Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 289: Line 289:


Unmarked edits are those of either the listed sock or the master (Warrior). [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Unmarked edits are those of either the listed sock or the master (Warrior). [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

:Sorry, Been pretty busy lately. I will have a look at it in upcomming days. &#8208;&#8208;[[User:1997kB|1997kB]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:1997kB|talk]]) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


== Report concerning User:Elizium23 ==
== Report concerning User:Elizium23 ==

Revision as of 03:02, 6 August 2023

Administrator not following civil or due process

I have pretty much had it with Bovlb. I have now been given two incivility warnings and in my case both are, in my opinion, unjustified. [Apart from the fact that the use of your templated warnings are just butt ugly, impersonal and unhelpful, and in their method of application uncivil in themselves.]

First occasion I disputed that person's hard block on an experienced user, as I thought that an administrator had other components of the admin toolkit to be used than just a hard site block. I asked for that blocked to referred to the community, per WD's policy, and a right of a user without a conflict of interest. Despite my request, it was not referred to the community, and should have been referred whether I was civil or uncivil, I followed the requested process. There was a discussion in situ to the block conversation (per User talk:Tagishsimon). The upshot of that block has done as predicted, with the user having stopped editing at WD.

Second occasion, I was removing links from subpages at enWS that should not be linked to items as best understood for how enWS operates, and the guidance developed around links--WD:Books and WD:Wikisource and its establishment conversations. The admin reverted my removals with templated warning that they are valid links, while making no justification for that assessment, no questions on my user talk page, no pointing to criteria for the assessment about the validity, just that ugly application of the template.

It is not the job of administrators to be the arbiters of what is, or is not, a desired link from the sister sites to WD, that is a community decision. The guidance exists, and there is the communities at other sites that have clear input into these matters. That is overreach by an administrator.

Please refrain from removing valid links from items. Your edits do not appear to be constructive, and have been reverted. If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox. Thank you

IMO that is a rude, insulting joke from an administrator with 73k edits, to an editor with 10 years experience at WD, 300k primarily personal edits, 10k+ items created. I am worthy of a civil conversation and exploration of an idea, not the facile throwing of templates.

Administrators are meant to be helpful to the community, not police. They are meant to be acting based on the consensus of the community--either from an immediate discussion, a widely discussed agreed conversation that determines a way to proceed, or the determined policy of the community. They are not meant to be acting in a threatening means that discourages established and respected members of the community from wishing to partake, which is where I am now situated.

I have done plenty in WD for over 10 years, especially in the initial phase of bringing WSes onboard, and my personal conceit is that I have an expectation that I am worthy of that conversation and the time for that conversation. Yes, I will challenge you, and yes I can occasionally get prickly, but as an imperfect human being I have both strengths and weaknesses. I also know as a long-established editor and advanced rights holder through WMF communities that you AGF and work with people who have promise. So similarly, yes, I will take being challenged, and yes, you can get prickly, and yes I will work with you where you are trying to make things better, even if I am never going to be your friend, as I can separate my emotions from the job we do together and what we are trying to produce.

Yes, it is the task of administrators to make deletion decisions, however, it should be based on a properly formed item that complies with the site, not based on something incorrect "frozen in time" item. The deletion of an item is independent of whether a link should exist. The removal of incorrect links is not against the policy of this site.

