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 2024/07.

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 ~169 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock empty 0 open requests for unblock.

Assistance with Q87495520 and Q87531821

I'm trying to add the property Unicode character (P487) to ASCII space (Q87495520) (the space character " ") and ideographic space (Q87531821) (the ideographic space character "　"). The property requires that only the relevant character be put as the input, but as these are space characters Wikidata doesn't perceive that as a valid input unless accompanied by other characters. If I could edit the source directly, I'd input them as   and 　 respectively, but I'm unable to do this (as far as I'm aware). Could an administrator please assist? Theknightwho (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Contributor editing statements neglecting the references

Hi,
We've been 2 editors asking to @Huster: to be carefull not to change sourced statements, but he keep doing it. So what do we do ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Huster: could you comment here? Or at least, stop to change the statements that already have a reference; create a new one instead. Si tu préfères qu'on parle français, c'est possible. Pamputt (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pamputt, Simon Villeneuve: I don't see the interest of keeping just the year of birth when the Bibliothèque nationale de France mentions the complete date of birth. But maybe the use on Wikidata is not so... I apologize. Huster (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In such case, no problem, just think to change the reference at the same time. Or best, create a new statement with the more precise date (with the source) and with the preferred rank so that the less precise date will not be imported (by bot) in the future. Pamputt (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Like this. Obviously you didn't see the interest, but the solution wasn't to ignore our posts. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 151.15.215.228

151.15.215.228 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Edit warring on Q108892615; please see also it.wiki. Thank you for your attention! Etienne (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

i'm only fixing the official name of the business IRIDEOS (please see the official website) 151.15.215.228 20:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the item for a week to stop the edit war. I would like to see the issue continue to be discussed, so I am not blocking any edit warriors at this time. Bovlb (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Spammers

I have recently blocked a huge group of socks. There are still more, so any help with the clean-up is much appreciated. Please check my block log for the accounts. The block with the reason "Abusing multiple accounts" is them.

• my block log

-BRP ^ever 01:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

i took a pass over this. think I got most/all BrokenSegue (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully I got most of them as well :) -BRP ^ever 04:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning 137.101.88.3

137.101.88.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) is an obvious sock of LiliaMiller2002 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)). Same editing pattern with incorrect edits in articles about murdered children [1] and geolocates to the same area as earlier IP sockpuppets. Sjö (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Permanent Protection Request People's Mujahedin of Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

The page has users active that consistently edit in comments in favor of the MEK. After proving that all the sources they add are related to the MEK or don't actually exist they refuse to acknowledge and continously revert the contents.

The original point mentions that the MEK won a court case against major German Newspapers that they have to retract an article. When checking the sources we can find the following:

1.Source is ArabNews

This was a local court case in Germany, no major German newspaper reports about it but a Saudi government affiliated newspaper does. Then when we look at the author of the piece we can see that author is affiliated with the MEK.

Link to MEK website:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/ali-safavi/

2. Source is Freitag.de a small local newspaper in Germany. We can see that the article is marked with the following statement:

"Bei diesem Beitrag handelt es sich um ein Blog aus der Freitag-Community" which translates to "This post is taken from a blog of the Freitag-Community"

The Author mentions a court document with ID: 324 O 233/20

First googling this document ID, will once again only lead to MEK sources. Going directly to the courts website we can see that this document does not exist:

https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/bsha/search

We can also once again see that the author is affiliated with the MEK:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/martin-patzelt/

The 3. Source is once again an obscure newspaper with very limited reach. The author is Struan Stevenson.

We can once again see that the author is associated with the MEK:

https://mek-iran.com/tag/struan-stevenson/

This is a clear part of their disinformation campaign:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/nov/09/mek-iran-revolution-regime-trump-rajavi

A Summary:

All three sources are affiliated with the MEK. Mentioned court document does not exist. No major German or Non-German outlets reporting, but obscure ones in Saudi Arabia do.

Tm

The user @Tm: insists on introducing Portuguese names in the English section of the item Q3375706. --Lojwe (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have protected the page for a week to allow discussion to take place.

@Lojwe: Thanks for bringing this here, but you should know that we have strict policies against edit warring. Please be aware that it can lead to loss of editing privileges.

