0:3e9d::2049:a90e

2409:4064:4db0:3e9d::2049:a90e (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Remove description with no reason Stang 01:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 01:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Scudsvlad

Disruptive editing: Splits item without explaining.

Local request: vi:WP:AN. Unnamed UserName me 09:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:197.234.221.241

197.234.221.241 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: create spamming item Stang 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Only 2 edits. Seems to have stopped. Lymantria (talk) 19:24, 21 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. Lymantria (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 37.11.112.130

For over a month now 37.11.112.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has been vandalizing especially 2021–22 La Liga (Q105770426), the same way the now blocked Q105770426 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) vandalized it many times earlier.--Hjart (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Protected for 6 months--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:King Ali Aljanabi Offridom

King Ali Aljanabi Offridom (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account, already blocked in 3 other projects. –FlyingAce✈hello 05:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:F:4B36:0:0:0:3

2600:387:F:4B36:0:0:0:3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long term disruption, see earlier report above. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Unfortunately the user is back as 2600:387:C:7232:0:0:0:7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). –FlyingAce✈hello 05:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I blocked the /64 range for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Yigal Amir (Q319029)

Please semi-protection - Yigal Amir (Q319029). mass vandalism. 18:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection for Q24905490

There is some weird vandalism with a URL to a removed talkpage message (?) being repeatedly added as an alias in The Death of Stalin (Q24905490) - would it be possible to protect the item or block the IP(s) involved? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. This is a well-known vandalism pattern. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems the user is back as 154.160.7.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). –FlyingAce✈hello 03:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Now at 193.6.168.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) – might want to protect Stalin (Q32235) as well. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:109.126.246.175

109.126.246.175 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: add nonsense content to description Stang 12:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 13:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:131.109.7.222

131.109.7.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandal on Q83648587 Stang 16:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, stopped without a block. stanglavine msg 17:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:F291

F291 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandal in item Q79925 Stang 17:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked. stanglavine msg 17:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:60.70.230.28

60.70.230.28 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only IP Afaz (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, for one month. stanglavine msg 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Spacksomvf1

Spacksomvf1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism here and in es-wiki. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, globally locked. stanglavine msg 17:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Q11907222

Semi protection thanks Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 06:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wiki13 (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2405:4802:134:5D60:707A:C70E:2887:A242

2405:4802:134:5D60:707A:C70E:2887:A242 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: strange flag vandalism, please revert all his edits Jklamo (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week, edits reverted. Lymantria (talk) 15:55, 21 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. Lymantria (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:C:7235:0:0:0:7

2600:387:C:7235:0:0:0:7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent cross-wiki vandalism, see this compilation and the report at Meta. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Currently at 2600:387:F:4632:0:0:0:0/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). –FlyingAce✈hello 15:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
And now jumped to 2600:387:C:7233:0:0:0:3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))... this is getting tiresome. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently at 2600:387:C:6D31:0:0:0:8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). How feasible is a rangeblock? –FlyingAce✈hello 06:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Back at 2600:387:C:7235:0:0:0:7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). How do I go about requesting an edit filter? I'm told it would be a better solution since a range block would have too much collateral. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Jumped to 2600:387:C:6D32:0:0:0:5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). –FlyingAce✈hello 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Increase character limit of Twitter handles

As per Property_talk:P2002#Error_on_save_for_no_reason, the character limit is currently too short at 15. The other regexes of the Twitter handle property have it at 20.1Veertje (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done BrokenSegue (talk) 02:51, 21 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. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Rigoberta Menchú (Q188620)

Recurring vandalism, at least 11 this year, was protected for 3 months until August 31, 2021. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 16:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 21 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. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for protection of Q108947673

Hello, could someone please semi-protect Q108947673? It's been persistently disruptively edited by socks and IPs, apparently of its subject. Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the item actually notable?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I am personally unsure, but it was deleted, so apparently not. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:35, 22 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. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30601065

Hi Dear Administrators,

I would like to just add "FAME Publish" to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30601065 as "owner of"

So kindly allow me, because its permission is disallowed.