I put this matter before the community of administrators.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a lot to unpack there, so I’ll try to go through it point by point. Sorry about making this response so long.
I want to preface my remarks by pointing out that, as an administrator, I see it as my job to protect the project from disruption and enforce the consensus of the community. Am I perfect? Certainly not. I’m sure that I make plenty of mistakes, and there have undoubtedly been cases where I could have done better. I welcome feedback from all sources and always strive to improve.
  • Regarding the block on Tagishimon. I am sad that they are no longer contributing here, but at the same time, we cannot accept arbitrary levels of abusive behaviour from editors, just because of their positive contributions. Dealing with abusive behaviour from otherwise productive editors is one of the hardest and most thankless tasks for an administrator to deal with. I would love to know a better way of dealing with such cases.
  • The history of events is fairly clear from User talk:Tagishsimon, but in brief they behaved atrociously to both Paucabot and Data Consolidation Officer (with a civility warning in between), so I gave a short block. Tagishimon did not acknowledge either the warning or the block.
  • During the block, Billinghurst leapt in with an extremely aggressive response (in both content and edit summaries). I tried to respond as fully and fairly as I could, but I declined either to modify the block or to escalate the discussion to another forum in the absence of an unblock request from Tagishimon. If Billinghurst wanted to escalate the discussion at the time, they could easily have done so.
  • I really don’t know why Billinghurst chose to insert themselves into Tagishimon’s block discussion in the way they did. Notably, they evaded my questions about that, and they had a curious lack of interest in discussing the abusive behaviour that was the basis for the block.
  • As a separate matter from the block discussion, I also asked Billinghurst to be more civil in future communication. With hindsight, it might have been better for me to involve another administrator to deliver that message, as Billinghurst might have found it easier to accept that message from someone else. The main outcome of that discussion for me was that Billinghurst said that it is important to listen to other people and take criticism. I found that to be an encouraging start and encouraged them to seek wider input on the matter from people they respected.
  • Billinghurst says that they have received two civility warnings. To the best of my knowledge, I have only given them the one described above, so either I’m forgetting one, this is referring to one received from someone else, or they were editing under a different account.
  • Three days Five weeks ago, Billinghurst nominated a number of WikiSource subpage items for deletion. They also deleted the sitelinks from all of the items. As is normal practice at RFD, I restored the sitelinks and asked them not to do that in future. In closing the discussion, Ameisenigel reiterated the same point.
  • Today, Billinghurst nominated a number of WikiSource subpage items for deletion and again deleted the sitelinks. I again reverted and noted it in the RFD thread. RFD has a fast turnover, and it is easy to miss responses there. Assuming good faith, I thought that it was possible that they had missed the fact that multiple people were asking them not to do this and the reasons presented. I also wanted future administrators dealing with Billinghurst to know that this issue had already been raised. That is why I also added a talk page message, and yes I did use a templating mechanism. With hindsight, there is probably some better way that I could have expressed the same idea, but I felt it would be redundant to add yet another lengthy explanation. It seems hyperbolic to describe the use of a standard user talk template as “a rude, insulting joke”,
  • In the paragraphs above, Billinghurst makes much of their status and experience, with the suggestion that this should perhaps afford them some special treatment or extra courtesy. They made similar points earlier when I asked them to be more civil. I believe that I have treated Billinghurst the same way that I would treat any other editor, veteran or newbie, productive contributor or would-be spammer. I don’t think that seeking special treatment like this is an appropriate way to behave here.
As I said at the start, I welcome feedback, and I always want to learn how to do better. Bovlb (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding only having read what was written here and having participated in the discussion on User_talk:Tagishsimon. Generally my thoughts are:
  1. I recognize that billinghurst is a valuable user who has contributed a lot.
  2. The block of Tagishsimon was legitimate and unfortunate. billinghurst refused to answer my questions in that conversation. If Tagishsimon had asked for an unblock I would've seriously considered it (I generally like to give lots of second chances). They did not (as far as I can tell).
  3. The civility warning was fine though I personally wouldn't do so
  4. Your quoting of "300k primarily personal edits" and so on feels totally out of place. As Bovlb said, we should be treating everyone as equally as possible. But if you really want to compare experience / impact to Wikidata... well Bovlb is honestly one of the few people holding this place together. I barely know who billinghurst is (I just don't see you around). And I say this as someone with >2x as many edits as billinghurst (note: edit count on Wikidata is close to meaningless which is why citing it is so out of place)
  5. Using templates to leave feedback is fine. Sure a custom note would be preferred but wikidata is a high volume place. Try not to take it personally.
  6. Removing sitelinks from a page before listing for deletion is improper. Deleting information before listing for deletion will give the reviewing admin the wrong idea about the state of the item. While I check the history every time before deleting not every admin does and if you assume the item just naturally had no sitelinks you may decide to delete for wrong reasons. I have personally warned users about deleting sitelinks/statements before listing for deletion. If you think the sitelinks are wrong for some reason make a not of that in the nomination for deletion. This is a all a minor issue of procedure though.
BrokenSegue (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I just wanted to add that, had Tagishsimon made any sort of unblock request, I would almost certainly have either granted it or escalated it here to AN so that other admins could review.
I also recognise that billinghurst is a valuable user who has contributed a lot. Bovlb (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that users mentioned above all have valuable contributions to Wikidata. Still awareness may grow that typed communication might be received more heavily than spoken communication. More strongly so when native speakers of English use their full language skills communicating with non-native speakers like Paucabot.
I think the blocking of Tagishimon was appropriate. Yes, the block could have been a shorter one or a partial block just to two namespaces, but I am pretty sure I would have made the same or similar judgements, as from the edits I have seen I would not expect them to have cooled down quickly. The reaction by billinghurst to it was IMHO over the top and hardly justified, despite the fact that a question about a block is always justified. They were not really posing a question, but using strong words. Not asking a reconsideration, but requesting to take the decision to the community.
I do understand however that the message by Bovlb If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox to a user who is hardly a newby, be it from a template or not, is considered an insulting joke. I myself would consider it that way as well, athough I think I would keep my coolness. It is the danger of using impersonal templates. However, comparing numbers of edits is not at all a way to discuss that. It is fairly unimportant who is the alpha male here. Please. --Lymantria (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the sentence "If you would like to test out editing, please use the Wikidata Sandbox." was clearly not applicable to this situation. The other three sentences were. (I note that the "warn this user" tool does not present a preview of the message being sent.) When I am sent a template message, I accept this as a time-saving convenience and don't nitpick whether all of the wording is applicable to my specific context.
As I said before, I should probably have taken the time to write a custom message here, but I was already a little burnt out from restoring eleven sitelinks, and I had real-life commitments that were demanding my attention. I also thought, apparently incorrectly, that it might be safer to stick to the tried-and-tested phrasing.
I might be wrong, but my understanding from what Billinghurst said above is that it was the fact of their receiving a templated warning that they objected to, rather than the specific wording of the template, although it's also possible that our templates are "butt ugly, impersonal and unhelpful". I have never been a big fan of the idea that certain editors cannot be templated, but I will definitely give this more thought if I find myself in a similar situation in the future.
If our templates are that bad, then we shouldn't sending them to anyone. Newbies deserve as much respect as veterans. I note that, for the handful of user warning templates I personally have authored (Uw-notability, Uw-merge, wd-deleted, ETA Uw-empty), I have worked hard to make them friendly and helpful, but it is impossible to avoid the inclusion of parts that may not apply to all cases. On the other hand, Wikidata is a language-independent project and the simpler the message, the easier it is to translate, so I can understand the pressure to keep these templates short. Non-English speakers also deserve just as much respect. Bovlb (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a user warning template that matches the specific case of a user who blanks an item with good intentions because they think it should be deleted. The template I used was really written with a different situation in mind. I sense that I'm getting a little off-topic here, but I sketched out what such a template might look like. I think it provides the information that OP was lacking. Bovlb (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
uw-blanking

Hi! I notice that you have blanked an item (either fully or partially), by removing some combination of sitelinks, claims, and labels, or by replacing labels with strings such as “DELETE THIS”. I realise that you may believe that this item ought to be deleted, but I’m afraid that’s not how we do things here. If you want to request deletion of an item, please do so at Wikidata:Requests for deletions. Even once you have done this, you should still not be changing the item to anticipate its deletion. There are several important reasons for this:

  • An administrator (and possibly others) will want to review the item to assess whether it ought to be deleted. If you have already removed information, then that may make it harder for them to determine correctly whether the item is notable. In particular, a sitelink ususally implies that the item is notable so needs to be reviewed carefully.
  • An administrator may decide to decline your deletion request. In this case, your removals will need to be reverted. The same thing applies if the item is deleted and later undeleted.
  • It is possible that the item may be found to be a duplicate of another item. In this case, the two items will be merged using a special tool. It is helpful for this merge for the item to retain as much information as possible. Incorrect labels like “DELETE THIS” may end up in the result.
  • Wikidata administrators have access to a special searchable archive of deleted items. This is used, for example, to determine if a newly-created item is a recreation of one that has been created in the past. For this reason, it is helpful if the deleted version of an item is as complete as possible.
  • If we remove a sitelink, but the article remains on the client project, then someone on that client project may end up creating a new item, duplicating the original.
Bovlb (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm kinda confused about the comment that the templates are "are just butt ugly". Like... does the aesthetics of the template matter? And what exactly is ugly about a bunch of text? It feels needlessly rude. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Rough language. --Lymantria (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Billinghurst is obviously angry, and this is reflected in their choice of language. Let try to focus on the underlying message and not get distracted by the emotional rhetoric. Our user warning templates undoubtedly have room for improvement.
Since Billinghurst apparently wants to continue the discussion of Tagishsimon's block, I think it would be productive if they could answer some of the outstanding questions related to that:
  • Have you reviewed the evidence supporting this block? Do you believe it was acceptable behaviour and deserves no sanction?
  • Why did you choose to take an interest in this specific block? What drew it to your attention?
Bovlb (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:uw-blanking has been created. Bovlb (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While completely unrelated to the issue of removing sitelinks, another factor that complicated the handling of billinghurst's deletion requests is the fact that N1.5 is explicitly silent on the question of subpages in WikiSource. It would be really helpful if an editor well-versed in WikiSource could lead a community effort to resolve that problem. Bovlb (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, billinghurst is such a person. May be we can open an RfC and add the clarification there? Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that billinghurst opened this discussion and then promptly ignored it. People put time into reading and responding and we get silence in response. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem a little disrespectful.
While we’re waiting, I’d like to expand on the questions I posed above. I originally posed them in Tagishsimon’s block discussion because I thought they might hold the key to understanding why billinghurst acted as they did. From billinghurst’s apparent unwillingness to answer them, I have to suspect that the answers will reflect badly on them. Bovlb (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem bizarre that billinghurst has nothing further to say here. They’re clearly still editing.
As I said above, I’m always willing to listen to feedback, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for them to bring big accusations to a public forum like this and not be prepared either to substantiate them or to defend their own actions. Why would someone start a topic like this and then just disappear? They said above, "I will take being challenged [...] as I can separate my emotions from the job we do together", which seems poles apart from what we're seeing here.
Billinghurst has a long-standing reputation across many projects for being level-headed and showing good judgment. Now this. It just doesn’t add up. Bovlb (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing has been nagging at me about this. Billinghurst's complaint led with "I have now been given two incivility warnings", but I'm only aware of one. No evidence has come forward of anyone else giving them a civility warning (at least on this project), and no-one has suggested any other action of mine would meet that description. Obviously billinghurst has not returned to clarify that point.
It's possible they they construed the sitelink removal warning as a civility warning, but that doesn't make sense because it would imply that they don't understand the word "civility".
The only other civility warning involved in this saga (and the only other one I can recall giving recently) was the one I gave to Tagishsimon before their block. That doesn't make sense either because why would billinghusrt refer to that as being given to them? Bovlb (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I can say that I am neither happy nor comfortable with the responses so far. No signs of enquiry, seems to me just defences.

Firstly. I was putting out a case, not entering into a debate. I am happy to let my initial set of words play out. I have no need to get into an incessant argument, like some, to bang on and labour your point, nor throw in distractions. No one has actually asked me a question, nor asked for clarification of what I said, nor posed something to me, so what do you want? I was editing at enWS, with the absolutely bare minimal interaction with this site as possible, however, no interaction is difficult. I was also undertaking the myriad of xwiki tasks that I perform.

Secondly. Nowhere has anyone provided any evidence that the link removals were or are against policy. None. You can quote your practice at deletion discussions all you want, however, you should be citing policy that states that links are not to be removed.

Thirdly. I was removing links as they should not have been there. Fullstop. That simple. It was not so the items were to have been deleted. As I have already said, you can keep or delete the items, I care not, that is this site's decision. The links though should not have been there and they should never be restored, they are just wrong. There was no basis for the creation of the links, there is no basis for their being re-added through reversion. No one can point to the correctness or the basis for the link creation as being correct. [How many times do I need to state that to be heard?] From now, I will undertake the practice of just removing incorrectly made links to the WSes, and will not be nominating those pages for deletion. There is no means to indicate the purpose of link removal. I will leave you can to manage those items yourself, to clean up your own mess.

Fourthly. A blanket rule for subpage linking from the Wikisources cannot be made, it is unfortunately not that simple, hence the non-descript wording. Some pages are notable, and some pages are not, it depends on the parent work, the authorship as explained on other guidance pages. It is not about whether it is a subpage or not, it is about the content of the page. The Wikisources are not the WPs!!! I have explained that on numerous occasions, especially in the case of Heidi. You haven't informed yourself about the subject matter or the Wikisources, you have your brains stuck in WP-infogoria. Obviously you are not listening to someone who has the experience and knowledge about the subject. You are too busy telling me that I am wrong about the site and its links, and yet that is the site where I produce output and link it here. I have cited the discussions from 2013 about why subpages were not distinguishable and why the comment was written as it was. I have cited Wikidata:Books as a better place to identify how works are done and more akin to suitable notability guidance.

Fifthly. Those administrators who comment about a person's motivation to comment on another's block. Come off it. It is not solely up to the blocked user to question a block. Admins should never be defensive, or worse, offensive when asked to justify their actions, or when asked to take it to the community. No where are we? What I said would come to pass, has come to pass. What more needs to be said? You had better alternatives, and you didn't use them. You used a sledgehammer to crack the nut, not an iota of nuance. [Experienced admin speaking.]

Sixthly. Civility warning. Bovlb. You put that second warning under the civility warning. Check the history of my talk page. Don't obfuscate.

Seventhly. With regard to the block of Tagishsimon. Wikidata:Block policy has the paragraph

"If any block or unblock is controversial, a short discussion should commence via the administrators' noticeboard on which course of action to take. Administrators should be mindful of both any past consensus that has been established in regard to blocking the user, and any relevant policies related to the block."

which to me was what I was asking the administrator to do with referring it to the community. Seems entirely appropriate way for me to raise that in the block discussion on the user's page to the blocking administrator. Weirder for me to step here to do that for a 3rd party block rather than at the block discussion. What did you do? You went on attack on that page, and on my user talk page. Enquiry? No. De-escalation? No.

Eighthly. Preferred treatment? No, I didn't ask for preferred treatment. I asked for fair treatment according to the policy, and I asked for the policy that my doing link removals was incorrect to be cited. I asked for consideration. If that use of your tools is your equitable treatment, then all I can say is hand back your mop.

