Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Administrators' noticeboard

This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention.

• If you wish for something to be deleted, please use Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
• If you want to report a bug in Wikidata software, please use Wikidata:Report a technical problem or Phabricator.
• Matters not requiring administrator action should be raised at Project chat.
• Matters that may involve CheckUser should be raised at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser.
• To report vandalism on wikidata: please click here.
• Please add {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} to resolved sections.

IRC channel: #wikidata^connect

Translate this header box!

Start a new discussion

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/10.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~129 open requests for deletions.}

Requests for unblock

empty

_{0 open requests for unblock.}

New items creation to be restricted for anonyms and for not autoconfirmed users?

Do we infringe Wikimedia principles if we restrict items creation and merging for anonyms? E.g. in Wikimedia Commons, new files uploading cannot be done by anonyms Estopedist1 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment to be very honest, I would restrict creation and merging to not autoconfirmed users. But it may be very controversial Estopedist1 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it infringes the Wikimedia principles. It may not be very effective though if users just create an account when told they need one. I've never heard someone propose restricting merging. Most new users don't even know how to merge so it seems like a non-issue. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, let's focus on items creation then. (I agree that misusing of merging process is rather rare in Wikidata.) This means that we should restrict new items creating for not autoconfirmed users. I think it would be breakthrough for the quality of Wikidata. And the extra time we will acquire after this restricting, we may open new option for not autoconfirmed users: namely a help page where you can suggest a item which isn't in Wikidata yet Estopedist1 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This proposal assumes or presumes that the quality of item creation by IP address users is sufficiently inferior to that of registered users, that such users should be blocked from contributing, all without adducing any evidence. Nor is there any analysis of negative consequences - such as discouragement of potential new users, or the simple loss of good items produced by IPs. Until the proposal moved from a kneejerk into an ecidenced analysis, I respectfully suggest it should get in the sea. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have great sympathy for the idea that everyone should create accounts, not least because it facilitates communication, but we have to follow the lead of our client projects here. My concern with this proposal is that it would prevent an IP user from creating a new Wikidata item for an existing Wikipedia page, or from linking two Wikipedia pages together. So long as there are client projects that permit anonymous page creation, we have to follow suit, or we aren't meeting our goal of collecting structured data to support Wikimedia wikis. (Edit) In particular, linking two Wikipedia pages together was not a page creation in the old days, is only a page creation now for technical reasons, and we should therefore be careful in making it a prohibited operation for a class of editors. Bovlb (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikidata:Requests for comment/Restrictions on making items. I'm pretty sure this question has also been debated elsewhere. Bovlb (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In enwiki new users cannot create a new article without using Draft namespace first. In Wikidata, it should be similar. If a new article will be made in a smaller Wikipedia, then usually the creator has no idea, that it should be linked with Wikidata. And it is bots job to create new Wikidata items about new articles from Wikipedias. Pinging @Tagishsimon:: please see https://pltools.toolforge.org/rech/ and new items, and you will get as many empirical evidences as you want --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is not an admin-related problem, it should rather be discussed on (and moved to) Project chat.
• As mentioned in similar discussions previously, the problem is not as severe as sometimes perceived by some users. IP users create roughly 5000 items per month, and the clear majority is good. Furthermore, out of the ~2 million items that have been deleted so far, only 108k (~5.4%) had been created by IP users; the deletion workload does not really reduce if IP creations become impossible, but a separate noticeboard would require our attention.
• Many Wikipedia users regularly experience login problems at Wikidata/Wikimedia Commons for some reason. It would not be surprised if they were to use Wikidata without their account just to get their jobs done.
• Related: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/02#Stop allowing unregistered edits, Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2021/12#Allowing IP's to add data, not change data

