Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Translate this header box! Start a new discussion

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/04.

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

Requests for deletions high ~139 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock low 1 open request for unblock.

Bottedits without Botflag

Bot edits have been flooding the recent edits for a long time. the bot edits come from a few users and they don't have a bot flag and make up to 4 edits a second, so we don't have an overview of the recent edits anymore and there are often error messages from Mediawiki. i suspect this is due to the simultaneous edits. The edits are made by running several jobs simultaneously with the QuickStatements tool. I think we should stop this.Editing in this rhythm has too many negative effects on other users. The mass of simultaneous contributions must definitely be reduced --WikiBayer (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Users, including those with a bot flag, are ratelimited to 90 edits per minute, and it is widely accepted to run at that pace without a bot flag when using batch editing tools such as QuickStatements. The exception are admins who are not ratelimited, and who should be more careful with these tools (e.g. use the admin account for small batches only, and use a non-admin flooder account otherwise). Apart from that, this is a wiki with largely automated editing in large numbers, clearly beyond what is possible to monitor with the classical recent changes tracking tools. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@MisterSynergyYes wikidata is automated a lot. The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of edits from 2 users and they are made for more than 24 hours. But it makes a difference whether you make 1000 or 500000 contributions. yesterday I had several times the message timeout in the last changes. There is also the possibility to request the pseudobot flag. WikiBayer (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@WikiBayer which two users are we talking about? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Estopedist1

https://wikidata.wikiscan.org/?menu=userstats&user=Prefuture (April 24: 672.827 Edits)

https://wikidata.wikiscan.org/?menu=userstats&user=AdrianoRutz (April 24: 1.250.182 Edits)

Here we can definitely no longer speak of users - this are BOTs. WikiBayer (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You can just filter out edits from Quickstatements by excluding edits with the tag quickstatements[2.0] from recent changes. --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And if we talk about users we should also inform them that we are talking about them, hence ping @Prefuture, AdrianoRutz: --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am very happy to discuss how to best proceed to update content in an efficient and respectful manner.

I believe I did so and absolutely do not want to cause issues for any users. I know there a millions of edits to make to fill missing information/update incorrect one. I thought QS was anyway rate-limited in a way that did not impact other users. Anyway, thank you for pinging me AdrianoRutz (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, as much of this is made related to Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry Natural products, we requested a bot for other edits and I know using bots for different kind of edits has been discussed without real consensus on the subject, and I do not think requesting n bots for n types of edits that eventually then are not used anymore makes sense? I might have missed something but people heavily contributing to constant curation of incorrect values/IDs or else might better know? AdrianoRutz (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well you did nothing wrong here; you just happened to be active when User:WikiBayer was overwhelmed by the amount of edits in the recent changes stream. Lots of editors use batch editing tools such as QuickStatements for large batches, and you are correct to assume that it is properly ratelimited (actually not the tool, but your account is ratelimited just as every other account).

However, you can ask the bureaucrats for the "flooder" flag if you temporarily make a lot of edits. This would help patrollers to hide your edits more easily. Many users do not use this flag, however, and the entire process with user rights is a bit inefficient. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

One thing I do if I patrol Recent Changes is play around with the filters; you can set "Review status" to see only unpatrolled edits, or "User registration and experience" to see edits from IPs and newly registered users. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am not against automated contributions, but they should be executed accordingly. I know from my own experience that the bureaucrats are inefficient. But with 500,000+ you can definitely go through the inefficient process for the "pseudobot" flag (in english interface "flooder").When you were both active was Filtering also not possible, or only with manual link input, as Mediawiki did not load the recend changes page and displayed "Timeout". WikiBayer (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Good person or maybe not so much?