Ninthly. My roles elsewhere. Bovlb, you initially broached the matter of my advanced rights elsewhere, first. You tried to throw it in my face, you tried to school me. If you start that sort of approach, then expect a reply based on experiences of those advanced rights. Don't get in a harumph and come back and tell me that I am lauding my experience over you. My experience is my practice, my enquiries, my learnings, my failings, my growth, through that time, are all part of my experience and inform my opinion.

Tenthly. Trash templates. Bot operators are responsible for the work of their bots. Well, if you put the template on a page, you are responsible for the words that it says and any interpretation of that template. If it is widely inaccurate, and/or inappropriate to the scenario, then don't add it. If you don't know what it says, then don't add it. Don't blame the recipient! Own it.

Eleventhly. Business. Not a reasonable excuse. I understand we get busy, feel pressured, want to have a resolution, etc. and we make quick/half-guessing/rash/... decisions. Been there, done that, possibly still do. It is always your choice, it is an explanation, never an excuse. Be reflective, own your decisions, and the issues that they cause. Learn to listen to the other person, to defuse, get off your administrative mop, and converse. Stop. Listen. Assess. Reflect.

I am now assessing the scope of my future contributions to this site. I'll still be here, as I need to be as the Wikisources made the clear decision to data populate here and use that data at our site. Outside of that ... <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Much of this has already been addressed above, so I'll just reply briefly now. Please let me know if I'm missing anything major.
  • Blocking policy indeed says that controversial blocks should be discussed here. I can see that an argument could be made that a single person posting as you did is sufficient to qualify, but I really have trouble seeing that a block is controversial when the person blocked does not themselves controvert it. In particular, I believe that this part of the policy is intended to allow for a blocked person's case to be heard by the community when the blocked person is otherwise restricted from communicating because of the block. I don't think it's intended to save a third party the trouble of starting the discussion. I'd be glad to hear other opinions, but I really don't think that there's any issue here with my declining to start a discussion for you that you could easily have started yourself. Given that you apparently thought it to be extremely important to have the discussion, why did you not start it?
  • "It is not solely up to the blocked user to question a block." — I completely agree. "Admins should never be defensive, or worse, offensive when asked to justify their actions" — Again, I completely agree. This also applies to non-admins. I hope I was able to respond to all of your questions in Tagishsimon's block discussion without being either defensive or offensive, but I am always willing to learn how to do better.
  • "What I said would come to pass, has come to pass." — I'm happy to see that Tagishsimon has now resumed editing.
  • "No one has actually asked me a question" — @Billinghurst I would be glad if you could respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you above.
  • "use of your tools" — Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe the only use of tools here was the block on Tagishsimon. I don't understand why you are suggesting that I used admin tools on you.
  • There's something I didn't bother to mention earlier, that is perhaps worth bringing up now. On two occasions, I restored sitelinks after billinghurst removed them. On both occasions, billinghurst then reverted at least one of my edits in order to remove the sitelink again. I did not restore those sitelinks a second time because I did not want to get dragged into an edit war, and I did not want to get into the position of having to use full protection or partial blocks against billinghurst. Instead I backed off and left it for someone else to deal with.
  • " Be reflective, own your decisions, and the issues that they cause. Learn to listen to the other person, to defuse, [...] and converse. Stop. Listen. Assess. Reflect." — This is good advice.
  • "I am now assessing the scope of my future contributions to this site" — While I would be sorry to lose your contributions, I don't think that this is an appropriate way to try to win an argument.
  • This response gives me no confidence that we won't see more improper sitelink removal from billinghurst in the future.
Bovlb (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“There's something I didn't bother to mention earlier” — I apologise for not properly explaining the purpose of this bullet. I shared this for three reasons:
  1. Billinghurst wants to characterize me as being an admin who reaches for admin tools first and does not seek de-escalation. These observations show the opposite.
  2. If we consider the two incidents, including the original deletion of sitelinks and then the round of reversions, then billinghurst has had at least four rounds of deleting sitelinks. The first may be innocent, but the other three show a willful disregard for our processes. (In fact, this is not the first time that an administrator has raised the issue of sitelink deletion with billinghurst. See User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2018#Wikisource.)
  3. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but throughout this entire incident, I’ve felt like billinghurst has been trying to provoke me into a reaction so that they have some bad behaviour to point to, but I have been consistently failing to take the bait. It’s hard to see any valid purpose for the re-deletion of a sitelink except as an attempt to goad me into an edit war or perhaps “involved” use of tools.
Bovlb (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere has anyone provided any evidence that the link removals were or are against policy. None. You can quote your practice at deletion discussions all you want, however, you should be citing policy that states that links are not to be removed. Would it change your mind about this if we held an RfC to add a line to Help:Requests for deletions or Wikidata:Deletion policy about this? Generally "not removing statements/links to items you nominate for deletion" is understood as a rule for the same reason as you shouldn't remove statements from any general item. But if adding this as a concrete rule will make you happier I will gladly open an RfC to have it clarified.
  • No one has actually asked me a question, nor asked for clarification of what I said, nor posed something to me Really? I wrote does the aesthetics of the template matter? And what exactly is ugly about a bunch of text?
BrokenSegue (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"From now, I will undertake the practice of just removing incorrectly made links to the WSes, and will not be nominating those pages for deletion." — This really sounds like billinghurst is threatening to stop doing the thing they were doing correctly (nominating for deletion), but to continuing doing the thing they were doing incorrectly (improper sitelink removal). The effect of this would be to magnify the downside effect of the sitelink deletion. Are they really trying to declare war on Wikidata? This is not going to end well. Bovlb (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“From now, I will undertake the practice of just removing incorrectly made links to the WSes, and will not be nominating those pages for deletion. I am deeply concerned by the fact that billinghurst is clearly threatening to cause more disruption in the future. If they follow through on this threat, then we’re going to have to find an appropriate way to protect the project from them. Do we want to get ahead of this problem or would it be better to ignore the threat and wait until they actually start doing it again?

I know that we don’t do this a lot here, but would it be useful to impose an editing restriction? Say that billinghurst is not allowed to remove any sitelinks from items except either as part of deleting the linked article or when moving the sitelink to another item? This would be a minor restriction as there’s seldom a legitimate reason to do that.