—MisterSynergy (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy we are not talking about only IPs, but not autoconfirmed users as well. Do you have deletion statistics about them as well? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not that simple to query because IPs are identifiable as such forever, but the "newcomer" status (not yet autoconfirmed) is only easily accessible for the past 30 days via the recentchanges table. From my patrolling experience, there is usually a 60:40 distribution between IPs and Newcomers regarding the total number of edits that need patrolling (200k per month), so you could extrapolate this 3:2 ratio in favor of IPs for a rough estimation. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that this extrapolation for deletion (newcomers + IPs = 10-15%) is not correct. E.g. majority of our RFDs are cluttered by newcomers creations. At least we should try a trial period in Wikidata when new items creations by IPs and newcomers are restricted. If there are so bad consequences we are not able to see now, then we just end this restriction Estopedist1 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• The overwhelming majority of deletions does not go through WD:RfD at all, so I think you cannot infer global numbers from there. IP/newcomer contributions are being monitored to some extent, and reported there much more likely than items from experienced users are.
• A "trial period" needs to be well defined. An issue with temporary IP restrictions is that there are quite obvious and immediate results in terms of edits (such as "X fewer items created", "Y fewer cases of vandalism", "Z fewer items required deletion", etc), but long-term effects such as impact on recruiting new permanent editors are really difficult to evaluate.
• In previous discussions I have already reported that IP editors make up for a very significant share of our community. My estimation would be that more than 25% of individuals who edit Wikidata do it without using an account. Each restriction to this group may significantly reduce the number of humans who edit Wikidata.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

For restrict merging items, see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/08#Restrict_merging_rights_to_autoconfirmed_users. This is blocked by multiple concerns, including finding some statistics about how much percent of merging by non-autoconfirmed is bad.--GZWDer (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Growing contributor numbers on Wikidata is one of the most important priorities we have. If we would disallow the creation of new items it would make it harder for new editors to get started on Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to merging it's bad that currently we have people who never opened Wikidata.org merging items without knowing that they are merging items on Wikidata. This should stop. The interwiki link tool has no business merging items. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It is sad that smart people still cannot understand that our (Wikidata) goal is not to get as much info (read: as much new items) as we can, but the quality of it. And if we cannot patrol all new items creations due to huge flood by IPs and newcomers, we are just failed, but at least this failing is our thinked-over decision. Good luck!--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Growing number of users is not the same thing as growing the number of items. Nobody, here argued that the value of the amount of new items that get created by new users is the reason why we should allow those items to be created. ~10000 new items per month is a rounding error in the amount of items that get created. We care about the users. More users means that there are more people working to increase the quality of the items on Wikidata. While the quality of the work of a new user on average is lower as the work of established users, every established user starts out as a new user. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

i support some form of restriction. you'll be surprised how much random useless edits just a little hurdle can prevent.

i think restricting creation and merging of items to autoconfirmed (except when it's done thru "sitelink change from connected wiki") is appropriate. RZuo (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: The crux isn't whether or not such a restriction would reduce the amount of useless edits. The crux is about whether it reduces the number of new users that Wikidata has.

Why do you think that we should allow nonautoconfirmed users who don't know users that they are merging Wikidata items to merge them and not to merge them when they are more intentional about it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

sorry, i dont understand your question.

my idea would not block all these users. they can still edit statements, labels, etc.

edits done thru "sitelink change" should be allowed for all because these edits dont originate from wikidata. users wouldnt know they need to be autoconfirmed on wikidata before they can do that. since the threshold for autoconfirmed is high (50 edits) on wikidata, there're long term users from other wikis that dont meet this threshold. RZuo (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Restoration or creation of WIKIDATA (Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo) Q110863311

Hello administrators, this wikidata deleted in question on several occasions should be considered for restoration or at least for discussion. The deleted element Q110863311 has in its encyclopedic content reliable sources and verified identifiers that, applying it to notarization to be in wikidata, is reliable to be so and that part cannot be denied. Therefore I consider that you as administrators reassess the restoration of Q110863311, the sources have been reliable enough.With the passing of several years, the deleted wikidata has been updated, and verified, real, verified information has been added.