FAME Publish is a magazine by started by Pratap Singh and Sunil Butolia in 2012 as Khatik Patrika later rebranded as FAME Publish in 2015 for expansion.

Source: https://english.newstracklive.com/news/new-celebrity-magazine-is-geared-towards-women-sc17-nu328-ta328-1186186-1.html

No, FAME Publish is an LTA focus subject. Lymantria (talk) 13:55, 23 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. Lymantria (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Creating new item

Hi I am trying to create new item but it's showing some error can you check and fix it

Item name : Sheikh Asif --Ansarimediyi (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it is an LTA focus item. Lymantria (talk) 15:50, 21 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. Lymantria (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q80919

Please semi-protect KGB (Q80919) - persistent IP vandal using multiple IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected for 6 weeks. Lymantria (talk) 14:19, 23 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. Lymantria (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Haydar Arikan (Q108887704)

There is no such actor as Haydar Arikan. There is a Haydar Arıkan who is a marginal character at a film. I doubt anybody remembers such a minor character. I notice that the articles created by the same user are all hoax or not noted people. Beware.

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 17 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Q108917642

Could you add enwiki and Wikipedia:GOODBIAS to Q108917642?

Also please delete L615910. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I added the sitelink. I am not sure what you want us to delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:50.99.37.113

50.99.37.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: repeatedly removing statements on sudo (Q300883) after final warning Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 09:16, 24 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 212.170.216.160

212.170.216.160 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is a currently very active vandalizing spanish descriptions of primarily Spanish celebrities.--Hjart (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, for 1 year--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 22 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Kanye West (Q15935)

Recurring changing of labels. Needs semi-protection until users/IPs cooldown. - Premeditated (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, protected for three months--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 22 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q39607

Please semi-protect Antoine Lavoisier (Q39607) - persistent IP vandalism, popular theme. --Jklamo (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 22 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Tag creation request

Hello admins!

Could you please create a tag "openrefine-4.0", which would display as [[Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine|OpenRefine]] [4.0]? The description could be "used for edits made by OpenRefine 4.0. Tag is added directly by the tool without an AbuseFilter."

Thank you! − Pintoch (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Pintoch:.-❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 18:39, 23 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. Lymantria (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Nishat Ahmad Khan (Q23023801)

Nishat Ahmad Khan (Q23023801) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Obvious sock of LiliaMiller2002 and vandalism at Nishat Ahmad Khan (Q23023801) after level 4 warning. In addition to the weird cause of death and burial for Nishat Ahmad Khan (Q23023801) there are also typical crosswiki edits like [8], a translated article with incorrect dates. Sjö (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 148.3.89.179. Lymantria (talk) 14:35, 24 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. Lymantria (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Weird edits (Moved from project chat with comment)

Puzzled by some of the recent edits of user 'Wolfgang Fricke'. Puts IMO numbers as label in cases where the ship name is known, puts in name in the description fields and removes descriptions and labels from other languages. Maybe someone in need of a little guidance? --Infrastruktur wdt:P31 wd:Q5 (T | C) 08:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Judging from his own talk page and comments on other peoples talk pages, he doesn't seem receptive to guidance, continuing the kind of edits that have been remarked upon by other users on several occasions. Example. --Infrastruktur wdt:P31 wd:Q5 (T | C) 18:41, 19 October 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: repeated vandalism of sitelinks after warning and previous block. – LiberatorG (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Jennie (Q26262599)

Persistent disruptive editing on Jennie (Q26262599). I think a silver lock can be added to combat with the disruptive editing from the IPs. Also, I think that similar protection could be applied to Lisa (Q26707663) as well since it's also being targeted by anon-vandalism. CrystalLemonade (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

