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

If you are a user who has a request for removal of non-public personal information, please note that details should not be posted in public. Email oversightwikidata.org or a local oversighter privately.

If you are requesting the restoration of a deleted item, please be sure to explain how the item meets our notability criteria. If you are claiming that the item "can be described using serious and publicly available references", please list some of those references in your request.

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.

Attention administrators: This message is appearing because there are more than 100 open requests at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Please consider helping with the backlog.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~111 open requests for deletions.}

Requests for unblock

low

_{1 open request for unblock.}

Report concerning User:ISNIplus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

ISNIplus turns out to be a sock of a globally-banned user, so this entire section is moot.

Resolved --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ISNIplus persists in failing to respond on their talk page and edit warring in the process. -- DCflyer* (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:ISNIplus: Revision history, Special:Diff/2245610460, and Special:Diff/2245611209. Thank you. -- DCflyer* (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, @ISNIplus introduced ~ 4000 external identifiers into Wikidata that were knowingly mistmatched or erroneous, in the following batch 237296, and refuses to discuss the reversion of the batch on their talk page. -- DCflyer* (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that @ISNIplus would rather engage in bad faith accusations, such as accusing @Martin (MSGJ) of vandalism, regarding issues related to the same batch in question. -- DCflyer* (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, look yourself. What you do is bad faith, because you claim "It appears that @ISNIplus would rather engage in bad faith accusations". Get your facts straight, too much fabricated verifiably wrong claims by you. ISNIplus (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcflyer, get your facts straight first:

It's a lie. The response has been linked [1] and you pinged [2] Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859#P7859_revival_proposal.
The user-talk-page history gives evidence for harassment by user DCflyer.
"~ 4000 external identifiers into Wikidata that were knowingly mistmatched or erroneous" - that is a lie too. See Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859#LCCN_-_2024-09-07_PM.

ISNIplus (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed to see the actions and attitude of ISNIplus in this episode. I reverted some of their erroneous edits with a polite edit summary, and I received hostile and beligerant responses — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give links to edits that provide evidence for what you claim to have happened.

I only found evidence to the contrary, including same-minute reply "Please give an example" and nine-minute-later reply "Thanks for spotting" :

12:54 "Hello. I have reverted seeral of your edits which introduced a Library of Congress authority ID (P244) with incorrect format. Please review the corrret format. Thanks." by MSGJ [3]
12:54 "Please give an example" by ISNIplus [4]
12:59 "The one I just reverted again. It is missing the final digit." by MSGJ [5]
12:59 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q116111947&diff=prev&oldid=2245418735 - removal of valid external ID and two labels by MSGJ - which looked like vandalism to ISNIplus
13:02 Topic:Ybzop0fjyjdnwzgk a friendly comment "Please don't vandalise"
13:03 Thread by MSGJ "I will block your account if you continue to add incorrect values when you have already been advised they are correct" [6]
13:03 "Thanks for spotting" by ISNIplus https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISNIplus&diff=prev&oldid=2245420113
13:04 "You should not remove referenced values in the first place and maybe block yourself for vandalism." https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISNIplus&diff=next&oldid=2245420320

I think all of this can be dealt with at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859.

Summary for what have happenend in relation to Wikidata item content: The values having false formats came from P7859, existed there for a longer time, copying these values to P244 made the errors easier to spot. Reverting wasn't the way to go, but fixing the format error would have been, since the values were referenced and simply removing them removed the references. The references referenced WorldCat Identities (P7859 is marked "superseded"), which is is hint that the item may exist in WorldCat Entities (to be added to Property:P10832). ISNIplus (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three edits which I reverted were all erroneous: [7], [8], [9]. I assume there are likely to be many more, because these were just the ones I happened to spot. No, you should not expect other editors to clean these up for you. If you introduce errors, they will be reverted. In all three of these cases, the correct value was already present on the item, so there was nothing to do except delete the incorrect one — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand about:

"I think all of this can be dealt with at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859."
"Summary for what have happenend in relation to Wikidata item content: [...]"

"If you introduce errors" - I didn't.

ISNIplus (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Conradi vibes are back, folks. Technically still a very competent editor, but as always unable to navigate in a collaborative environment. Once there is an editorial conflict, discussion culture goes south so much that various otherwise inconspicuous users get in trouble. Do we need a checkuser query first, or shall we just close the account indefinitely? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "Tobias Conradi vibes"?

"Technically still a very competent editor"? What do you refer to? Who was where "still a very competent editor"?
"unable to navigate in a collaborative environment" - What do you refer to?
"Once there is an editorial conflict, discussion culture goes south so much that various otherwise inconspicuous users get in trouble." - Who made the "discussion culture" go south?
People get in trouble because of "discussion culture"? Then maybe they fix their "culture" and stop vandalism and harrasment. - MisterSynergy, get the facts straight and provide links. Attacking users with comments about them without providing *any* link that provides evidence for what you claim is what makes "discussion culture go[] south" and "otherwise inconspicuous users get in trouble".

Still no answer regarding the outright lies by Dcflyer. ISNIplus (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISNIplus' batch 237296 started "Sept. 8, 2024, 12:31 a.m.", ended "Sept. 8, 2024, 3:11 a.m.", existing entities edited: 3988.

Database reports - Constraint violations - P244 : the two reports covering the time period of the batch's run, date time stamps 2024-09-07T11:59:15Z and 2024-09-08T11:58:59Z, report that single value constraint violations increased from 4986 to 8735 = + 3749, and unique value violations increased from 4755 to 5017 = + 262. Note: 3749 and 262 are not fully additive for determining the precise number of the affected items, because multiple of the erroneous edits have been observed to have triggered both single and unique value constraint violations.

Additionally, these numbers do not take into account the amount of errors introduced by several other batches run by ISNIplus. Those batches, with links to them, were listed in my comment that ISNIplus deleted from their user talk page. -- DCflyer* (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer regarding the outright lies by Dcflyer. ISNIplus (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed analysis. I'm afraid the response above is the last straw for me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: user now blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the user clearly cannot discuss in good faith nor respect other people. Samoasambia ✎ 14:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct P244 identifier value for Prussian Army (Q706042) — n80044963 — which was and is present on the item, was added to 15 other items, via three batches, triggering 16 unique value constraint violations.