@Tm: I already warned you about edit warring only a week ago. You're on thin ice.

Bovlb (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bovlb As alwways, this user again tries to have me blocked in several projects, or the fact the week ago, as i explained to you, i was reverting blocked SPA account that uses several Ip´s to evaded his block and that several users, incluiding other administrators revert them and block some of the IP´s, but this is immaterial for the case in point, as this case was already explained to him several months ago and by several other users.

This same user was told last May, in Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2021/05#Tm, as already pointed in my revert that other users said that is perfectly acceptable, with comments like "Aren't native labels fairly common as aliases (at least) in English? The main oddity here it seems to be that it might add company names to what can be seen as a geographic feature. --- Jura" or "Do not remove Portugal names in this case from aliases. If they are "original name" for certain place or work then they bacame "common" alias for name in English or other language and should be keeped across all languages as aliases. Eurohunter" or "Yes and that's what we wanted (original names in Portugal for Portugal places in English alias and all languages). Did read what I wrote above?"

So who is the one, that after 6 months, is trying again to delete something that was told that was completly normal and so is edit warring? Tm (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bovlb Or that this same user tried, last May, to delete portuguese names those names are "incorrect names" by his own words, but so much wrong, that all names have sources and that the sources are official.

"Empreendimento Hidroeléctrico do Douro Internacional / Picote" is the name given by the portuguese state DGPC - Directorate-General for Cultural Heritage, "Aproveitamento Hidroeléctrico do Douro Internacional - Picote" is the name given by the portuguese Association of Architects or EDP, the electric utility that owned this dam and Aproveitamento Hidroeléctrico do Douro Internacional is the name used by one of the construction companies or " Empreendimento Hidroeléctrico do Douro Internacional" is used by the tourist route "Rota da Terra Fria" made by the association of the municipalities "Associação de Municípios da Terra Fria do Nordeste Transmontano". But who are they to know better than him? So this edits by him are not innocent. Tm (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As you said, Q3375706 is not a company, so please, don’t put Portuguese names in the English section. Lojwe (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You do know what is a quote, i.e. that it was not me that talked about a company, so your last remark does not hold water?

But, more important, that those two quotes, by two different users, about this same situation, showed to you in last may that is perfectly normal and that your complains were unfounded. And yet again, after 5 months, you tried again to remove those names, contrary to what you read in Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2021/05#Tm, discussion that i pointed in my revert in case you did not remembered or cared.

And yet again, you did not cared, removed again the valid names and, as another case of your pattern of complain about anything that does not goes your ways, you open another unvalid complain.

In this case, after being told 5 months ago that you were the one on the wrong, trying to remake the same edits and so trying to start a edit war and then immediatly (re)open the same discussion shows that your last edits are not as innocent as you try to pass them. Tm (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, stop your obsessive behaviour. One user said “Tm, you could stop adding Portuguese language aliases as English language aliases, since if they also exist as Portuguese language aliases then they will be found via search irrespective of their absence from the English language alias list”. The one that said that is acceptable is because he thought it was the name of a company/toponym. Lojwe (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Although this is not the correct venue, I am happy to see some discussion taking place. Please focus on the content, not the editor. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:T_Cells

User T Cells has been adding thousands of items, many all of which are duplicates or low quality. See the full description on the talk page, where I included relevant queries that would allow them to undo some of the damage. I cleaned up about 700 duplicate while they were giving assurances that they would get on it as well. Since then, the only step in that direction was the mockery of deleting the single example of the superfluous statement that village of Attention, Congo is on the African continent which I had mentioned. At the exact same time, they started a new batch job that, among many other things, balanced the books by adding the Africa statement three times on another village. Plus, of course, thousands more. Karl Oblique (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

For the context, the user is banned from the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

So looking at their work:

• this batch [2] is close to useless. It contains no references or external IDs. None of the items have links to others. The data is coming from somewhere but it's not indicated. How are they ensuring no duplicates are made?
• this batch [3] is almost identical. also useless.
• this batch [4] is almost identical. also useless.
• this batch [5] is arguably useful.

