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

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

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

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/07.

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

Requests for deletions high ~122 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock empty 0 open requests for unblock.

A user has been exhibiting disruptive editing behaviour, focusing on removing aliases and modifying genders. Here are some examples:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• ...

We can also see they are removing terms without including them on the alias in several other moments:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• ...

This behaviour is problematic for the following reasons:

• Information Loss: Removing aliases hinders the searchability of entities with different names.
• Disruption: Edit warring disrupts the collaborative editing process by repeatedly undoing other editors' work.

The core concern is removing information and edits warring, not just modifications. These actions violate established practices and confuse users relying on accurate and consistent information.

• Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The fact that this account has been persistently pushing for controversial and/or blatantly wrong changes through edit warring, and then complains in this noticeboard posing as the victim is absolutely puzzling. The first half of the links are simply controversial changes being undone. That's it. Stop POV-pushing through edit wars and get consensus for the changes. The second half... I'm just clueless about whatever this editor is trying to prove or claim.

Beyond that, I would like to point out to administrators the systematic disruptive use of edit summaries by this account. Among its last 500 edits, 83 summaries are used to engage in personal attacks to users who simply undid one of his controversial changes or made some sort of edit he didn't like, systematically calling them "vandals" and "trolls". And this is not the first time this user opens blatantly nonsense incident reports. For example, last year he opened an absolutely bizarre and nonsense claim against me claiming, with no proof whatsoever, that I was "doing vandalism driven by sexism". Being an administrator myself for 10 years, I've dealt with many bizarre things, but this is hard to beat. I'm considering open a T&S case against this user because his claims are so outlandish and out of touch with reality that I'm afraid there's underlying issues that should be handled privately. JMagalhães (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you attacked me, not defending your actions, says loudly about you. Also, it is not only me that you attack and enter into edit wars. It is not me who is removing information from Wikidata.

• Sysops: after this discussion is opened, they answered it; these are their edits:
  • 18h03min de 9 de junho de 2024
  • 18h03min de 9 de junho de 2024
  • 18h16min de 9 de junho de 2024

It is a clear no-posture when discussing his actions.

Moreover, this "his claims are so outlandish and out of touch with reality" should be enough for a long block. Attacks that no one should receive. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It has already been explained to this user that when his controversial edits are undone, he should not be pov-pushing through edit wars and should instead engage in consensus building. Yet, not only he keeps pushing unwanted edits and massively using summaries for personal attacks. But, in a bizarre move, he pretends to be some sort of victim and opens incidents reports with completely made-up stuff and claims that are beyond outlandish. Honestly, an administrator intervention would be nice to help this person return to reality. JMagalhães (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+2 days of impunity. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 5 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another attack in front of all admins, and nothing is done. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing they have said here appears particularly like an attack, particularly given you have dragged them before this noticeboard. What I see, reviewing items like Wikimedia Commons (Q565), is you making a change, and someone else reverting. You should stop edit warring to re-add your content in and discuss on the talk page. See w:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - make a change, it gets reverted, then you discuss. You are being more disruptive here than the other user. Please step back and discuss, preferably on the relevant items' talk pages. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz:, first thing, do never remove a comment from another volunteer.

Second thing, "Nothing they have said here appears particularly like an attack." I will call you delusional and see how long it will take to be blocked.

Moreover, after years, since 2019 of him removing again, r e m o v i n g content, not only from my edits but from a wide variety of content, you say to me that I am the one wrong, enter in the provided links to make a comment at least.

And this is not wikipedia, a Wikipedia rule, especially from a single language, can never be used here.

Of course, I am "disruptive here." No one is taking care of that, and I and other volunteers have had to deal with this for years, so I am done. Do something, enter, and see that they are removing information from Wikidata and that no one is taking action.

You are more worried about "+2 days of impunity" than a person removing content from Wikidata; this is very problematic. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 2 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 3 days of impunity Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue your pattern of disruptive editing here, you will be blocked. Figure out a way to stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page, and cut out the uncivil messages here - final warning. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz:

"discuss on the talk page"

Did you not notice that JMagalhães is not open to dialogue on his talk page?

And a final warning for a volunteer: try to solve years of issues and nothing to the real problem. It is totally unbalanced; the problem is to bother the sysops; if they do not bother a sysop, they can do whatever they want.

