Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2019/11

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protection for Q435755

Tudor Arghezi (Q435755): excessive vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 10:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 3 months. Pamputt (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 16:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q132479

Jorge Eliécer Gaitán Ayala (Q132479): persistent vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 17:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 6 months. Pamputt (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 19:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sapphorain (talk • contribs • logs)

What was the outcome of Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/09#Sapphorain_(talk_•_contribs_•_logs) ? It seems the user still deletes statements the consider correct, but not referenced, they didn't bother referencing or referenced in languages they don't understand or googletranslate. --- Jura 08:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: c'est la dernière fois que je te laisse faire des choses comme ça. Encore une fois, l'information était correcte et la source existait. Tu as déjà été prévenu une fois :/ Pamputt (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
(1) Comme on peut aisément le constater sur le lien donné ci-dessus, le lien sur l'Académie des Sciences était mort (il l'est d'ailleurs toujours). A la suite de mon revert un lien qui fonctionne a été fourni. (2) Vos menaces puériles me laissent complètement froid; ce type d'assertions doit être sourcé, et si ça n'est pas le cas, je supprime. (3) Je ne crois pas vous avoir autorisé à me tutoyer. Sapphorain (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, given that the user kept removing references. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 22:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Block the range 2600:1702:4B28:F760:0:0:0:0/64 again

Please block the range 2600:1702:4B28:F760:0:0:0:0/64 again. It is a IP-Range, that use to fake infos. the last Block was on August 26 with a time of 45 days. here is the old notice to this ip-range: [1] Now he is back, and fake infos again. This is a long time abuse, please block the iprange longer. (Sorry for my bad english. I am not a naturaly englisch-speaker) --Natsu Dragoneel (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 6 months more. Pamputt (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2401:4900:36AE:1C97:ECEE:8187:3535:F325

Vandalism. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Too late, sorry. He/She stopped so no need to block anymore. Pamputt (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

75.166.216.147 (talk • contribs • logs) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by Stryn for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Undelete of Ko Phi (Q13024419)

Please undelete this opage. It was wrongly merged in 2014 with another same-named island quite far away, whereas the actual merge target should have been Ko Phi (Q49647285). However, after the merge the redirect and thus the originally correct data and history was deleted. Thus please undelete so it can be merged correctly. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection of Q28851821

Hi,

There are many vandalisms on this page, following the protection of this article on fr.wp. A protection would be welcome if possible. Thanks, Goodshort (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a month. --Okkn (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:80.28.101.241

This IP should be blocked, it did just vandalism over the last three years. Steak (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for 3 months --Esteban16 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jayla_Nichole_Laifatthead

Account adds spurious claims surrounding the person Q61943526, claiming that he's married to Angelina Jolie, etc. I don't think this account is editing in good faith.

Q61943526 himself was involved in the development of a few video games, but seems to have spent quite a lot of time creating fake biographies of himself on various small wikis, blogs, his own IMDb entry and even (poortly) faked videos and images, claiming to be a Grammy winner, being married to Angelina Jolie, etc. The item was created by the account Elena Cordova Becerril which is already globally blocked for sock puppetry. --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please lock 2003:F8:7703:C555:3DC9:8477:CF0:8D8

2003:F8:7703:C555:3DC9:8477:CF0:8D8 massive vandalism --Wurgl (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, though it is probably too late--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Merging elements

Hi! Please merge elements Q14745284 with Q471805, Q995268 with Q1353952. Thanks!--Nu Octantis (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source (Q22964187)

Persistent vandalism from about Dec. last year. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year. Bovlb (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Block 24.105.159.138 (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandal. --Catherine Laurence discussion 15:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Bovlb--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

that is fine

Sympa1234567890

Please block Sympa1234567890 as a vandalism only account. They are already blocked indefinitely in Finnish Wikipedia for that same reason. --Shinnin (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal

2806:107E:1F:2DE:3440:9385:4BAF:9F5D - is having fun removing interwiki links. This sometimes provokes bot re-creations of duplicates. Please block him, it's not the first time s/he's acting like this. --Wolverène (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

173.248.231.118 (talk • contribs • logs): adds nonsense to descriptions, lasting two months. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 months. Pamputt (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Q4979848

Maren Spliid (Q4979848) has repeatedly been vandalized by various anonymous accounts. Can it be protected against anonymous edits? --Hjart (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 6 months. Pamputt (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have preferred indefinitely though, because this item appears to attract the attention of bored school kids. This will not stop in 6 months or ever. --Hjart (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Hjart: It was the first protection, and usually most of them are not too long. Once the protection expires, and if it continues being vandalizied, it will be evaluated whether it needs a longer protection or not. Regards, Esteban16 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Inya_Shakya_Mumbai

Vandalizes twitter usernames and adds bogus subscriber numbers. Since the account edited Q61943526 and Angelina Jolie (Q13909), I assume it's a new incarnation of Jayla Nichole Laifatthead (talk • contribs • logs) who was blocked a few days ago and also made bogus edits surrounding Q61943526. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Esteban16 (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reporting ip

It seem the ip is hijacking other wiki entry to spam an anti-gun ownership advocate website. Matthew hk (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It has just done one edit. If it becomes persistent, a block will be applied. --Esteban16 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

Lim Zhi Hang (talk • contribs • logs) - vandalize after 4im warning. They have lots of good-faith edits, though special:diff/1037995300, special:diff/1047411814, special:diff/1047412298, special:diff/1026709968, special:diff/1025509817, special:diff/1029011448 and special:diff/1030750243 etc. are blatant vandalism. --WhitePhosphorus (talk)

✓ Blocked for a month. It's clear the user's not innocent, despite the good-faith edits. Using Wikidata as a playground is just patetic. Esteban16 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
For anyone who read this: The user had been adding information that is likely to change, which is not recommended. I have undid some of the edits, but I can't do it all by myself. I appreciate anyone who helps. Thanks, Esteban16 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q9353

Please semi-protect John Locke (Q9353) - persistent IP vandalism from various IP addresses, popular theme. --Jklamo (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Block 51.155.31.153 (talk • contribs • logs)

Cross wiki abuse. Catherine Laurence discussion 03:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, also protected Tim Berners-Lee (Q80). IP is already blocked in ENWP. Bovlb (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

ШрэкБл***. - vandal [2], the name contains a hidden obscene language in Russian.--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vladimir Solovjev:, запись не зарегистрирована, наверное, у Вас опечатка.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
А, да, там точка на конце, не заметил. Поправил.--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Block Fightz.io (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism only account. Catherine Laurence discussion 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Globally locked--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect User talk:OneLittleMouse

Protect vandalism. --85.30.249.69 14:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a month. Not sure exactly what is going on here, but this seems to be spillover from the Russian Wikipedia.
Өөрд_Хальмг_43 (talk • contribs • logs)
85.30.249.69 (talk • contribs • logs)
Bovlb (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Reset my bot password

I have forgotten my bot User:AVMbot password and I did not set any email address in its settings. How can I reset its password? --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is that you can't, and to the best of my knowledge there is no user right that can help out here. You could try Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team. Bovlb (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks (Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Reset_my_bot_password) --Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Block 83.61.158.212 (talk • contribs • logs)

Cross wiki abuse. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week, and some older vandalism reverted. I see edits on ESWP, but they all seem to have been dealt with. Mostly good edits under the /24. Bovlb (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Karol Lucero (Q3193537)

Please protect due to persistent vandalism by various IPs. –LiberatorG (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done This article is a recurring problem. Semi-protected for a month. Indeffed one user as vandalism-only. Not worth blocking any of the IPs, even though there is some cross-wiki vandalism. Bovlb (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

103.48.140.48 (talk • contribs • logs) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 31 hours. Nothing in the /24. Nothing cross-wiki. Bovlb (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect request

Q362277 per Vandalism. --Soratako (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done for two weeks. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 14:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Soratako (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Project James Barry (Q1294046)

Long-term abused. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect request: Google (Q95)

A lot of vandalism lately on Google (Q95). - Premeditated (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting the reversal of the decision to delete a page I made

Hello administrators.

I made a wikidata page for a real business and yet its been requested for deletion.

I want to appeal it.

Here is the link to the deletion request: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=prev&diff=1045628645

Can anyone help me?