As administrators they can review the sources of the removed wikidata. And consider with great respect the restoration or the creation of a new wikidata in question because there are notarial sources that cannot be left aside. The sources are there, the identifiers too, Viaf, isni, official author id, etc, etc.Sorrylasted (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Relevant items: Q110863311 (MichellDasilva), Q116871357 (Sorrylasted). CC deleting admins @Hasley . See also User_talk:Hasley#Restoration_Q110863311. Bovlb (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I somehow missed the message on my talk page. My apologies for that.

I would like to point out that there has been an old but persistent campaign to promote Díaz Granados on the English and Spanish Wikipedias (ex. gr. 1, 2, 3), which apparently has involved sockpuppetry (1), and now seems to have moved to this project. As you may note, MichellDasilva and the other accounts have an obvious conflict of interest with the subject. The former also made false claims on IRC about several editors, and so was banned there and subsequently blocked on eswiki.

I do not think there is a need to dwell too much on this one, so I would prefer not to elaborate any further than that. —Hasley + 01:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Previously, the decision was made to delete everything related to the article in question, and the embezzlement of the subject cannot be hidden. Before there were no identifiers to prove its reliability, such as author id, viaf, isni among others. And now that there is data, verified, correct, tangible sources that cannot be denied, no administrator takes them into account and once again the wikidata in question is discarded. I go back and reiterate, what harm can a wikidata do with reliable sources, or how can a wikidata promote someone to advertise?

The sources are there, the identifiers too, where is the problem? Unfortunately many, many people view everything related to wikidata (Q110863311) or the name Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo with a bad eye. That if there were attempts by other accounts to create said article, that is not denied. But the recently deleted wikidata, I ask In what way, according to the argument, can you give publicity to someone, if you have all the requirements of wikidata itself to be there? @Bovlb @Hasley Sorrylasted (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I only ask you to please, with great respect, evaluate, evaluate, your points of view, and consider at least the restoration of Wikidata, thinking things better. It's just a wikidata. Also, will it be prohibited to create a wikidata of said person in a future Q110863311? Even though you have all your data correctly, viaf, isni, ID author, etc, etc? Don't you think this is already bordering on some kind of witch hunt, or censorship, prohibition?

Friends what is this? Why do they have that behavior? How far will it go? @Bovlb @Hasley Sorrylasted (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I took a look and I'm sorry but even ignoring the past indiscretions it appears there is simply not enough serious sourcing on this subject to justify a wikidata item. All the identifiers have zero barriers to entry. None of the references are serious. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BrokenSegue, I'm afraid your data is incorrect, the data I'm talking about belongs to the wikidta (Q110863311):

I apologize for the delay I took the time to gather the information. Sorrylasted (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

which of those identifiers do you think establishes notability? this person has zero monthly listeners on spotify. BrokenSegue (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @BrokenSegue with great respect, allow me and I will ask you these questions. Will everything now be summarized in the reproductions of a platform? In views, number of followers? And then, what are the other identifiers for? Are spotify productions taken into account, but the other identifiers are discarded? Don't you think you're being unfair, impartial? If that is the question or the starting point, or the yardstick, then let's go to the wikidata platform in question (Q110863311) and look at their videos on YouTube, some have many views, others do not. Sorrylasted (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I am being more than fair. How about you write an article about this person and get it published in a reputable source and then we can make an item for them. BrokenSegue (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @BrokenSegue if that were the case, or if the article is written tomorrow, after a year or a week, and it is published in an accredited source, what assures me that your word will be kept?

Who would I have to contact to resume the topic in question (Q110863311), Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo, after the article was published? Would this really be enough to restore wikidata, articles, etc. Do you know of any reputable source for doing this, is there one you can recommend? Will it not be taken as spam, advertising, promotion, any data, of the person in question Q110863311 Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo? Won't the other admins delete it? Sorrylasted (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

if new evidence/sources appear that suggest an item is notable you can come back here and ask for undeletion again with the new evidence in hand. I cannot promise you that a new source will get the item undeleted because I can't see the source/article beforehand. The bar for having an item on wikidata is quite low. For example, you just need any language Wikipedia to think the subject is notable. Or for some serious source to have written serious coverage of the subject. User submitted databases like IMDB or YouTube don't establish notability. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @BrokenSegue greetings to you and all the administrators, good day, good afternoon and good night. Thank you for your response and it will be taken into account. However, with much respect, some of their texts contradict each other.

