Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Revision as of 20:55, 29 December 2020 by Andreasmperu (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring: fixing link)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User block request : Ainty Painty

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

The user/Marketer has created Not Notable items and ps.wikipedia page, all are promotional. Reporting here so that each and every item should get deleted and the user should be blocked. Because He /She did make Technically ps.wikipedia page then did make Wikidata Item. Please Check all Itam and ps.wikipedia page then take action.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ComeBacks (talk • contribs) at 09:06, 6 December 2020‎ (UTC).[reply]

User block request : MovieFex

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

Missbrauch des Revertbuttons, um Geschmacksedits durchzusetzen. / Abuse of the revert button to enforce personal-taste edits.[1] vs. original, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and more. Ansprache erfolglos. / Talking to other party fruitless. Only more misuses. User talk:MovieFex#URL can change --Kolja21 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MovieFex was at least 20 times reported for vandalism on German Wikipedia ("Du wurdest auf der Seite Vandalismusmeldung gemeldet") and already blocked this year. No change in behavior. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Mein Gott ist das billig... [reply]
To have a look at the real original version check the history, it was Kolja21 who changed the item (October 8, 2020). He did that in every object I've created. Besides this the discussion about the use of described by source (P1343) and described at URL (P973) has already been made. In summary Kolja21 tries to get his will and has no scruples to lie to achieve that. This is an extreme example of mobbing and incredibly uncooperative and for that it is him who has to be blocked. -- MovieFex (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained to you why I've made the improvements. I didn't insist on the changes and of cause I don't use the reverse button, unless it's IP vandalism. "An extreme example of mobbing"? Indeed. For your aggressive behavior you have been blocked on German Wikipedia. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undo? -- MovieFex (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting specific genres for more broad genres

I have been creating new items that correspond to Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms not yet represented in Wikidata. Among recently established terms in LCGFT, I created items for body horror film (Q102260466), intersex film (Q103888910), and transgender film (Q104097073). After creating the items, I identified films that belonged to those genres, based on their LCGFT authority records and other web sources. It is a basic cataloging principle that catalogers assign only the most specific appropriate subject and genre/form terms, not both broader and more specific terms. If the more specific term is recorded as a subclass of the broader term, a query for the broader term should also easily retrieve all the entities that have a narrower term recorded. So for body horror films, intersex films, and transgender films, I changed the broader genre horror film or LGBT-related film to the more specific terms that I had created. I gave references to support this. On every one of these items MovieFex reverted my change and told me I was wrong. You can see my questions to them about this on their talk page. After the reversions of intersex and transgender film terms, I asked on the Wikidata Telegram and Wikimedia LGBT+ Telegram channels about whether I was correct to have changed the broader term to the more specific term. Both admins and other editors on both channels said that they agreed that changing the broader term to the specific term was correct, rather than adding the specific term in addition. They told me that I should undo MovieFex's reversions and explain why. I did that, and MovieFex promptly reverted them all over again, and called me a liar and accused me of being a man on a mission. My only mission is to record the best, most appropriate data in Wikidata that can be recorded. I do not want to make these changes another time, unless I know for certain that they won't be undone once more. And I would like to confirm whether my understanding that only the most specific value should be given if that item is a subclass of an item for the broader concept. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • When it comes to deciding about an issue like this, community consensus is what matters and that can only be found on-Wiki. In this case a conflict about what data genre (P136) should hold, the venue for the question would be genre (P136)'s talk page, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies or the project chat (pinging WikiProject_Movies can be useful to get attention when the issue is raised on the properites talk page or the project chat).
Generally, only the most specific value should be given if that item is a subclass of an item for the broader concept but there are sometimes local expections. It's for example a custom that items that are instance of (P31) historical country (Q3024240) usually still state instance of (P31) country (Q6256) or state (Q7275) so it's still worthwhile to have the discussion.
Given that I have now banned MovieFex, I wouldn't expect you getting reverted further in this case but for similar cases in the future I would recommend to simply ask the question on-Wiki in a suitable place. It's more complex to ask a question on-Wiki then to ask a telegram channel but it builds community consensus that can be later referred back to. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Misuse of adminrights

I need to clarify a few things. First I wasn't informed of this report and had no chance to respond. Second: I am NOT blocked on dewiki. Besides this would be not relevant because here is wikidata.