First page protected, second one is watched by me for the future. Bencemac (talk) 17:14, 27 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. Bencemac (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Matlin

Can someone look at this user contribution? He creates tens of thousands of empty items for entries of a dictionary edition or of novel edition sections. I do not think they need a wikidata antry. Especialy if no properties. Ankry (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Has addressing the issue on that user's talk page failed previously? Mahir256 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: No, as I had problems communicating this user in the past and I would like to avoid direct intaraction. I have just doubts if the items are in scope of Wikidata and no idea whom to ask for advice. Ankry (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Any of the pages may be notable per criterion 1 of WD:N; feel free to nominate the items in bulk for deletion, however, if appropriate properties aren't added to the items in a suitable timeframe. Mahir256 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, so let's wait. Thanks. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 22 October 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: Repeated vandalism. – LiberatorG (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done A month this time. Lymantria (talk) 06:15, 29 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. Lymantria (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.233.12.6

83.233.12.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism Infrastruktur wdt:P31 wd:Q5 (T | C) 10:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 month. Lymantria (talk) 20:01, 29 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. Lymantria (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:160.32.235.0

160.32.235.0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 20:03, 29 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. Lymantria (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

More removal of valid references

@Yupik: might be dissatisfied to learn that @Gymnicus: is continuing to remove references from identifier properties, at the very least in direct opposition to the notions presented by Arthur and Andy in the previous discussion that 1) "references on identifiers can be really useful" since "a database [may] provide[...] both its own and one or more other identifiers" "which may be otherwise hard to pin down" and 2) that in some cases "it is only possible to verify [an] identity [...] by reference to third-party sites". The notion that such references are "projects just want[ing] to increase their "reach" through a high number of links here in Wikidata, so that they can be found more easily and, as already said, that is promotion" was a particularly dishonest characterization of what Marco's bot is trying to do (and should have been called out as such then); proceeding only with that notion, without regard to the project being considered, aids neither anti-spam nor anti-self-promotion efforts at all. While I have previously blocked the user from editing namespaces containing references for a week due to this behavior, and out of an interest in my composure had opted not to continue talking to the sea lion, I suspect that further sanctions against the user may be necessary. Mahir256 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the block. - Nikki (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Egads, we haven't even gotten the previous mess fixed. -Yupik (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Should I now say thank you for not commenting on your completely exaggerated action after the ban, but for keeping quiet? That you pronounced the ban was scandalous anyway – to put it a little exaggerated – because you have problems with me. And because of these ominous circumstances, you no longer spoke up and not because of your serenity. That's why you should actually be grateful to me that I was so nice that I didn't have your completely excessive lock checked again here. That would have earned you sanctions. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

{{section resolved|1=Lymantria (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)}}

@Lymantria: Why should the discussion already be resolved? --Gymnicus (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Because sanctions have been restored. So the request is dealt with. This is not WD:RfC. Lymantria (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lymantria: I don't see it quite the way you do. Firstly, I have lodged a complaint against the ban, as you already know and I would be happy to hear from you there again. In addition, I do not see it in such a way that the references shown by Mahir are valid references, which is why I would talk about them again here. That I currently see the unlocking as more important and only want to comment on the topic afterwards should be understandable. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's leave it open here then. But this is not the page for policy discussion, nor for unblock requests. Lymantria (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The unblock request is an independent issue which is not even discussed on this page. Here, the original request has been processed and there is nothing else to do for admins at the moment.
  • Personal advice, since I am not acting in admin role in this case any longer:
    • In general, you seem to be underestimating the seriousness of the situation. The onus is on your side to proceed the situation; you want to become unblocked, so you need to convince an admin that there is no future drama to expect; as of now, you seemingly try to convince us that the block is indeed correct, so in some sense you are sabotaging yourself.
    • Thus, consider making substantial consessions here. Currently, no admin can seriously consider to unblock you based on what you have said. We need to be sure that you understand the situation and that you will unconditionally act along project consensus with your editing.
    • Re. references on identifier claims: there *is* consensus about the situation—it is you who has a different, incompatible position. I think that you misinterpret this drastically. While it is okay to have a different position than the project consensus, it is of course nevertheless important to act according to the latter. Even if you have no clue why it is like that. If you want to change the consensus, please do not try to achieve that via your editing—start discussions instead, and try to convince editors.
  • You can contact me for further advice on my user talk page if you think this would help. It would of course be a public discussion, but out of context of the other ones which might be helpful. Yet again, be aware that I am not going to decide the unblock request again.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.207.195.207