ISNIplus batch 237144 : # 1 — # 2 — # 3 — # 4 — # 5 — # 6 — # 7 — # 8 — # 9

ISNIplus batch 237146 : # 10 — # 11 — # 12

ISNIplus batch 237147 : # 13 — # 14 — # 15

NB: These three batches were run between 4 September and 6 September 2024, prior to the above batch, 237296, on 8 September 2024. -- DCflyer* (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The database reports for P244 constraint violations, covering the time period in which multiple ISNIplus batches were run between 4 September and 6 September 2024, indicate that single value constraint violations increased from 4906 to 4986 = + 80, while unique (distinct) value constraint violations increased from 2631 to 4755 = + 2124. -- DCflyer* (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ISNIplus (talk • contribs • logs) has been blocked and locked as ban evasion. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcflyer

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

Wikidata project page vandalism [10] [11]
user talk harassment https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ISNIplus&action=history

ISNIplus (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per our blocking policy (here #3 and #4) I would suggest a temporary block for this unacceptable behaviour by Dcflyer. Other opinions (@Lymantria, Estopedist1:)? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 04:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wüstenspringmaus: A week block for "cooling down" seems reasonable. --Lymantria (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool-down blocks do not usually work. w:en:WP:COOLDOWN. In this case I think a warning is needed and would be sufficient.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes Jasper Deng, cooldowning or shock-blocking doesn't work if we are dealing with so-called superWikipedians, lets say over 0.5 mln edits. There is definitely edit war at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7859. My humble suggestion is that to focus on one or two concrete example, which is obvious vandalism/unacceptable action by related two users. And then to ask why they act in unacceptable way Estopedist1 (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. if I see editwarring at User talk:ISNIplus, then both aren't acting in correct way. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One might consider removing comments from "own" user talk pages acceptable. Then not both are acting incorrectly. --Lymantria (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this case as Lymantria. @Dcflyer this is your final warning. If you don't stop you'll be blocked for a longer time. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #Report concerning User:ISNIplus above. It not acceptable to ignore legitimate concerns expressed by other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It not acceptable to ignore legitimate concerns expressed by other editors" - Agreed. But who ignored what? ISNIplus (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the valid concern (with examples) and a request to revert the batch, which you rudely deleted without replying. The subsequent edit warring from both of you, was not ideal, and probably resulted from frustration due to your actions which could be seen as dismissive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts straight. You claim "which you rudely deleted without replying" and in the link you show the response. ISNIplus (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now doing the same with @Samoasambia. This has got to stop — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link where I am "now doing the same with @Samoasambia" and explain what am I doing there that you label with "This has got to stop" - Attacking people without providing links isn't good behaviour, Martin, this has to be stopped by you. ISNIplus (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ISNIplus: Martin obviously refers to the fact that you deleted my comment from your talk page without giving a reason. Could you explain how Dcflyers's comment that you deleted on your talk page is "harrassment". I'm not super familiar with Library of Congress authority ID (P244) but to my eyes the concerns raised by Dcflyer look quite valid. Thank you. Samoasambia ✎ 20:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Martin obviously refers to the fact that you deleted my comment from your talk page without giving a reason." - How could that be, when 1) the removal of Martin's edit was done in an edit that proviveded a link to the appropriate page for that type of discussion s/he started (~ a "reason") and 2) in the edit summary that removed your edit I provided links to edits that provide evidence that removal of talk on ones own talk page is nothing that has community consensus in the form of "This has got to stop" . I suggest you stay out of this and let Martin speak for Martin, when I ask Martin.
'Could you explain how Dcflyers's comment that you deleted on your talk page is "harrassment".' - No. Why do you ask?
"I'm not super familiar with Library of Congress authority ID (P244) but to my eyes the concerns raised by Dcflyer look quite valid." - Whatever that means, but the batch was explained, and Dcflyer chose to not reply to my reply, but started vandalism and harassment as notified in the beginning of this very section.

ISNIplus (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ISNIplus. To your first point: removal of my comment was the subject of the discussion, so I think I have a valid interest voicing my opinion on the matter. The links provided in the summary did not give a reason why the deletion of my comment was necessary. The second point: That was your given reason (see your first comment under this subheading) for deleting Dcflyers's comment. It would be helpful if you could give a bit more substantive reasoning. As I said, from my point of view the concerns raised by Dcflyers look valid. I don't think "the batch was explained" and "chose to not reply to my reply" are good reasons for deleting someone's comment raising concerns about the batch. Samoasambia ✎ 06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on talk page

There's some edit warring going on on User talk:ISNIplus. Samoasambia ✎ 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samoasambia Please see Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Vandalism and harassment by User:Dcflyer. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Samoasambia ✎ 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Q126487673

@Wüstenspringmaus: Please restore Q126487673 it was in use as a person described in an obituary. See: Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) The person is not living so there was no self-promotion involved. We have a 6-month lag in deletions but somehow this one was deleted on the day it was nominated, despite it being in use. The nomination and immediate deletion was by User:Wüstenspringmaus These deletions appear to be part of a campaign targeting people that are not English Wikipedia notable, yet meeting the requirement for Wikidata notability. An obituary is a serious and public reference, which defines Wikidata notability. Anyone with an obit is eligible for a Wikidata entry unless involved in self promotion, and dead people cannot self promote. RAN (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done sorry, this was a mistake. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 17:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a request for sanctions against another person with admin rights at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems against User:Bedivere, for using the same tactics against the same type of entries that are Wikidata notable but not English Wikipedia notable. --RAN (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RAN, why are you treating en.wiki as if it's a separately group while treating Commons as interrelated one? Graywalls (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following: See above for the problem of deleting entries out of process. The issue is not resolved the removal of Q93303092 has caused a cascade of problems as the person was mentioned in several obituaries. --RAN (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Object to blanket restoration. If anything, discussion should be re-activated. Please also see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q125118469. Your interpretation of notability doesn't show strong community consensus. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q93303092 Q108054098 Q108053980 Q108052901 Q108053097 Q108053223 Q108054042

User:Wüstenspringmaus log shows the following removals all out of process and all in use:

09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −435‎ Jacob Harrison Ford (Q96474144) ‎ ‎Removed claim: mother (P25): Q108053980 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −436‎ Pleasant Thomas Ford (Q108053973) ‎ ‎Removed claim: mother (P25): Q108054098 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −436‎ Pleasant Thomas Ford (Q108053973) ‎ ‎Removed claim: spouse (P26): Q108053980 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:57, 10 September 2024 diff hist −436‎ Pleasant Thomas Ford (Q108053973) ‎ ‎Removed claim: father (P22): Q108054042 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −421‎ Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) ‎ ‎Removed claim: main subject (P921): Q108052901 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −421‎ Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) ‎ ‎Removed claim: main subject (P921): Q108053223 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −424‎ Sarah Rebecca Henderson (1850-1919) obituary (Q130233534) ‎ ‎Removed claim: main subject (P921): Q108053097 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −419‎ Angelina Annetta Weaver (Q95690565) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053223 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −419‎ Angelina Annetta Weaver (Q95690565) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053097 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:56, 10 September 2024 diff hist −419‎ Angelina Annetta Weaver (Q95690565) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108052901 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:55, 10 September 2024 diff hist −695‎ Joseph Henderson (Q6283892) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053097 current thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:55, 10 September 2024 diff hist −695‎ Joseph Henderson (Q6283892) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108053223 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface
09:55, 10 September 2024 diff hist −695‎ Joseph Henderson (Q6283892) ‎ ‎Removed claim: child (P40): Q108052901 thank Tag: Wikidata user interface