@Robkeane892: The correct place to appeal the requested deletion of Q73478351 is at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q73478351. If you disagree with that proposal, then you should add to that discussion. You may wish to consult Wikidata:Notability first, so you know what sort of argument would be acceptable. You may also wish to improve the item to demonstrate its notability, for example by adding links to serious coverage of the entity by independent, reliable sources (use described at URL (P973) or described by source (P1343)). Also, you seem to be a single-issue editor, so I should probably draw your attention to our terms of use on paid editing. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Too slow. Three hours later and it has been deleted. This is now the correct venue to request undeletion. Ping @Esteban16, Jklamo. Bovlb (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Robkeane892: As requested on WD:RFD, I deleted it because it was spam/advertising. Reading the edit summary you provided is enough to understand that it was spam : "Financeeo, A company founded by Jack Morgan that provides investment & financial adivce to his clients". Like said above, if you wish to request undeletion, you should do it here. Esteban16 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't remember a particular case, but new unlinked items from new users/IP address with a description in advertising tone without serious and publicly available references I do propose for deletion on a regular basis.--Jklamo (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please semi: Q40096

Thanks. --- Jura 10:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Has had twice a year semi. Indef now. Lymantria (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

93.218.96.12

93.218.96.12 Vandalism only :-( --Wurgl (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done - Blocked for 1 month Lymantria (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect some Q

Hi, I'm asking the semi-protection of the following elements:

Due vandalism by Chilean protests 2019 related items. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Lymantria (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Block Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism account only. Kirilloparma (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by MisterSynergy--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Q73634426

Subject to vandalism due to political unrest in Bolivia. --HugoBoero (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected by Andreasmperu --DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Undelete items used by name-suggestion-index

The following items were created in part for OpenStreetMap's name-suggestion-index, but their deletion has left OpenStreetMap with various references to nonexistent QIDs:

I'm not sure whether these items were filled out with all the details that are normally expected of store chain items, but if an administrator could undelete the item, I'll go in and make sure they have statements and citations to support their continued existence. NSI doesn't have a strict notability guideline, but it generally only includes chains with around 50 locations or more. At that threshold, there's almost always a mention in at least one verifiable, independently published source, enough to meet Wikidata's notability guidelines.

I just created {{Used in name-suggestion-index}} to help Wikidata administrators distinguish items needed for NSI from run-of-the-mill spam, and I can work with the NSI maintainers to apply it more widely if folks here think it's a good idea. If there's anything else that the NSI project can do to avoid misunderstandings here, please open an issue against NSI or ping me.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Both items are restored, so please have a look.
I do not like this {{Used in name-suggestion-index}} template, as it would likely be placed on the item talk page and that would be yet another place to check during deletions (besides the data in the item itself, its history, its backlinks, all of its formerly connected sitelinks, its action=info page, and all of its Special:EntityUsage pages in other Wikimedia projects that are listed on the action=info page).
There was a previous discussion about the OSM name-suggestion-index thing somewhere here on Wikidata earlier this year, but I cannot remember the outcome… —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
"Open an issue in OSM GitHub" .. you are kidding .. --- Jura 19:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: You can also send me a message on my talk page or something if you have more ideas. The template can also be reworded if there's a better way to manage any issues. For example, another option could be for issues with NSI-related items to be raised on a Wikidata: page, or for people like me who contribute to both Wikidata and NSI to add our names to a page for MassMessage notifications. One of the NSI maintainers apparently reached out on IRC about Q64027038 after its deletion but got no response, so I just want to make sure there's a channel of communication so that Wikidata administrators know what the intention was and the NSI project isn't caught off-guard.

@MisterSynergy: Thanks for restoring the items! I've added independent published sources to both items and made the description in Q64027038 sound less like ad copy. Q69982369 is also linked from its parent company now.

Regarding the template, I should've mentioned that it links to the item, so you'd see MediaWiki:Deleting-backlinks-warning when you go to delete the item. (You can't see the link on the template page itself because it ends up being a bolded selflink.) But I'm certainly open to other ideas. I'm an administrator on other wikis, so I realize fighting spam can be a tightrope act sometimes. On the other end, I'll try to improve documentation for NSI contributors who want to add a Wikidata item, so they know what it takes to make an item notable. For some OSM contributors, this is their first foray into Wikimedia projects, so anything we can do to improve their contributions and avoid misunderstandings would be wonderful.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The MediaWiki:Deleting-backlinks-warning message appears pretty often, particularly in the context of items with questionable notability. They are several bot-maintained problematic item lists which generate these backlinks. Thus, that alone does not really help.
Would it be possible to have an identifier property related to the name-suggestion-index? IMO it would be much easier to see the external use if there was such an identifier available… —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the items should be deleted unless they include sufficient information to assess their notability. Use on a non-WMF website is not a structural need. Contributors to Wikidata should not be requested to edit or open tickets on other websites. I wonder if WMF privacy policy doesn't explicity prohibt this. --- Jura 23:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jura1, MisterSynergy: I agree that use on NSI or OSM doesn't by itself satisfy the "structural need" notability guideline. OSM has plenty of chain stores that aren't tagged with a Wikidata QID, because they aren't notable enough for Wikidata. On the other hand, any brand in NSI that is tagged with a Wikidata QID probably could meet Wikidata's "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" notability guideline. My goal is to help editors do a better job of asserting notability for those brands, to remove the ambiguity for Wikidata administrators. The idea with the template definitely wasn't to force Wikidata contributors to use GitHub, but rather to give administrators some context and an option to "phone a friend" if in doubt.

An identifier property would be a much nicer approach than what I had in mind, so I started a proposal – please have a look. An NSI "identifier" – if you can call it that – is nothing more than amenity/fast_food|McDonald's for McDonald’s (Q38076). The presence of an NSI entry only means that OSM contributors have identified roughly 50 or more locations for a given chain and have added the chain as a preset when mapping in OSM. But I'm not sure that's rigorous enough for the "serious references" criterion. I still think it would be important for editors to cite independent published sources, so I'm going to write up something along the lines of OpenStreetMap:Tag:flag:wikidata#Creating a Wikidata item but for OpenStreetMap:Tag:brand:wikidata and NSI.

(As an aside, from OSM's perspective, the validity of QIDs tagged in OSM is a structural need and it's a problem when they go missing. I realize that's a problem for any Wikidata consumer to figure out on their own, rather than Wikidata's problem, just as Facebook isn't responsible for updating Wikidata when Facebook username (P2013) statements go stale. However, I wonder if it would be possible for a SPARQL or Quarry query to indicate when items that are instances of something get deleted. That would give other projects more confidence in using Wikidata QIDs as external references.)  – Minh Nguyễn 💬 02:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

banned vandal back on 78.55.124.174

78.55.124.174 The multiple times banned vandal seems to be back with a new IP. --GPSLeo (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The IP no longer seems to be active and I cannot make out a clear pattern in their contribution history. Maybe a German-speaker could get more from it. Bovlb (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please protect Santiago Abascal (Q11703587)

Excessive vandalism. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Another frequent flier. Protected for six months this time. Most of the IPs are not worth blocking, but I found one with a cross-wiki pattern. Bovlb (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Robert Hooke (Q46830)

Needs semi-protection. Excessive vandalism. --Succu (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for a year. (It just came off a six-month semi-protection.) Bovlb (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice Fightz.io (talk • contribs • logs)

Seems promotional name. Catherine Laurence discussion 01:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Not important. Vandalism account. Block it. --E4024 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

well, am i still able to edit on here and make stuff?

am i aloud on here

can i keep my google slides?

Issue #1911090216387
(describe the issue for which you need an administrator's decision; don't include "Fightz.io (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)")
Author and time of the request
Fightz.io; 15:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Decision
(to be filled in by an administrator)

can i stay on?

Issue #1911090217530
(describe the issue for which you need an administrator's decision; don't include "Fightz.io (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)")
Author and time of the request
Fightz.io; 15:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Decision
(to be filled in by an administrator)

can i keep my google slides?

This user has been creating a series of nonsense/test items, one of which got redirected, and the rest have been deleted. I don't know what they are trying to achieve here, but it seems that it might be related to this game: http://fightz.io/
On another note, can someone tell me where these "Issue" templates are coming from? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

multi-IP vandalism on Q189869

Benito Pérez Galdós (Q189869)

✓ Protected for 3 months. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:&beer&love

Hi, User:&beer&love put the statement season (Q27020041) with his bot to hundreds of items dealing with a single tournament (Q500834). He was told, but ignored it. I told him again about his mistake and he said he would deal with it. He has done nothing. Later he added again season (Q27020041) to some of my items and I warned him. He ignored me. About two weeks ago he obviously made more mass edits adding the wrong statement. Another user complained and was also ignored. Yesterday he added again the wrong statement. It's impossible for me to find out how much damage he has already done because he does thousands of edits per day. Could some - preferably Spanish-speaking - admin put in some more weight to stop him, please? -- HvW (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Now he is adding sports season of league or competition (P3450) to single tournaments. It's getting more difficult to revert this, he's wreaking havoc to the structure. I can't revert it by hand, he's using a bot and the damage is getting massive. Please stop him immediately. -- HvW (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
As an editor in the field of sports I am often interacting with User:&beer&love as well, thus I am not acting in admin role here.
I have similar concerns about the reported user's edit patterns as User:HvW has made here. User:&beer&love is very productive when it comes to equipping items with no or only very basic data with statements. They are doing so mainly by importing from Wikipedias as far as I can tell and they are very likely using different measures of edit automation, but their editing is often pretty erratic, and they are often trying to enforce statements where there is no agreement about the data model yet by repetitively adding them with their import tools. The use if sports season of league or competition (P3450) is such a case. Furthermore, the reported user is often not sufficiently responsive when users show up on their talk page, and they do not really engage in repair jobs for their imports if something went wrong.
I am a bit perplexed about what to do; on the one hand the user is pretty productive, on the other hand their error rate and the repetitive addition of formerly removed and controversial statements is way beyond acceptable limits in my opinion. Does anyone have an idea how to guide their enthusiasm into a more controlable path? —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. Now he made Torneo Provincial de Fútbol (Catamarca) (Q64356663) a sports competition (Q13406554). In other words he turned a series of annual recurring sporting event (Q18608583) into a single sports match. And he also added follows (P155) without a value. Of course, there can be no value. He obviously has no plan of what he is doing. -- HvW (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mjälten