193.207.195.207 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 00:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:193.207.208.191

193.207.208.191 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. --Ovruni (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 00:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:94.177.118.0/24

94.177.118.0/24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Open proxy. SCP-2000 (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit group (Krbot)

Edit group KrBotResolvingRedirect/Q1340643_Q98714302

Summary разрешение перенаправления / resolving redirect Q1340643 → Q98714302 Author KrBot
Number of edits 1,815 (more statistics) Example edit Q108929213

I reverted the merge master builder (Q1340643) → master of the works (Q98714302) by User:Cruzate1492 since the two concepts are different (I asked on Telegram and my scepticism about merging those items was shared) and the direction of merge would be incorrect anyway. Since this is essentially a content question, I would be using my admin privileges if I reverted this edit resolving edit group. Please consider reverting those changes. Thank you. --Emu (talk) 21:30, 30 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) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Emu (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

212.35.232.216

Vandal 212.35.232.216

The user Special:Contributions/212.35.232.216 is obviously a vandal. May be it is better to stop him for a while and revert the deletions he made. ~~  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a00:20:9026:cd:d038:de1a:1692:236e (talk • contribs) at 15:00, October 4, 2021 (UTC).

212.35.232.216 is still vandalizing

212.35.232.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is still vandalizing and should be blocked now, see also report from 4th Oct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:20:9025:9400:b92b:7748:649d:443 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: 31h block for more than 1 year ongoing vandalism is quite cheap, isn't it? ~~
@Martin Urbanec: May be you'll get a better impression when checking his talk page. ~~

31h block has expired and vandalizm goes on

212.35.232.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) 31h block has expired and vadalizm continues (see this report). This is my favorite. Well done. ~~

I have blocked for a month and tidied up a mess of vandalism. I note this IP is blocked for two years on ENWP. Bovlb (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Q449908

Please protect Chayanne (Q449908), vandalism spread out through the past two years. Aranya (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year. No IPs worth blocking. Bovlb (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Empty project-wide CSS pages

Both MediaWiki:Mobile.css (since 2015) and MediaWiki:Vector.css (since today) are empty. Is there any reason not to delete these pages? Would it even be a performance gain if they were not existing? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Poupin McCueefer

Please block Poupin McCueefer (talk • contribs • logs) as a vandalism-only account. They are already blocked in multiple different wikis. --Shinnin (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done BrokenSegue (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete Q104773040

Hi. Q104773040 is an empty page. I suggest to delete it. Best Regards. --2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:4C65:FA45:FFD0:D46E 10:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  1. It’s not empty, there is a label and a description.
  2. Please use WD:RFD for deletion requests. -- Emu (talk) 11:00, 31 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) 11:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Emu (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring with no justification

Hello. User Лобачев Владимир has been reverting me without giving any rationale at Q36392 (Moldovan language). They have been restoring the parameter "different from" marked with Romanian only backed by Russian sources. See the edit history [9]. This user has always failed to prove any of his POV regarding the Moldovan language if not through Russian sources. To give some context, the Moldovan and Romanian languages are the same (I am Romanian, I understand everything that a Moldovan person says, any other Romanian will say the same, it's not my personal POV), and the former only still exists due to political reasons. It is universal in the academic world of all the countries of the world that Moldovan and Romanian are the same except in Moldova and Ukraine (partially) and in Russia. That Moldovan and Romanian are not the same is only a POV held by sources coming from this country, the difference between both languages cannot be proven with international sources.