Wüstenspringmaus is nominating then closing as delete or just deleting without debate. If we want Wikidata notability to match English Wikipedia notability that would require a vote on the topic. Currently any dead person that can be described by a serious and public reference is eligible for an entry. The Wikidata entries need to be restored as well as the links that were deleted for other entries. --RAN (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to match the English Wikipedia, we should start by blocking the creator, who is blocked there exactly for creation of the walled garden of these articles. Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Notability: "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." "I don't like it" does not trump Wikidata:Notability. If you do not like it, don't look at it. Every cluster of entries is a "walled garden", even the entries for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a limit on how many other entries link to it, and there is no minimum, we have over 1,000,000 entries with no links to other entries. --RAN (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Masai giraffe (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This intepretation would mean every human is notable since (i) there are documents somewhere registering birth, death, employment etc; (ii) there is structural need for every single relative of this human. Such intepretation is a clear abuse of Wikidata and does not have consensus here. Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the wording of WD:N needs to be tightened to make it clearer what is regarded as notable for Wikidata's purposes. Most people would agree that a birth certificate is "serious" and "publicly available" so it is not surprising if this leads to situations like this. Could you suggest any alternative wording which would exclude the items listed above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think formally amending Notability policy belongs to this discussion or administrators' noticeboard. Such amendments should be brought to WD:PC or WD:RFC to discussion. It is not uncontroversial to exclude such items: there are users, or even admins, suggests to include items with any reliable-sourced statements. E.g. a proposal by Mike Peel in 2020. GZWDer (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add that notability criteria as of today do not require reliable, but serious sources. Reliability of course being one of the aspects of seriousness, but not synonym to it. Many of the disputes are about what to be considered serious. Mere birth certificates and alikes may be reliable, but IMHO not serious sources describing a human being. --Lymantria (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that, we should not have entries on every single human with a birth certificate or obituary as source unless they have done something great and have other serious and reliable sources. I do think notability should be discussed on admin notice boards. Masai giraffe (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However the problem of "what is a serious source" is never resolved. Is a law case considered serious source? What about an article mention something a family member did? There is an 900-page book describing thousands of members in a family, should we create item for each of them? GZWDer (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there should be one on every single family member just the ones with significant actions. Masai giraffe (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the original debate here: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/09/10#Bulk_deletion_request_Henderson_related_family_genealogy_building. --RAN (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored an item that I confused with another RfD, so I let them have a chance for a wider discussion. But I agree with Ymblanter, if we want to finally stop these endless and unnecessary discussions, we should block the creator. Other admin opinions? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
golden words by Ymblanter :) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full support for the deletions and removal diffs by Wüstenspringmaus and Ymblanter's explanation of notability. --Lymantria (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I give my full support to Wüstenspringmaus for the deletion. As for the creator of these, their interpretation is of notablity is so broad that their creation often (if not always) end up in RfD, so I also support blocking the creator. Fralambert (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've blocked RAN now as there is a clear consensus about blocking (support by 2 other admins). --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which two admins? I did not read @Ymblanter's comments as support for a block, just that wikidata and wikipedia are different projects — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought If we want to match the English Wikipedia, we should start by blocking the creator, who is blocked there exactly for creation of the walled garden of these articles. was a support/proposal for blocking. If not, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for being unclear. By "creator" I meant Greghenderson2006 who is blocked on en.wp just for that. RAN is indeed blocked on en.wp, but this is for copyright violations, unrelated to the current dispute. Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my reason for blocking, I wanted to note that RAN is also blocked on enwiki (for other, unrelated abuse), not just now on wikidata. But that had no influence on my decision here. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 15:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked some of his created pages and he has created non notable pages on wikidata and appears to not understand how to write pages that only have notability. Masai giraffe (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think someone should be block for it's action in a another wiki, except for crosswiki vandalism or spam, which is not the case here. I do find RAN anoying in RfD, but it's mostly because he often use as a notability criterion. Item should be notable own their own, not because a other item is notable. If the creator was Greghenderson2006, he is proably the one that we should be block. Fralambert (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greghenderson2006 is the creator of most of them, but RAN has created some as well. I would also support a block for Greghenderson2006, but I don't think we should change the block/unblock for RAN unless he shows that he will change his behaviour, as he is also involved in creating these items. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe he should be blocked but I’m not quite sure. Masai giraffe (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Trying again in the hope of getting an answer.) Which two admins? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: here the support by Fralambert (I think he meant RAN) and I earlier thought also Ymblanter, but there was my misunderstanding. So "only" support from another admin. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 13:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps you jumped on a block too quickly. But there is problematic behaviour, so we should use the opportunity to intervene. I have declined the unblock request with a suggestion to RAN on rewriting it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally for established users they deserve a warning before getting blocked, informing them of what you consider problematic so that they have a chance to address it. I couldn't see that being the case here. Infrastruktur (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were personal attacks from this user, there was no insight that this user's behaviour was wrong, and another admin (formally?) supported the block, so I considered doing it. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action. I have called out Mr. Northon's actions here and on Commons and they claim relentlessly that taking a contrary stance on their contributions is "harassment". Hope they take this time to cool off and make some reflections on their work here and there. Bedivere (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RAN: Non-admin call for unblock

I find the above very disturbing. It appears that RAN is being blocked for an opinion, rather for an action; has been blocked without any warning; and has been blocked by somebody who is personally in dispute with him. None of this reflects well on the admin corps.

Looking back at some of the mass uploads of Q5s, including the somewhat controversial case of The Peerage person ID (P4638) uploads by User:GZWDer, it seems to me that the community has generally shown acceptance for creation of Q5s who are one-degree-of-separation removed from a Q5 with wikipedia levels of notability, e.g. to allow the data about family relationships, as might be included in a wiki article, to be encoded in the lead wikidata item. In the case of The Peerage, it was also accepted that it could make sense to do a total import of a database if perhaps 40-50% of the entries made the above criteria; because the TP entries typically represent data in standard reference works such as Burke's Peerage and Burke's Landed Gentry; and because there is historical value in a complete prosopography of the dominant power-wielding class of a leading country at a particular period in history.

I am concerned that the uploads RAN supports seem to go well beyond this; and agree that we should not be aiming to be a database of every person who has ever lived. Other projects are available for that. I do not believe that an obituary contributed by close family members is a sufficent signal for inclusion here. (As opposed to an obituary editorially commissioned by a major national paper from one of its journalists).

But I do not think RAN has done anything blockable here. And it should not be a requirement for unblock to require he publicly recant his opinions.

RAN is an editor in good standing who has made many useful edits. IMO an appropriate way forward here would be a community restriction that he does not create new Q5s (and items for non-independent obituaries) for people more than 1 degree of separation from individuals who are wikipedia-notable unless that is agreed by a named mentor.

If this restriction is approved, and RAN does not comply with it, then block, for incrementally increasing periods of time. But to go straight to a block of a productive editor in good standing, without first having gained consensus for any restriction; and (ii) to go straight for that block to be a full indef block, both seem to me to be a serious error of judgment. Jheald (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose unblocking RAN at this point. It is clear that the scope of their uploads has gone beyond the established consensus of what is acceptable on Wikidata. RAN's actions raise valid concerns about whether the platform should include every individual in existence, especially when the notability standard has been compromised by factors like family-submitted obituaries, which do not meet the editorial rigor of reliable, independent sources. Here at Wikidata we should take action by setting clear boundaries. Allowing these types of items can dilute the quality of the database. Moreover, I don’t think their block was solely for holding an opinion but rather for their actions, which have now called into question the necessity of tighter controls on the creation of certain items. The block should remain in place. Bedivere (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that until they stop creating non notable articles the should not be unblocked. Masai giraffe (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we does not yet have a consensus that RAN's creation are non notable. Also if "one-degree-of-separation removed from a Q5 with wikipedia levels of notability" is agreed, we need to undelete both Q91949506 and Q94696971 (for the latter I have a undeletion request above independent of this reason and independent of the reasons provided by Greghenderson2006 or RAN, but there is no admin reacted with the request yet.) GZWDer (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GZWDer, the least we can say, is that there is controversy on the notability of a portion of the items RAN has been creating. The point here is that RAN seems to blame that controversy to poor judgement by others only. That makes it difficult to find a way out of this. --Lymantria (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. Your formal request above seemed to be pointed to two specific admins. I didn't feel invited.[reply]

