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 2019/01.






a query

for deletions

for comment


for permissions


for deletion

and imports



Requests for deletions


11 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock


1 open request for unblock.

Edit war around P364[edit]


He undoes my edits without discussion! --- Amihan27 (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with Why is Jura1 allowed to undo it? --- Amihan27 (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amihan27: have you attempted to contact Jura1 about this first? He isn't actively editing at this moment, so we will not block him without discussion either. @Jura1: It seems like a lot of your edits are not justified; for example in [1], you restored P364, which is deprecated in favor of P407. Please stop those scripted edits and explain your rationale here or at Wikidata:Project chat. Personally, I think that page is more appropriate for discussion about the content other than that related to administrator actions, which are not going to occur at this particular moment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's just a repair run of deletions. Incidentally I asked for block of the Amihan account for the problem above. --- Jura 08:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps both parties need to just stop until we can figure out what is going on. For the reference of others Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2018/12#Please_stop_batches_and_block_account ·addshore· talk to me! 09:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Amihan27: and @Jura1: so that they actually see this. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there anything new since the last attempts at discussion? The problem is that if we let Amihan's deletions stand, there will be a gap in our data. The restore process affects some standard descriptions. I will readd them afterwards.
    Amihan, have you previously edited as User:Freakymovie? --- Jura 10:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jasper Deng, Addshore, MisterSynergy: Jura1 continues with editing. Is this fair? @Jura1: There is not gap I removed redundant data. But your are undoing much more. Remvoing data which was not there before. Not description but statements. --- Amihan27 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed does seem to not actually be toughing a statement at all ·addshore· talk to me! 11:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Another point on the use of rollback here, rollback should only be used when reverting clear vandalism or test edits per the guidelines ·addshore· talk to me! 11:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Amihan27: It's actually a statement that is there per our datamodel and you keep removing it despite having been asked not to do so. Did you do the same as User:Freakymovie before? --- Jura 11:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: You should really stop all edits of this sort entirely while it is under discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Why did admins let Amihan27 continue breaking stuff? --- Jura 11:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • "breaking stuff" is a matter of opinion, according to Amihan27 you are breaking stuff, and according to you Amihan27 is breaking stuff. Please stop editing on this topic and lest finish discussing it even if we have to pull in more people to read through all of the previous discussion. @Jura1: if you continue to roll these back now I'll temporarily remove your rollback flag per Wikidata:Rollbackers. @Amihan27:, If either of you continue to edit on this topic I'll go ahead and temp block one or both of you. Please let's figure this out before this rollback / edit warning continues for the next 50 years.. ·addshore· talk to me! 11:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Why hadn't you asked the same from Amihan27 last time this was brought up? --- Jura 11:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
          • It's not the case of asking one person to stop, you both must stop and resolve this without the edit waring, the edit waring solves nothing and you will both clearly continue until the end of days. ·addshore· talk to me! 11:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Thank you for stopping the edits ·addshore· talk to me! 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Next we need to decide on how to move forward from here. We need to figure out what all possible options are, what has already been discussed and compile it somewhere for more than just the people involved ot review and discuss. ·addshore· talk to me! 11:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


So discussion at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2018/12#Please_stop_batches_and_block_account kind of fizzled out, and then the edit waring started again.

The discussion at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_work_(P364) ended up in a section called FINAL_VOTE:_Suggested_closure_reasons, and after reading all of the unarchived content there I feel I could go and close that discussion for removing all usages except for films and renaming the property. Then we have a clear state that further discussions etc can try to move forward from, but the generally consensus regarding the properties at this point in time would be clear.

I have to admit that looking at Wikidata:WikiProject_Movies/Properties I find it slightly confusing when it comes to this language topic, I think that is partly due to the mix of modeling between the tv series and films both of which are listed on the same page and covered by the same wiki project.

I'll come and look at this section again in the morning before moving forward with anything. Please do not restart any edit warring.