I also must mention the lack of previous careful cold-headed thinking by this user and how they are just reverting for the sake of reverting me, Q36392 has the parameters "subclass of" and "said to be the same as" marked with Romanian (backed by non-Romanian sources), yet they don't dispute them, they want the item to mark Romanian as both different from and the same as Moldovan. They have also been reverting me at Q9506034 (Category:Moldovan language) for removing the parameter "different from" marked with Category:Romanian language even though such a parameter serves no technical purpose for a category. I explained it to them and they stopped reverting me only after the third time.

Be aware this is not the first time, in July 2021 we already discussed the situation of the Moldovan language in a report they did to me [10]. It ended up in Moldovan being deprecated as a statement in a few items (Q218134 and Q10957559) as Лобачев Владимир could not prove the existance of the Moldovan language previous to the Soviet brainwashing of the Moldovan nation (that is, before 1924). I am confident that Лобачев Владимир will again not be able to prove their POV. The July 2021 report was mediated by Emu, so I am pinging them in the case they want to participate again and mostly because I am worried that this report would otherwise be ignored as many other times by other users.

I want to note that Ethnologue does NOT have an entry for the Moldovan language and says that Moldova's main languages are Romanian and Russian (which is true, it is used for interethnic communication) [11]. Here are a few more sources: [12], "experts from Romania and the West have regularly argued that the eastern Moldovans are indistinguishable, historically, culturally, and linguistically, from their Romanian cousins" (written by a non-Romanian/non-Russian author); [13], "President [of Moldova, Mircea] Snegur himself articulated the position that Romanians and Moldovans are distinct peoples who share a common language. Only in Transdniestria does anyone still argue that Moldovan is a different language from Romanian" (again, non-Romanian/non-Russian author). I can give way more sources if asked to. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I fixed Moldovan (Q36392). As I said before: Wrong, but sourced information should generally stay in Wikidata. And it’s true that some say that there is a difference between Moldavian and Romanian although the international linguistic community mostly disagrees.
As for Category:Moldovan language (Q9506034): The different from (P1889) claim doesn’t seem to make much sense in a category item. @Лобачев Владимир, Infovarius: If you disagree, please explain your reasoning before reverting. Emu (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • РEГUЛAMENTUЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Romanian language)
    РEГUЛAMENTUЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Romanian language)
  • РEГЛЕМЕNТꙋЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Moldovan language)
    РEГЛЕМЕNТꙋЛ OРГANIK. 1832 (Old Moldovan language)
  • Constitution of the Moldavian Republic. 1978. In Moldovan and Russian languages
    Constitution of the Moldavian Republic. 1978. In Moldovan and Russian languages

The constitutions of 1832 indicate that in the Wallachian principality the official language is Romanian, and in the Moldavian principality – Moldavian.

Here is the cover of the 1978 Constitution of the Moldavian Republic. Most Romanians will not be able to read it as it is written in Moldovan Cyrillic.

In the 1994 Constitution of Moldova, in Article 13, there is an entry that “The state language of the Republic of Moldova is the Moldovan language”.

After 1993, the Romanian Latin alphabet was introduced in Moldova, and in schools everywhere the subject "Moldovan language" was replaced by "Romanian language". But until 1993, the Moldovan and Romanian languages were, although close, but legally separate - they had a different alphabet, the pronunciation and lexical composition of words were different. The languages of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are even closer to each other. But they are also considered separate languages for political reasons. And it is wrong to say that Croatian is part of Serbian just because they are 98% mutually intelligible.