Very concerning how sysops deal with problems. The others are in total silence. Nothing is happening.

"uncivil messages here"

What are the uncivil messages?? List they.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

And they keep doing:

Removing of description that includes other countries who speak Portuguese: 22h40min 14 jun 2024

Removing of alias: 20h29min 9 jun 2024

... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coddlebean (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism - This user delinked a slew of Wikipedia links from Wikidata items in apparent acts of vandalism on 25 June 2024. On the same day, the user committed some juvenile vandalism over on Wikipedia. - Amigao (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: this is not a new account, created on 15 January 2022. I warned the user. For the one edit in enwiki (what you mentioned above), see his reasoning here: en:User_talk:Coddlebean#Compromised_Account? Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After your warning, we are still seeing the same behavior from this user of delinking Wikipedia links from Wikidata items. For example here. - Amigao (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since yesterday I am notifying the winners of the Wikidata competition Coordinate Me. I did so on their talk pages and I am trying to contact them through Wikimail, to talk about how they can receive their prizes. There are 30 winners. 21 of them I could send an email with "Email this user" yesterday but then this tool got blocked for me (to avoid spamming). The block is active for more than 12 hours now. Can someone help - either by lifting this ban or by allowing me to send more Wikimails? Thank you --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If the block is imposed by the software then administrators can't do anything about it. Have you considered telling the users on their talk pages to email you instead? A block shouldn't trigger if you don't use the Special-page for emails. Infrastruktur (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. On de.wikipedia the limit was lifted for my account a while ago - must have been done by a bureaucrat or similar. Anyway, after 24 hours the ban was over and I could send the rest of the Wikimails in late evening (CET). Using the wiki email function is really helpful in cases like this. If I ask for an email on a public talk page potentially anybody can send me an address and ask for the prize. --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the user groups, I do not see anything about the limit of e-mails sent. I also do not see any active blocks on your account. As an interim solution, you can of course use your account on Meta or on any other project, but I understand this is not the best option. Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

accountcreator includes noratelimit and would resolve the problem. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RSR2003 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))

Possible vandalism (multiple statements removed) and edit warring by the apparent same editor, 161.0.63.21 / RSR2003, on Chalatenango Department (Q522221) (33 claims removed), Cuscatlán Department (Q1130677) (16 claims removed), and possible other items. -- DCflyer* (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there has been a recent change in the administrative division of El Salvador. Perhaps the statements should be deprecated rather than removed, but the changes seem to be in good faith. I'll do some more research once I'm at a computer. –FlyingAce^✈hello 12:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @FlyingAce, there has been a relatively recent change in the administrative division of El Salvador. Thank you for confirming this. I will search for reference(s) to add to the statements.

However, the fact that a statement is no longer true is not a justification for its removal. The qualifiers start time and end time, along with preferred rank, are used to state the currently valid or most recent value(s). A deprecated rank indicates that a claim was always erroneous or never known to be true, and that may or may not be applicable to these items.

Also, most or all of the values of contains the administrative territorial entity (P150) (the statements which the editor(s) removed and then repeatedly reverted without explanation, apparently both logged in and anonymously) contain the inverse value of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), so these items would need to be updated, as well. Additionally, unrelated statements were removed multiple times. For example, the value for elevation above sea level (P2044), was removed on 19 April 2023 and 8 July 2024, by the editor. -- DCflyer* (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoepro6969 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism-only account XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 16:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note, more likely test edits / good faith edits than vandalism imo. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: No, these edits are pure nonsense. ("Hier steht alles über den Mao" = "Here is everything about the Mao" is imo a clear case of vandalism). And so are the other edits, too. Regards --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I translated them when I was first looking. It still looks like test editing to me (certainly not productive), and hopefully will be addressed by a warning. Other admins are free to block if they want, and I will block if it continues. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He stopped editing when he was warned. Let's keep eye on him Estopedist1 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no objections to that. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Currently I'm tracking some disruption of limited scope. There is a new editor who's adding non-standard aliases, names, descriptions to certain obscure items.

• Zygmunt Gorazdowski (talk • contribs • logs) (see contributions for a list of items affected)
• 37.0.245.25 (talk • contribs • logs) - geolocates to Lithuania
• 181.117.11.47 (talk • contribs • logs) - geolocates to Argentina

The subject matter appears to be Polish-American Catholic clerics. I'm unsure why the geolocation is going all over the place; perhaps this user has resorted to proxies. No communication was established with the user account, but today they have been apparently editing while logged out.