I would like to make you aware of that User:Mjälten currently has been blocked on svwiki, technically for violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette (Q3621820). A problem that spills over to Wikidata, is that the user has changed Swedish labels in violation to practice on svwiki. One such example can be seen here. "University of Michigan" has been changed to "Michigans universitet". "Michigans universitet" is technically a generic Swedish title. But inventing "homemade" translation of names of foreign "things" is in violation of how we do it on svwiki. Until Swedishspeaking media has given it a Swedish name, we normally keep the native name untranslated on svwiki. I am aware that this is not at all how they do on enwiki for example. How do we solve such problems here on Wikidata? You maybe have guidelines for Engligh labels and description, but they are poorly transferable to other languages. 62 etc (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Use common sense applies here. If those titles don't have an official Swedish translation yet, then what is expected is to use common sense, which is what svwiki policy states. Mjälten, svwiki and Wikidata are different projects, but the mistakes you've done there you are doing here. If you were blocked you should be wiser and recognize your mistakes, not repeating them in another place. Your edits should be undone. Esteban16 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Garett20

Garett20 (talk • contribs • logs)

User:Garett20 is a spam-only account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Pigsonthewing: Indeffed. Sorry to be so slow to respond. Bovlb (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please lock 192.166.2.63

192.166.2.63 needs a lock, Vandalism only (except one edit). --Wurgl (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for a week. That one edit is marginal. Also a pattern of cross-wiki vandalism, but it looks like it has already been cleaned up. Bovlb (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism from 217.181.23.113

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.181.23.113

 Not done Sorry. It's not worth blocking an IP for edits to one item over a 7 minute period over 12 hours ago, with non cross-wiki pattern. Bovlb (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Q74065265

Needs protection, subject to persistent cross-wiki spam Mimihitam (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This item seems not notable to me. Should we delete this? --Okkn (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Okkn for sure! As a note, the culprit seems to have multiple sockpuppets to create articles about himself in diferent wikis. The articles have been deleted on both Indonesian and English Wikipedia because they are not notable at all. Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Item deleted. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please protect Robert Kiyosaki (Q311147)

Excessive vandalism. Catherine Laurence discussion 12:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Hmm. It's fairly slow-moving vandalism over a long time, but I have semi-protected for 3 months. Bovlb (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Block Warioless (talk • contribs • logs)

Vandalism-only account, offensive phrases in Italian on different elements. Kirilloparma (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, and locked globally. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Eric Zemmour

Eric Zemmour (talk • contribs • logs) vandalized Éric Zemmour (Q288477) on 2018-10-28. Is there a username policy in Wikidata? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata does not have a username policy, but Foundation:Terms_of_Use forbids impersonation. Regardless, I have indeffed this user as vandalism-only. No cross-wiki activity. Bovlb (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Special:Contributions/165.111.2.207 -- Stas (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC).

Apparently it stopped, so I think this is not necessary anymore. Sorry for delay. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 15:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User OctaMG

Hi. Please block OctaMG as a vandalism only account. They are already blocked indefinitely at eswiki for the same reason. --Shinnin (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Shinnin: Indeffed. You may want to request deletion of commons:File:Burgengaydu.jpg. It appears to be an undeclared derivative work of https://twitter.com/venomfrom1977/status/1039645809028022272/photo/2 possibly from AlloCiné, but I cannot track down the original. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Tirant lo Blanc (Q559667)

An anonymous user with different IPs is making this edit repeatedly. I asked him why in some of his talk pages, like here, but doesn't answer and continues to do the same edit. Maybe the solution is a semi-protection of the item? --Foguera (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Hmm. This is a slow edit war between Foguera and a variety of IP address going back two months. I am not an expert in this subject matter, but the IP's position that this document is in the Valencian (Q32641) subdialect of Catalan (Q7026) seems to me to be a colourable claim. I am reluctant to add semi-protection here, in case that would have the effect of favouring one editor over another in a good faith dispute. I cannot fault an anon user with changing IP addresses for failure to respond to a talk page message. My recommendation for both users would be add a reference to the claim. That's a good rule whenever a claim is (likely to be) disputed. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Foguera: Are you taking the position that the document is not (known to be) in Valencian, or is it your position that language of work or name (P407) can only be used with first-class languages, and not with sub-dialects? Bovlb (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The second one.
Well, maybe we could find some exceptions. For example, nowadays the Catalan language has two standard versions and we could use language of work or name (P407) to indicate which standard of the Catalan language is used. And I think that some items do that. But Tirant lo Blanc (Q559667) is a medieval text, when it didn't exist any standard, so it is not the case.
If we wanted to use language of work or name (P407) to indicate the most concrete dialect, in this case we would use Central Valencian (Q2858334), not the general Valencian (Q32641). And I think that language of work or name (P407) is not used to indicate the most concrete dialect. Or, at least, it is not used with Catalan texts.
I think that the anonymous user is doing this edit because he wants to promote the non linguistic belief that Valencian and Catalan are different languages. In the past, the same item had suffered vandalism of this sign, possibly done by another anonymous user: [5]. And we can also find this type of vandalism in other items, like in Llibre dels feyts, that is not even written in Valencian, but talks about Valencia. --Foguera (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. I like everything you're saying here, but I still think this is a content dispute. I'd be happier we started a discussion on Project chat, and got a community decision on things like this that we could point to in future. If we decide that things like Valencian (Q32641) are inappropriate values for language of work or name (P407) then we could improve the documentation and maybe even add a property constraint (P2302) to that effect. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please protect Alternative für Deutschland

There has been repeated Vandalism during the past weeks - I think people are beginning to realise, that the wikidata-description is shown on mobile versions of wikipedia which makes it attractive to change it. The current version should be protected for some time... --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johannnes89: Is it essential for the description of the item to have the text "rechtsextreme politische Partei in Deutschland"? I mean are there one party with this label that is rechtsextreme and another is not? Wouldn't "politische Partei in Deutschland" be enough, and the item would probably be less tempting to vandalise? 62 etc (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I just checked with other German parties and in all other cases it just says "political party in Germany" / "politische Partei in Deutschland", so I agree the neutral version would be best. --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I have removed "rechtsextreme"/"far-right" from the item in question. 62 etc (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

218.188.211.25

Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done for 1 month. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Entetieger Seems to be an account just for vandalism. --Wurgl (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Ymblanter --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

180.248.126.211

Please block Special:Contributions/180.248.126.211 and revert all of its edits.--Jklamo (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Ymblanter, all edits have been reverted. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Eduard Johann Nikolaus Istas (Q19502181)

Please undelete this item about a portrait painter. Was considered not notable enough for the German Wikipedia, but at least the structured data for c:File:Möhler Istas.jpg would require him as the creator. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --MisterSynergy (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, hope that's the right place, but it seems that Gregdaweg account was created just to vandalise, cf their history. I already reverted, but I think it should be blocked too. --Misc (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Vandalism-only account. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

Please block 195.77.175.67 (talk • contribs • logs) given their long term vandalism history. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection of Q4245

Hi y'all admins,

Jean-Michel Aulas (Q4245) should probably be semi-protected. Summary of the situation: 1 vandalism last month and 2 this week, by 3 differents IPs, all offensive and concerning a living person.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done protected for 1 month.-- Hakan·IST 11:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

80.94.192.96

80.94.192.96

Vandalism 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

vandal

I realize there is no username policy here, but can one assume a blatant attack username created only to vandalize a specific users' talk page would still qualify for blocking? This is some long-term troll or other who apparently got bored doing this at en.wp and came over here instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Already handled globally (and probably best to report at m:SRG next time). --Rschen7754 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this is sorted but, while we lack a local username policy, we are governed by the WMF TOU, which forbids (among other things) Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation, With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate, and Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive. Bovlb (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User block request

Requesting indef block for user:Sp4rkl3PL / Special:Contributions/Sp4rkl3PL. All but one his/her edits are vandalisms. Wostr (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Esteban16 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Asad Ali Palijo (Q62936940)

Persistent vandalism since creation. No need to edit frequently. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done indefinitely. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem with HDS ID (P902)

Moved to project chat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

الحمزي

)الرجاء التعديل من (الحمزية ) الى بيت (الحمزي رداع  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alhamzihashem1 (talk • contribs).