Fact is that UWashPrincipalCataloger created some subgenres and to get them into wikidata he replaced a valid and established main genre which is used in all main databases. The user claimed that he has green light to do so because it was discussed in a channel chat. I've checked the talk pages before and found no discussion or any consensus. This would have been the correct way that this is understandable for everyone. And this is exactly what User:ChristianKl said. I told UWashPrincipalCataloger that he can add his subgenre but should not replace a valid entry. Normally everything would have been fine. I'm here for more than 5 years now and have more than 125.000 edits on wikidata without using a bot or any scripts. An admin has not to decide about a content, that's what the community does. So the decision of ChristianKI to block me is absolutely not understandable and in my opinion a misuse of adminrights.

I request to unblock my account. - MovieFex

I was also a little surprised by the block. Personally I'm fine having two genres where one is a subclass of the other. Genres are often subjective. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand isn't about the content decision regarding genres but about the behavior. In this discussion opened by Kolja21 he wrote: "In summary Kolja21 tries to get his will and has no scruples to lie to achieve that." That's a serious personal attack with strong language.
A bit above on the same page he wrote "User of Wikidata don't invent a new German history and if a German user uses this object as state he should be ashamed". Calling for other users to feel ashamed is again a serious personal attack instead of having a constructive conversation that searches for consensus.
Those are two examples found on this page.
In the discussion with UWashPrincipalCataloger he said "What you're doing here is man on mission, classical vandalism"
The fact that he was banned earlier on DeWiki (even if only for a day) illustrates this this isn't just MovieFex having a bad week. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three month ago there was an episode where edit-warring lead to another post here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2020/09#Edit_war_with_User:MovieFex ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no expression of a desire for MovieFex to change his behavior in the unblock request (he rather seems to be doubling down "Das ist schwach"). If you believe that we would change his behavior after 3-6 months, can you explain why you believe that would happen? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth considering two other incidents:
  • In summary, MovieFex has a history of edit warring, refusal to discuss, and personal attacks. In particular, they do not seem to be able to perceive personal attacks in their own actions, and they seem unable to collaborate. The current unblock request is classic IDHT. I might entertain an unblock request that shows some understanding of why their behaviour is disruptive and offers a commitment to improve. Bovlb (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing Bovlb's additional evidence, I now agree with the decision to block them indefinitely. @ChristianKl: Indefinite blocks for conduct issues usually aren't warranted on the first "offense". I consider socking to be a really serious offense, hence why I almost always block the master indefinitely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jasper Deng: Our rules don't don't indicate that socking is a more serious offense then the other one's listed and I'm not aware of any consenus that was found on the notice board towards treating socking without any other content issues being more serious then behavior that's more directly disruptive. Calling behavior that doesn't violate EnWiki policy a really serious offense when users might not know that we have a different policy, seems also questionable. It sounds to me like a potentially controversus decision and thus not something to be done without raising a case for the user on the admin noticeboard. Why do you believe that infinitive blocks for users with a long history on Wikidata for behavior that only Wikidata forbids but not EnWiki raise to the level of being uncontroversial? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChristianKl: Nor do our policies not specifically indicate how it's not serious. None of my indefinite blocks for socking (of masters) have been contested by others, and as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (Q11249042) I have good reason to think that's accepted practice. If you want to change this, please enact a new policy via RfC and I will comply. However, in the great majority of cases the socking is of abusive nature that does warrant indefinite blocks. It's not controversial at all when I am specifically allowed to "block the master indefinitely" at WD:SOCK, and am well within my discretion to choose indefinite blocks. Also, as for finite-length blocks for other issues, there have been multiple cases (Jura1, Succu, Brya, to name a few). In my opinion, MovieFex's admission of the problem is alone enough to warrant reducing to a finite length.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the extend that you believe that 3-6 bans for conduct issues like personal attacks are warrented, which prior cases of people we banned give you this impression that this is how we do things on Wikidata? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MovieFex has written a response (permalink) to some of my points. This response goes into some detail about the content issues in the two cases I cited, and the history of the interactions. As I understand it, MovieFex is explaining that their failure to comply with my requests for discussion were because discussion is time-consuming, some discussion had already taken place (here on AN), and dropping the issue leads to "peace everywhere". My primary concern at the time and now is with not with the specific content issues, but rather the behavioural issues, which the response does not really address. MovieFex says they "don't run away if there is conflict", which is fine, but edit warring and personal attacks are not acceptable in place of collaborative discussion. I'm afraid that I'm still not seeing any recognition of this last point. Bovlb (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do agree that's it's more encouraging, admitting a problem is not enough to show behavior change. The way to change behavior is to actually changing behavior. Given that he can still participate on DeWiki we can see how he believe over there. In would say that in a year he can make an unblock request and we look into how he behaved in the meantime. If he managed to keep a cool head in conflicts in DeWiki we can grant the request.
Besides that it's also worth thinking about how we can get people in similar situation not to escalate their personal conflicts by having 1-on-1 fights and instead bringing the conflict to a community page to seek consensus. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ChristianKl, Jasper Deng, Bovlb: (and all the others), I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if it is legitimate for me to post here, but in case it is, I would like to comment on the infinite block for @MovieFex:. I am also a user who has had numerous frustrating interactions with MovieFex, mostly on the German WP, less here in Wikidata. His/her communication style is indeed often abrasive, combative, dismissive and contrarian-for-the-sake-of-it. MovieFex quite frequently reverts without even a minimum of discussion, and has quick-deleted (without response) numerous constructive discussion attempts by me, when placed on his personal discussion page. So yes, I agree that MovieFex needs to seriously address these behavior patterns and change for the better.
But still I feel that infinite is far too excessive for a first time block on Wikidata; especially considering the offenses being debated here. They are serious, but nowhere near as serious as something like sock puppetry for instance. So I would side with Jasper's first instinct towards a limited block. MovieFex's work here is for the most part very constructive, and he certainly has a lot of passion for Wikidata, as an overview of his/her edit history shows. I fear an infinite block leaves MovieFex too frustrated and aggrieved to actually address his/her behavior, instead leading to more entrenchment of patterns. I believe the punishment should be a bit painful, but proportional to what it wants to achieve, namely an improvement of behavior. So my instinct would be a first block for a week or a month – and only go higher once that shows no effect. That would demonstrate to MovieFex that things are getting serious, and the risk for an infinite block is there – but it offers him/her a realistic chance to be motivated towards positive advancement. Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Their behavior on the German Wikipedia is not particularly indicative of how they'd behave here if they were unblocked. Wikidata is a multicultural project to a far greater degree than any individual language edition of any other project (excluding Commons). I suspect that MovieFex does not understand that their behavior comes off as aggressive, as it may be the case that in their original community, being blunt and forceful is typical in discussions. I agree in principle with Sprachraum.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I'm a native German and as such I do have an understanding about the difference between being blunt and being aggressive in German culture. While German culture is often more blunt then US culture, the behavior at question here doesn't fall into that category. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) @Sprachraum: This board is for discussion of matters that (likely) require some action by an administrator, but we welcome input from everyone. On a technical note, MovieFex is blocked indefinitely, not infinitely. In many cases, these end up being the same thing, but sometimes an indefinite block is merely waiting for some event. As administrators, we are tasked with applying blocks (and protections) as a way to prevent future disruption, not as a punishment for past behaviour. We always have to weigh the disruption-prevention benefits of such interventions against their costs. An indefinite block (or any block, really) can end as soon as an administrator believes it is not necessary. Cases like this one, where we have a strong contributor with intermittent behavioural problems, are the hardest for us to deal with. While such editors appear to be a net positive, it's hard to estimate the invisible cost of other potential contributors that have been driven away from the project by their behaviour. The ideal resolution here would be if we could find a way to unblock them that did not lead to future disruption. Bovlb (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, indefinite does not mean infinite. With consensus the user could be unblocked at a later date. --Rschen7754 07:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please nuke Kuripansaiyoh