Discussion flagged on Wikidata telegram channel, with a call for more eyes to look at this. Jheald (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

RAN: Admin call for unblock

I was alerted to this by an email from RAN pointing towards his talk page (where I'm also mentioned). Looking through this situation, there are a number of things I find worrying:

The jump to blocking seems to be taking the nuclear option without any prior steps. There is no previous warning at User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_), and RAN has never been blocked here before.
The original deletion debate was being debated, and was closed while discussion was still happening (less than 5 hours after the last comment).
The discussion above was also ongoing, and blocking RAN kicked him out of this conversation. It's also confusing about who people were suggesting to be blocked, since since RAN wasn't the original creator of these items (technically, my bot auto-created one of them... I can't spot any that RAN created?).
The Wikidata items in question were in use by another project - Commons - and there don't seem to be any corresponding open deletion discussions there (best practice would be to have simultaneous discussions). Deleting the items has broken template uses on Commons. (For anyone not aware, this usage is through the Infobox I maintain there, but also through the family tree template that I'm not connected with.)
Wüstenspringmaus is a new admin, gaining the toolset only last month. Running into a situation like this so quickly is a bad sign.

I suggest the best way forward is to unblock, undelete the items, and restart the deletion conversations, with an uninvolved admin closing the deletion conversations in due course. Diffuse/de-escalate the situation now, discuss it calmly, and figure out a good way forward together. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you withdraw the damaging comment you have given on Wüstenspringmaus. It's below the belt. --Lymantria (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not intended to be a damaging/below-the-belt comment, but it is relevant that they are new at this, and they have blocked a long time editor. I mostly like their responses below, though, and I hope this is a learning experience. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address a few points that led to this decision. RAN has also repeatedly personally attacked other users, who didn't agree to his opinion to notability. Some users, including other admins, have expressed worries about a potential unblocking, indicating that this is a broader issue and can't resolved with an immediately unblocking imo. A switch to a partial block that restricts RAN from creating new pages and participating in WD:RfD discussions would be an idea, but however, I’m unsure if this measure alone would be sufficient to improve the situation. I'll leave the decision to another admin. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to examples of your points here, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i) Statements like these (now [12] on his userpage. ii) This comment by Lymantria where they say … I'm not sure if it is of much use to switch to partial block for main space only, wordings of this request do not entirely convince me. It is not about "... winning a debate ..." but reaching agreement and act on that agreement … and this comment by Ajraddatz. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 20:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even tough I am not an admin, I do agree with Wüstenspringmaus that a partial block is necessary. Masai giraffe (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could relax the block settings to partial, only prohibiting main space edits and item creations. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek: Why would we want to restrict main space edits? As I understand it, it is no more than a small subset of new items RAN has created that are being objected to. His edits, at least as I understand it, appear to be consistently well-motivated and useful. Jheald (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to restrict main space edits? What else? The concern were items, not lexemes, not talk pages, etc. Other than that, we have no less restrictive countermeasure. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A less restrictive measure would be a community restriction telling RAN not to create specific types of item (eg as I outlined in the previous section).

If RAN went against such a restriction, adopted with due process, then one could proceed to more technological measures. But I have not seen any reason to presume he would do that.

As far as I understand, RAN's edits, per se, have not been a problem. So there seems no good reason to restrict them. -- Jheald (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is too drastic of an escalation and had this been repeated, I'd be opening a request to desysop Wüstenspringmaus due to a gross lack of judgement. @Wüstenspringmaus: I can find no reading of the comments above that supports the block, since although three admins commented in support of your deletion, none were in support of a block. I strongly suggest you self-revert your action. I also strongly dislike that you did not enter a notice on their talk page about the reasons for the block; {{Block}} has a reason parameter for a, well, reason. In this particular case I cannot find anything that rises to the level of a personal attack, though there's some unnecessarily confrontational language (for example) and that needs to stop; either way, an indefinite block is too much of an escalation from just that, especially with no warning. That said, however, I also do believe conduct on other wikis can in general be taken in to consideration when deciding to block. RAN does have a significant history of personal attacks on the English Wikipedia that has resulted in their indefinite block there. I can't see evidence of that in this particular case, but the leash should be short for future conduct.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did the right thing from my position, but I'm willing to have the block reviewed and would be happy to reverse it if necessary. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, RAN does the same. When calling their actions into scrutiny they blame admins like me and other users to be harassing him. They've been uploading files and creating categories on Commons for totally non notable people and saying they are in scope on Commons because they are linked from Wikidata. And these items on Wikidata are in scope here because they are linked from Commons, thus creating a very convenient recursive argument. That is disruption, and their unwillingness to accept they are disrupting both projects is what led to their block here in the first place. Bedivere (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposed course of action - I am concerned that RAN does not seem willing to budge from his position, and noted such on his talk page. I think an unwillingness to discuss and adapt to community consensus will continue to land him in unfortunate waters. But I do agree that this block was too hasty (and have noted such to the blocking admin privately), and I think the path forward here is further discussion rather than removing a generally productive member of the Wikidata community. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe the block was a bit too swift but RAN appears to not want to listen to consensus of the community. I’m not an admin at this time but I am willing to offer insight on issues like this. Masai giraffe (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a week since the block. Would anyone object if I unblocked RAN tomorrow, so we can try to move forward here? (or want to take action themselves?) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you remove the block, and then what? They continue doing what they were doing before the block? I have not seen any sign that they understand their behavior was not up to our standards, quite the opposite in fact. Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if he will stop creating new items, I may support unblocking. Probably thousands and thousands of his creations in Commons and Wikidata should be mass-deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would oppose unblocking RAN from editing main space. RAN has convinced me at his user talk page that unblocking him from main editing main space would make him proceed doing the disputed edits and that there is no willingness from their side to discuss that before editing again. And IMHO it is clear that those edits can be considered controversial. Also at his user page he calls the discussion another user started here an harassment campaign. I'm not confident that moving forward is anywhere close. --Lymantria (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: Same question I put to User:Matěj Suchánek above. Do you have any evidence of troublesome edits by RAN, as opposed to troublesome item creation? Because, at least from this discussion, I'm not aware of any having been presented.

