Shortcut: WD:AN

Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' noticeboard
This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention. IRC channel: #wikidata connect
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 2018/09.






a query

for deletions

for comment


for permissions


for deletion

and imports



Requests for deletions


72 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock


0 open requests for unblock.

User categories cleanup[edit]

Following the above discussion, a series of items should be deleted. Is there a script to do this? Is there an admin willing to do it? Do you need any help with it?
--- Jura 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an idea how many items need to be deleted here? With SPARQL I find that there are at least 15k items affected, possibly even more. I guess we’d need some automation for this task. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC) has some 32k
--- Jura 04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I could delete those but for me it is not clear which items should be deleted. The heading implies that all user categories should be deleted but in the discussion only references to sockpuppet categories are made. --Pasleim (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support deleting sockpuppet categories. --Epìdosis 10:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
We should delete according to Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria, changed here on August 10 without any objections yet. The discussion mainly took place on this page, further above in #Cross-wiki notification spamming by GZWDer. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that at Wikidata, we can't add "noindex" to items. I think we should amend it to fully exclude such user categories.
--- Jura 11:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The text in Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria currently does not exclude user categories in general (it says “maintenance categories”). If you want to get rid of all user categories, please initiate such a change of the notability policy (I’d support it). Until then, I think we have enough to do with the sockpuppet categories we have been discussing until now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done deleted enwiki sockpuppet category items with only one sitelink --Pasleim (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Just some 126 left on the above query.
    --- Jura 03:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, therefore this discussion shouldn't be done and archived unless if the privacy concern is to be resolved. I will rewrite the signature to avoid bot auto-archiving. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Amend exclusion criteria[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Epìdosis 15:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for items with more than one sitelinks - they are useful, at least for vandal-fighting.--GZWDer (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Showing private datas here are clearly violating TOU, I don't know if there are tools which even need such items for their works. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that the Wikidata item itself only provides sitelinks, and does not say anything about sockpuppetery.--GZWDer (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
"only provides sitelinks, and does not say anything about sockpuppetery", hehe. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The items does endorse the sockpuppetery of master in no way. There're also nothing private in the item itself.--GZWDer (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, sitelink itself is not necessarily directly useful by tools. They are provided for navigation purposes.--GZWDer (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Your statements are clearly hurt to a magic word __NOINDEX__, there are users who really don't wanna see him(her)self on search enginees, and the NOINDEX is just useful for them, and so categories that collect them should also always be NOINDEXed, your item creating of them can however make another way that search enginees can collect those usernames, which is why I and many WD:AN followers are concerning, since Wikidata items don't support NOINDEX function. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
"Wikidata items don't support NOINDEX function" is another issue (see phab:T195776); it is not grounds for deletion of the whole item (otherwise the local sock categories and LTA pages should also be deleted). Also I don't think it is a critical issue: Some items for sock categories already existed for more five years, but no concern specific to noindex has raised.--GZWDer (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, that really won't be happened, just like global merging accounts, because a sane Wikidata editing is just modifying text values, not introducing parsers. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Please note Wikidata entities are not wiki texts, but JSON, which noindex information may be stored as a field.--GZWDer (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Liuxinyu970226, having those categories to be stored on Wikidata can lead search engines to index their private datas, which is really a violation of WMF Terms of Use. As for vandal-fighting, this can just be done via guc. -- 23:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There're used for easy navigation between sock categories for cross-wiki abuser. The items themselves (what search engines indexed) provides much less contents negative than sock categories and SPI/RFCUs (e.g. says nothing specific about sock puppetery). Deleting items only with one sitelink also get rid of trouble in most cases. So I think before noindex is supported, items for sock categories should only be created when needed and be deleted upon user request; if we decide to exclude them now, it's probably an issue about whether to reinclude them once noindex is supported. Meta RfCs have a similar status (but include much more information about controversy/drama between users): they are indexed by default, but may be excluded upon request.--GZWDer (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Not all search engines are obeying the Robots.txt, and how do you let those which can bypass it to also remove results? -- 22:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If they can bypass robots.txt they can index local sock categories or discussion too; items are much less sensitive for privacy.--GZWDer (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately as too many privacy concerns regarding those categories are really having, still not resolved and need experts of this grey-area to clarify, the entire section is reported to WMF Trust and Safety members by me, therefore it's unlikely that someone other than those can simply reject or adopt it: @PEarley (WMF), SPoore (WMF), CSteigenberger (WMF), JSutherland (WMF), JEissfeldt (WMF):@Jalexander-WMF, Kbrown (WMF), Samuel (WMF), THargrove (WMF), Kalliope (WMF):. -- 03:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that Trust & Safety has seen this and we're having some internal discussion. We'll post here as soon as we have a more complete response. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unarchived to allow continue discussing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support violating WMF's Terms of Use is just violating WMF's Terms of Use, nothing is white-clearable by WD linking. -- 08:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
However it is not certain that it is a real violation.-- 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jalexander-WMF: any update? --User:Rschen775Rschen7754 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO it can be useful when the sockmaster is cross-wiki, but just for one category? Uhm... no, we don't need that. — regards, Revi 18:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This is not the purpose of this section; it's already decided to exclude such without more than one sitelinks.-- 12:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The actual problem is if we allow search engines to index those items, that will also allow indexing IP addresses that those sock masters are or were using, which is really a violation of the global CheckUser policy, that those IP addresses should NEVER BE PUBLISHED. -- 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