Arguably such an editing restriction is redundant, because it’s already clear that no-one should be removing sitelinks in anticipation of deletion, and editing restrictions are usually used only for behaviour that would otherwise be permitted. I’m suggesting it here because it might help billinghurst if they can see that the community is unified on this issue. No-one wants us to get to the point where we’re imposing blocks, and I’m trying to think of anything that might avoid it. Bovlb (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an edit restricition in this phase of the "conflict" is appropriate. Let's first see what billinghurst will be actually doing. It might be a good idea to mention in the header of WD:RFD that emptying items or links before deletion is not to be done. Or perhaps it is sufficient in cases like this one to point to Wikidata:Be bold. --Lymantria (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I threw the idea out there because I was trying to think of anything we could try that might reduce the likelihood that the "conflict" escalates to the next level.
Agreed with adding to the RFD header, although I see little evidence that people read the text that is already there. (For example, we see a lot of deletion requests for duplicate items.) How about something like:
Do not blank items in anticipation of deletion. In particular, do not remove sitelinks, even if you have requested deletion of the underlying project page or if you think that sitelinks of this type should not have Wikidata items.
Bovlb (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. People might not read it (or be intentionally deaf for the content), but can be pointed to it. --Lymantria (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've inserted it into Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Header/text. Not sure how long it will take to show up. Bovlb (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in. Thanks FuzzyBot! Bovlb (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

{{section resolved|1=[[User:Lymantria|Lymantria]] ([[User talk:Lymantria|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)}}

I would agree that this topic has likely run its course. Many remedies have been discussed and some have been implemented. We are unlikely to get useful further input from the OP. Nevertheless, as this topic contains allegations of misuse of tools, I would prefer that an uninvolved administrator closes it with a summary of the discussion. Bovlb (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To assist, I’ll offer a summary that I believe reflects the discussion above.
  1. The block of Tashishsimon by Bovlb was appropriate.
  2. The intervention of billinghurst into Tashishsimon’s block discussion was uncivil.
  3. Controversial blocks should be discussed by the community, and any administrator reviewing an unblock request should give this serious consideration. There is no such obligation when the block is contested only by a third party who could start a discussion directly.
  4. Items should not be blanked in anticipation of deletion, and sitelinks that are appropriate to an item should not be removed.
  5. We strive to treat everyone in our community with courtesy and respect. We should not give preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of their contributions or status.
Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review - Deletion of Page (Page ID: Q120838505) with Valid Source and Accurate Information

Dear Administrator,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a review of the recent deletion of the page with the title "Ahwelal Records," which had the Page ID: Q120838505. The deletion occurred due to reasons related to "spam / advertising," and I firmly believe this action was a misunderstanding.

I contributed to the page by adding valuable and accurate information, all of which was properly sourced from MusicBrainz (Label ID: a30e8049-060b-4da1-bae5-cd5bc0cd4f44). The content I provided for the page was as follows:

"Ahwelal Records is a young music label est. 2023, empowering diverse talents & fostering creativity. Committed to shaping the industry with innovative contributions."

Additionally, I included the relevant details of the label's country of origin, Germany, and its founding date, 20-01-2023.

I assure you that my contribution was not intended for spam or advertising purposes but rather aimed to provide meaningful and informative content to your esteemed platform. The MusicBrainz source validates the accuracy and legitimacy of the information added, making it a valuable addition to the page.

I kindly request that you thoroughly review the deleted page, taking into consideration the sourced information from MusicBrainz and the relevance of the details provided. I am confident that upon reevaluation, you will find that the content adheres to your website's guidelines and is in no way promotional or spammy.

Please know that I hold great respect for the community guidelines and the integrity of your platform. I am eager to work collaboratively with your team to resolve any concerns or misunderstandings regarding my contribution promptly.

I sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a positive response and a possible reinstatement of the page.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Abdullah Bakkar