A few texts behind this topic in question, you yourself in a way or manner of contempt, mockery, left in writing that said person in question has zero views on spotify. And today he responds that YouTube does not establish popularity or notability. I don't understand. He used the spotify argument to discredit the wikidata in question, and today he says that both IMDB and YouTube do not give notability. So, one day a platform does give notability, or if it serves as a tool to discredit and the next day it doesn't? Don't you think that beyond the verified identifiers, consciously or perhaps unconsciously, they are really looking for a reason, any, unjustified for not restoring the wikidata? Some shared identifiers in the theme have the verification badge, such as author, verified real artist, etc. And yet they discard it.

Above, he wrote in writing that which of all the identifiers could be notable, and now I ask, have you already checked all the identifiers? Some of them have the verified seal or insignia. Or does the verified seal, blue insignia, not give notability, renown? Sorrylasted (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

My participation here was merely in enforcing the previous notability decision. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't mind if the community decides we should restore this item. Bovlb (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sorrylasted: The key question here is "Why are you so interested in this item?" If your intention is not promotion of Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo as you pretend, what's your interest? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ChristianKl cordial greetings to you and to all the administrators.

My interest in the subject is not personal, nor do I seek to be anyone's lawyer, let alone be someone's representative. I just think that an injustice is being committed, a mistake, and I explain myself. I'm only talking about the wikidata (Q110863311). Previous accounts that tried baselessly to create an article were banned, and they deserve it for trying to publish things repeatedly and much more as mentioned above by taking accusations. I do not know if the sources were checked at the time, as well as their identifiers, but that is another matter. It is right that any attempt to create something to be created should be eliminated, and I share that with everyone. But the wikidata (Q110863311), having its correct, verified, real data, will also be discarded? Perhaps the article that did not have verified sources if it is feasible for removal, but also the wikidata (Q110863311)? Don't you think that's unfair?

You as administrators know that the wikidata data is correct. But somehow I don't know why they see the wikidata restoration wrong (Q110863311), and have mixed the past topic with the present, one thing is the article, another is the wikidata. And from what I've been reading about you, you've mixed things up. I'm talking about wikidata. That no harm or benefit can do to anyone. If this is not an impediment on the part of the administrators, what could this be called? What attitude is that? The wikidata data (Q110863311) is correct, complete, verifiable, and you know it. What then prevents you from restoring them? Friends, don't be reluctant to see the restoration of the wikidata (Q110863311) as a bad thing. So much damage did the previous accounts in creating the article, that now you automatically see the wikidata with bad eyes (Q110863311). Sorrylasted (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sorrylasted Basically, you avoid answering the question. You don't seem to have any edits elsewhere in Wikidata. How did you get to know that the item was deleted in the first place? How come that this is the only thing in Wikidata that seems interesting for you? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ChristianKl My interest in the subject, if I was not clear in answering your first question, is that I have no interest, or anything close to it.

My personal interest is to start as a Wikipedian and share reliable content and I thought it was more feasible to start in wikidata starting with artists. In fact, I am thinking of requesting the creation of a wikidata and an article by another writer called Valeria Román Marroquín.

And I found out that this wikidata was deleted when I tried to create a wikidata regarding the author. Immediately an administrator or patrolman removed it. By following the link or the notice I find out the cause, I keep investigating, and investigating and I found out that said file was deleted by the administrator sasha. And now I am here conversing with you to appease the waters that do not concern me, or at least to rescue the wikidata in question from the whole matter. Sorrylasted (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Sorrylasted's contributions on English Wikipedia, it appears that their sole contribution there has been to post various versions of this subject's biography again and again, all the way back to 2019. This seems somewhat inconsistent with the claims above. Bovlb (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Bovlb, greetings.