@Alhamzihashem1: According to Google Translate, this means Hamzi: (Please amendment from (Hamzeh) to the house) Hamze and may be a reference to Hamziyeh (Q21715102), but I do not understand what administrative action is being requested here. Perhaps one of @Ebrahim, Ladsgroup, باسم could be of more assistance. Bovlb (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Bovlb: Can read the text more or less but guess he is talking about something that should be done first in Arabic Wikipedia, not sure. −ebrahimtalk 20:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Bovlb: hope if you ping me also . And yes @Ebrahim:, it's as you said. I put comment on Arabic below --Alaa :)..! 17:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

مرحبًا @Alhamzihashem1: حقيقةً تعديلك في مقالة الحمزي (الرجم) غير مفهوم! فأنت تقوم بتعديل بيانات كاملة لقرية دون أي مصادر ولا توضيحات للموضوع، وبالتالي لا يمكن تعديل مادة ويكي بيانات دون توضيح ومصدر! لذلك أرجو منك إعادة تعديل المقالة في ويكيبيديا العربية ولكن بإضافة مصادر، أو على الأقل التعليق في صفحة النقاش. تحياتي --Alaa :)..! 17:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@علاء: Sorry. I was trying to extract all "ar" speakers listed on Wikidata:Administrators and I don't know why I failed to include you. Is there a more convenient way to ping "users willing to help out with issues in language X"? Bovlb (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/185.61.206.125

Vandalism. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Report was good at the time, but is now stale. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Q7536037

This object should not have been deleted, as it has a page on greek wikipedia which now has no wikidata item.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doublah (talk • contribs) at 23:31, 24 November 2019‎ (UTC).

Clear case, ✓ Done. (@Bencemac: FYI) —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

error

Hi, I've tried to publish a summary of our scientific magazine, but i have received this message:

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter

why? Thank You Dalia

Archivio Fotografico Toscano (talk • contribs • logs) Special:AbuseLog/9815394 Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/9815394
@Archivio Fotografico Toscano: It looks like you were caught in a filter intended to catch a bot that has been adding spam content across multiple projects. While this was unintended (a "false positive"), looking at your proposed content, I wonder if you have misunderstood the nature of this project. It looks like you were trying to create a user page that was a detailed description of an issue of your magazine. This is not a regular Wikipedia-style project where we post articles that describe concepts in prose. Even if it were, that is not how user pages are normally used. You could create a new item representing your magazine, but it would be structured knowledge not prose, and you should be aware of our Notability rules. You should also be aware of our rules on paid editing; I have gone ahead and created your user page for you with your desired content, only because it may serve as a starting point towards a disclosure of affiliation. Bovlb (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

158.99.3.161 (talk • contribs • logs)

Hello, please block this vandal --Horcrux (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Some related cross-wiki vandalism has already been cleaned up. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Commercial editing by Hangzhou_Ten_Bamboo_studio_Art_Museum

Hangzhou_Ten_Bamboo_studio_Art_Museum (talk • contribs • logs): commercial editing & violating username policy & new items without WD:Notability & ADs in description. --虹易 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata has no username policy and they appear to be editing soely on this project. I have drawn the user's attention to our terms of use on paid editing, and invited them to join the discussion here. Is there a reason why you did not attempt to engage with the editor directly? Can you point at specific non-notable new items? By "ADs", do you mean adverts, or something else? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @虹易: Courtesy ping. Bovlb (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be about three new items Ten Bamboo Studio (Q75245943), Hangzhou Ten Bamboo Studio Art Museum (Q75239754), Lizhong Wei (Q75242957), and related to an existing item Hu Zhengyan (Q15430363) with 17 Wikipedia articles (two featured). Bovlb (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I went straightforward here because I thought these new items to be obviously advertising (ADs in my above text) and promotion. I realize that I did not evaluate carefully before take the account and these items here. But I just review the items you mention and now I insist that these are nothing other than typical commercial promotions with non-neutral words here and there. All these items are related to "a Chinese artist, printmaker and publisher" "during the transition from the Ming dynasty to the Qing dynasty" Hu Zhengyan (Q15430363)(1584 – 1674). He "owned and operated an academic publishing house called the Ten Bamboo Studio (i.e. Ten Bamboo Studio (Q75245943)), in which he practised various multi-colour printing and embossing techniques". Both Hu Zhengyan (Q15430363) and Ten Bamboo Studio (Q75245943) have no notability problems at all. However, Hangzhou Ten Bamboo Studio Art Museum (Q75239754), which is a "art museum" of Ten Bamboo Studio (Q75245943), is built by Lizhong Wei (Q75242957) in 2001. There does not seem to be any direct relations between the former 2 items and the latter 2 except that Lizhong Wei (Q75242957) is promoted as an inheritor/successor of Ten Bamboo Studio (Q75245943) printmaker techniques. So whether the latter 2 items are of much notability is not related to the existing item Hu Zhengyan (Q15430363) and worth discussing otherwhere. If these problems are not enough to judge these as promotions, I think the Chinese descriptions of these new items would be:
Lizhong Wei (Q75242957): ... have made the ancient printmaking process happen, spreading the traditional Chinese culture, letting culture enter the school, and life shows the art.
Ten Bamboo Studio (Q75245943): ... For decades, woodcut watermarks have been difficult to survive due to lack of mainstream art recognition and financial support. In 2001, Wei Zhuzhong, the national inheritor of the watermarking technique of the Shizhuzhai woodcut, was committed to protecting the inheritance and revival of this traditional Chinese art.
Hangzhou Ten Bamboo Studio Art Museum (Q75239754): ... The Shizhuzhai (i.e. Ten Bamboo Museum) Art Museum is located in Hangzhou, a culturally rich city. It is an art museum, an art creation center and a talent training center. It is dedicated to inheriting and promoting the traditional Chinese watermark art. For a long time, Shizhuzhai has collected historical and historical materials through the collection, collected relevant historical materials to support academic research, regularly held high-quality exhibitions and experience activities, and provided professional courses and scholarships to cultivate the inheritors of watermark woodcut technology. To achieve the purpose of inheritance.
From my perspective, Lizhong Wei (Q75242957) and Hangzhou Ten Bamboo Studio Art Museum (Q75239754) should be deleted for now until they meet notability criteria. I am not family with policies on WikiData. Please correct me if I miss or misunderstand something. After reading Wikidata:Notability again, I realize I missed the second criteria "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.". Although the notability is not so clear, it does not go against the goal of wikidata "serving as a general knowledge base" in addition to "centralizing interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects". I am going to rewrite the descriptions of these items. Now the discussion can be archived. Thanks. --虹易 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: Also, this account is already blocked on zhwiktionary: wikt:zh:Special:Contributions/Hangzhou_Ten_Bamboo_studio_Art_Museum, with account creation disabled, reason: 僅散發廣告/宣傳 (posts only advertisements/trollings). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

LYTOZCORP

LYTOZCORP please block and nuke - items created solely for promotion, and are not notable. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jasper Deng --08:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Fake date of consultation by User: Reinheitsgebot

Could someone block User: Reinheitsgebot? It continues to systematically give the same old date of consultation « 9 October 2017 » . User: Magnus Manske has been warned a number of times for at least a year by various users on this problem, but chooses to ignore it. This becomes particularly absurd when the claim is a date (of death for instance) after October 2017, as in Jean d'Ormesson (Q353866). Or when the claim comes from the current version of Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (Q642074), which did not exist in October 2017. Sapphorain (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed now --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
(To User:Magnus Manske) ?! No! It's not fixed at all! See for instance Thomas Jonigk (Q106285),Ron Arad (Q728087),Meinhard von Pfaundler (Q87865),Ezra Pound (Q163366). Several thousands of contributions have been made after your message, that still contain this old fake date one consultation of 9 October 2017. Sapphorain (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes it's fixed. These edits were a jobs that was still running with the old code. That job has been terminated since. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like it's fixed, so no case for blocking. Do we have a plan for the tidy up of past contributions? https://w.wiki/C9j According to this query, there are >600K items that have a date of birth or death with a reference retrieved on 2017-10-09. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Do you have a plan? Bovlb (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sapphorain: So it seems as if the situation we now find ourselves in is that the bot is fixed going forward, but we appear to have hundreds of thousands of spurious retrieved (P813) qualifiers on references, which likely come from the bot's past contributions. The botop is not offering any plan to fix them. Is this a satisfactory resolution? How do we move forward here? Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not satisfactory: if no plan is offered to mend hundreds of thousands of fake past contributions, one can fear that in the future, if a new problem arises, hundreds of thousands of additional erroneous contributions will not be mended either. A plan should be offered, or the bot should be blocked. Sapphorain (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, well I don't know what to tell you here. I am reluctant to block Reinheitsgebot when it's currently working fine (so far as we know). Maybe we should move faster the next time we detect a problem. The relevant policy says In the case of any damage caused by a bot, the bot operator is asked to stop the bot. Depending on the scale of the damage, an administrator may block the bot. The bot operator is responsible for cleaning up any damage caused by the bot. I don't know how to get Magnus to engage with the issue of cleaning up the damage. Any suggestions? Bovlb (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Well?! It seems the "relevant policy" you cited is clear: the bot operator is responsible for cleaning up. Besides, if the bot operator refuses to clean up a damage, it is very likely he or she will refuse to clean up any other possible further damage in the future. And if so the bot should not be allowed to operate. Sapphorain (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

31.168.141.20

31.168.141.20 - need to block him because of his vandalism Euro know (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably too late at this point--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (Q29656435)

Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 6 months more. Pamputt (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

61.187.158.26

61.187.158.26 - Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it is too late now, sorry not to react before. Pamputt (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Q38202210

Fernanfloo (Q38202210) has been vandalized by 73.5.47.229 and then Wiki99wednesday (likely the same person) - can they be blocked and/or the item protected? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

103.255.5.98

103.255.5.98 continues to vandalize after warning. –LiberatorG (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute spilled over from nowiki

There are some activity at Special:Contributions/Ezzex that is a spillover from discussions at nowiki. The user is very well aware that this is destructive behavior. Jeblad (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

69.70.131.178

69.70.131.178 Repeated vandalism for the last month to block for a long time. This IP is vandalizing other Wiki like French Wiki. Pierre cb (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism at Q983259

190.215.240.29 vandalism on Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (Q983259) after warning. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Also now 181.42.13.22 --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I semi-protected the item, and blocked the second IP for cross-wiki vandalism (cleaning up related nonsense on ESWP). First IP is too stale to block. Bovlb (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

181.165.208.210

181.165.208.210 - please block, vandalism after warning --DannyS712 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks--BRP ever 12:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

94.73.50.38

94.73.50.38 continues to vandalize after warning. –LiberatorG (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q39607

Antoine Lavoisier (Q39607): persistent vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 3 months. Pamputt (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 21:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Foul-mouthed vandalism at the item for the Anne Frank House for more than a year now.