serial IP vandal[edit]

Please see the contributions of vandalizing Q742504. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 year. Lymantria (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Arevalo Andres vandalizing[edit]

Please see edits by Dan Koehl (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous edits are made by ip, but with similair edit pattern, plese see

A CU will probably show this is the same person. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Account blocked indef, IP blocked 6 months. No necessity for CU. Lymantria (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection request[edit]

Please, protect Eiffel tower (Q243). Most edits are vandalism. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected for 6 months. Lymantria (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected page[edit]

Please revert this statement deletion, Wikipedias' local “problem” cannot overwrite that how Wikidata works. Bencemac (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an admin protected it, but the current state is incorrect from a Wikidata perspective. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done, though Bencemac and Csigabi are both administrators and thus could have done it themselves. Mahir256 (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Arguably not, since it could have been considered an involved admin action. --Rschen7754 18:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is protected for one week, so editing by any administrator is in breach of our policies. Please discuss rather than revert. Thx. Csigabi (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the point of waiting a week to revert an obviously wrong and destructive edit. There is nothing to discuss here, the current state (deleting correct statements) is clearly incorrect and should be reverted. This whole situation is nonsense and Mahir256 did the right thing when reverted the edit. Do we really need to wait till 26th to fix it? Bencemac (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Q57641 is still red and unused right now, and I cannot see anything related on User talk:Pallerti either. Please get in touch with Pallerti (talkcontribslogs) and explain them what the problem is, as I am not sure whether they understand how things are done here properly. Reaching consensus via edit summary “discussions” only is quite difficult. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I explained it in the edit summary and he seems to be understand that the “problem” is with the huwiki infobox, not with our item (see the translation). The current Wikidata consensus is marking former citizenships, so I do not understand what kind of consensus you would like to see; shall I ask the community' permission every time when I want to add a correct statement? Or in other words, we have to delete every citizenships like this because there were not any former discussions on their talk page; will we do it? Obviously not. Bencemac (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You can't use the admin tools to win a content dispute, which is in essence what this request was asking to make happen. --Rschen7754 05:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

I want to separate [ptwiki]: Wikipédia:Pedidos/Páginas protegidas, [jawiki]: Wikipedia:管理者伝言板/保護ページ編集, [frwiki]: Wikipédia:Demande d'intervention sur une page protégée from Q16021032 and make new item, because these 3 pages are request pages while others are information pages.