Hello, could you please nuke Kuripansaiyoh's contribs? His items are basically empty, with no indication of meeting the notability policy. Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Martin Urbanec: There's no reason to nuke anything here. Museums in Japan can be notable for Wikidata. It would likely to make sense to fill out more information, but I see no reason for direct admin intervention. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, perhaps should've googled better prior to posting. On the other hand, I do feel that items that don't contain anything that would let a machine to identify the subject of the item can be deleted as "The item contains no data, or is blank." per the deletion policy. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question seems well intentioned at producing a list of museums (which can be identified given the information of name+address+website). To the extend that you wish for the information to contain more data, speaking to the user in question seems to me like the much better alternative to simply deleting their contributions. Pushing a GLAM person who wants to contribute away, doesn't seem wise. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/1997kB

As required by policy, this is a notification regarding my request for CheckUser permission. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:42.113.93.156

42.113.93.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam. SCP-2000 (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been warned. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DenesFeri

Hi! Could someone explain this user that he should not remove or change sourced statements. For details please see User_talk:Succu#Odontoceti_-_Toothed_whale. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And could someone explain to Succu that classifications change from time to time. If a genus belong to a certain subtribe or tribe is not a viewpoint, but a fact. Same thing can't have multiple viewpoints. The Earth is round not flat; can't be both. Thank you. DenesFeri (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: „classifications change from time to time“. That's exactly what we record here (=taxonomic viewpoints/opinions/circumscriptions) preferably with a reference. But this is nothing an admin can jugde. The repeated removal or change of sourced statements is an issue for our admins here. --Succu (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DenesFeri, Succu: I fixed it the way it should be (I think). DenesFeri, the way you edited the item, it suggested that the sources indicated support the point of view "parvorder", while they don't. Therefore, as Succu suggested, you should add a second statement for the rank being "parvorder", apart from the already existing "suborder". Please, bear in mind that in taxonomy especially in the higher taxon ranks there are hardly any "facts", but almost always "opinions" that may be widely shared, or be different among authors. It is perfectly fine to have different ranks with one taxon here on wikidata. Please, be a bit patient with each other. Lymantria (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what was said above, using {{Ping project|Taxonomy}} to get additional editors to look at a discussion like this where two people have different opinions would be a useful when there are disagreements. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Special:Contributions/82.78.75.241

The IP accounts spotted at Special:Permalink/1282350642#unsourced_junk/vandalism_entries_by_IP continues to add junk to Wikidata or change statements chaotically. Please consider blocking. @Zaccarias: Ping for you. Gikü (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noctuoidea

I didn't know where to report this, so I'm commenting here. I created an article of Noctuoidea on Wikipedia Jp, but I can't link between languages as the page of Q133240 is locked. What should I do? --森津 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it for you. Lymantria (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. --森津 (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a "good article" icon to the Russian language article "Mitrospingus" (Reed Tanagers), since it was selected.

I want to add a "good article" icon to the Russian language article "Mitrospingus" (Тростниковые танагры), since it was selected. I am a new voter and I need to get the status of a trusted user in order to add icons, how can I do this? --Good Joker 777 (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Joker 777, I have given you confirmed right, so you should be able to add these icons now. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1997kB, Thank you! --Good Joker 777 (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2804:D55:5247:4400:5EE:7CED:6663:EB68

2804:D55:5247:4400:5EE:7CED:6663:EB68 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism--Trade (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trade, ✓ Done Blocked /64 for a week. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:عمراحمد_صالح_النمر_عبدالله

عمراحمد_صالح_النمر_عبدالله (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism. LiberatorG (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Sylvain Ribault

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T270843

User created thousands of empty items. Kindly nuke. Ping @Multichill, Mahir256: --Minorax (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done, but the rest will have to wait until they show up in Special:Nuke.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those remaining item creations seem to be missing in the recentchanges table completely. I don't think they will show up on Special:Nuke at all. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be a bug. I thought replication lag was the issue but evidently the items were made so quickly that they didn't make it into the table. A script might be necessary... otherwise we'd have to delete the >1k remaining items manually.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes clearly a bug. I think we should file a bug report for the devs and maybe keep the items for a while in order to allow an investigation. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just saw this after I posted at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request:_Blank_pages_created_by_Sylvain_Ribault. Bovlb (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Texaner

Texaner (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: I'd like to ask help. Even though he was warned by me and Máté, Texaner still add unnecessary disambiguation information to Hungarian labels. When we had undid some of his edits and pointed out that “disambiguation information belongs in the description”, he only called us assholes and questioned our intellectual capability, but he did not stop. As I'm involved in the matter, I'd ask someone else to act, if it's needed, before the mess becomes even greater. Thank you! Bencemac (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both his actions and tone are very problematic. – Máté (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just responded in that thread. Hazard-SJ (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Arturo_Shakur are vandalism only

I checked some of their diffs and they are here simply to vandalize wikidata: Special:Contributions/Arturo_Shakur 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5 Please block 'em. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that those examples look bad, but other recent edits seem OK. In such a case, it is better to engage with the user first. I have notified them of this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Selena Gomez (Q83287)

Vandalism--Trade (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done semiprotected indef. Lymantria (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unprotect Elliot Page (Q173399)