Would a community ban on creating certain types of new item not be sufficient? (Which could be imposed as an interim measure by this board, then could be reviewed by an RfC allowing wider input if RAN insisted). Would that not be a better fit for the issues that are troubling you? Jheald (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This type of interim solution may become into reach when there is some constructive attitude by RAN, quod non. I have given an example above of an edit on his user page that is troublesome. As you can read below, I am more leaning towards keeping the block in its entirety. --Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lymantria: Would you oppose unblocking everywhere except mainspace? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I expressed on his user talk page 8 days ago that I'd stay neutral on a partial block. Given the discussion that followed (and the examples I gave), I am leaning towards opposing now. I'm quite sure it will release a lot of negativism and no progress. --Lymantria (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree. They remain strong on their point that Wikidata's policy on notability allows them to do what they do and they will continue to do so unless it is very clearly worded on the policy, at least on their very broad and convenient interpretation of the policy. Bedivere (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've partially unblocked RAN now (still blocked in mainspace), particularly with the hope that this will make it easier for them constructively participate in discussions. Let's see how that goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Thank you for your action. I have two comments on your block:
- I don't think the "account creation disabled" block setting is useful for partial blocl, as there is no abuse by RAN in this area.
- Most of the hassasment/personal attacks have been on or in connection with RfD, so I think it would be good to include this in the block (comments can be added to the talk page and RAN is able to participate in this discussion/discussion about his items).
Would this change to the block be OK with you? Regards --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - On the first, that's true, I just didn't toggle that setting. With the second, perhaps, but could we see how it goes first? If issues at RfD resume, then I wouldn't oppose this in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard also wrote to me. It seems like he tried to ping on his talk page but it maybe didn't work (he didn't use {{Ping}}, just listed user names without User:). It's hard to tease out everything here, since there are now a lot of comments across this page and his user talk page, but it does seem like the block was excessive and I would hope that admins would only block long-time, productive users after at least giving a warning. In principle, discussing deleted items does not warrant a block, edits like this do not warrant a block, and I don't see any diffs or behavior that do. Since Mike Peel has already revised the block and it looks like Richard can at least participate in discussions, I'm not inclined to get further involved, but I am hopeful that cooler heads prevail here and that all of us can respect consensus. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I previously opposed this block, but Richard's aggressive behavior towards the block itself and their history on the English Wikipedia make me no longer support an unblock. They are now adminshopping by emailing me and are refusing to engage here directly, or use {{unblock}}. Thus they are wasting our time, and I intend to disable their talk page and/or email access and reinstate the full block if they continue. As for "long-term productive users": we are not going to continue the English Wikipedia's practice of granting immunity from sanctions due to content contribution, and never have.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not unblocking them, they just want to stick to their own views on what should be on wikidata. By the way, if you feel I shouldn’t be commenting on these matters please let me know. Masai giraffe (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated full block. They were asked to remove unjustified aggressive texts from their user page. They changed a jab into an uppercut. Enough is enough. --Lymantria (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to agree with you now, I was hoping RAN would take a more constructive approach following his partial unblock, which sadly hasn't happened. He can still edit his talk page, let's see how things go there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean for notability?

For various reasons mostly unrelated to Wikidata, my activity in the last months has been very low. This will probably change in the near future. I’ve just been catching up on this discussion and I’m wondering what that means for our interpretation of WD:N. Per RAN’s user page I seem to have the dubious honor of being one of the archvillains in this discussion. I think famous people only is a gross distortion of my position, but anyway: Can someone assess if a consensus has been reached on the subject of people with, shall we say, less clear pathways to notability? --Emu (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it is a good time to hold an RfC. As it is a fundamental policy, it should be advertised widely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Lymantria (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was listed there together with Emu and well, I do not mind at all about criticism but I also never really meant that the notable people have to be at the same time famous. Was a sort of distortion of my words, so if there will be a request for comment on what kind of references the community should regard acceptable for the 2nd criterion, I am ready to explain my vision. --Wolverène (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Шкурба Андрій Вікторович

Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: User has been repeatedly removing (or replacing with incorrect values) Ukrainian female form of label (P2521) values and corresponding labels for occupation (Q12737077)-class items, with Q211346 as an example, even in contradiction with a specific reference. (This is while, following the general rule the value exists for the language, and the property has no citation-needed constraint (Q54554025).) ―Flipping Switches (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no similar feminine names of professions in the Ukrainian language. According to the accepted consensus in UkrWiki uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви/Проєкт на основі переліку вирішених дискусій (Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives/Project based on the list of resolved discussions) and uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви (Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives) only common, widely used words can be used in Wikipedia articles. They are those that are recorded in authoritative dictionaries. Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform for promoting newly created vocabulary, those forms of words that have not yet gained popularity in the Ukrainian language. UkrWikipedia's stylistic adviser advises to use in UkrWikipedia articles only specific permitted femininatives regarding which there is a broad consensus in the community that they are established, generally accepted, common and widely used in the Ukrainian language.--Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian Wikipedia approach you're describing doesn't apply to the Wikidata project. Please don't misinform on the general situation, the existence of feminine forms for occupations in Ukrainian is documented. Flipping Switches (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of such forms is not adequate because of their absence in authoritative sources. You didn't put them there. Wikidata cannot ignore the peculiarities of national Wikipedias. This is absurd. It is enough for you to write. I have no desire to communicate with you before the intervention of the administrator.--Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above and gave the link, I used the results of the consensus in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, where it is said that feminitives are an integral part of the literary Ukrainian language, but only common, widely used words can be used on Wikipedia pages. They are those that are recorded in authoritative dictionaries. Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform for promoting newly created vocabulary, those forms of words that have not yet gained popularity in the Ukrainian language. In addition, there is an explanation of the leading scientific philological institution of Ukraine - the Institute of Linguistics named after O. O. Potebny of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: "About feminatives in the modern Ukrainian language", which states in particular that "emphasis on gender differences can deprive the expression of meaningful clarity and unambiguity. When it is more about position, profession, occupation, etc., and not about a specific person, masculine forms are traditionally used: "study to be a dentist", "apply to a lawyer", "presidential elections", "deputy status", etc.... The spelling reflects what has already been established in the Ukrainian language, it is not gives recommendations on the creation of feminative neologisms." There is a link to this %BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0 %BD%D1%96%D0%B9-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1% 96%D0%B9-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96.html. For administrators - my opponent has not provided a link to any rule in Wikidata that allows the use of neologisms and made-up words. --12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)--Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opponent continues to insert neologisms and made-up words of femininity without citing the relevant rules and their presence in academic dictionaries of Ukraine as I wrote above. I ask the administrators to intervene and consider the claim in the end.--Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, please react to this user's behavior. Because if his earlier edits were simple deletions of the property/aliases, the recent ones, which he continued here and here, consist of replacing the referenced by the specific recommendation by National Commission for State Language Standards value but keeping the reference ― as a result creating an illusion that a new grammatically incorrect value is backed up by an old authoritative source (you can check that for both items above the current values are inrorrect by looking them up in the referred document, even without knowledge of Ukrainian).

If for further action you need more links to user's edits I'm referring to or more context for the situation in general (besides that what is disputed by user was formally reintroduced and standardized by Ukrainian orthography of 2019), please let me know.