I'm involved so I'm not supposed to take any action. But I increasingly wonder if this person is here to help build a database, or if they are here to create drama. I leave this to your infinite wisdom: User:PotsdamLamb Infrastruktur (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to cause drama. I came onboard to help out. After the comment made to my by one of your admins, where they talked down to me, I have decided I do not want to help with vandalism or patrolling. Just be a standard editor. I connect a lot of our articles from SEWP to wikidata. I will continue to do so if they pass our criteria. I asked to have my rights removed before you commented on my talk page and then I stated the same thing to you on my talk page to you. I’m really surprised that you would even bring me here. I stated I am done participating in the programs to help you guys out and I am going back to where I am wanted and more useful as obviously I’m not useful here, especially after reading your comments. Sorry if you think I caused drama by pointing out an item that was created for promotional use by someone who just created their account 2-3 days ago and they have placed the article on different Wikipedias and has been deleted from ours as non-notable and will probably be removed from ENWP as well when it gets assessed by their team. Thanks - Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 09:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That rude admin was me. PotsdamLamb, as I said, by that comment I did not want to use a sort of didactic manner of talking. If it looked like that, I feel sorry. You may continue to pay attention to every awkward phrase by a random person on your way but I hope you will change your decision about leaving the project. --Wolverène (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

By an admin bringing me here to get me blocked has made the decision for me. While I would hope not to get blocked so I can continue linking items, will not negate the fact I will not participate in any other work here. Thanks - Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 10:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: I consider that you are trying to collaborate in good faith, and would like to encourage you to keep helping out where you can. Please consider that this is a multilingual project, and thus not all of us are natively fluent in English; when in doubt, assume good faith :) One thing I would like to point out regarding your deletion requests – I understand that you may consider some of these items to be spam, but per WD:N #1, if they have a valid link to another project, then we are unable to delete them. The best course of action is to follow the deletion processes for the other projects first; once the articles have been deleted, then you can request deletion here and we will be happy to take care of it. Kind regards, –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ask for you to be blocked, please refrain from making statements you know to be untrue. Thank you. Infrastruktur (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Infrastruktur Based on what this page is about (reporting users to be blocked and protection requests). I am obviously not a page, so that only leaves one other option on the table. Not to mention the title of this section, which is pretty degrading and inflammatory. Basically coming down to casting aspirations. As I stated, please remove my rollback on this site as I will not remain active here. Thanks - Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 23:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Block request

en:WP:ILLEGIT, en:WP:SCRUTINY, zh.wiki LTA, confirmed in zh.wiki, please see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].--MCC214 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Um... Please don't beat the dead horse. They won't be used anymore. How about suggest a global ban in metawiki? 阿南之人 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Only 1 of the accounts (空手而回) has edited in the last month, and they are not blocked on zhwiki where the LTA is from, nor do their recent edits appear disruptive. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This LTA split their editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in their contributions, and switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny (this LTA don't used after zh.wiki blocked, and create new account to split their editing history and switching accounts or concealing in a way that avoids scrutiny) eight years ago, also, zh.wiki will blocked 空手而回 after, more importantly, this list all is same user.--MCC214 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe meta:SRG will be good place for this LTA case?--S8321414 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

41.250.114.135

User: 41.250.114.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))
Reason for reporting: Vandalism, please restore the original interwiki links in both Q189046 and Q3179385, as they have been mixed up with articles by this IP. -- Riad Salih (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved from Commons (c:Special:Diff/869844774/869852856) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: what is the situation here? Estopedist1 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 I don't really know. User:Riad Salih posted this on Commons' AN/V (I presume by accident), and I moved it over. On the two pages Riad mentioned, the IP apparently attempted to swap the two items' sitelinks with each other (so I reverted); Riad appears to believe that this is vandalism (I know nothing about the topics, so don't know if it's vandalism). Riad and the IP also seem to be edit warring on Q112119030 and Q12191312, although it might be permissible if the edits really are vandalism. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 @Estopedist1 I wasn't on an edit warning, but the IP was attempting to change the interlinks of certain articles, merge Wikidata items and articles, all without anyone noticing. It was pure vandalism as they were altering everything to Morocco. I wanted to prevent their vandalism before they caused any significant damage while active editors were sleeping. If you observe closely, you'll notice they were making quick edits, and I was restoring them because they were rushing to merge multiple items.