·addshore· talk to me! 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to ping anyone so @Amihan27: and @Jura1: so that you see this most recent comment in your notifications ·addshore· talk to me! 00:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is all about original language of film or TV show (P364) vs language of work or name (P407), does that need to be sorted out first? Is there anybody besides Jura advocating to retain P364? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#language_of_work_or_name_(P407)_and_original_language_of_work_(P364) the people in the discussion generally decided to keep it around for now just for films and probably revisit it at a later time. I'd be pro archiving that discussion with that conclusion and then revisiting at a later time / not on the RFD. ·addshore· talk to me! 19:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226, Pasleim, Snipre, ArthurPSmith, PKM: notify people who participated in the vote. 08:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Just delete P364, no need to concern how Jura1 said. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Proceed as suggested (keep P364 and rename for films). - PKM (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Keeping P364 is just a source for a mess but as I don't take care of movies, I can live with that property if the label is changed to specify its use only for movie and if the description clearly states that it can be used only in items about movies or series. Snipre (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to run my script to migrate / deprecate the relevant statements, whichever outcome we decide on. Deryck Chan (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this open over the weekend and then close this and the RFD from ages ago on Monday. ·addshore· talk to me! 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd love if we could finally solve this, but I have to ask: have all potential fringe cases where both statements would be needed actually been solved? Cases like editions/translations that we can't connect to the original work because we don't know which specific edition/translation they are based on. Or cases where we only know that a work is based on an unknown older text in another language, but nothing more that could be used to create an item for that original work (probably only applies to some very old historic texts). I've asked this question in the last discussion here, but got no answer. I'd hate if this becomes another case where such changes are made before all use cases have been worked out and the few people who have to deal with such cases are left on their own to figure out what to do now. --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the administrator's noticeboard, where users publish requests and administrators solve them; unlike the project chat, requests for deletion or property talk pages, this isn't a place for editors to express their wishes or to discuss Wikidata's schemas and conventions. It's a reminder in case you want your contributions, which are valuable, to have an impact, and also a petition for us not to digress so that this thread, whose matter is an edit war, can be closed soon. Anyway, thank you all for your efforts to improve this area, including Amihan27 and Jura1, and thanks to Addshore for pushing this thread forward. --abián 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I just made and edit to the original RFD closing the whole greater section. We should relabel the property and leave it for films / movies now. If someone wants to change this there should be more discussion at a different venue. Regarding the actual reason for the start of this section, if either user starts making edits that go against this general consensus before further discussion happens and different consensus is reached then I will block them... @Amihan27: and @Jura1: ·addshore· talk to me! 08:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC) ·addshore· talk to me! 08:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Addshore: What about TV series? --- Amihan27 (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my wording was / is "Consensus to merge, excluding usage on "television series" and "films" items. The property should be relabeled to reflect the tighter scope." ·addshore· talk to me! 11:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Addshore: A related dispute occurred between EncycloPetey and me as to whether your closure approved renaming P:P407. I understood it that both properties should be renamed as discussed in the PfD, but EncycloPetey seems to think that a PfD could not mandate the renaming of a property. Can you clarify your decision on this matter? Deryck Chan (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The closing "consensus" vote says nothing at all about a rename of any property; it merely advocates for deletion of a property in most of its usages. A deletion discussion (lasting a year) about one property is not the appropriate place to put a discussion about renaming a different high-profile property in widespread use by multiple Wikiprojects. And a rename to generic "language" instead of the consensus-established "language of work or name" will lead to problems of confusion with similarly-named properties rather than solve them. If the property is to be renamed, a single focused discussion should address that issue, with interested parties notified.
"The property should be relabeled" in the closing statement presumably refers to the remaining usages of the property that was to be deleted, and not a different property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As EncycloPetey says, my sentence was talking about the property with remaining usages from the PfD and no other properties, so P364. Sorry, I could have been a bit clearer with the sentence. P364 has, as far as I can see also already have its label changed (I haven't checked all languages). ·addshore· talk to me! 15:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I have migrated all existing uses of original language of film or TV show (P364) except those in the class audiovisual work (Q2431196) to language of work or name (P407); there were 295 migrations. Deryck Chan (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User Yigalmitt[edit]