User:abdullahbakkar1 Abdullahbakkar1 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant items: Q120838505 (Abdullahbakkar1). CC deleting admins @Wolverène Bovlb (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CC @Madamebiblio as RFD proposer. Bovlb (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The item had a Instagram username (P2003) and a MusicBrainz label ID (P966). The Instagram has no posts yet. MusicBrainz show four releases.
@Abdullahbakkar1 Have you had a chance to read Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion yet? In particular, I draw your attention to the advice that you should bring all notability evidence to your appeal. In particular, while these two properties may serve to identify, they don't demonstrate that the item is sourceable. Do you have any news items about this record label? Does it have a website? Are any artists signed up with it? Bovlb (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bovlb,
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your guidance regarding providing evidence of notability for the deleted page titled "Ahwelal Records" (Page ID: Q120838505).
Upon reviewing the Wikidata Guide to Requests for Undeletion, I understand the importance of showcasing reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate the notability of a subject. While "Ahwelal Records" does not have an official website, I would like to offer the following additional evidence to support the significance and sourceability of the record label:
  1. Recognition in Music Community: Despite not having an official website, "Ahwelal Records" has garnered recognition within the music community. This recognition can be evidenced through discussions and mentions in music-related forums, reputable music blogs, and social media platforms where music enthusiasts and industry professionals discuss emerging record labels and artists.
  2. Artists Associated with "Ahwelal Records": While "Ahwelal Records" does not have an online presence, it has managed to sign and work with notable artists. One such example is the artist "Ahwelal," whose work has been released under the label. This association with notable artists is indicative of the label's significance within the music industry.
  3. Track Release on Major Music Platforms: "Ahwelal Records" has recently released a track titled "Al Mostaqbal" by the artist "Ahwelal." This release is available on prominent music platforms like Spotify. You can find the track at the following link: https://open.spotify.com/track/2WHd0T0qii0HlFd3bpW9QD?si=9d1d48de2e634e14. This provides a legitimate source of the label's activity and involvement in music production and distribution.
  4. Media Coverage: Although the label does not maintain a website, there might be media coverage or press releases that mention "Ahwelal Records" and its activities. Such coverage could provide further evidence of the label's notability and presence in the music industry.
I understand that an official website serves as a substantial source of information for a record label's notability. However, in the absence of a website, the aforementioned evidence highlights the label's significance and activity within the music community.
In light of this new information, I kindly request that you reconsider the deletion of the page "Ahwelal Records" (Page ID: Q120838505). The content added was sourced from reputable and verifiable platforms, and I believe it contributes valuable information to your community.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. If you require any further details or have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your understanding, and I am hopeful for a positive resolution and the possible reinstatement of the page.
Sincerely,
Abdullah Bakkar Abdullahbakkar1 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdullahbakkar1 Thanks for following up. I'm afraid that the ideal thing for you to provide here is specific links that establish notability. It doesn't really help us for you to just suggest that such resources might exist. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Has Ahwelal Records signed any artists other than Ahwelal? Bovlb (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bovlb,
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your guidance on providing specific evidence to establish the notability of "Ahwelal Records" (Page ID: Q120838505).
Regarding your question about other artists signed with the label, I regret to inform you that "Ahwelal Records" has not worked with any other artists besides "Ahwelal." However, I can confirm that the label has multiple tracks released by "Ahwelal" available on various music platforms.
Specifically, "Ahwelal Records" has several tracks by "Ahwelal" distributed on major music platforms like Spotify, https://music.apple.com/de/album/al-mostaqbal/1697432949?i=1697432950&l=en-GB. These tracks showcase the label's commitment to supporting the work of this particular artist and demonstrate its presence in the music industry.
While there are no additional artists associated with the label at this time, the collection of tracks released by "Ahwelal Records" serves as tangible evidence of its activity and contributions within the music community.
I hope this information helps provide clarity on "Ahwelal Records" and its notability. I understand the importance of precise and verifiable evidence, and I am committed to offering the most accurate information possible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I appreciate your consideration for the reinstatement of the "Ahwelal Records" page.
Should you require any further information or have additional inquiries, please feel free to reach out.
Sincerely,
Abdullah Bakkar Abdullahbakkar1 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources that demonstrate this record label is notable. Nothing you've supplied thus far is sufficient. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of understanding notability continues: Q120897464 CC @Bovlb Madamebiblio (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madamebiblio Thanks for noting this. I was actually wondering when that would show up.
While I agree with you, my personal bar for instant deletion is pretty high and this doesn't pass it. My preferred path is to take such things through RFD where multiple editors can collaborate to reach a decision. Bovlb (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb Agreeeee. I restrained myself from marking for deletion and searched for identifiers... RFD will be a good option. Madamebiblio (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep deleted Per BrokenSegue. It doesn't look the OP is going to provide any additional evidence of notability. Bovlb (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right to be forgotten

Hi,

Marie-Claude Lemaire (Q89127676) contacted us (via the mail-list) and want this item to be deleted. Not sure what to do exactly in this case (most data are widely public) so I'm leaving this message here.

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author on many represented academic publications. Award recipient. Many valid identifiers. No properties that raise any obvious privacy concerns. It's hard to see how we could do anything here to significantly address privacy concerns.
I believe the correct process here would be to post this on RFD for discussion, but I can't see it getting deleted.
Better advice for the individual would be to work on getting the other identifiers disabled. Bovlb (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "right of erasure" in de EU by art. 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (Q1172506), that has replaced the "right to be forgotten". I don't see how Q89127676 brings any privacy issues, it doesn't contain much personal information, except perhaps sex or gender (P21) and country of citizenship (P27) and more far fetched academic degree (P512), field of work (P101) or occupation (P106). But most of this is readily seen from the awards won, the linked scholarly articles, ... Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation has some legal advice? --Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please point people to WD:BLP in such cases. They should contact privacy@wikidata.org if they want to remove personal data. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think privacy@wikidata.org may be the "mail-list" that OP is referring to. Bovlb (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this issue comes up from time to time and I wish we had a more clear policy. generally we've refused to delete. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through meta and foundation and could not find anything helpful for GDPR, right to be forgotten, or right of erasure. Bovlb (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing meta:Right to vanish Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those apply to editors rather than article/item subjects... –FlyingAce✈hello 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps she could register as an editor here, and then take it all with her! Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, I did explain most of this to the person who claim that the item should disappear and that she didn't consent to it (and so on). This person seems to be a bit confused about the nature and operation of Wikidata and still adamant to disappear from Wikidata.
For the record there is now also Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q89127676.
By "mail-list", I was speaking of wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org (obviously not giving a link for privacy, you should be able to find it easily) and pointed to privacy@wikidata.org.
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that pageviews went from 6 to 269 after the initial post, predictably. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=wikidata.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Q89127676 Infrastruktur (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly improper that this item has been deleted out-of-process, and while a deletion discussion was in process. See that discussion for more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Ancient Warrior History

Ancient Warrior History (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Adding WP:CASTE (Indian caste)-based racist nonsense to descriptions all over Wikidata. E.g. here (shudra is a deogatory and offensive term), here (Mulla is a highly offensive term for Muslims which the vandal replaced the latter with), here (adding a made-up and disparaging "Mugalputana"), here (adding a description meaning "son of a whore"). All edits are either simply vandalisms like here or other (Yadav/Ahir caste) POVPUSH. Very offensive conduct, the user needs to be restricted from editing. Gotitbro (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Gotitbro (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also True History 369 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), The Real History Page (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), Gamachuiaaa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)), Yaduvanshi_ahir's (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (the latter two confirmed as such and blocked on enwiki), are highly likely to be a sock of the above; adding the exact same casteist cruft as the above. Please see if a CU can be conducted to look for other sleepers. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not capable of judging this request. Perhaps another Hindi speaking user (@BRPever:?) can shed their light on this request? Also, a CU request can be done at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser, you can do that yourself. --Lymantria (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1997kB:? --Lymantria (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: In the meantime, can the martial race (Q1627674) be semi-protected. Edit-warring has been entrenched on that item with caste-warriors editing the description and the like to suit their version of a discredited British colonial era racialist policy. Gotitbro (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Lymantria (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ancient Warrior History, a CU at Wikidata confirms the sock nature of Ancient Warrior History and Great Aryan Boys and between the latter and True History 369 as possible and between True History and Narayana-Narayana as also likely. I have been redirected here for assesment of the behavior of the accounts which have not been blocked (i.e. beyond Great Aryan Boys and Warrior):

Unmarked edits are those of either the listed sock or the master (Warrior). Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Been pretty busy lately. I will have a look at it in upcomming days. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Elizium23