I don't think the user is malicious but they don't understand how to productively use quickstatements. Have we ever banned people from using QS as a matter of policy? That said looking at the enwiki arbcom case I can't understand the connection between the case and why this user was blocked. Are they a sock of Wikicology? I think we're going to need to hear from @T Cells: here. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what @Fuzheado:, as someone who has recently worked with this user, thinks of the above complaint(s). (This ping is not intended to imply anything malicious or libelous about anyone, but I don't know who might be able to explain more, besides T Cells themself who was already pinged above.) Mahir256 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

They are renamed Wikicology--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for turning from the specific to the general, but it seems to me that we are missing a process to support QuickStatements users in doing things the right way. There is a very small amount of guidance in Help:QuickStatements#Best_practices (e.g. "All statements should have references", which T Cells has not been following). In particular this does say that "Very large runs or potentially-controversial runs should go through approval process described in Wikidata:Bots", but it doesn't define "very large", and I don't think it's fair to expect new QS users to be a good judge of what's going to turn out to be controversial. Would it be better if we had an advisory QuickStatements (or "bulk edits") noticeboard where people can declare their intentions and gather useful feedback without having to surmount the more arduous hurdle of bot permissions? Users could link to that discussion in the QS edit summary (which T Cells does not appear to be using). Being able to seek feedback in advance would head off many problems. Being able to point to such declarations would avoid a lot of confusion and might help the user in dealing with any complaints. So long as the QS tool does not require it, then not everyone would take advantage of it, but making this the norm would make the exceptions stand out more. Bovlb (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a general problem that we have never really defined "batch editing with tools" here, and it does not have a distinct policy. When Wikidata was set up, the Wikidata:Bots policy was adapted based on experiences from editing Wikipedias, and tools/batch editing only emerged later. The bot policy has some issues itself, particularly considering the existence of batch editing and the large degree of automated editing that a project such as Wikidata needs—unlike Wikipedias.

Anyways, I doubt that another noticeboard or a approval process is really helpful for batch editing. Firstly because users tend to find ways to avoid it if showing up there is based on some sort of formalized criteria, secondly because the input received there is probably often scarce at best, and thirdly because experienced users can use tools such as QuickStatements with ease and run multiple batches within a short period of time where any procedural overhead would be a huge motivation killer. Mind that many bot proposals receive little to no input as well; if there is input, it often comes from a very small circle of always the same users, and only rarely someone performs a serious review of the proposed bot task or used code. Plenty of users only show up when something goes wrong later … :-)

Effectively, batch editing tool users need to be aware that "with great power comes great responsibility". One can really do some heavy lifting with these tools—or create a big mess that is difficult to tidy up. One needs to be careful particularly when starting to use these tools, run small batches only that could be repaired manually, check regularly whether everything works as desired, and ask for help/input at WD:PC when necessary. If one does not get along with these tools, one should stay away from them and search for other activities (there are plenty available here at Wikidata which do not require the use of tools). My impression is that most users tend to get this right. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is a community cost to setting up new noticeboards, so I would be happy to co-opt an existing one. My main point would be that the process is voluntary and advisory, so has no "formalized criteria". Editors don't need to wait for a formal approval. Editors new to QS might be recommended to wait for some feedback.