This user is making lots of bad merges in the wikidata distributed game for several days now, does not react to User_talk:Yigalmitt and should be blocked for the time being.--Masegand (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted at least one of their merges; on the other hand at least one I saw was good, so not sure here... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked the user for three days hoping that after that time he could help clean up the mess he’s done. Unfortunately, after a quick glance (I’m on a mobile), I’ve got the impression that most merges are wrong, so it would be best to just revert them all. And maybe start thinking what can be done to prevent this type of situation. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to mention. In at least one merge, this weird thing happened. The enwiki sitelink was left behind because the destination item already had an enwiki sitelink, so the merge should have been prevented. I vaguely remember this being mentioned before, and maybe even a phabricator ticket. Anyone with better memory? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the same was true on one merge that I reverted - there were 4 or 5 sitelinks that were left behind, so it was clearly NOT a legitimate merge candidate in the first place. So a bug in the "distributed game" or whatever this person was using - @Magnus Manske: do you know about this issue? ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Masegand, ArthurPSmith, Andreasmperu: I have reverted all of their 145 mergers without individual checks whether they were okay or not. Most were obviously not, but some might have been okay. The user was not able to revert their mess by themselves. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Protection request for Q4423260[edit]

Please semi-protect Fuji Taiseki-ji Kenshōkai (Q4423260). Several IPs change the description in Japanese to "日本のカルト教団、過激組織" (Japanese cult faction, extremist). --Afaz (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ DoneMisterSynergy (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

quickstatements server issues?[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to point out issues on quickstatements tool server. Since 2 days it is a nightmare to working with quickstatements. In the best case it'll be very slow and take "hours" to get changes up 'n' running and sometimes nothing happen, can't log in or get misc error messages like server errors, bad gateway or similar helpful hints. Possibly it'll be on my enviroment only.--Derzno (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I confirm same problems (since 2-3 days), so it is not problem with your enviroment.--Jklamo (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
This twitter post by Magnus may be related: ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: there seem to still be problems? Are other tools affected? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Lexeme forms was really slow for me just now too. OAuth problems of some sort? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything I do with the tool. Is it browser mode or batch mode that's slow? Or both? --Magnus Manske (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Browser mode. I've been doing about 20-200 commands at a time. Off and on it's just sort of frozen - right now I am waiting on a Quickstatments browser window with 36 commands, of which it's completed only 1, and the little circle's been turning round and round for a few minutes now with no progress... ? ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I recently migrated the tool from the Stretch Bastion to the Trusty Bastion (compare wikitech:News/Toolforge Trusty deprecation), though I’m not sure if that even makes a difference when the tool itself is running on Kubernetes. Please let me know if the problem persists and I can bring it up with the Wikimedia Cloud Services folks. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister: The lexeme-forms problem was very brief, it's been fine since then. Quickstatements still seems to have issues though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The reason (for problems with tools like PetScan, Harvest Templates, QuickStatements, ...) might be a Replication Lag during the last days. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Had some problems a day ago, but now the browser mode is working without any problems again. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So I just ran 10 edits from QuickStatements in browser more on the Sandbox item. Went smoothly. Maybe clear browser cache, and let me know if it gets stuck again. Ideally, turn on the network log in your bowser, have a look at the last result when it gets stuck, and let me know. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske:, I'd tried it with firefox, opera, google and IE. On all browsers same result, I can't log in. --Derzno (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: It was working for me for a while (off and on) - when I turned on the network monitor it was taking about 8 seconds per command. However, now I'm getting 500 server errors just going to the Quickstatements page! ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
And now Quickstatemtns is working (as of a few minutes ago) but lexeme-forms has gotten very slow (1+ minute response time to load a page). General tool server problems? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes it's working not stable. I had some batches which were stucked and came with no error message --Derzno (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Pokedex number PfD[edit]

Similar to the discussion on P:P364 above, would an uninvolved administrator be able to make a decision for Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Pokédex_number_(P1112)_+_Pokémon_browser_number_(P1685? The discussion seems to have exhausted editors' interest and there isn't an overwhelming consensus. A closing decision would be appreciated. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Protection request for Q184935[edit]

Hi, Can you Semi-protect Q184935 for vandalism, we have 20 ip modification in 3 day. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done for a month. Mahir256 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

Hello.This page is subversive.Please delete and protect it.Thanks David (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked by MisterSynergy and page deleted and creation-protected by myself. Mahir256 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Divyansh kumar Srivastava[edit]

User:Divyansh kumar Srivastava keeps creating unnotable items, supposedly for himself. Q60525929 and Q60525061 were already deleted, now he created it again (Q60615994, Q60615373). I request admin action, namely deletion and either block or warning of the user. Steak (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User seems to be globally locked, items are deleted. Bovlb (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