Editor @Elizium23 replied to a discussion with the following: If you can't be bothered to read things I link to then what the fuck? This insult and failure to assume good faith is unacceptable behaviour which is in direct opposition to Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct. DCflyer* (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the situation with the items concerned, and I inappropriately thought I had found a resolution to the warning message issue which had been raised to public attention, but I only moved the technical error to another location. I reverted DCflyer several times before realizing my errors and that DCflyer is correct in every aspect of evaluating the issue. The deprecation of values, as DCflyer proposed, turns out to be the accepted method for resolving this, and I was remiss in acting before obtaining all the relevant facts of the case. I am sorry for the disruption that I caused. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: I think the other question, reviewing the language you used, is not appointed yet. I judge it unnecessary rude and by that unnecessarily escalating. Consider this a civility warning. --Lymantria (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ActiveWindows

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

@ActiveWindows: User:ActiveWindows is making unreferenced changes to topics related to the King of the Mosquito Nation, causing cascading errors. I wonder if this is related to the person who was adding the fake images of the kings last month, this is a very obscure topic. The only reliable reference we have on the kingship is File:Kingship of the Mosquito Nation by Philip A. Dennis and Michael D. Olien.png and other papers by the same author. Perhaps some of the additions by the editor are correct, but I worry it may be nonsense, since they are changing the numbering system from the reliable reference. I don't know how much to reverse. See for instance where they change the Wikidata entry for the 1st king into the 2nd king here, causing cascading errors in the numbering of the succession chart, I have reversed the most egregious errors. See: Talk:Q113244809. I suspect it is the same person who was vandalizing the same topics at Wikipedia. See: here, using multiple accounts. See also: User talk:Thecaribbeancoast and a few IP accounts where they changed the numbering system in 2022, also without references. One of the clues we are dealing with the same person is that they write all proper nouns without a capital letter. See: Battle of the Black River (Q4872851) for instance. I can't tell if they are citing their own original, unpublished research, or just vandalizing. The incorrect numbering and the fake images lead me to suspect vandalism. RAN (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going ahead and reverting the changes to King of the Mosquito Nation back to the peer reviewed and published source Kingship Among The Miskito (Q56389051). These were the same changes made in 2022 by another SPA, both accounts have not responded to requests to provide a source for their changes. I still can't determine if it is deliberate vandalism, or an editors faith in their own unpublished original research. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2A02:1811:340B:6900

2A02:1811:340B:6900::/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: This IP range is used by User:Huster to "align" WPFR data with Wikidata. I say "align", because in doing so they completely disregard whatever source was supporting the previous value. This often result as the source saying something else that the new value they are entering. While the user is certainly of good faith, I have already warned them on their talk page on FRWP, without answer. Perhaps a block of their IP adress, and a word on the talk page of the actuel user here, might make them reconsider their actions. Among the IP used, I know of:

 Comment Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with IP-users on highly dynamic ranges such as this one, which is what we'd normally do for good faith edits. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Бучач-Львів

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

the user is well known in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia as a participant in edit wars. Actually here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q110070377 he started a war of edits. I ask the project administrators to respond. Thank you. Jphwra (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jphwra: he has done over 125,000 edits. And edit-wars (if there are?) seem to Ukrainian-language specific. Could @Ymblanter help? I also noticed that he doesn't respond at his talk page Estopedist1 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1:I will say so. In our Ukrainian wiki, it has an absolutely bad reputation and progressive blocking due to numerous violations related to any language. so you should not focus on the number of edits here. By the way, he was banned for life from the English and Russian Wikipedias, and was also banned from the commons for one year due to such actions. Thank you. --Jphwra (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you could try to engage the user on the talk page and if they don't respond then we can block for failing to respond. not speaking the language makes it hard for me to assess if what they've done is block worthy. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he arranges editing wars in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia, which is why he has progressive blocking there. Besides, he stalked me on Facebook. Therefore, I'm sorry, but here, most likely, there should be blocking as a commns for one year or for life. Otherwise you get harassed by him all over wikipedia like I did back in the day. --Jphwra (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the user indef on the English Wikipedia, and they are now convinced that I am on Putin's payroll trying to suppress everything Ukrainian. Since I am getting death threats related to my activity in Wikimedia projects about weekly, I would rather not get involved with the user here. They do not speak any foreign languages, and it looks to me like their reverts related to a Spanish / Catalan names are not justified. Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
strange position Here we are talking about a war of edits from his side. If it is not stopped, tomorrow there will be an even bigger editing war --Jphwra (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if I get involved your compatriots will give me more death threats. It is no fun receiving them. Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since apparently nothing is happening, I have given them a very clear warning of an imminent block and alerted them of this thread. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedist Jphwra, who started the discussion in this case is known to be actively involved in the edit wars himself. Also known for allowing himself to outright lie about the mythical stalking on FB. At the same time, he himself allows blatantly boorish statements against those Wikipedians whose views he does not like - and after that he does not ask for forgiveness, nor realizes the inadmissibility of such actions. Here is one example of why he was blocked. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the title of the article. Ferran Jutglà is a Catalan player of the Catalan national team, so his surname is spelled differently than the names of the Spaniards. A famous example is Josep Guardiola (his name is ukr. Жузеп, no ukr. Хосеп). As for this element, please note that I edited this element on September 20, 2022, and there is every reason to consider Jphwra's actions as an edit war. In addition, there are sources in Ukrainian, which I rely on, but Jphwra completely ignores them both in the article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia and here. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan_orthography. j = /ʒ/, tg = /d͡ʒ/. Jutglà = /ʒud͡ʒla/ = ukr. Жуджла, which is confirmed by the sources. Unfortunately, many of the sports journalists in Ukraine do not know this detail, so they write his last name "in Spanish". --Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jphwra. I brought only one example of your flagrant violation of several rules. Well, show something similar here, if, for example, I ever wrote on the Ukrainian wiki (in fact, I never called anyone on Wikipedia like that). My blocking in Ukrwiki is primarily the result of a biased attitude of several administrators, and nothing more (some of them directly say: in Wikipedia there is neither fairness nor 100% enforcement of the rules, because people make mistakes). And they relate in many respects to linguistic issues proper (letter Ґ, dialect words etc). And you know this well, but still you stubbornly don't tell a truth... --Бучач-Львів (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2.31.143.148