I've fixed it now, but is there any good reason unregistered users should be allowed to edit Wikidata? And I wonder how many autogenerated Wikidata boxes showed that lovely saying for the past year. -Yupik (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Items that are semi protected require accounts with 50 edits to be edited, but otherwise unregistered users should be allowed to edit wikidata for the same reason that they should be able to edit all wikis - part of the wiki ethos. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

173.248.231.119

173.248.231.119 - All edits are test edits. --Xiplus (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems they have stopped. --Esteban16 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ziomal1234

Please consider taking some action (maybe a short block as a warning, I don't know) regarding this user. He keeps adding descriptions in Polish, which are both against Wikidata guidelines, i.e. extremely long (like in Hanna Suchocka (Q55930)) and againts general Wikimedia NPOV policy (like calling Adrian Zandberg (Q21157896) a "far-left politician" in his description). As this person is clearly a Polish speaker, we (@Magalia:, @PMG: and myself) have cautioned him in Polish 3 times on his talk page. If further action is necessary, it should probably be stronger than that. Powerek38 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I support Powerek. What Ziomal1234 is doing is far from what correct description should look like (length and NPOV). PMG (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done @Powerek38: I sent a warning to this user. Rzuwig► 10:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:69420nomeme

69420nomeme (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: on Q213181 Lucywood (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report once the user has been warned sufficiently. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q7085

Niels Bohr (Q7085): persistent vandalism. — Mike Novikoff 21:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 1 year. It has already been semi-protected two years ago during 6 months. Pamputt (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mike Novikoff 06:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q40638

Persistent vandalism: The last 17 edits are vandalisms. These vandalisms are the result of a recent accusation against him. --Gindomarlo (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: Most of the vandalism is written in Spanish, this is because the wikipedia article in Spanish is already protected, and since they can no longer vandalize in wikipedia, they are now vandalising in wikidata. --Gindomarlo (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It somehow happens that most of WD vandals are Spanish-speaking, so it's no wonder. — Mike Novikoff 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Semi-protected for 1 month. Pamputt (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Block 119.30.32.155

119.30.32.155 persistent vandalism. Kirilloparma (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop him! Kirilloparma (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it is too late now. I think a block is needed anymore for now. Pamputt (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Blocked by Abián --DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Brownpig08

Please block Brownpig08 - vandalism only, vandalism after warning --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked indef. Pamputt (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Helen Keller (Q38203)

Please semiprotect Helen Keller (Q38203) due to repeated vandalism. –LiberatorG (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 6 months. Pamputt (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk • contribs • logs)

Summary Peerage ID people with no en descriptions Author Gamaliel
Number of edits 154,639 (more statistics) Example edit Q75504158

@Gamaliel:

In a discussion on Project Chat, the user wrote that they'd stop adding these descriptions. [6]

However, it appears that this is still running, possibly unattended. The user is not responding to comments on their talk page.

Please block the account until we are sure the batch(es) has/have been stopped and that we can trust they wont continue without prior discussion. --- Jura 09:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry why is stopping the adding of descriptions so vital and not the flood of duplicate new wikidata items? Gamaliel (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why this would excuse your additions of incorrect descriptions. Can we trust you not to continue? --- Jura 12:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've already stopped the batch. I disagree that the descriptions are inaccurate as they are all relations of British royalty or peers. I've also been checking them for errors and manually correctly the few that are inaccurate. Gamaliel (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point of view about the inaccuracy, but I don't share it. To some extent most people are related to one, but it's not necessarily a useful description. Except maybe if you are English ..--- Jura 12:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
What do you think would be more useful? I'd like to come to an agreeable compromise if we can. Gamaliel (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Year of birth/year of death. If not available, at least a century. GZWDer would need to finish their additions first though. --- Jura 12:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that can be done with the sparse items created by GZWDer. And they haven't yet been forthcoming about their next steps or goals with these additions. Gamaliel (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: @Pigsonthewing: A fraction (a couple thousand looks like) of the items already have dates of birth and or death, so I've started some smaller batches that incorporate that info on those items. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Can you drop the British or relation of British part? --- Jura 14:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: Andy might be able to answer this definitively but I don't think they are all peers, so removing the relation part would make the description inaccurate. Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean you should drop the textual part entirely unless we find one we agree on and you should not continue adding additional such descriptions without seeking a consensus on the question. --- Jura 14:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked what you would agree with and I've tried to address your concerns. I'm willing to pause such additions, but not stop them unless this also applies to the creation of nearly blank new items and duplicates from Peerage IDs. The reason I started adding them is that already in the short time they've existed they've become a significant obstacle to work in biographical reconciliation and searching and we can't put such projects on hold while these problemaatic items are added to Wikidata. Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you are confusing me with GZWDer. If you think their edits should be stopped, I let you discuss it in another section.
A textual description "British peer or relation" is not acceptable. I suggested you a replacement, but you still keep adding it. We now have thousands of items to clean up because of your edits. If you don't want these items in your search results, you can exclude them specifically and based on property on these items. --- Jura 14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
You suggested a replacement, I implemented it, and now you have another objection to it. So I'm confused. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A "replacement" isn't something you should add in addition. --- Jura 15:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
So you just think only dates should be in the description? Why is it inappropriate for people who are unquestionably British? You are removing it from people who are British. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
If so, please add a properly source P27 statement first.
As for the description, if you can come up with something better, you might want to bring it up on Project Chat. --- Jura 15:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you give me an idea of what kind of description text would be acceptable to you for the many items without dates of birth or death? Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned before, the century would be useful.
Another solution occurred to me just now: you could use "en-gb", it's less geared toward the general public and I wouldn't really care what you add there. --- Jura 15:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
You can't derive a century from items with no dates at all. I'm don't see how using a different language/dialect description would address any of the problems caused by the blank items. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be possible once GZWDer inserted the family links. If not, the item is probably useless and should be deleted. The textual description you favor may be appropriate for "en-gb". I wouldn't mind it there. It should be just as useful to you as the same in "en". --- Jura 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how it would be useful to people attempting to search and reconcile in en and not en-gb. Could you clarify? Gamaliel (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
They have the option to switch. I don't think the description is useful to begin with, but we already had that part of the discussion yesterday. --- Jura 15:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there anyone other than Jura who thinks the en textual description "British peer or relation" is not acceptable, in these circumstances? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think "British peer or relation" is a very poor descriptor, even if "technically true" through kinship. It might be an improvement to no description at all, but it's is misguided, and misleading, and/or exceedingly vague to call an American businessman, or an Arabian terrorist, or even a London born Brit as a "British peer or relation" (that vague and troublesome "or" theoretically includes every single American, Indian, Canadian, Australian etc. related to or descended from a Brit, no matter how distantly or irrelevantly). For the many, many duplicates created by User:GZWDer (flood), any effort to add labels is largely an exercise in futility and time-wasting, since they will (hopefully very soon) be merged with their more contextualized predecessor with more appropriate descriptions. It's a bit surprising that Gamaliel's actions are on trial here, while the unilateral massive import of hundreds of thousands of names by GZWDer (the root cause of several issues being discussed on Wikidata:Project chat) goes unquestioned. -Animalparty (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not a PoV, it's a matter of fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Seconded that the descriptions are not incorrect. "British peer or relation" does not mean that the subject is necessarily British. They are either a British peer or a relative of a British Peer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, Pigsonthewing: I'm not convinced these items are even useful. "British peer or relation" is vague - is this person a peer, or a relation? As the discussion has demonstrated, we don't even know whether the person is British. In the example suggested by User:Jura1, Doreen Margaret Billington (Q75504158), all that there is on the item is that this person exists and you may look up their genealogy on a certain page at The Peerage. Or my friend Olivia who is arguably more notable as a research scientist, but your script created an orphan item for her that doesn't even link her to her aristocratic relations. If you're able to import the entire family tree into Wikidata as statements and eventually link them to someone with a baronetcy or a Wikipedia article then that might serve a "structural need" purpose for Wikidata, but as these item stands I doubt that they conform to Wikidata's inclusion criteria. I propose that we should mass delete all The Peerage items that have no sitelinks, no incoming links, and no other external identifier other than The Peerage. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: These items were created by GZWDer and we share many of the same objections. I just added the descriptions to the blank items created by GZWDer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Gamaliel. I've copied my comment over to the related thread on WD:PC. I'm of the opinion that, if "British peer or relation" is the best description one can come up with for an item, that item ought to be deleted. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
To centralize discussion, reply may be found in Project Chat.--GZWDer (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sample discussion