I could remove these 3 pages from Q16021032 and create Q56676728 with [frwiki] article. But I could not add [ptwiki] page and [jawiki] page to Q56676728. So please add those pages to Q56676728. Thank you.-- 13:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Unpleasant interchange[edit]

I'm not an admin here, but Wikidata:Project chat#Two new principles introduced by Andy Mabbett seems to me to have started out as something close to a personal attack, focusing in the person rather than the substance, and only seems to have gotten more so as it has gone on. If this were on en-wiki or Commons, I'd have intervened by now, at least to suggest a more polite tone. Is the tone of this acceptable on Wikidata, or has this simply not been spotted? - Jmabel (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The 'taxonomical mafia' (as rendered by @Infovarius: a bit over a year ago) has an interesting history of being served blocks, as a direct result of their behavior towards other editors, by certain admins here (who aside from Nikki have not been as active around here recently). The same sorts of blocks had also been handed down to their target for roughly the same reasons. @Pasleim: is present in that discussion, so the interaction has certainly been spotted, and it has been made clear to all directly involved in that discussion time and time again that the specific behavior they have exhibited and are exhibiting is unacceptable. You're welcome to remind them of this fact at any time, but I would suggest you read up in both the Project chat and Administrators' noticeboard archives about all of their controversies first. Mahir256 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
WD:AN and WD:PC are two completely separate worlds and many who frequent one don't go to the other. I'm not defending that practice, but describing the unfortunate reality. --Rschen7754 01:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I've made precisely one post in that discussion, and I'm quite happy to stand by it. If you think it ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate, please explain precisely how it is so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
If any post that mentions a user is regarded as an ad hominem then I can only suggest reading up on what an ad hominem is. Two further points:
  • The pattern shown by the mentioned user of going to revert, after revert, after revert (etc) without giving a supporting argument, or without engaging in any meaningful discussion is surely unwanted. Many users have been blocked for less.
  • And, yes, in the past a series of pure ad hominems has been allowed here on this board (two, three times a week, for several weeks), constantly repeating the same demagoguery. Very worrying indeed.
- Brya (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
As so tone, I think we all agree that, all things being equal, politeness is preferable. But, clearly, the combination of politeness and nefariousness is not all that rare. Politeness by itself won't achieve anything. What matters is that edits are constructive, that is, they should address issues, and contribute towards better data and better data representation. - Brya (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Brya: Your comment here strikes me as cheap sniping. In terms of the content of this discussion: I don't have a dog in this fight. In terms of how people here talk to and about each other: this is the sort of thing that drives away contributors. - Jmabel (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I must say I am bewildered by this comment. Andy Mabbett's anonymous insertion is strongly deprecating; it mentions "fixing", implying something is broken and then explicitly stating "broken". Obviously, this indent is perfectly functional, doing just what it is supposed to do. If Andy Mabbett holds the belief an insert is desirable, he can do so without the derogatory tone (and he can sign his edits, showing whose beliefs are expressed there). My comment merely mirrors what he is doing and draws attention to his ongoing campaign. - Brya (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Brya: If a style of indenting that does not cause problems for users of screen readers is somehow "alien" here, then it's about time that editors started thinking about changing their style. Every time you leave a blank line in an indented discussion, you force a visually impaired visitor to hear something like "end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; end definition list; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item; new definition list of one item;". Yes, that's right: 10 pieces of nonsense for them to listen to, just because you can't be bothered to fill in a blank line with five colons. It's one thing to be ignorant of the problems that you cause those less fortunate than yourself, it's quite another to snidely attack an editor who fixes the problems you cause and shows you how to avoid causing them in future. If you need further reading, then there is a good explanation of the accessibility issue on the English Wikipedia at en:MOS:INDENTGAP. Your style of indenting is indeed "broken" and you owe Pigsonthewing (talkcontribslogs) an apology. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
RexxS - Let's start with a basic fact: this is not enwiki. Enwiki has decided to prescribe a style of indenting based on the mind-set and perceptions of a group of users with similar outlook, using similar devices, with screens of similar sizes and with similar screen-settings. A classic case of putting the horse behind the cart, making Talk-pages unreadable for many users: a monument of intolerance. Just the sort of thing that makes people describe enwiki as a creepy sect, communicating by secret, weird, behind-the-back conventions, designed to keep outsiders, well, outside.
        If the designers of "screen readers" have chosen to rely on this enwiki-style, or in other words, decided to build their "screen readers" exclusively for use at enwiki, that is their outlook. If they would be more inclusively-minded, they would have corrected the flaws in their design. That would be a lot more sensible than running around inserting odd little 'patches' accompanied by snide comments at randomly chosen places. It looks to me that both you and Pigsonthewing (talkcontribslogs) owe me an apology. --  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brya (talk • contribs) at 03:09, 24 September 2018‎ (UTC).