Admins, could we protect these items, and issue another warning to this user? This is not vandalism nor malicious; it's simple ignorance of our policies and standards. The material being added would be fine if it were relegated to the proper place. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we add 152.166.51.188 (talk • contribs • logs) to the list of today's disruptive IPv4 addresses?

Also, this may be a random coincidence, but I feel that it may be worth mentioning here and now: the Wikipedia interface (Wikidata, in particular) has just notified me that someone has unsuccessfully attempted to log in to my account, multiple times, just at exactly the same time my edits were reverted by the above IP editor.

I have no proof that this IP was attempting to access my Wikidata account, and I'm not too concerned about its ultimate security, but it does seem a rather antisocial thing for someone to do, perhaps in retaliation for such a minor dispute here. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

109.241.182.168 (talk • contribs • logs) from Poland, is now accusing me of "being drunk".

I am unsure whether this is a separate case from the other Polish crap being spewed, but the personal attacks are rather over-the-top and I'd appreciate not being harrassed here, especially if someone is actually trying to sign in to my account. Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1, @Lymantria, please take action. It is unambiguous now that one of these users is attempting to access my Wikidata editor account.

• 181.47.220.80 (talk • contribs • logs) said "still drunk" and at the same time as his edit, I received a notification that there were multiple failed access attempts.

Elizium23 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: nowadays it is very easy to change IPs and hence to harrass any user. Nothing I can do here. Just keep his reverting and be calm. Once I also had same situation when a vandal tried to access to my Wikidata editor account. I hope your password is good and not easily to be unlocked Estopedist1 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked indef user:Zygmunt Gorazdowski. I don't see range-block possibility for IPs Estopedist1 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few affected items; would you consider semi-protecting them please? Particularly Carlo Acutis (Q2939142) who is in the news as canonisation approaches. Elizium23 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tried some IP blocks and semiprotections as well. --Lymantria (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly; would you consider also semi-protecting the corresponding talk page? IPv4 disruption continues there, with edit-summary insults upon my person, and yet more attempts to compromise my very editor's account. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WMF-banned user who uses a VPN. When frustrated he starts trying to hack your account. I strongly suggest protecting anything he touches, because he'll just keep reverting to his preferred version (and his "edits" invariably contain some kind of original research or other nonsense, including spam and delusional claims about his own expertise or something). Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by a mix of myself, other local admins, and stewards. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we protect Jackson Dlamini (Q126478914). The subject keeps editing, claiming to be royalty and removing references that they are a pretender. RAN (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FelixBot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Please block temporary, see [10] XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 09:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done temporary for one week. Can be unblocked if the bot is stopped. --Ameisenigel (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, could someone understanding a bit of Croatian check Special:Contributions/Milafkgkrifkfkfkpfm? They seem vandalisms, but I can say it only on the basis of Google Translate and I would like a double check. Thanks! --Epìdosis 11:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding Croatian but edits like this and that edit + vandalism on other projects let me strongly believe that these edits are vandalism. If a native Croatian speaker thinks that some of the changes are still useful, they can feel free to restore this user's versions. The account is now also globally locked. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore this item and change plwikisource link to M. Arcta Słownik ilustrowany języka polskiego/Rektanguł . Admins should take care for this. 77.255.4.137 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping to the deleter: @MisterSynergy Estopedist1 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure please undelete ---MisterSynergy (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Undeleted Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete this. There were sources. Additional: https://aktualnosci.aksim.edu.pl/pamietamy/odszedl-do-pana-brat-ojca-dyrektora/ https://ddtorun.pl/pl/722_wspomnienia/51440_radio-maryja-tv-trwam-i-aksim-w-zalobie-nie-zyje-miroslaw-rydzyk.html https://polityka.se.pl/wiadomosci/rydzyk-przekazal-tragiczna-wiadomosc-nie-zyje-jego-brat-z-zakonu-aa-mwxe-AcGH-Gcg9.html https://www.se.pl/torun/grob-rodziny-rydzyka-utonal-w-kwiatach-poruszajace-pozegnanie-kochanemu-tacie-aa-Pcvj-zFjZ-DG6P.html https://ototorun.pl/artykul/torunski-duchowny-w/1518737 https://goniec.pl/najpierw-klopoty-finansowe-a-teraz-to-tadeusz-rydzyk-stracil-bliska-osobe-ar-wbc-250124 77.255.4.137 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping to the deleter: @The Squirrel Conspiracy Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a process in place for proposing new properties in Wikidata. If a user wants to propose changes to existing properties, such as adjustments to allowed values, additions of property constraints, or changes to data types, is there a process in place for this as well? I was planning to do this by putting a detailed proposal (as well as an implementation and data cleanup plan) in the Project Chat, waiting for a period of time (would a week be sufficient?), and then going ahead with the changes if/when something close to consensus is reached. I am not a property creator, however, and wanted to check in to make sure I wasn't going to be going against Wikidata established practices beforehand. Please let me know whether there are best practices I should be following. Thank you, --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is indeed one of the possible processes, pls go ahead. Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you! Is there an amount of time that is acceptable to wait before I go ahead and make the proposed changes? What if nobody comments? --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clements.UWLib: a couple of additional steps I'd recommend:

(1) Also start a discussion - at least link to the project chat proposal - on the property talk page

(2) ping people who have been involved - those who have edited the property, and those who discussed its creation on its property proposal page.

Thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There has been consensus on the property talk page, so I will link to the project chat discussion from there and ping those who have been involved. Is there a way to ping everyone who has edited a property at once if it is a property that has been edited by many different users? Or, would I need to go through and mention many many people individually? Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmdumullana0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam ―MathXplore (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked indefinitely. --Saroj (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Saroj (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same user for Nama24Pok, please see [11] and [12].--MCC214 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just received an email from user:Soufiyouns asking me to undo a block (user:باسم was the blocking admin). I revoked their email access for the duration of the block, explained that email unblock requests were inappropriate, and pointed them towards the unblock template via a talk page message. Was that the correct course of action? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received the same email. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have necessarily removed their ability to send emails, but correct to direct them to the unblock template as the preferred method of appeals I think. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also received this e-mail, for the record. Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hamka Azizan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Sockpuppet, already blocked indefinitely in idwiki as of duck test. It is the same LTA that operates the Pramesta Cahyani and Zildzi. Nyilvoskt (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyilvoskt: all accounts blocked indef. Should we revert all actions done by user:Hamka Azizan? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third accounts are Likely the same, technically. Please report further instances to WD:RFCU as LTA cases often involve sleepers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock of Matlin. GZWDer (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just for the record: this user has done 111889 edits (account created on 1 June 2024). Estopedist1 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MO likely Matlin, blocked, CU requested. --Lymantria (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From some time ago, several IPs are vandalizing an amount of entries about royals, changing deliberately the labels and descriptions in English and some other languages (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) without obtaining any consensus for doing that, and removing deliberately statements (6, 7 or 8), and other major modifications. This is not the first time they do this class of long-term editions. See User talk:Epìdosis/Archive/2024#Protection requests per vandalism for a similar previous case (@Epìdosis, @Hjart).

I restored the entries to their stable versions, but it is known that some of those IPs come back for restore their versions (more information at the previous discussion at Epìdosis talk page). For that, please consider protect all this entries and restoring them to stable versions if the IPs change them again before protection is applied. FYI, the entries affected are listed above:

• Q152260
• Q20504475
• Q518846
• Q76343
• Q356522
• Q1765834
• Q16477242
• Q16477243
• Q12678590
• Q12678592

Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely. 81.41.177.91 22:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 3 months semi, except for Q76343, for which the edit history does not justify protection. --Lymantria (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect Q24060074. Reason: Excessive vandalism XReport ----Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Protected for six months Estopedist1 (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

83.30.185.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: LTA/Harassment XReport ―--Wüstenspringmaus _talk 08:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per [13] i want to bring to attention of administrators, that IP 159.205.181.252 is continuing in edit warring at Alioshkina (Q126726300) with a new IP 77.255.4.137. The last edit of 159.205.181.252 was at 3. 7. 2024, 07:48, the 77.255.4.137 first edit was on 3. 7. 2024, 08:09. The IP actions were discussed here. Silesianus (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request on my own instead: Talk:Q6029743 is concocted by vandal from: Special:Contributions/102.129.81.102 this is liable to be deleted as precedent Talk:Q30680650 and Talk:Q26843. 83.30.185.113 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]