Unnecessary addition follows: As to the consensus mentioned by user, is this the one — uk:Обговорення Вікіпедії:Стиль/Фемінітиви? I didn't take part in it myself but here is what I notice about it: while the discussion there kind of continues, its last "closed" part has a "No consensus was reached" status, as of 2018. Another curious detail there is an intermediate summary count provided by one of the users: 8 (male) users for gatekeeping vs 6 (including 3 female users) against. If some other consensus was referred to, I hope the direct link would be provided. And uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви indicates {{Proposed}} status. —Flipping Switches (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are earlier examples from this month: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. —Flipping Switches (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is manipulation —uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви/Проєкт на основі переліку вирішених дискусій (Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives/Project based on the list of resolved discussions) and uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви (Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives) not projects or drafts, it's a committed community consensus. That is, what the users agreed upon in the discussion And the fact that the opponent did not participate in the discussion does not give him the right to reject the results of the consensus and insert neologisms into the decision of Wikidata administrators, supporting the edit warring actively started by him, which can be seen on the same pages the diffs of the "violations" on which he cited. By the way, so far the opponent has not cited any authoritative source for such an interpretation of the inserted neologisms feminatives, as well as a reference to a rule or guideline of Wikidata that allows it. --Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Шкурба Андрій Вікторович Please don't misgender me, I don't go by "he". I've put the links to the Wikidata items of my sources so that it was easier for non-Ukrainian users. The items have direct links to the website or document if not a Wikipedia page, you can check them. But here are direct links to the Language Commission' Recommendations and Ukrainian orthography. I will also appreciate the quotes about the consensus/rule status you mention because I didn't find it on the pages you refer to. —Flipping Switches (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to read carefully, I have to repeat: uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви/Проєкт на основі переліку вирішених дискусій (Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives/Project based on the list of resolved discussions) and uk:Вікіпедія:Стиль/Фемінітиви (Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives) not projects or drafts, it's a committed community consensus. That is, what the users agreed upon in the discussion. If you want to see what happened during the discussion, then there is uk:Обговорення Вікіпедії:Стиль/Фемінітиви (Talk:Wikipedia:Style/Feminitives). There is a lot written about it. Regarding the fact that you use the Ukrainian orthography as a justification for your accusations, you also do not want to read what I previously stated above. An explanation of the leading scientific philological institution of Ukraine - the Institute of Linguistics named after O. O. Potebny of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine: "About feminatives in the modern Ukrainian language" (%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D0%B2-%D1%81%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D0 %BD%D1%96%D0%B9-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1% 96%D0%B9-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96.html): "The spelling reflects what has already been established in the Ukrainian language, it is not gives recommendations on the creation of feminative neologisms". Mentioned Language Commission' Recommendations are only revomendation, but not law, for NATIONAL CLASSIFIER OF UKRAINE, CLASSIFIER OF PROFESSIONS DK 003:2010. In amendment No. 9 to the classifier, it is written that "professional job titles are given in the masculine gender, except for names that are used exclusively in the feminine gender (such as housekeeper, seamstress, nanny, sister-housewife.). Feminative neologisms are not included in the main text of the Classifier, as can be seen from the main text which can be seen on pages 482-491 of Appendix A ([28]). And "Although such recommendations were created exclusively for the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy, which is under the care of the named Classifier, the implementation of such feminitives is handled by the National Commission for the State Language." ([29]). And this commission did not make decisions on the wide implementation of neologisms-feminisms in Ukranian.

Therefore, my edits are legitimate according to the consensus of the Ukrainian Wikipedia and regulatory state documents, and your accusations of vandalism are absolutely groundless. --Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Шкурба Андрій Вікторович: Whoever is right about the content, I ask you to refrain from making the relevant changes until the discussion is settled. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wüstenspringmaus, Until then, can user's P2521 edits on psychiatrist and urologist be reverted so that the values matched the reference? Flipping Switches (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wüstenspringmaus, Thank you. Ok. I will wait for the decision. But the opponent also deserves your notice due to the fact that repeatedly canceled my edits, which can be seen from the page's history, where the opponent cited diffs. --Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wüstenspringmaus, I did not see the administrative conclusion regarding the accusation against me. You made a remark to me, but the opponent, without waiting for an explanation or other actions of the administrators, canceled my edits [30],[31], that is edit warring. And opponent's indirect accusations against me of homophobia and belonging to the Russian aggressor do not only correspond of Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, and are extremely insulting during the Ukrainian-Russian war. Shouldn't the opponent be warned at least for this? The arguments given by the opponent have nothing to do with the state of feminitives in the Ukrainian language. The European Commission does not regulate the norms of the Ukrainian language, this is the prerogative of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, in particular the Institute of the Ukrainian Language of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine ([32]), the Institute of Linguistics named after O. O. Potebny of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine ([[33]), Language and information fund of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine ([34] and [35]), which such words were not introduced into academic dictionaries, which is recorded in the consensus of the Ukrainian Wikipedia user community. My edits cannot be characterized as vandalism. For clarification ChristianKl, Wikidata allows you to make several statements. When different authorities recommend different terms, we may allow each version to be cited. In my opinion, this is this is correct in such a situation, but I want to see an administrative conclusion to insert another version of the names of professions according to academic sources without the threat that the opponent will cancel them. ––Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to understand the situation a bit better I chatted with ChatGPT. If anyone thinks anything that ChatGPT told me about the situation is incorrect, please say so.

It seems that when it comes to the Ukranian language there are legal mandates where officials that violate those face the thread of punishment. If an official would use the Russian term for a city instead of the Ukranian they would be punished. The National Commission for State Language Standards did not declare the usage of the feminized terms to be binding but recommended their usage.

At the same other institutions such as the O. O. Potebny of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine does not like the new terms recommended by the National Commission for State Language Standards.

While Wikipedia versions commonly have to decide for using language in a certain way, Wikidata allows multiple statements to be made. When different authorities recommend different terms to be used, we can allow both the version that the National Commission for State Language Standards and the version that the O. O. Potebny of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine advocates to be listed. Ideally, each with references.

As far as consensus over at Wikipedia goes, Wikipedia is a distinct project from Wikidata with it's own rules. While it can make sense to inform us of Wikipedia's rules they don't automatically apply here. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianKl, It looks like ChatGPT merged our 2023 law On Decolonization of Toponymy with this ruling of the same year: In Russia, feminizing nouns considered a first step towards 'LGBT extremism'. Flipping Switches (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianKl. Thank you for your thoughts on the problem. --Шкурба Андрій Вікторович (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not touching for now all of the items affected by user earlier, I reinstated the values referenced (by the National Language Commission's Recommendation) on the two recent ones. Thanks, ChristianKl and Wüstenspringmaus, for joining in. I hope this moves somewhere - please let me know, what's needed for that? Since this kind of edits has been made by other users before, putting together an easy-to-refer-to explanation might be useful. How do I go about that?

To reiterate, user repeatedly (on less than 10 items on 13 December 2021 and 17 January 2022, then more than 10 this September) did: delete feminine forms in the property and in alias, change description to less gender-inclusive, and change values to mismatch the reference. (User's statements about "manipulation" and that I "don't want to read carefully" about "the rule" while I quoted its project status] and it's listed "in ongoing discussion" since January 2018 aslo didn't sound OK.)