In Transnistria, they still study Moldovan (not Romanian) in schools and write in Cyrillic, incomprehensible to Romanians. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: Okay, but that’s all beside the point. We generally don’t deal in matters of correct and false in Wikidata. To put it bluntly: If the general international consensus of experts was that Earth is indeed flat, that’s what would be Wikidata’s position on the matter. We would still record that some think that’s not the case but we would probably deprecate such statements. --Emu (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
but we would probably deprecate such statements – I would not make my own conclusions. Is it better to note that some researchers identify modern Moldavian and Romanian languages, and some consider them to be separate languages? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is about today, not 1978 or 1832. Soviet inventions or old documents that you interpret the way it benefits you can't challange academic works (international ones, mind you). "Most Romanians will not be able to read it as it is written in Moldovan Cyrillic". Yeah. So? "In the 1994 Constitution of Moldova, in Article 13, there is an entry that “The state language of the Republic of Moldova is the Moldovan language”." Please read the following article [14]. The independence declaration has legal priority over the constitution. And guess what language is stated to be that of Moldova in there? Romanian. Moldovan and Romanian are anyway considered two different names for the same language by the Moldovan Parliament since 2003 [15]. "Moldovan and Romanian languages were [...] but legally separate". Yes. This holds no value for linguistic sciences. "they had a different alphabet" so? "the pronunciation and lexical composition of words" no, it is not. The situation hasn't changed ever since 1989 (I don't know what are you referring to by citing the year 1993). It isn't like some laws were passed and schools now started pronouncing the language of Moldova differently. You will find 0 documents for such a thing. That means, they have always been the same, before and after the linguistic laws emitted by the Moldavian SSR. The situation of Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia is very different. They are 4 languages with a similar number of speakers which has never had a common designation. Romanian always did, and that's "Romanian", until 1924 in Moldova that is (and it will change soon [16]). "write in Cyrillic, incomprehensible to Romanians" yeah, so what? Languages are not differentiated by their alphabet. Kazakhstan is not going to change its language in 2025. By the way, any Romanian can understand this [17].
I will repeat it again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your arguments are based on historical documents that you interpret by yourself (original research) and which you keep spamming everywhere you are challenged, ignoring what the academic world or the people you have been talking about so confidently say. You couldn't prove your POV in July, and you will not be able to here now. So keep disrupting, keep doing so to keep proving you wrong and to keep building up incidents. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: I blocked you from editing Category:Moldovan language (Q9506034) for two weeks. Please adjust your behaviour. Please don’t insert controversial statements without a source or more severe admin action will be taken.
@both sides: Kindly refrain from repeating the same old arguments. It won’t help your case to further use WD:AN to explain your content disputes, regardless of merit. Admins aren’t here to judge whether something is a language or indeed not. --Emu (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. And I originally made this report on behavioural basis, but I can see that we derived the argument into the content again. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I now want to note Лобачев Владимир and me edit-warred too on Category:Moldovan language at Commons, which was protected for one month today, with the category "Languages of Moldavia" that this user supported not being restored. I am stating this to let evidence build up both for others to see and so that I don't have to visit too many pages in the future if I need to write a report again, so that all relevant info is at as few pages as possible. For anyone interested (probably nobody), I recommend reading the talk page of the category [20]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:F:4635:0:0:0:1

2600:387:F:4635:0:0:0:1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandalism. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:TERYAKY.edit

TERYAKY.edit (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandal account Darwin Ahoy! 17:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Q10829234

Please protect Trấn Thành (Q10829234), lately it has been vandalized quite a lot. Thank you. Bluetpp (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Spammer IPs

151.21.111.59 (but also 151.20.23.121, 151.20.7.234, 151.21.194.219, 151.21.138.187 etc same guy) is a IP related with the global-banned italian user Alec Smithson (en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson); now he is spamming about Como Lake, particularly about restaurants, villas, and other leisures, linking also websites renting and selling real estates. Check for notability and for spamming please. --AttoRenato (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 37.11.112.130

After the protection of 2021–22 La Liga (Q105770426), the quite persistant 37.11.112.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) who apparently earlier was 37.11.186.68 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) has now gone on to vandalize other items every few days. Please block.--Hjart (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

P373 again (but with news!)