I also agree that experienced editors will "run multiple batches within a short period of time". Making a brief record of intentions and methods would certainly be non-zero overhead for the editor; on the other hand, flawed or even just mysterious batch edits cause a lot of overhead for the community. We have many examples (myself included) of batch editors who did not anticipate how much trouble they would stir up. :) I aim for a process that would help, not hinder them. Bovlb (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment : Thank you for the ping BrokenSegue and Mahir256 and many thanks for the feedback . I am new to quickstatament and Wikidata tools in general and I am learning from published training materials on Commons and YouTube as well as feedbacks from individuals. The instructions at Help:QuickStatements is unclear and it looks like the tool sometimes malfunctions. I have had a situation where a statement added in a particular batch don't reflect in the item and results in unnecessary confusions and running a query to retrieve them becomes difficult. One of such cases was what led to a session with Fuzheado. I have had item created without a label even though labels (at least in English) were added. This is unfortunately problematic but we still have to take responsibility for it. I think it would be wise to restrict myself to not more than 50 or 100 items in a batch so that any error could easily be fixed while I continue to learn more about the tool usage. I will fix the problematic batches as well. To be honest, I am embarrassed by what appears to be mocking by Ymblanter. Liking to a ban imposed over 5 years ago on another project is nothing but an attempt to humiliate me and subject me to ridicule and harassment. Ymblanter linking me with my old username also exposed me to danger and harassment. The account you linked has nothing to do with Wikidata in the first place. I have been harassed and threatened under the old username (hence, the renaming to protect myself) and linking my username to it again further subject me to harassment, fear and emotional stress. That's unfair, Ymblanter. T Cells (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think @Ymblanter has committed any violation of policy here; renaming is not vanishing, and pointing it out is not outing. On the other hand, I don't think those details are especially relevant to the situation at hand. We don't act against editors solely because of behaviour on other projects, although there are limited circumstances in which we might take it into account, for example in considering whether an editor has been sufficiently warned, or to take more severe action when local infractions turn out to be cross-wiki. If you have been harassed or threatened in relation to wiki-activities, I recommend you contact the WMF Trust & Safety team, who are best-placed to deal with that. In the meantime, it is perfectly reasonable for you to ask Ymblanter to remove those comments from this thread. Bovlb (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Follow up comment: I have started fixing the items. It is very late now in my country (3:06 AM) and I will continue after work today. I apologize for the disruption, I will surely fix them all. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Regards. T Cells (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q347428

There is an edit warring behavior on Jun Matsumoto (Q347428), hence, I would like to request for semi-protection on this page.

Some additional details that may or may not be relevant but on the editing history, an IP address reverted an edit with a note stating "辞めてください。" (rough translation: "Please give up"). The Wikipedia pages regarding this living person in multiple language is also prone to vandalism, and as far as I know, at this point of time, the English, Vietnamese, and the Japanese versions are implementing a semi-protection for the same purpose.

Update: the latest edit as of now comes with a note saying "写真は一つで十分。これ以上編集しないでほしい" (rough translation: "One image is enough. Please stop making further edits")

My apologies for the inconveniences.

Suuuuuuzu (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Update 2: I received a message from some IP addresses on my User talk page, talking in Japanese about the Jun Matsumoto (Q347428) page, and the contents are similar to the notes I have mentioned above. While I do feel concerned for myself, I am unsure if that matter is relevant enough regarding requesting a semi-protection for the Jun Matsumoto (Q347428) page.

Suuuuuuzu (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done by @Martin Urbanec, semi-protected for three months. Bovlb (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Fighting among chess editors

Block bot User:TemirovBot

This bot has added recently large amounts of data for chess players. For these kind of data, the permission was not requested in 2016. I therefore think and insist, that a new request has to be made, especially since the operator User:Игорь Темиров was told multiple times during a long and controversial discussion to request bot permission for this specific task. Now creating useless items like Elena Tsareva (Q109441230) is just a mess (again!). Steak (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the bot until the task has been approved--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Steak: "Elena Tsareva (Q109441230) is just a mess (again!)". If it is "again", please provide another such entry. If not, then you are a petty liar. Игорь Темиров (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User Steak

Steak used to mess with useless, unchanging Elo ratings data on thousands of pages with links to irrelevant pages. In March 2021, it finally stopped cluttering. Now I began to update the Elo ratings, but the participant in every possible way obstructs my work by sending false denunciations. I ask you to warn the participant about the inadmissibility of such behavior. Игорь Темиров (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Same person described by two pages

Hello. The pages Rudolf Lämmel (Q1310485) and Rudolf Lämmel (Q102304652) are devoted to the same person, and should be merged. --Sapphorain (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 --Hjart (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Arturo Nunez Jimenez (Q5707383)

Recurring vandalism. —Frodar (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Bovlb (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User Freddyfox19

Freddyfox19 user kept using translating machine in most of Wikipedia such as the Swedish Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia which they were all deleted by admins in their Wikipedia. Should this user be banned from doing this for repeat of using translation machine? EricSDA (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@EricSDA: Hi! Thanks for bringing your concerns to us. Unfortunately, unless you are reporting problematic behaviour here on Wikidata, there is nothing we can do. You need to take this to the relevant boards on the Spanish and Italian Wikipedias and ask for them to be banned there. Bovlb (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:107.77.165.57