Interesting illustration. --- Jura 11:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done for finding those four (though, oddly, you don't appear to have changed any of them). What proportion of the 154,639 edits that you mentioned in your OP do they represent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not primarily for me to fix what others borked. Interesting that you expect that. --- Jura 14:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Now you're trying to put words into my mouth. Don't do that. You seem to have overlooked my question, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you can spell out what you assume when you write: "oddly, you don't appear to have changed any of them". --- Jura 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
My 2 cents: the import should not have been started without going through bot approval, which should have included clear decisions on labels and descriptions from the start. I am in favor of mass deletion of these unapproved items until/unless such a bot approval request is made. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
We talk about more than 160.000 items here that are meanwhile linked 67.000 34.000 times; thus deleting them all would be a pretty big administrative task that would require a customized deletion bot script and at least ~48 hours of execution time. We would get that done if necessary, but it would create quite some server load of which we already have too much, and plenty of log entries that seem superfluous if the items are going to be re-created or even restored at a later time, based on an approved bot task and with different descriptions. Thus, I recommend to start a proper discussion about whether we want to keep the items at WD:RfD, and if so, which improvements need to be done. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk • contribs • logs) II

The account seems to be running amok and attempts at discussion of a cleanup of the previous run are not being answered. Can someone stop it? --- Jura 16:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your "attempts at discussion" have been answered, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out in one of the many forks of this discussion you've created, I've repeatedly been discussing with you and I've implemented every single change you asked for. I have no idea why you continue to object. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk • contribs • logs) II

The account seems to be running amok and attempts at discussion of a cleanup of the previous run are not being answered. Can someone stop it? --- Jura 16:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your "attempts at discussion" have been answered, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't move the section. Yours too. --- Jura 16:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Summary can't stop won't stop Author Gamaliel
Number of edits 2,513 (more statistics) Example edit Q75868526

Terrible edit summaries .. --- Jura 16:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What is going on? I've repeatedly been discussing with you and I've implemented every single change you asked for. I have no idea why you continue to object when I have bent over backwards to accommodate you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
There are three things to do: (1) cleanup past edits of yours (2) find a suitable description. My suggestion was year of birth-year of death or century (3) make sure data is available (4) add that. --- Jura 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding new discussions, it's very difficult to keep track. I will respond further at the original discussion at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sample_discussion. I will just note here that I've already been doing all three things. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You repeatedly re-started or continued doing those things. --- Jura 17:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the second time you have repeated the inaccurate claim that I have not stopped. I have stopped using the description you objected to. Please stop repeating false claims on multiple pages. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The initial section was created when your batches were still running (maybe you weren't aware of it).
This section was started when your edits with the edit summary "can't stop won't stop" were still running. --- Jura 17:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Those edits do not use the description you object to. So your claim is inaccurate. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
They are not using a format we agreed on and "can't stop won't stop" seems hardly constructive. --- Jura 17:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Inaccurate. The descriptions are in precisely the format you suggested. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Can we see diffs for this? --- Jura 19:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Lance Stroll Wikidata vandalism

For a few days, vandalic IPs were vandalizing the Wikidata of Lance Stroll article, repeatedly, these IPs changed the description in Spanish from "Piloto de automovilismo canadiense" to "Piloto y ****** canadiense". Could this Wikidata be protected?

✓ Done Semi-protected for three months. --Okkn (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please protect The Pirate Bay (Q22663)

The Pirate Bay (Q22663) - Persistent spam/sock puppetry (last protection was a period of 6 months that expired on 17 November 2019, and spamming began on 29 November) --94rain (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for six months. --Okkn (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk • contribs • logs) III

Summary British -> European Author Gamaliel
Number of edits 721 (more statistics) Example edit Q65588900

Can someone block this account? They seem to be doing random edits while we are still discussing on project chat what to do with their last mess. --- Jura 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Will you stop harassing me? I am clearly NOT doing random edits, I am cleaning up the descriptions that you have been complaining about in every conceivable forum for days. And now you are complaining that I'm doing the cleanup! Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In any case, I'm done for today, java ran out of memory and the batch stopped. I will continue the cleanup tomorrow unless you find something else to complain about between now and then. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not discuss your edits first? I don't think anyone suggested the change you are doing now. I think your account should remained blocked until we can be sure about the description you add and you don't continue add some description despite having assured me that you wouldn't [7]. --- Jura 20:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the third time you have lied and claimed I have continued to add the British description you objected to. This latest batch you are complaining about is to remove the description you objected to and something you have been demanding I do for days. Now you are complaining I'm doing it! Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You might want to re-read my comment. I don't think we have the same understanding of the words "remove" (used by you here) and "replace" (used by you in section I). --- Jura 20:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: Why do you keep forking this discussion? We don't need three open threads on the same issue on the same board. It doesn't seem like a good way either to reach a consensus or to gather third party input.
@Gamaliel: Your recent edits appear to be replacing the description "British peer or relation" with "European peer or relation". Leaving aside the question of whether it is more accurate (it is certainly vaguer), this does not seem especially consistent with the feedback you have received, for example to incorporate a date of birth (when known). If a serious objection is raised to bulk changes, the bulk editor should pause, discuss, and allow a consensus to develop. I know it's frustrating when you're trying to get stuff done, and I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you, but we need to make these compromises sometimes in order to be an effective community.
Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb today Gamaliel started replacing descriptions with "European peer of relation". This needed to stop. This is unrelated to the two previous incidents.
Now we need to be sure that the user wont add some other string until we figured out what to do (at Wikidata:Project chat#"British peer or relation "_description_cleanup as it isn't really a question for administrators). --- Jura 21:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I only engaged in this project because Jura repeatedly demanded that I cleanup these records. I'm fine with leaving them as is, s/he's just been haranguing me for days to fix them. The reason they are vaguer is because Jura objected to the original description, so this was an attempt to compromise and respond to his/her objections. I have been a Wikimedian for a decade and a half so I'm well aware of the value of compromise and discussion and consensus. I have attempted to compromise and discuss repeatedly and I feel like I have bent over backwards to do so, but it's a bit difficult when the other party is forum shopping, making false claims and calling for me to be blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs for your accusations and a link to the place you proposed this "compromise". --- Jura 22:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Just look at all the discussions you've opened on this page alone. That should suffice to give people an idea of your behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Do we need to conclude that you can't provide any diffs and the compromise was never proposed? No surprise coming from someone using the edit summary "can't stop wont stop" and wondering why people request them to be blocked. --- Jura 23:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Have you considered that making three different posts requesting a block of the same user and getting zero administrative response might signal something wrong with your approach to engaging with other editors? Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The first two incidents no longer require any administrator's intervention. You stopped the batches and seem to have understood that your actions were in error.
For my learning, maybe you could outline what one should do if a user runs a batch on 500,000 items they previously stated they wouldn't. --- Jura 04:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Celette

I have started Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikidata:Alternate_accounts_and_shared_account which concerns this user's behavior.--GZWDer (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

80.13.231.172 (talk • contribs • logs) vandalize after final warning. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The IP stopped one hour ago. I think it is now too late. Let us hope he/she will not come back. Pamputt (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Full protection for Canimals (Q3655358)

Full temporary protection to avoid bad translations by autoconfirmed users according to the rules (Edit warring). Thanks. —Eihel (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

1 day without modification. Do it like me by keeping this item as a watchlist. —Eihel (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:122.162.126.82

122.162.126.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalising existing items with marketing/advertising. Doublah (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It stopped two days ago. No need to block for now. --Esteban16 (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Inbox12345

Continues adding poor descriptions after one block and several warnings. —Hasley 21:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I have warned the user for the last time. If they continue like that, they will be blocked again. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Graduate project needs admins to interview

Hey everyone. I'm sending this message out because a graduate student at De Haagse Hogeschool reached out on WP:Discord. Kasparas Litinskas is doing his graduate project on user engagement in large crowdsourced communities. It's part of a larger initiative to study and develop a data-structured language framework. As part of the project, he is conducting short interviews to understand the ways that administrators on Wikimedia sites operate and how they handle certain critical situations as well as the tools they use to tackle these problems.
If you are interested, please email him at [8].
Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bot GZWDer (flood)

The Bot User:GZWDer (flood) is creating a massive amount of new items. As mentioned in Help talk:Merge#Help with merging, have I identified some duplicates. Please have a look at this bot, to see if it's in control.--Kjeldjoh (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Lingua Libre Bot