It is not surprising that mistakes are sometimes made, nor in waiting for the fruit of the field to grow. In this sense, it is also expected that everything related to various authors, articles, wikdatas will be given. As for example previously mentioned Valeria Román Marroquín. Your data is not yet complete to be on wikipedia or wikidata but it is expected that it will be in the future. In that aspect I acted.

Now I really don't remember when was the last time I added something there, and if so, and yes, if I edited said wikidata (Q110863311) at the time. I myself retract the aforementioned and correct and apologize to everyone. I'm sorry. Because that's what mature and upright people do, accept their mistakes, to learn from them. Sorrylasted (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If the thing you care is adding information about artists, you could work on existing pages of artists over at Wikidata or Wikipedia. That's what a user that primarily cares about improving information about artists would do. On the other hand, a person who has an interest in promoting particular artists will focus only on those artists he wants to promote. Your Wikipedia history suggests that you fall into the later category. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all wikidata admins, greetings. @Bovlb @BrokenSegue @ChristianKl @Hasley and I send you all big hugs.

He quickly went on to inform them that press releases or wikidata articles (Q110863311) Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo are already appearing. I share links to the articles so that everyone can see them and this remains as a true record. I can only tell you to please evaluate your views and consider whether or not to restore the wikidata at least. Bye bye. My apologies I forgot to share the links.

Links to articles, press release, etc: Article 1 Article 2

Sorrylasted (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

these two articles are identical. the article also appears to be written by the subject about themselves. we do not consider press releases to be a serious source as anyone can issue one and get it reproduced in various aggregators. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BrokenSegue @Bovlb @ChristianKl @Hasley, sorry for the delay in responding, I've been busy.

Honestly, I am surprised how harsh and cruel they are doing with that writer, person or wikidada (Q110863311). I ask, why do they put up barriers, walls, so as not to advance? That writer must be trying really hard to curry favor with all of you, and you haven't even realized it. It has its merit, something is something, worse is nothing, and it is recognized. It may not be the correct way, but keep trying.Now the matter is totally in your hands between doing the right thing, or not doing it, you all decide.

Greetings to all. Sorrylasted (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Liridon

See Topic:X851hv5qxedus7qk. This user is still creating unused items with no source such as Q115901841 and Q116391077. As there are potentially more than one people with such name it is impossible to tell what the items are about. GZWDer (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Notified the user of this topic and deleted some of the nearly empty items. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working with notability, I do them step by step manually, it will take some time. My fault that I have created some duplicate articles, usually are pelople with name in non-latin script, that's why my check for them has failed. I've seen that admins have deleted some of them, It's fine, I hope I fix them before other items are deleted. Liridon (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Foreign wikis linked to a placeholder English item

I have recently been trying to bring up articles on the forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Communist Bulgaria up to the standard of non-English wikis. The Bulgarian and Russian pages in particular split the process into two parts, the Revival Process (referring to the earlier forced assimilation) and the Big Excursion (referring to the 1989 Ethnic cleansing in particular). Non-English wiki entries on the Big Excursion, however, currently link to the Revival Process page and I cannot edit existing links on wikidata.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Excursion

https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%8A%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%81 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%8F

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7200922 should link to the Big Excursion page rather than the non-existent 1989 Ethnic Cleansing in Bulgaria page which redirects to the revival process, but I cannot edit the page. Can someone with permissions please implement that change? Pietrus69 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pietrus69 it is a difficult topic. I corrected sitelink at Big Excursion (Q7200922). This item is not protected and you can correct its labels and description yourself Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

vandalism of Mdabdulalim31

Hello, canceling a modification of @Mdabdulalim31:, I noticed that several contributions of this account seems vandalism (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/).

Example: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q866&curid=1186&diff=1842537668&oldid=1836579438 or https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q380&diff=prev&oldid=1842536473

I let admin check this. Lupin~fr (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

user is warned. No further editing after warning. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention.