Hi all. The discussion about what to do with P373 still continues. I've just started Part 3 at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Part_3 with some good news - phab:T232927 has been fixed, the links to Commons in Wikimedia project sidebars now use the sitelinks! It would be really good if this discussion can be closed soon, one way or another, so that we can make progress either with maintaining P373 or removing it - two years really is too long for such a discussion to last! If there's any neutral help I can offer to a fellow admin to close this, please let me know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:37.161.47.75

37.161.47.75 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Removing content and labels in Q18627394 Stang 00:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


Report concerning multiple users

give the pattern I semi-protected the relevant pages. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: add Q11823566 Stang 00:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done BrokenSegue (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Added: Q6973903, Q2119632. Maybe consider an AF? Stang 02:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Towner87

Towner87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Removing content in Q174009 Stang 00:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Globally locked. Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:24.6.98.144

24.6.98.144 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: content removal Stang 21:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Q60 flooded with 584 postal code (P281) by User:Justin0x2004 batches

Can someone stop the users batches .. they aren't responding to comments on their talk page. --- Jura 19:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1 I've stopped the batch.
For anyone following along please see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Justin0x2004#Zip_codes Justin0x2004 (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Please revert undo your additions as well, preferably in one edit per item.
Going forward, do not run batches that edit items hundreds of times. --- Jura 19:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1 "do not run batches that edit items hundreds of times"
Isn't that what batches are for?
I don't think the issue of postal code (P281) is settled. The intended use of postal code (P281) is a single code as an object. Justin0x2004 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not settled. The original intent seems to have been to map areas to a single code. So adding all possible codes to NY state or NYC city isn't really it.
Doesn't the addition of 584 statements in 584 edits to single item (Q60) somehow convey to you that your proposed approach isn't really working? --- Jura 20:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
It is possible to add 584 statements as you've done in a single edit--hence Jura's comment on batches.
This information is not particularly meaningful on an item like New York City (Q60); it is likely more useful on items such as Marble Hill (Q1373472) or Broad Channel (Q62484) which do correspond to individual postal codes among those you've added (or at least a few of them which can be reasonably enumerated). On this basis I am reverting this batch and would suggest that you instead add postal codes to items for neighborhoods in New York City if they are not already present. Mahir256 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256 Doesn't a range imply enumeration? What do you mean by "reasonably enumerated?"
Ok, I do now see how some of those zip code were already attached to neighborhoods. But there are some zip code ranges out there that do not have code in their range singularly attached to a neighborhood. It was those zip codes I intended to target.
``` Justin0x2004 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Justin0x2004: By 'reasonably enumerated' I mean that they can be listed without causing the typical browser viewing that item to slow down loading the page due to their presence. Two or three zip codes as two or three statements is fine; hell even 584 of them, when provided as a single statement with the range "10001-10584" as its value (or something like that) is also fine to me, even though you wish to conform to this property's intended use; 200 or 300 individual statements for 200 or 300 individual zip codes is frankly ridiculous. Besides, 10001 is one of maybe two or three zip codes in Chelsea (Q1069129), and (I must repeat) it better serves those wishing to discern more about the locations of postal-addressed entities in New York City to add the two or three zip codes for Chelsea in that neighborhood's item and not on the item for the City itself. Mahir256 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256 I agree about Chelsea. You taught me that. I didn't know some of the neighborhoods had the singular zip code attached. I was in the process of editing my comment above (which now reflects what you taught me). But a single statement with range of codes is a kludge in order to accommodate user interfaces while I think the data (not the Web UI) is mostly what Wikidata is about. A range won't match a single literal number in a SPARQL query. Justin0x2004 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't the kludge your query on Query Server? Maybe you should just ask for a special datatype or function that does your query. --- Jura 11:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mahir256