To the general situation, here is a brief description: Gender equality in Ukrainian language: Feminine forms of professions now given full recognition. In May 2024, a 5-year transition after coming into force has ended, and current Ukrainian orthography of 2019) became fully mandatory [36], including the use of feminine forms [37] (both links in Ukrainian). Also back in 2022, Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine announced European Commission has launched a Ukrainian-language version of ESCO which includes feminine forms. ―Flipping Switches (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2804:14C:5981:45FA:E862:5BC9:1103:F174

2804:14C:5981:45FA:E862:5BC9:1103:F174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZI Jony: he has done mass-editing. Should we delete all his new creations as well? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, yes, we have to delete all the new creations. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edits from these IP ranges are massive. I deleted and patrolled some of them Estopedist1 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be considered by other sysop

If a registered user (cc Iamcarbon (talk • contribs • logs)) makes 36 edits in one minute should he/she request a bot permission? If this user is notified that his/her actions are excessive and continues to do similar editions (first, deleted labels and now added MUL labels), should he/she be blocked? Thank you in advance for your opinions. Madamebiblio (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned before I block them. Let's see, how they react. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the threshold for actions being considered excessive and for a bot permission to be requested? Do we have any documentation or guidance here? I've seen similar batches of 50K+ items be updated using scripts.

There is broad consensus for adding mul labels to names, which helps prevent bots from adding any new duplicate labels. I was in the process of running a one time script to add these to given names (with a matching native label = mul value), before being alerted.

I understand that there is not yet consensus for deleting labels in mass, as various concerns have surfaced and are still being discussed. I have ceased deleting any additional labels after the most recent concern regarding search rankings has been brought up. Iamcarbon (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and also requested a bot permission, although - I would still appreciate guidance on when edits are considered excessive under a regular account.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Bot_requests#Request_to_add_mul_label_values_to_names_.._(2024-10-01 Iamcarbon (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit rate that is considered excessive for accounts without a bot flag. This is Wikidata; fast-paced (automated) editing is the norm here, not the exception. User accounts are rate-limited to 90 edits per minute, and many automated editing tools run at exactly that pace.

That said, it does have some advantages to shift large scale automated editing to a bot-flagged secondary account: (1) if something goes wrong, the bot gets blocked, not your main account; (2) it is transparent that you are using automation; (3) users can filter your edits from their watchlists and recentchanges if they wish to. However, you would still be limited to 90 edits per minute, as the rate-limit is identical to that of regular (non-bot) accounts. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wüstenspringmaus and @Madamebiblio

I understand that there were edits relating to duplicate label removals on family names that were criticized (causing search rankings to change in the user's native language), but no concerns have been brought up for adding new mul labels to existing names.

Unless there are specific concerns, I would like the option to continue to resume my one-off changes to add the remaining mul labels (to match the native label value, when it's mul) to given names under my current account. I have been careful to respect the rate limits. I anticipate that a proper bot will take over this roll once the remaining outstanding concerns for removing existing labels have been addressed, and as a one-off action, am unsure if a bot account is needed.

I will also work to request a bot flag, under a new account, to isolate any bulk changes in the future, per @MisterSynergy suggestion.

I look forward to your feedback, and will await the resolution of the issue before taking any further actions. Iamcarbon (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the number of edits per minute is not a reason that someone has to request a bot account by our policies. There's a natural limits of how many edits a user can make in a given time.

If we want a general rule that the amount of edits that non-bot users can make in a given time span should be lower, write an RfC calling for that and then we can simply ask WMDE to change the limit. There are plenty of users who make a lot of edits without a bot account and @Iamcarbon is not specialin that regard.

@Wüstenspringmaus and @Madamebiblio, you have both become admins in 2024 and are relatively new with your new admin rights. Please, take our policies into account when asking users to change their behavior. If you believe our policies should be different, feel free to open an RfC to change our policies. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if one were to take the bot policy literally, it says user "must" create a separate bot account in order to operate a bot. The edits are not tagged as being input by the user interface or by quickstatements/wikibase-cli so it's fair to assume it's being automated. I'm not sure what others use to distinguish between batch edits and bot edits, but I think it's not a batch edit when the edits happen _unattended_. Batch editing doesn't need approval. In any case, no need to shoot anybody. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, the bot policy is pretty crap. It was crafted in the early days of Wikidata (2012/13), when batch editing was not a thing and the mindset how to operate this wiki was derived from Wikipedia experience. The policy would long deserve an overhaul, with a formal definition of and distinction from batch editing as well as more tangible reasons to use a bot flag on a secondary account, other than "make edits without the necessity of human decision-making". The approval process and the claim to "stay within reasonable bounds of their approved tasks" is also a clown show in practice. I do see that the policy was created with good intentions in mind, but the project has evolved a lot in the past 10+ years and the bot policy in its current form is more a relic of that initialization phase, rather than a useful policy that helps to organize automated editing activites in this community. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChristianKl, thank you for your advice for novice admins. I asked for other sysop opinions to folllow the policies on a default value that has just been implemented. Maybe we should ask WMDE to collaborate with some tool to delete or add those MUL labels, instead of an isolated user doing it in bulk. Since the implementation of the MUL label multiple tools and bots are still not adapted (several of them are the ones that added the labels in the different languages and could do it with MUL labelor aliases). The user has the habit of making massive edits and comes from a significant volume of deletions last days when there are still a lot of adjustments to be made to the MUL labels. Best regards. Madamebiblio (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterSynergy and @Infrastruktur thank you for your comments about bots and automated edits.

Madamebiblio (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madamebiblio

I believe we're still in the phase of making tools and bots "mul"-aware and identifying any blocking issues that need to be brought to WMDE for successful adoption. Unfortunately, most users won't be aware of "mul" until something breaks for them. By adding and deleting a small number of labels now, we can give users more time to react and minimize disruptions later when bots take over this role in near future. If WMDE also wants to build us more tools, that is also great.

Keep in mind, mass deletions by bots are already occurring across less popular domains (e.g., astronomical objects), and users are beginning to add new names with only a "mul" label. Unless there are critical issues blocking the adoption of mul, I think we should continue a slow rollout, by updating objects in batches, and awaiting and addressing feedback.

If you have a more specific argument against adding default mul labels to given names, or why this should wait on a new tool, it would be great if you could share your feedback here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help_talk:Default_values_for_labels_and_aliases Iamcarbon (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we able to gain consensus on this issue, so I can determine next steps?

Is this a policy matter whether these edits MUST be made through a bot account, or are we concerned about the rollout and adoption of mul? Are there any specific concerns that are unaddressed?

@Wüstenspringmaus I would appreciate your input on this matter, as you have requested that I remain from future edits until this matter (under penalty of a block) is resolved. Iamcarbon (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with anyone making (semi-)automated edits. That is, as ChristianKI wrote, Wikidata. I merely asked Iamcarbon to refrain from making the edits that another user has criticised as excessive until a discussion has taken place. I have no problem with resuming the edits if you feel there is enough consensus to do so. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 05:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aitorembe

@Aitorembe is edit warring in the trans woman (Q1052281), trying to remove the sourced statement that trans women are woman based on their personal opinion. They did 4 removals of this information from the page already. Please protect the page or block the user. stjn^[ru] 17:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Que majo el ruso. ¿No me has dicho que discuta las cosas en su página? ¿A que viene esto ahora?--Aitorembe (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About preventing further unmotivated reverts, which happened to three separate users already. stjn^[ru] 17:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aitorembe Let's try a final warning. Please stop edit warring or make personal attacks, or you may be blocked next time. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 18:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC) @Madamebiblio: Could you translate this message for me, please?[reply]