Could this bot be stopped temporarily? It is adding pronunciation audio (P443) statements to regular items, bit this property is now Wikidata property for lexicographic forms (Q54275221). I don't know of any discussion that allows mass adding of pronunciation audio files to regular items, especially items like chemical compounds which usually have hundreds of names in every language. The bot operator did not answer on his discussion page. Wostr (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Wikidata property for lexicographic forms (Q54275221) has been added to this property (by JakobVoss and Infovarius), but the property page still gives examples for Q-items. I see this recent discussion about whether to deprecate its use on Q-items. This task seems to be well within the bot's RFP. Has anything changed recently? I'd really like to hear from the botop, but they haven't edited for a couple of days (i.e., since your message). Bovlb (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I wonder where it was accepted to add this as a property (not a qualifier) in the first place. Not here for sure. Wostr (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The bot generally works fine and the operator is responsible and trusted. Given the volume, I don't see a need for administrators' actions. I commented on Property_talk:P443. --- Jura 04:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the bot operator is fully trustbale. Yet, sometime it goes away from Internet connection so if the bot disfunction, then we may block it waiting for the operator comes back. In this specific case, the bot work this way from the beginning. Are we sure the policy has changed about pronunciation audio (P443)? Pamputt (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Which policy and when/where it was discussed? Wostr (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Wostr: I think you've made some good points, but I agree with Jura1 that we should reach a consensus on Property_talk:P443 first. Bovlb (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The bot operator may be trusted, but is not responding to problems or questions. The bot has been adding audio files to data items for biological taxa. For Anthocerotophyta (Q191156), the addition is probably fine because the sound file records the taxon name (P225), but on moss (Q25347) the bot added an audio file for the common name of the taxon in Basque, even though no such common name appears in the data for this data item. For scientific taxa, this becomes an issue of inconsistency. And as I said, the bot owner has not replied to queries made over the past month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The botop has not edited since 2019-11-24T13:10Z. Is this new behaviour? Is there consensus for an emergency block? Bovlb (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I blocked the bot due to the Basque issue reported by EncycloPetey. It is blocked for 3 months. If the botop reply sooner, we can unblock the bot. Pamputt (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ogoorcs (talk • contribs • logs)

The user keeps creating items that fail all WD:N criteria since years. Many of the items that cover past or ongoing investigations or minor incidents about some politicians or private citizens, or online newspaper articles related to them (adding a potential for liability for our project and for him), while others are just items about futile things or things created by the user himself.

The most recent example is the ongoing discussion about Q76399029, literally an item about a Facebook post made by an Italian teacher (Q76398447) that announced bad marks to all his pupil that will attend some left-leaning manifestations against Italy's former Interior Minister Matteo Salvini (Q1055449). An item about an article that covers the fact has also been made: Q76398506.

This is not the only case of non notable items created by him, so here are some more examples:

  1. Lega Nord funds trial (Q41548869), about the trial against former Lega Nord (Q47750)'s leader Umberto Bossi (Q47832)
  2. Q56826930, about the brother of former Lega Nord (Q47750)'s leader Umberto Bossi (Q47832), and former assistant of Matteo Salvini (Q1055449) when he was MEP - including how much money he earned for that period
  3. trial of Lionel and Jorge Messi (Q41496125), about the tax fraud/evasion trial regarding Lionel Messi (Q615) and his brother Jorge Messi (Q41500870)
  4. Q75042363, about an ongoing investigation about Italian MEP Lara Comi (Q434308)
  5. Q72575393, about an interview to an Italian youtuber
  6. Q72575165, about the journalist that made the interview
  7. Q72413529, about a Youtube video
  8. Q66741900, about an article regarding a controversy sparked by some sexist remarks by Q66741874, a local (and non notable) Italian politician, made at Q66741882 (an edition of a local (and non notable) event
  9. Q28746363, about an article regarding a controversy between Kashetu Kyenge (Q8277714) and Matteo Salvini (Q1055449)
  10. Q26856919, about the city council of the Italian comune of Roccarainola (Q72449)
  11. fix'd (Q56043470), about a minor internet slang term (probably better fit for Lexicographical data)
  12. Q56239070, about a non notable Italian physician
  13. Siafund (Q55950713), about a less-than-known cryptocurrency
  14. Q42310258, about a trial for "disease spreading" in which Italian accountant Q42310248 was a defendant (no other data about what are we talking about)
  15. Q42172183, about a kind of AA battery sold by IKEA
  16. Q42062730, about a bash script
  17. Q38028941, about a non notable Italian engineer
  18. Q28794193, about a move of a character in a Dragon Ball videogame

Sometimes, he doesn't just limit himself to creating non notable items, but goes on to inserting POV descriptions and statements about people who get convicted of some crime/offense, such as this link or this link can easily prove.

But it's not just that: scratching the surface, there are quite a quantity of quasi-spam items created by the user, such as:

  1. Q39388280, about a non notable radio programme hosted by Q39389906, Q37949485, Q26853766, and Pellegrino Prevete (Q39390884) (himself)
  2. Q37949650, about a non notable album by Q37949257, whose members are Q37950147, Q37949485, Q37949803, and Q37950271
  3. trovotutto (Q57201712), connotati (Q57201976), alsangue (Q57202308), Arcipelago (Q76372956), and PGPgram (Q57202650), all programmes made by Pellegrino Prevete (Q39390884) (again, the user himself)
  4. Q29002186, about a pizzeria named after Q29002239 in which Q29002251 is served (and potentially only there...)
  5. Q28803357, about an online store run and owned by Q28803364 and Q28803398
  6. Q28653884, about an online store run and owned by Q28653979

I didn't think the situation was this bad when I started checking his contributions. I thought he was an inherently POV, but good-faith user, up until I uncovered the spammy items. I think we should set up a mini-task force to check all of his contributions since the very beginning, deleting or reverting the non compliant ones, and think of a (potentially, indefinite) block at least in ns0, if not from the project. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! I guess I will have to quote WD:N but before going into detail I think you should say, as you already know, that I worked for Wikimedia CH in 2019 and that I am the developer of the only desktop Wikidata editor, Daty (Q60949478). I believe that could be a sufficiently valid reason to assume the good faith behind my edits. Of course if I believed I was violating rules I would not have lost many days in creating and documenting those items, like I did.
Having spoken with you in person in the past I have come to think that you consider the goal to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large of little or no importance. Instead it seems to me that you would like Wikidata to just be the Wikimedia projects database. That said, the two non-wikimedia-projects notability policies:
An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these three goals, that is if it meets at least one of this criteria below:
1 [...]
2 It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.
3 It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.
If news agencies and online versions of national circulation newspapers (with full articles text available), are serious and publicly available references, you will find every statement in most of the above items entirely described by serious and publicly available references, in particular items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9.
Items 2, 6, 10 instead cover WD:N policy no.3. In particular, I can't see how having items for journalists could be a bad thing; in any case I thought it was preferred to have proper author (P50) values than to use the less informative author name string (P2093).
About the software items, they are about free (as in freedom) projects and use the publicly available source as references. They are clearly useful in existing "list of software" Wikipedia articles in their respective categories and they would be useful in writing new one of those. In any case I believe they contribute to fulfill Wikidata's goal to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large.
About the slang, the item was created before Lexeme namespace was made public.
About the radio broadcasting, I referenced the Radio website and items about the speakers were created because of policy no. 3. About my own item, I know of many users that create their own items, given they have serious and publicly availabe references to support the statements. I have provided in time such sources for my item.
About the Dragonball move, well, we list 36 Pokemon attack moves; I believe someone finds useful to have them listed here, otherwise he would not have dedicated so much time to write them down. Going through the same line of thought, I find in fact useful to have that move listed here, just to easily reference it to others. Given enough time I would have written all of them, so that their adherence to policy no.3 in describing the videogame they belong would be fully accomplished, but unfortunately I am not legion and contributions are free, so.
This is the first time someone accuses me to record non-notable information.
In general I tend to record items containing lots of information according to Shannon's definition; or in simple terms, information which I deemed difficult to find online.
About the facebook post which generated this wall of text, the event has been covered (at least) by 2 notable newspapers (La Repubblica and Il Corriere della Sera through Claudio Bozza) and many state authorities made public declarations about the fact because they considered it a very serious and heavy event.
At last, I did not find any policy on this website citing the dangers of writing down items about newspaper articles about politics, given I strictly referenced the contents of the articles. I guess if they did not want people to write about them on Wikidata they should have avoided being cited by newspapers in the first place.
In faith, Ogoorcs (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Some of the edits cited above are from 2017 and I was pretty unexperienced at the time; neverthless I recognize some really ugly POVs in some of those items, so I am now in the process of reviewing my own edits; it took me almost a week to fix the Lega one and probably some other day will be needed to provide data for the others. Ogoorcs (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up: a bunch of Australian IPs (suspected socks) is persistently trying to get all photos of Tony Ricca (Q73356983) deleted over at Commons, going as far as edit warring with multiple admins in the DRs. They threatened to get the data item over here deleted "when my block there [Wikidata] ends". Behavior over at Commons is clearly abusive, and may swap over to Wikidata. Something to look out for. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

IP range is mostly User:2001:8003:5999:6d00::/64 (and already blocked here), but other IPs (mobile, hotel) have been used in the past. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Some admin should undelete Q16200931 and merge Q73356983 to that.--GZWDer (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Ping @Andreasmperu as the deleting admin. Bovlb (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Quakewoody has recreated several items (including the above mentioned) without requesting for undeletion. His edit pattern here and in Commons tend to focus on items of questionable notability. I just realised that he’s blocked in enwiki for sock puppetry, so that might shed some light on this issue. Unfortunately, I won’t have enough free time until the weekend. Also, I’d rather had another administrator checking their creations, given that I already judged them to not abide to the notability policy. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, I did recently re-create 4 items which you deleted. But don't act like I just went willy-nilly re-creating items. As mentioned below, someone else asked you to un-delete one of them, and I asked you to un-delete two of them. Three weeks later you respond to him that you are busy - and ignored my request altogether. Then, and only then, did I re-create the items. Quakewoody (talk)
If i had to take a guess, he's likely doing it because he feels like it violates his privacy --Trade (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Contested deletion

Deletion of Q16200931 - for which it is hard to see consensus - broke the infobox on c:Category:Tony Ricca.