This user seems to replace precise dates with vague ones. Is this advantageous?-- 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you list some diffs here for closer evaluation? The operator tries to undo their own edits from past weeks, as there was valid criticism how they replaced *sourced* vague dates with more precise ones which were not found in the original sources. @Anders-sandholm: FYI. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me MisterSynergy. Not sure I have much to add here. I made the original edits (from vague to precise) because I assumed a more precise value would be better - even when Wikipedia was the source. I fully respect the strong wish to have things verifiable with high quality sources and hence I am - as requested - rolling back edits that were made to values that already had non-wikipedia sources associated. For dates that either didn't have any sources or only had Wikipedia as source, I am keeping the precise dates. --Anders-sandholm (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

about home page[edit]

Receive a warm greeting. I would like to see the edition of the main page of that wiki. It turns out that for educational reasons, I am studying wikis environments, and I would like to copy some templates of this wiki as a reference, it also helps me to customize the templates. Please could you give me access, I just need to visualize I do not want to edit anything.

Greetings from Peru



This visitor seems to have had a lot of fun since the 17th of January by modifying the Italian descriptions (ex : Mary Stuart = Stuart ignioranti). Can one of you take a look, please? See and also maybe Thanks, --BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done IP is blocked for a month. Lymantria (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Jura1 - vandalism to BBLD ID using rollback and other kind of BBLD vandalism[edit]


  • mass-vandalised BBLD IDs (P2580) using rollback
  • vandalised the page Property:P2580 directly
  • vandalised the talk page
  • tried to get person items deleted when they were connected with the BBLD (but that was turned down)

He further managed to have IP edits to the property amd statements involving the property blocked, despite the fact that IPs were the most knowledgeable about the BBLD IDs.

The more than 6 months of harrassement of IPs and other users that wanted to fix his fake information insertations affected Wikidata, dewiki, ruwiki and other projects.

The fake information insertion has been taken up by the BBLD itself and is documented in Wikipedia.

Is that the only story of fake information insertion by that user? See his 2006 creation "descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160)" and the connected items like human, aircraft etc. and judge yourself. 15:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Jura1 - rollback - repair deletion of valid statements[edit]

If the statements were valid, why did Jura1 delete them?

I reverted, but can someone check? 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

IP is vandalizing items. Esteban16 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, 31 h--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Q180)[edit]

Protection needed: Please semi-protect it. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, for one month. --Okkn (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by Festivalmoss[edit]

The user is excessively vandalizing items. --Esteban16 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Festivalmoss (talkcontribslogs) has been warned. Pamputt (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Bitwa pod Qamdo[edit]

Bitwa pod Qamdo in plWikipedia should be directed to Battle of Chamdo in enWikipedia ,they are the same

Działania zbrojne Chińskiej Armii Ludowo-Wyzwoleńczej w Tybecie (1950-1951) should be directed to Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China


@Ymblanter: Гросс Нилсен (talkcontribslogs). Вандалит также в РуВики (запрос подан). Kalendar (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2019 (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. -- Kalendar (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


@Ymblanter: (talkcontribslogs) Kalendar (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done, 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2019 (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. -- Kalendar (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "RM" (Q20514446) and "Jin" (Q24276424)[edit]

Could you semi-protect RM (Q20514446) and Jin (Q24276424), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
They have been semi-protected already, between December 2017 and December 2018.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Protection for Q55649583[edit]

Hi, could you protect Alexandre Benalla (Q55649583) due to frequent vandalism? Thanks! Lofhi (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


This is a bot that does not log in.--GZWDer (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

In addition, it created some non notable items like Q60775880.--GZWDer (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


I got a report that a bot on Labs is malfunctioning and was editing while logged out. Under the Bot policy, it states "Bots should not edit while logged out, and can use the AssertEdit to ensure that." Therefore I have blocked it for 24 hours. Feel free to unblock if the operator is identified or extend if it is not identified and activity continues after block expire. — regards, Revi 15:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Found the above topic after saving. Extending to 1 week. — regards, Revi 15:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I suspect this may be YiFeiBot and have contacted the operator at User talk:YiFeiBot#editing anonymously. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Protection for Q26690130[edit]

The item is frequently vandalized. It does not receive "high" amount of vandalism but I consider that a semi-protection for a while would be useful. Esteban16 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)