Do I have to manually cancel all the vandalism modifications (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Mdabdulalim31&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=) or do you have a tool to do this? Lupin~fr (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lupin~fr yes we have a tool (rollbacking) for this. I hope everything is reverted. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Blocked indef. Vandalizing after warning Estopedist1 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

report concerning User:2.57.110.7

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

2 vandalism (canceled) : see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.57.110.7 Lupin~fr (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning Kalasa Saab

The following users are clearly socks of each other. They have been blocked for self-promotion and socking on multiple projects. There may be other accounts as well.

• Kalasa Saab (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
• Hamzakhan654 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
• Monojkhansaab908 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
• Monojsirkar (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

These accounts should be blocked here and I suggest that the many Items created by these accounts be deleted as well. See also the related report at w:Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:Hamzakhan654. Marbletan (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have listed many of the Items created by Kalasa Saab at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q116340321. Marbletan (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

User account must be hacked and adding spam/malware links

Can someone peak at Frank William Fox (Q83421697) and click on the link that was added by BYU. When I click on it, it demands I prove I am not a robot by turning on notifications for the website. I think this is a spam/malware website. In another browser, I can now see it is spam from a non secure website. See: Special:Contributions/Rachel_Helps_(BYU) RAN (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Also from my side: Seems for me like more than 50% of the latest OpenRefine 3.7 additions from 1st March are totally wrong. Good faith, but adding a lot of wrong data. --Florentyna (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah link seems sketchy. I'd block but they seem to have stopped editing. My guess is they aren't hacked but just imported some really bad data. Hopefully they respond to comments on their talk page. BrokenSegue (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

deletion of paruvendu.fr entry

Hi, according to your notability criterias Paruvendu.fr should have an entry into wikidata. it might be a misundertanding matters, if i forgot to mention an important source. if so let me fix this. Best regards Jean.jacques.gua (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

deleted item is Q116718598, deleted by @Ameisenigel Estopedist1 (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The user has already contacted my via mail and I have explained that they need to give arguments why this item fulfills WD:N. If there is a important source, please mention it here in the discussion. --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Xwiki vandal following here to undo/revert vandalise

One of our ongoing pissant LTAs is following user:Beeswaxcandle and myself here to undo edits made, eg. history of Robert Lockhart Hobson (Q18911516) They are utilising proxy IP addresses, exact means unknown (not that it is particularly relevant), so difficult to specifically target except by utilising AF filters to stop the reversion of IP edits based on the previous person editing. Now I could write a filter from metawiki as a targeted global abuse filter, or I can write it locally (with my global rights), or I can leave it to this community to manage. Please guide me to how you would like it handled. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You got mail. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:217.165.114.188

217.165.114.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: WMF-banned user (GRP). Please block and revdel all edits. TIA, SHB2000 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

+ 105.103.23.236 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), too. SHB2000 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Blocked for three months. All is reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Estopedist1! Could you also block 118.166.141.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))? SHB2000 (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Blocked already auto-blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:80.32.129.120

80.32.129.120 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Persistent vandalism. Dorades (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done semi for a year for Josefina de Latorre (Q5936686), unusual length for the first block due to the long history of vandalism. --Emu (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nilay Aydoğan (Q116860543)

I opened Nilay Aydoğan (Q116860543). In a couple of days someone comes and opens Nilay Aydogan (Q116861074). Why? Because they do not even make a search for her, and less for her "correct" name. We have to open items for people according to how Western news agencies (...) spell the name of a person they had never before heard of! Please merge the latter to the correct former, Nilay Aydoğan. Thanks. 212.174.190.23 12:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Merged --Emu (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

LTA, please revdel, block, and protect

Special:Contributions/37.8.80.39. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

66.85.41.51

66.85.41.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is trying to make a mess on Q599853, changing it to sexual content unrelated. Lost in subtitles (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley + 21:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A01:598:88B3:9341:1F9:BDEF:76DF:1C62

2A01:598:88B3:9341:1F9:BDEF:76DF:1C62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: nonsensical edits Pintsknife (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)