Are „as before“ or „as previously“ useful edit comments?[edit]

I do not like Admin riddles, Mahir256. If you have an opinion about my working here please plainly address it in a direct manner to me. A lot of admins are pinged here by you. I'm missing MisterSynergy, who tried to settle disputes with me. The general question is: Are „as before“ or „as previously“ useful edit comments? (#1 and #2)? If someone needs another example then please check species nova (Q27652812). Thanks. --Succu (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looks like the conflict at species nova (Q27652812) is settled for now. --Succu (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ghost bot?[edit]

Please block MicrobeBot (talkcontribslogs). There was some malfunction on a series of items and it's unclear if it persists and who will be fixing it. See User_talk:MicrobeBot#Alias and Topic:Uk5nbnlwi9cwcwu1. The bot continues to edit without the point being addressed. It's unclear if the mentioned operator is even still active on the project. Special:Contributions/Putmantime (hardly any edits in the last 12 months, last edit in July). --- Jura 06:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1:, I have blocked the Bot User:MicrobeBot temporarily for 6 hours so the work by this Bot can be examined and analyzed, and if needed have a permanent block, if the mentioned operator cannot be reached. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Normally, Bots are approved by Bureaucrats, why I copy those comments to Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not clear when and how it's running, maybe it should just be blocked until the operator returns/responds. --- Jura 09:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1, Dan Koehl: Thanks for the note. I've updated the bot owner information as we have had some recent transitions in responsibilities. I believe we have identified the error and proposed a plan of action in my reply at User_talk:MicrobeBot#Alias. To test our fix next week, it would be useful if the block could be lifted. Happy to answer any other questions... Best, Andrew Su (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Andrew Su:, good to hear, the block was only 6 hours. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/2018 administrator policy update[edit]

A RFC has been proposed on changes to various administrator and user conduct policies including edit warring, page protection, involved administrators, and interface administrators. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754) vandalism[edit] is currently vandalizing numerous items. Trivialist (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked by Mahir256--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection request[edit]

Please protect Piero da Vinci (Q371916). Heavy vandalism. --ZebaX2010 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also protect Caterina di Meo Lippi (Q56229514). Same vandalism. --ZebaX2010 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done --Rschen7754 03:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Good grief. That is the most number of /16s I've blocked on any wiki, ever. What is going on? --Rschen7754 03:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I don't know. Mahir256 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We are being hit with a high level of IP vandalism. Any admins around please help. --Rschen7754 03:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Kindly excuse me[edit]

I have made certain translations just now.I wanted to translate the items in Marathi(mr) language.Unfortunately,I did not pay any heed to the language displayed above and change the same. It was ba. At the end, when certain other language translations were seen in the box, I went to the top of the page and seen the language was ba.