For example, take Q3514113, which represents Tunisian Tajin. They added the country of origin as Morocco, even though it should be Tunisia.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Error not linking to subpages

Hi, In one case, I wanted to link to /styles.css in templates, which warned: Template subpages should not link to each other. /styles.css are very important for updating and improving the templates. Is it technically possible to link the subpages of the templates with the title "/styles.css"? Pereoptic (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see WD:N: "To be valid, a link must not be [...] any page that is intended for TemplateStyles (i.e. page names that end with ".css")." --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q108704579

Please semi-protect Yahoo! Inc. (Q108704579) - current target of LTA vandal. Jklamo (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Protected for 3 months.--S8321414 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Wolverène (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:89.244.118.138

89.244.118.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 09:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked for three months Estopedist1 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:194.25.204.171

194.25.204.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 10:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked for one week. –FlyingAce^✈hello 12:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Municipalities

A few months ago I asked for an opinion about the situation of the municipalities in Spain because many users started to use a granular values ​​such municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843), municipality of Aragon (Q61763947) o council of Asturies (Q5055981). When I was searching for all the municipality of Spain (Q2074737), the number was increasingly smaller because they were using more specific values. To look for a solution and seek unification @Tagishsimon: indicated "the normal course on WD is to employ the more granular value" and @ChristianKl: that "Wikidata doesn't have a pro-Nationalism policy that would make us prefer to reference Spain over Catalonia". I asked on Wikiproyect:Spain and there was no clear answer, although neither was there a refusal to specify each municipality. Since querys are faster if they are municipalities of autonomous community, today I began to unify everything. User @CFA1877: has started undoing edits without writing anything about it. Seeing that he had had similar problems in his discussion, I wrote him, and although he answered, at the same time he undid the edits. I would like a decision to be made on this. I don't care whether to put granular values ​​or the municipality of Spain (Q2074737), but i want the criteria be unified and the queries are consistent. Now, we have some of the municipalities with one element and others with another in the same autonomous community. Thank you. @theklan: @Olea: @Strakhov: @Pere prlpz:

Strakhov Tiberioclaudio99 Discasto Enladrillado Ivanhercaz Millars Rodelar Abián Tomukas Vanbasten_23 Maria zaos Olea Dandilero Davileci

Notified participants of WikiProject Spain Vanbasten 23 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not the only user who has questioned you today, but I will speak for myself. You don't have consensus, and you know it. In the case of the region of Andalusia and others, you have created a problem where here wasn't nothing. You are changing parameters that have been around for years without anyone raising any problems. And this change that you are making is unknown to many users, and if they were aware of this, they would surely return to its previous state. So, this hardly solves anything, because you are creating another (new) problem.

Now, the technical issues. Article 137 of the Constitution establishes that the State is organized in municipalities, provinces and Autonomous Communities (regions). This article establishes the municipalities as their own administrative unit, within the [Spanish] State, but not belonging to the regions. This is what is being arbitrarily attempted to be done in wikidata by several users, with a clearly political purpose. Just because a municipality is located in a province or in a region does not mean that it belongs to that province or region. Therefore, the category "municipality of Spain" is the one that should take precedence. CFA1877 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that some Autonomous Communities have their own municipal laws, so a Municipality of Catalonia is different from a Municipality of Aragón in what they can decide and what not. I don't know how many Autonomous Communities have such laws, but marking those as different makes sense as the law they use to organize themselves ia also different. Theklan (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, but this can also be expressed with applies to jurisdiction (P1001). —Ismael Olea (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not unaware that there are municipal laws in some regions. But these laws that may exist in some regions do not repeal or diminish what the Magna Carta says, which is the supreme norm regarding the territorial organization of the country. By the way, it's absurd that a couple of municipal laws forces to change everything in the rest of the country, creating problems that did not exist before. CFA1877 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a question about content and thus has no place at the admin notice board, but should either go to the Project Chat or a Wikiproject.

My comment was about the question of what's a nation. One key reason we have items that link the type of municipality to jurisdiction is because different jurisdictions define the terms differently. Some jurisdictions have specific populations counts that are implied by something being a city, other jurisdictions might have other counts or even no specific population count of what makes a city. We also have our properties so that we can set constraints properly. IDESCAT territorial code in Catalonia (P4335) seems to need municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) to work properely. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess those restrictions can be rewritten with applies to jurisdiction (P1001) and/or located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). —Ismael Olea (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion.