No discussion is ongoing. Was mostly resolved before the protection was done anyways. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GreenComputer, Silesianus, Minerva97: You are correct that there is no discussion ongoing. Since the protection was added, there does not appear to have been any discussion on the talk page about the subject of the edit war, nor have any of the four editors I called out (OP included) participated in any discussion there. I'm afraid that this is not strong evidence that the edit war would not continue were the protection to be lifted. Also, while I do not "own" the protection, it would have been polite to ping me when raising the matter here. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last comment should have been @BrokenSegue and CC the others. Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't added to the conversation there because I already agreed with what was said and think the current situation is fine. Plus the unfulfilled requests for edits suggests the protection is doing some harm. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrokenSegue: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you have not participated in the discussion because you like the version that was protected. Supposing we lifted protection, and someone immediately reverted this change, how would you respond? I'm afraid that liking the frozen version is not a good reason to avoid discussion. And I agree that the protection comes with a cost. The protection could have been lifted three weeks ago if some discussion had taken place, so it is my view that the blame for the ongoing harm lies with those who fail to discuss (including you). My alternative would have been to block the edit warriors instead, which would also have come at a cost. CC @Bluerasberry Bovlb (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nobody in the comments has expressed an opinion I disagree with. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK. I have downgraded the item to semi-protection, on the grounds that, although there has been a disappointing lack of discussion, it has already been protected for longer than would be normal for an edit war. (It's typically one week.) I'll keep an eye on it and, if the edit war restarts, will consider further protection or blocks. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems cool! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deleting an item I created in error as well as some empty batches of items I made by mistake.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104531613

Please delete Jtm-lis (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)--[reply]

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for Mia Malkova (Q15576453)

Vandalism--Trade (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 14:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2804:D55:5200::/40

2804:D55:5200::/40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism. Only vandalism in this IPv6 block. LiberatorG (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of concern that an IPv6 /40 is a bit large, I blocked Special:Contributions/2804:d55:524d:4500::/64 (and 1997kB already blocked Special:Contributions/2804:d55:5247:4400::/64 2 days ago). Those 2 ranges should cover the majority of the edits so far. I've also blocked Special:Contributions/2804:D55:5253:D700:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2804:D55:5250:6C00:0:0:0:0/64. Let's continue monitoring to see if that helps, or if a larger range will be needed. Hazard-SJ (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LiberatorG, Hazard-SJ: The collateral damage of blocking the whole /40 is minimal (as I verified with CU) and so I've applied a /40 rangeblock for a week.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Every anon edit that has ever been made from that /40 is vandalism, of the same type. –LiberatorG (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated creation of this item Q104540759 , needs investigation

In this month I have noticed repeated creation of wikidata item (atleast more than 10 items) for this entity named Aakash Kumar Jha . After deletion its created again the next day . Here is recently deleted item by his name Q104520690 .I want Administators to look for socks . Here are few more Q104535539 , Q104539856 Rockpeterson (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All items created by this user are for promotional purpose only with no sitelinks and which does not require structural need . The items created must be deleted as well Rockpeterson (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Request filed at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robertphilip4772, items deleted. Lymantria (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

37.134.152.126

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

Please, block it, all its edits are vandalism. --FogueraC (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for a week. Lymantria (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Q206820 --Vlixes (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to include our conversation. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content issue and it looks like both of you rather engage in edit-warring then bringing up the issue somewhere where other users can weigh in to find consensus about which image should be used. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure to read you, ChristianK1, more reasons to be around here. I first reverted this editor because it looked like vandalism. Once he reverted to his edit, I took a closer look. As a result, I told him to stop edit-warring and after that I restored the status quo. Despite my warning, he reverted to his edit once again. For that reason, now another administrator needs to take action. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreasmperu: It's unclear to me why you consider the edit to be vandalism. An image of a portrai was replaced by one with higher resolution and brigher color. Why is that vandalism? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was vandalism. I said that at first glance it looked to me like vandalism because an unconfirmed user was changing a file named commons:File:Anders Zorn - Självporträtt i rött (1915).jpg for another one named commons:File:Zornself.jpg. The first image has a lot of information, whereas the other one not so much. I just found that the user nominated the original file for deletion instead of uploading a new version of the image. And before you ask, I have no personal interest in this item nor in either of the images. Nonetheless, I think it's better to let other administrator deal with this user's behaviour. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1331103883"