I have asked the deleting admin, User:Andreasmperu, to kindly restore it but he has declined, suggesting "I reckon it doesn’t fulfil the notability criteria... you can always ask for another opinion".

In the meantime, a new item, Tony Ricca (Q73356983) has been created.

Please undelete the former item, and merge them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, this actually passes the notability criteria: It has one sitelink to Commons and is not a category item. It's also in use for a infobox. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason, other than shortage of admin time, that this hasn't been done, yet? (I originally requrested undeletion on 14 October.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal opinion: I see a BLP issue here that is resulting from the problematic notability situation. There is not a single serious source available in the item or the Commons category (just an official website, several social media handles, and two links to user generated content sites). The Commonists have strongly lobbied to have such items here at Wikidata for their infoboxes and changed the notability policy accordingly, but such data is completely unreliable and I personally do not want to take responsibility for this sort of problematic content in Wikidata. However, if someone would provide a source for the data in the item, I’d undelete Q16200931 for a merge. Otherwise Q73356983 should better be deleted as well, IMO. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Either presence on Commons confers notability, or it does not. If it does not, then the correct approach would be a deletion discussion. Note that one was held, but the item was deleted without a consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It is four days since the last post in this section. Is anyone going to undelete and merge the earlier item? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking a position on the notability of this item, but I have performed the merge because it doesn't make sense to have a deleted item not redirect to an extant item. Bovlb (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Somehow I missed this. I closed the recent discussion about the deletion as not much of an argument was made in terms of WD:N, but mostly imported debates from other wikis. I hadn't even noticed that the IP shouldn't be considered as it was evading blocks. Can someone extend the blocks/semi-protect. --- Jura 10:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Jura I think his block here on Wikidata may have ended. I am not totally sure on that. But, if it makes a difference, that was a new IPv6 range that he used to nominate. Quakewoody (talk)
@Jura1: I checked and yes the block did end before he edited so he told the truth about that. But now he's reverting Hazard Bot and has stated he will keep reverting. Enough chances I think - recommend a six month soft block on the range, and soft protection of the deletion requests page for a week as well as the archive. TLPG (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Mahir256 now blocked the IP for a week. Experience on Commons shows that that will not be enough, though, and they will be back after that week or possibly using an alternate (mobile) IP range. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
In fairness to Mahir, he probably blocked a "never before been blocked" ip for 3rr. A week was sufficient. But had he been aware of the entire situation (including the fact that he just got off a month long block), he may have made it longer. Quakewoody (talk)
Yes, this was not intended as a criticism of Mahir256, just a heads up. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, and I have noted that he has applied for unblocks (three of them) and two of them have been declined by @1997kB: with the third hanging. I'm tempted to do a non admin decline on the third, but I got into trouble for that on the Commons so I won't. I repeat my suggestion that the block be extended to six months and that talk page access be revoked as well for all IP's in the range. TLPG (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
and in case anyone had any doubts

He is back after his one week block (which came after his one month block on a different ip range). The item has been renominated. And comments have been repeatedly removed. Welcome to Monday. Quakewoody (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

See lower down this page for the report against this user for disrupting the deletion request (the reason the comments were removed - address the deletion only or be quiet!) 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:8873:C2E8:52AC:621C 11:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Because he is not notable and his presence on Wikidata (and WikiCommons for the record) is a case of self promotion. The guy is trying to promote himself through agents when he is not notable and the claims attributed to him are totally false. He's already off Wikipedia and the others should follow for similar and local reasons. In the case of Wikidata that is notability - or lack thereof. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:8873:C2E8:52AC:621C 11:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is more like a library catalog. You don't complain about the library/librarian merely because they noted the authors of a book. --- Jura 12:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
They wouldn't do it if the authors weren't notable! A library wouldn't note this guy that's for certain! 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:8873:C2E8:52AC:621C 12:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
But, keeping with that analogy, the proverbial book exists in the proverbial library (WikiCommons has an entry). We provide the proverbial card catalog. Your drama needs to be handled on Commons (and it was, but not to your liking). If you successfully get rid of the WC, then part two kicks in - is he identifiable/notable enough for a WD item without links to other projects. But, again, that discussion probably won't be in your favor either. Quakewoody (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That entry on WIkiCommons should have been removed! That's my point! It wasn't - not because they justified it's existence under their rules (they didn't!) but because they stopped all objections for no good $%^#$ reason! That is why I said you and that admin were being paid! What other reason is there for such bias on your part! Look at the facts over there. It was self promotion, which is OUTSIDE THEIR SCOPE! And they won't let me or anyone else argue it using the excuse of socking (which I have long denied and no one wants to know the truth!). How the hell can I do anything on WikiCommons? Oh but of course you know that and you're gloating about it because you're patting yourself on the back over helping the SELF PROMOTION! This isn't about me liking or hating the guy Ricca. It's about upholding the rules there - and here! And is he identifiable/notable enough for a WD item without links to other projects? No he isn't! Prove that he is! I dare you! I double dare you! 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:9DD9:E9A8:5290:42A3 21:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I already did on a previous deletion request and all you could do was call me a liar. That is disruptive by the way. Also you have no proof that the editor was Ricca himself. Agents (paid or not as you insinuated) are not self promoters. Never have been and never will be. You can't do anything on WikiCommons for the same reason - disruption. And socking over there and I already put the points over and I assume you are yet to send that Affidavit you claimed you would send. I thought as much. You're bluffing. Go away. TLPG (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Quakewoody disrupting deletion request

@Quakewoody: is deliberately disrupting a deletion request discussion by failing to address the nomination and attacking me instead. He should be warned and has in fact been blocked in the past for disruptive conduct. The discussion concerned (Q16200931) should be addressed and no distractions from biased editors should be permitted. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:8873:C2E8:52AC:621C 11:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The deletion request is closed, thus nothing to do here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I re-opened it because you didn't answer the questions I put. Meanwhile please act against Quakewoody for his disruption. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:8873:C2E8:52AC:621C 11:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I blocked the IP for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
But you blocked the IP. Not the IP range. Quakewoody (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Trying to stop the debate here now, Ymblanter? What's your excuse? How about you answer the questions I put instead of doing what other admins have done and shut down the deletion request without explaining anything. I'll put it back again as a new request right now, because it is the right thing to do under the circumstances! 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:9DD9:E9A8:5290:42A3 21:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The IP is now /64 range blocked for a month. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Recommend six months for the block. There's an unblock request as a result of this block with the same thing over again and I think he'll just come back again in a month. Also I think his talk page access should be revoked. It's tempting to go for indefinite but that would present other problems for legit users. But @Quakewoody: he did have a point about what you said on the previous request. I know you meant well but you played into his hands and looked as bad as him. Just saying - seeing as he thinks (and I have no idea why) you're being paid to protect the Ricca material. TLPG (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: He's been back on the Commons and got blocked again for a month. Honestly - it does need to be longer here as well as there. The fool is out of control and I'm surprised he hasn't tried to sock again. TLPG (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs • logs)

Can someone remind this person not to move around other peoples comments from one section to another. Is it correct that the user has already been warned and blocked for that before? --- Jura 17:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding new discussions, it's very difficult to keep track. The original discussion is at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sample_discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
different incidents, different discussion. --- Jura 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Jura's description of my edits is disingenuous; I merely restored the section to where he originally created it (which is where it belongs), and deleted an entire duplicate of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I asked you not to do that. --- Jura 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Also note that there are again two complete copies of one of my posts on this page; the second being a duplicate added by Jura. I shouldn't need to ask him not to do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Somehow your re-organization disrupted the noticeboad. If you prefer, I can delete your comments. --- Jura 18:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The editing restriction was limited to comments made by Brya and Succu. That is not to say that it could not be expanded to comments made by other editors, however. --Rschen7754 18:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Reminded me of Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2019/04#User:Pigsonthewing.--- Jura 19:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you add to the restriction for Pigsonthewing? There isn't really any benefit of Pigsonethewing editing or moving other users' wikitext or html on talk pages and apparently they still don't know when to do that. --- Jura 04:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2019/11&oldid=1136254846"