• I agree we need to set a convention.
• Conceptually any option is correct, but subclassing is suboptimal in terms of the graph (size, redundancy and ontology management) queries efficiency and data reuse.
• If we flat subclasses we don't loss of information about region/community if P131 is used properly.
• If there are important exceptions (concejos? merindades?), because historical differences supported by current laws, I don't have any problem, but not as a rule of thumb.
• Also, when to stop subclassing? We can do by communities, then by provinces, then by comarcas... I don't see a practical point when we have ways to express all this information with a flatter ontology.
• Not really an argument, but want to say the main reference I'm using is the Geographic Nomenclature of Municipalities and Population Entities (Q95877977) and they use an uniform schema. Now I now this can be troublesome if I import entries for Galicia as I do with Almería, for example. Also I think we should set another standard related with the nomenclátor, like the discussion started here. I wrote about this in the OSM forum.
• Finally, to me is very important to keep a clear mapping between WD and OSM. OSM it's an excellent facilitator of Wikidata information reuse.

—Ismael Olea (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Olea: It's clear that a change is needed, okay. Also for me any option is correct, as long as it is coherent and is not like currently, with a municipality that has one element and the adjacent municipality a different one. You indicate that subclassing is not optimal in terms of query efficiency, but I believe just the opposite. If you want to consult only the municipalities of a community, it will always be faster with the more specific elements. And when it comes to taking out all the municipalities, the result is the same. When to stop creating subclasses? I don't know. Someone could create by province, I suppose, but we must think of a way to unify, just one, and adjust to it. You talk about the Geographic Nomenclature of Municipalities and Population Entities (Q95877977), can you give an example of what the proposal is based on its use? --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the users who have maintained the specific municipalities in their communities I call @Isidre blanc: @Tamawashi: @LMLM: @Cruzate1492: @Maria zaos: in case they can give their opinion on the topic. Only with the intention of reaching an agreement that allows us to unify the situation. Thank you all. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "concejo" in Asturias, "concejo" is the official name of the municipios in Asturias. Included in the Estatuto de Autonomía, article 6: "El Principado de Asturias se organiza territorialmente en municipios, que recibirán la denominación tradicional de Concejos y en Comarcas." LMLM (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• It's true that there is no need to create problems where there aren't, but municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) exists from 2017 and at least tens of automated lists have been created using that property since then. Changing or deleting municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) would create a problem. On the other hand, any query that uses P31/P279 municipality of Spain (Q2074737) (like any query that deals with all municipalities of Spain in recent years) will keep working if any other subclass of municipalities. Therefore, creating more granular subclasses is not going to create problems.
• It has been claimed that this question doesn't belong to the Administrators noticeboard, and it may be true. However, there is a question that does belong to it: the unilateral removal of subclasses of municipalities of Spain in random articles. I don't know if such behaviour should be called vandalism, but it's clearly a kind of disruptive editing that breaks queries and automated lists in Wikipedias. For example, this automatic edition that deleted a large part of a list in cawiki was triggered by a disruptive edition in Sant Celoni (Q15441).
• The content issue was already addressed and closed in Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2023/12/28#Q123754112.
• Wikidata lacks a uniform policy about granularity of instance of (P31) that could be applied to all domains. We use minimum granularity for human (Q5) and a few other domains but the general tendency is to maximum granularity, as can be seen for example in buildings or in countries.
• And again, although different ontologies could be adopted, the real problem are the random disruptive editions.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree with @Pere prlpz:. We don't want to create problems, we want to solve those that already exist. I agree also with the disruptive editing with the municipalities. That's why I wrote here and I would like there to be a solution and for users to stick to it, whatever it may be. The main argument for not making the changes is a political reason? The motive is uniformity. I don't care about an option but I want Wikidata to be clean. municipality of Spain (Q2074737) cannot have two instances that say the same thing. Just as there cannot be users who are constantly making changes to a few elements because of their different opinion. Changes must be made that improve the project in general, not those that suit one or the other. Is it so bad that each municipality indicates that it is the municipality of a community? If there are differences in several communities, we could adopt that they all have the same granularity, right? But I would like to know your more general opinion, not only about @LMLM: in Asturias and Pere prlpz in Catalonia, but in general for all cases. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since they are not the same thing (they are different elements), they do not say the same thing. And you know that perfectly well, Vanbasten. I admit that 6 months ago I was not fully familiar with this issue, but today I do not see that it is a problem for the two items to coexist, so I do not understand this ¿obsessive? interest to eliminate an item.