Thus, I have reverted all my translations made in that language and put the English version there. This is the confession of my grave mistake. Please ignore it with a broad mind. It is requested to check the same and make them good if needed. Thanks in advance.--V.narsikar (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection of Q9296662[edit]

Vandalisms made from IPs (Polish descriptions). Thanks, Wostr (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done, for three months. --Okkn (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

IPs Block request[edit]

The following IPs have been making vandalic edits:

Esta wea na' que ver (en: This is bullshit!) [[1]]
Luis jara caca 2012 (en: Luis jara shit 2012): [[2]]
chupa pico (en: Cock sucker): [[3]]

Changes sex declaration from "male" to "female male": [[4]]

Modifying name to a nickname (en: Luis to Lucho): [[5]]

TU MAMA ES WEONA (en: Your mom is an asshole): [[6]]

Several statements modifications: Name modification, writer disapearance date removed, Male to Female, Human to Martian, etc.: [[7]]

@3BRBS: Blocked the /16 subranges for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I am reluctant to block such big ranges for longer than 6 hours since there is the possibility for a lot of collateral damage. If you got a steward to check the ranges we could look into longer-term blocks. --Rschen7754 18:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging request[edit]


could you please merge Antoine-Florentin Bourdon (Q20083901) and Antoine Bourdon (Q56738619)? This is the same person. Apologies for having created a duplicate... 16:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Please merge Georges Gizolme (Q41711463) and Georges Gizolme (Q50888208) too. 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Attack on Mers-el-Kébir and Operation Catapult are less or more same event. I couldn't merge this two pages. --BokicaK (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@BokicaK: Merge the pages on their respective wikis and then come back with this request. Mahir256 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I came here because I don't know how to merge above-mentioned pages. Usually, I don't have problem with merging, this is first case in which I do have problem. --BokicaK (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@BokicaK: I had meant that you should go to every wiki on which there are distinct pages for the items you mentioned (in this case enwiki, eswiki, fiwiki, frwiki, ruwiki, and ukwiki) and make your case on each of those wikis to merge the pages on those wikis first. Then, once those pages are all merged, the two items on Wikidata can be merged if in fact they describe the same event. Someone else might come to this noticeboard and claim that the two items should be kept separate, so be prepared to make your case to them as well. (I am making no judgments here as to whether they should be merged or not, but am simply stating my concern as an administrator that the pairs of pages are making merging the two items technically impossible and also disallowed per the first point of WD:N.) Mahir256 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection or block request[edit]


Please see history of modifications on Arturo Vidal (Q192671)

Maybe this item could be protected for a while.

Or user (talkcontribslogs) blocked, who continues on other items.

Best regards, --Do not follow (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Do not follow: Blocked the /16 subrange for a week. Mahir256 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence. --Do not follow (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Annuler une fusion[edit]

Bonjour, pourriez-vous annuler la fusion de [8] vers [9], car je me suis trompé sur les contenus. Désolé et merci d'avance, Méphisto38 (talk) 25 septembre 2018 à 18:00 (UTC)

I reversed the merge (you have to restore the second one first, so the sitelink is free to be linked to the other item). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Old Alton Bridge[edit]

I assume the temporary protection on Old Alton Bridge (Q7083385) just expired, since it was vandalized again today. I’ve rolled it back, but can we protect this some more? - PKM (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Egermundson (talkcontribslogs) is showing some strange edit behavior. Lots of their reverts seem to be correcting vandalism, but quite often they remove substantial data from items that is clearly not vandalism. Revert comments are not helpful in these cases either, and the user is not answering on their talk page. Some suspicious difflinks: [10][11][12][13][14][15], and possibly more. They are also adding inappropriate descriptions [16], which they overwrite immediately [17].

The account might be hacked, thus I recommend an indef block in order to wait for a reply by the account owner. As this affects one of my own edits in one case, I do not act as admin here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Block request[edit]


Could someone stop (talkcontribslogs) vandalizing Leonardo DiCaprio (Q38111) ? Many thanks in advance. --Do not follow (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 31 hrs blocked —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Q142[edit]

Please semi-protect France (Q142) - frequent IP vandalism, popular theme, widely used label.--Jklamo (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 3rd protection of this item, half a year semi’ed this time —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)