107.77.165.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Cross-wiki vandalism / LTA. I actually reported the 107.77.165.0/24 for global lock a few days ago (still in progress); in the meantime, I believe the latest edit merits a revdel. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 31h and semi-protected the item for 3 months. I don't think this meets the criteria for revdel, but maybe another admin will have a different opinion. Bovlb (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have hidden the disruptive content as it contained Spanish profanity and defamatory material about living persons, which I do not think is appropriate to keep around. Feel free to revert if you disagree, though. —Hasley+ 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bovlb, Hasley: Thanks! This user generally posts nonsense (see Special:Contributions/107.77.165.0/24 and Special:Contributions/2600:387:f:4630::/61 for instance) but this last one was particularly bad. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hasley: I don't mean to belabour this, as I know there's a range of opinions on revdel, and my Spanish is very weak, but I wanted to say a few more words to explain my position. I believe that revdel is a tool that acts against the usual principle of transparency, and I try to be very careful not to use it inappropriately. The relevant policy is Wikidata:Deletion_policy#Revision_deletion. There is no criterion that covers profanity. The third criterion is "They contain defamatory content"; I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe insults, epithets, and threats are technically defamation. Do you think that someone is likely to read that text and think that it is making a serious factual claim that would damage the subject's reputation? Again, I'm not trying to stir up trouble as I don't think the community has lost anything by the revdel of these contributions, just explaining why I didn't feel that I could do it myself. Bovlb (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with profane words themselves; however, this sort of wording and its slurs (which I would rather not translate in a public space), is not just offensive enough, but can be considered highly defamatory throughout the Hispanosphere. I am also not comfortable with keeping revisions that contain serious harassment material plus threats of harm, more than mere invective, which is also redactable per the last criterion, “They contain harassment or other personal attacks of a serious nature.” —Hasley+ 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. We're obviously working from different definitions of "defamation" here. The last criterion is a little unclear, but I interpret it as being about other Wikidata editors. Bovlb (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Duplication

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q109638452 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q109330558

Could someone delete one of the two? Thank you Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ιπποκράτης2020: No, we don't delete duplicates here. I have merged them for you. See Help:Merge for how to do this yourself next time. Bovlb (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Bovlb Ok, thank you Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeating vandalism on Louis Armstrong (Q1779)

Can item Q1779 be protected? AllyD (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for six months. Most recent IP already blocked by @Ymblanter. Bovlb (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:194.53.158.181

194.53.158.181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: (ongoing) repeated repurposing of items (e.g. Dorothy Gale (Q2583524)), ignoring messages on user's talk page (blanking) Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav, Trade: Blocked for a year now. Mahir256 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Q109622820

I was block by the spam filter when I wanted to remove the "linktree" link inside alias, please help. Stang 15:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stang: Looks like it's already been removed by @Hasley. It's not clear to me why the spam filter would stop you from removing a link. Maybe you should ask on Wikidata:Report a technical problem or report it on Phabricator. (Last I heard, the Spam Blacklist wasn't maintained, so don't hold your breath.) Bovlb (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bovlb: thanks your advice, and phab:T296102. Stang 17:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, temporarily whitelisted on the local spam whitelist and removed. —Hasley+ 16:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:109.126.219.95

109.126.219.95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Remove description at Q441266 Stang 15:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 16:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:77.157.207.168

77.157.207.168 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism at Q12113 Stang 15:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 16:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:90.174.135.230

90.174.135.230 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: vandalism at Q19560712 Stang 16:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Report concerning User:5.214.249.209

5.214.249.209 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: content removal on various items Stang 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Hasley+ 16:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:4ndi

Hello, apologies if this is not the correct venue, as I couldn't figure out if there was a speedy deletion process, nor did listing it at WD:RFD seem appropriate as there is no itemid. I'd like to bring attention to two issues regarding User talk:4ndi. First, this is a user talk page of a user which does not exist. Second, the content is promotional in nature. ✗plicit 05:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted. Hazard-SJ (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2021 (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. Hazard-SJ (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)