@Jura1 Storing a range in the object position of a triple (in a triplestore like Wikidata) means an unpacking process is needed to engage with the enumerated values in the range. If you have to apply unpacking processes in a SPARQL query against RDF data then you are getting away from the "wear its meaning on its sleeve" idea of RDF.
As we start getting away from that idea of RDF and instead prioritize minimizing storage requirements or UI rendering ease we might as well store pickle or parquet files (both types are compact and require an unpacking process before use) and use SQL (with perhaps Presto) instead of SPARQL. Justin0x2004 (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
If you think the property isn't optimally transformed before imported into Query Service, I re-iterate my suggestion to Contact_the_development_team. SPARQL was added after the property was created and might be discontinued at some point, so please avoid breaking the interface on www.wikidata.org in the meantime. --- Jura 11:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1 I don't think it is sustainable (or fast) for WDQS (SPARQL) users to contact the development team to implement some functionality to unpack little data structures (like ranges).
> SPARQL was added after the property was created
Ah, I didn't know that. Maybe that explains some of the deviations from ideal RDF.
> so please avoid breaking the interface on www.wikidata.org
That wasn't my goal. But let's all hope some entity doesn't end up needing 584 statements or else we'll have to truncate the record to support the Wikidata UI because it can't adapt to the data. Justin0x2004 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
New York City neighborhoods are vernavular and informal designations, and it is common for a postal code to be shared by several neighborhoods, or for a single neighborhood to encompass several postal codes. ZIP codes in New York City often have "titular" neighborhoods they are named after, but the boundaries aren't the same; I wonder if we should have a property like "postal code named after" or have a standard way of expressing this with qualifiers.--Pharos (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pharos The fact that it isn't natural to use named after (P138) somewhere I think tells us that Wikidata lacks vocabulary orthogonality. I think it would be a more useful vocabulary if there was less of it and it was more composable, maybe? Justin0x2004 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Request protection of Q839920

Excessive vandalism. Stang 21:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please also semi-protect my talkpage, IP vandalism. Stang 21:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done by Hasley--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 1 November 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. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:XamicoX22

I'm trying to modify item Q47517949 with the up-to-date informations (the company changed name, logo, official website and Youtube channel denomination back in April 2021), annotating the old data as obsolete and providing the new ones, but for reasons I don't entirely understand (they didn't provide an explanation) User:XamicoX22 keeps restoring the outdated information. -- Rojelio (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I should note that the user kept reverting Rojelio in this page. This is unacceptable behaviour, and I noticed the user that keeping doing this will result in a 24 hours block.
I'd like to take some time to check what's happening, and to understand why @XamicoX22: is doing so. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
For the record, Sannita blocked the user for 24h.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Ymblanter, I forgot to note it here. It was a partial block on Welcome Italia (Q47517949) for 24 hrs, because he kept reverting edits despite being told not to do so. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I suspect it might be another instance of Special:Contributions/GM-27IT (previously blocked on WikiData, and then globally): entirely identical edit-pattern (both here and on 'pedia) including the continuous edit-wars. -- Rojelio (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Now the guy has been editwarring on Facebook (Q355) with me and @Thibaut120094:. CrystalLemonade (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The user has been blocked indefinitely by Ajraddatz. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
User is returned as IP user 190.198.222.227, with the IP user starting activity straight after block.

More definite information of the three users' correlation, confirming @Rojelio:'s hunch. CrystalLemonade (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked for their global block on meta. Thibaut (talk) 22:22, 3 November 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. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Q2055778

Item has been vandalised several times this year. Please, semi-protect windewrix (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not enough activity to warrant protection at this time. - Fuzheado (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
and again windewrix (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Semi-protected for a month. No IPs worth blocking. Bovlb (talk) 20:41, 8 November 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. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2021/10&oldid=1526239397"