2.31.143.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Gibberish edits. Blythwood (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas this is correct, this is a dynamic IP, and it is unlikely we will ever see them again. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unprotection of Leap year

I'm requesting to remove protection from the article about a leap year, in order to add Wikipedia Short description in Ukrainian language. 178.94.181.131 12:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please use {{Edit request}} at item's talk page, so we can see it at Category:Wikidata protected edit requests Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:181.15.192.250

181.15.192.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Only purpose Madamebiblio (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Kuzey Emir Kaya

Kuzey Emir Kaya (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: He writes biased descriptions such as racist and traitor. Devrim ilhan (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Devrim ilhan: it is Turkish-related request, so most admins are quite helpless. Still, I notified the user Estopedist1 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution from User:Бучач-Львів

@Estopedist1, Ymblanter, BrokenSegue: Greetings gentlemen administrators, as I predicted yesterday, the user started the persecution: making baseless accusations against me. And this is only here, he also started persecution in the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia. And he also accused me once again that falsification of sources, war of edits, persecution, etc., are characteristic of him. So I request admins to stop this harassment here and ban this user. Thank you. PS. It turns out that he also sent me threats by e-mail. --Jphwra (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds terrible if you really receiving threats, but could you please comment the user's response about the reasons for his insisting in such a spelling, and the conflict you both seems to be involved in for a long time? see #User:Бучач-Львів. Did you both ever have attempts to reach an agreement? --Wolverène (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who only make automated edits

Greetings, In the case of an editor who is not directly editing Wikidata, but whose contributions here consist solely of automated edits, such as page moves and interwikis: should a discipline problem be raised here on Wikidata as well? Or should we focus on the projects where the editor is active instead? Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:正常人123

Vandals only edits (exhibits: 1928042182, 1928043906, 1928039615). Northern Moonlight (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user is warned Estopedist1 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2001:8004::/34

2001:8004::/34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Repeated vandalism since June. Now seems to have moved on to creating mostly non-notable supposed types of tourism. Requesting longer-term block given longer period of time on this range. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Range-blocked, but when there will be too many collateral victims, we should consider another solution Estopedist1 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: It could be considered to allow account creation. --Lymantria (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the block modified per suggestion by Lymantria Estopedist1 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now appears to be active on 2406:2D40:40C2:2600:84BE:4BB:8240:9D7. Quite possibly the same user as 121.214.82.14. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 08:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently doing some major cleanup on that IPv4 address, and extended the block to a year. For now I'll just delete the contributions from the IPv6 address and keep an eye on it. Infrastruktur (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help is most welcome on the cleanup reg. 121.214.82.14. I'm deleting nonsense items. But any "union of" statements made by this IP can be removed blindfolded IMO. Infrastruktur (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While assisting, I found another IP with the same pattern: 159.196.170.241. --Lymantria (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now more: 49.182.46.23, 58.96.59.233. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:190.205.208.250

190.205.208.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Venezuelan Vandal. LTA. IPv4-hopping. Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Con đ,ỉ Nhac Ny

Con đ,ỉ Nhac Ny (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki abuse, Trieu Thuan Son's sockpuppet. Quangkhanhhuynh (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1. Quangkhanhhuynh (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Blocked: indef Estopedist1 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism driven by sexism

The user keeps changing the gender of Wikimedia Commons entries.

As a sister project female gender is the norm for Wikimedia Commons, we can see it at commons:Página principal (Main page), Commons:Primeiros passos (first steps)..., also "mediateca" is also a female word... He has a history of sexism in other communities and is dragging it to here.

I don't interact with him for fundamental values, so I will not send him a message, so please, take care of our community. Thank you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed others driven by xenophobia

He is removing the way that is written in Brazil from Portuguese entries, and not including an alias, he is simply vanishing the Brazilian variation from several entries. This is not pt-pt, or pt-eu to him remove pt-br, even from the alias. He also has a xenophobia historic, I was not expecting that I was just seeing if he enter here to do changes to Wikimedia Commons entries, well, I was right. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton Hi! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Can you please add a link for where you have tried and failed to resolve this issue directly with the user, and another for where you have informed them about this discussion? Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I do not interact with him, he has sever toxic behaviour, so I avoid to all costs. But as you can see, even in a middle of discussion he creates an edit war: [28] Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a resolution on this, letting the bot archive, and not solving the issue, gives a real problem to the lusophone speakers to deal with, and has no protection from troll attacks. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:Ferj1982

Ferj1982 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Only vandalic editions Madamebiblio (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user is warned. Next time, please do it yourself, @Madamebiblio Estopedist1 (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2A00:23EE:2238:59C7:FC93:2700:B203:94E2

2A00:23EE:2238:59C7:FC93:2700:B203:94E2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: New user removing good data about British companies Wire723 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked for three months. Everything patrolled Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done range-blocked (2A00:23EE:2238:59C7:0:0:0:0/64) Estopedist1 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121149827

please delet this item, it was created accidentally and incorrectly by me Alabasterstein (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting protection of Q57584994 and Q3182559

Long-term abuse(Q113587859). 寒吉 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Protected one for six month, other for one year (second protection) Estopedist1 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:51.158.117.189

51.158.117.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism, all changes need to be reverted. Devrim ilhan (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked for three months. Everything reverted Estopedist1 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1, Special:Contributions/51.158.237.91 --Devrim ilhan (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Blocked for three months. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 16:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong translation link from German "Erkenntnistheorie" to English disambiguation page

Please change the de->en language link for the German page "Erkenntnistheorie" to the English page "Epistemology", because I do not have the rights to do it.--2003:D6:3728:2400:15F1:3B97:1822:9527 15:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please specify which item you are talking about. Otherwise, we may not understand your request Estopedist1 (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:2001:268:94B9:F2EE:0:C:DD1E:FB01

2001:268:94B9:F2EE:0:C:DD1E:FB01 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. ShifaYT ✉Talk 07:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ blocked /64 for seven days. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connect items with meta-wiki

I can't add these entries myself:

ZandDev (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:FullInterClipSh*t

FullInterClipSh*t (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism and harassment from an English Wikipedia LTA vandal (User:Sinlu22). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1947624129"