You say you don't want to create problems, Vanbasten, but you are creating an artificial and forced situation in regions where no one had raised this request until you starting changes this morning. As I said this evening, in most regions the elements of "Municipality of Spain" have not been a cause of dispute, so it is not justified to change it just for the sake of it. And even worse, it will be a cause of conflict because there will be users who will encounter it and say no. CFA1877 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If "the two items to coexist" means, for example, the same item having instance of (P31) municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) and municipality of Spain (Q2074737), that is clearly redundant because the former is a subclass of the later. Leaving both of them is just avoiding to feed the troll that replaced municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) with municipality of Spain (Q2074737). municipality of Catalonia (Q33146843) says the same things as municipality of Spain (Q2074737) just by saying it is a subclass of it, and it also says a few additional things. I'm not eager to remove redundant claims and I prefer not to waste my time in arguments to remove them, and there are situations where I think a redundant item doesn't make much harm or can be even somehow useful, but I must admit that I'm quite alone in that regard and that the general rule in Wikidata is to delete redundant claims.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not redundant, Pere, for you I am sure they are neither the same nor redundant. CFA1877 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@CFA1877: as you indicated, you don't seem familiar with databases, I understand. The way to work on them is to reduce the information as much as possible so that access is faster, without losing the ability to search it. It is not about putting the municipality of Catalonia, the municipality of Spain, the municipality of Barcelona and the municipality of Vallés Oriental inside Sant Celoni. This is totally redundant. When I indicate that they are the same, I mean that with a query I can group the municipalities of each community and the result will be the same as having "municipality of Spain" in all cases. This is not Wikipedia, we need data to create right queries. It´s not the same concept. With this query we will arrive to the same place, which is the important thing here. I repeat again, what I want is to solve a problem that already existed and that the rest of the users also agree that it should be talked about. The fact that Andalusia or Extremadura did not have this problem does not mean that I have created a new problem. I repeat, we must have a slightly more global vision of the project and not focus solely on our region. It is an open knowledge base, and the most correct decisions must be made for everyone. Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As much as possible, please do not manipulate my words. Some time ago I wasn't familiar with this question, not with wikidata. I am a regular wikidata editor since 2021 at least. And not, it is not redundant, no matter how much you repeat it, since they are not the same thing. Another question is the fixed idea that you have of eliminating the item in regions where no one has raised problems in more than a decade. You are creating a problem where there is one, you, exclusively. You're obsessed with it and you can mask your intentions in pretty, technocratic language, but it won't change the situation. If you want to find a solution, please leave that point out the question. CFA1877 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

46.48.193.112

46.48.193.112 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) seems to be vandalising several project pages and items recently. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

46.48.193.112 ( talk  · contribs  · logs )

Ongoing vandalism across multiple items and pages. -- William Graham (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

globally blocked by AntiComposite. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

110.39.14.51

110.39.14.51 (talk • contribs • logs) is adding no statement, no reference items for academic journals, in which a) the description is clearly a copyvio and b) no care is being taken that WD does not already have an item for the journal. I've talked to the user on their talk page, but no response. This looks to me like the addition of useless cruft to WD. Suggest it might be better to stop the user from adding more, and to delete those already added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:46.48.167.225

46.48.167.225 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Same as 46.48.193.112. ―LiberatorG (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, contacted on Discord blocked the range for the night. @LiberatorG: In that kind of cases it can be more efficient to post on a live chat than to do an admin request.) author  TomT0m / talk page 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)