Hola. En ningún momento he atacado a nadie y cuando me han dicho que lo hable en la discusión correspondiente he dejado de editar....--Aitorembe (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madamebiblio: I was appalled by the transphobia displayed by this user and was close to blocking them. Could you also please translate my comment/warning at Talk:Q1052281? J'étais consterné par le transphobia de cet utilisateur et j'étais prés de lui bloquer. Pourriez-vous traduire mon comment/avertissement sur Talk:Q1052281?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Madamebiblio (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikidata allows people to express controversial opinions (like documenting historical advocation for racial genocide). In the manner this was given it constitutes abuse and might be violating the uCoC - we can surmise the edits were not done done "in good faith" therefore you are officially on thin ice. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HelplessChild

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

@HelplessChild: Deleting and changing sourced statements concerns birth/death dates without using ranks. It may affect many elements. 87.205.169.187 18:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HelplessChild: edits like at Q373516 are not acceptable. Why do you change references?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. In this instance, the previous date of death was wrong - Adrian Metcalfe died on 2nd July per the link I provided - https://worldathletics.org/heritage/news/adrian-metcalfe-obituary HelplessChild (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: - is it OK for the IP editor to remove information like this https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7365288&action=history ? Thank you HelplessChild (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HelplessChild: if I am understand correctly then there is two separate people and two items have been created. Of course, correct is not to remove statements but to move under to the correct item Estopedist1 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: is it ok for the IP to revert an edit like this https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11738083&diff=2255528141&oldid=2255523168 and label it "pure vandalism" with them restoring obvious incorrect information? I'm literally using the link of the grave of this person, which is located a bit further down, which cleary shows their date of death on the cross in the picture. Currently the page now has the incorrect date of death of 4 January 2022, when the subject died on 27 December 2021. Is that edit from the IP not acceptable? Please help me here, as I'm unsure what (if anything) I've done wrong. Thank you. HelplessChild (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HelplessChild: yes, Olympedia data is just wrong. But both sources can be stayed, one being deprecated. Side-notice: https://www.pztw.pl/aktualnosci/wiadomosci/1624-zmarl-kazimierz-lewandowski doesn't confirm his death date Estopedist1 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Not sure why you would want to retain false/incorrect information on this site though. Thanks again. HelplessChild (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HelplessChild: one goal is for global harmonization of correct data, which means that in this case Olympedia admins should be notified Estopedist1 (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Storing the information that certain claims are false, is useful because it prevents people from readding the information. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Sawffie

Sawffie (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: The only contributions from that user have been to remove any link between Orpea SA (Q3347694) and the name Orpéa. It seems likely that those edits are made under a conflict of interest, with the goal to dissociate the new brand name from its previous name, following a major scandal in France (see "Les Fossoyeurs" by Victor Castanet). Could Orpea SA (Q3347694) be restored to its state before that user's edits? ―Maxlath (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxlath: Restored and protected. Some edits later done by user:Pyb en résidence may be gone.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Ethangaming92

Ethangaming92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA vandal strikes again (Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paradigmagency2). Also 2400:8100:8:A000:DE40:DBA8:7D86:BDD0 and 43.242.71.168. ―Jklamo (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2400:8100:8:A000:DE40:DBA8:7D86:BDD (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

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

Done for 1 month. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ブロック依頼

日本語にて失礼します。User:RIONJAPANNETWORKのブロックを依頼します。ラベルの日本語欄において、単に除去したり、「日本の増税メガネ (1957年-)」「日本のオナニーアナウンサー」などと極めて不適切な記入をしたりしています。 Khhy (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Khhy: Blocked indefinitely and all edits reverted. Feel free to undo this if some edits are useful.

無期限にブロックし、すべての編集を差し戻した。いくつかの編集が有用であれば、自由に元に戻してください。 --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wüstenspringmaus: all edits are not patrolled. Not sure I got the point given via yours Japanese text Estopedist1 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Eedennnn

Eedennnn (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism only-account ―Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:186.179.192.248

186.179.192.248 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism only account, please revert all its edits as well ―Jklamo (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Pallikari turns out to be a sock of a now indefinitely for sockpuppetry blocked user, so this entire section is moot.

Resolved. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:BILL1

User:BILL1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

User:BILL1 insists on giving names of his own inspiration to the items, ignoring the sources that show the correct naming. Talk:Q79195487 Talk:Q16329215 Talk:Q12885211. He does the same and on English Wikipedia. Pallikari (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attention. The user, has been banned on wikipedia as a puppet of the indefinitely banned user, D.S. Lioness. BILL1 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a clear case of abuse of multiple accounts and socks and the master should be blocked. What do our CUs think? (e.g. @Jasper Deng:)? --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 18:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not use my accounts in a way that is not allowed. You can check this. There is no abuse of multiple accounts. Pallikari (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pallikari: My evidence shows otherwise.

Confirmed match between Pallikari and D.S. Lioness.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Report concerning User:102.157.87.56

102.157.87.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This is a prolific IP hopper who has made highly questionable edits to hundreds of items for well over a year. They are undeterred by reverts, and try to force through their edits without drawing attention. Their editing usually consists of flooding an article with unreferenced data, especially misusing original broadcaster (P449), as well as YouTube video spam. See Horrid Henry: The Movie (Q5905027)'s history for a brief example of their normal editing pattern. And The United (Q7771566) for the most egregious example, it is an unreleased film yet had over 10 broadcasters apparently. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC) ―Xezbeth (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three months. Prolific IP, very likely some LTA Estopedist1 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back already: 102.157.200.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) featuring their other editing pattern, nonsensical aliases. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Range-blocked for three months. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 11:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:136.158.3.155

136.158.3.155 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Salgo60

Salgo60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Despite repeated discussions on the user's talk page, the user continues to actively violate the guidelines regarding item descriptions. Repeated discussions between the user and Swedish Wikimedians have not led to the user stopping his destructive edits. ―LevandeMänniska (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Müntehir

Müntehir (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: spam, ad ―Devrim ilhan (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Contents

Report concerning User:ISNIplus

User:Dcflyer

Edit warring on talk page

Q126487673

RAN: Non-admin call for unblock

RAN: Admin call for unblock

What does this mean for notability?

Report concerning User:Шкурба Андрій Вікторович

Report concerning User:2804:14C:5981:45FA:E862:5BC9:1103:F174

To be considered by other sysop

Aitorembe

HelplessChild

Report concerning User:Sawffie

Report concerning User:Ethangaming92

ブロック依頼

Report concerning User:Eedennnn

Report concerning User:186.179.192.248

Report concerning User:BILL1

Report concerning User:102.157.87.56

Report concerning User:136.158.3.155

Report concerning User:Salgo60

Report concerning User:Müntehir

Navigation menu

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Report concerning User:ISNIplus

User:Dcflyer

Edit warring on talk page

Q126487673

RAN: Non-admin call for unblock

RAN: Admin call for unblock

What does this mean for notability?

Report concerning User:Шкурба Андрій Вікторович

Report concerning User:2804:14C:5981:45FA:E862:5BC9:1103:F174

To be considered by other sysop

Aitorembe

HelplessChild

Report concerning User:Sawffie

Report concerning User:Ethangaming92

ブロック依頼

Report concerning User:Eedennnn

Report concerning User:186.179.192.248

Report concerning User:BILL1

Report concerning User:102.157.87.56

Report concerning User:136.158.3.155

Report concerning User:Salgo60

Report concerning User:Müntehir

Navigation menu

Search