Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

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 2020/06.

Requests for deletions


62 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock


0 open requests for unblock.

Anne of NurembergEdit

Q55830028 reason for deletion: the object already exists Q76509241 Dieda30

Alexismata7 and Cuatro RemosEdit

User Alexismata7 (talkcontribslogs) has been adding incorrect descriptions on item Dua Lipa (Q21914464), in languages he does not speak, and has been reinstating them despite being told not to do so. At this moment, they have reverted me three times, but he could be blocked anyway for deliberate vandalism. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can see that just below this thread they've posted a retaliatory post against me, for reversing his "correct" google-translated descriptions. Please take action. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Cuatro Ramos
Section removed to resolve this incident jointly.

User Cuatro Remos (talkcontribslogs) is reversing me correct translations on item Dua Lipa (Q21914464), when he judged them to be incorrect and did not even verify them (that I do not know how to speak a language does not mean that I can make a correct translation). --Alexis Mata (discusión) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider Alexismata7's edits "deliberate vandalism", but lack of common sense. He was firt undid by Miaow, and she told him that the English and Spanish descriptions he added weren't notable. Dua Lipa is mostly known for being a singer, and he added that she is a model and fashion designer, which, as stated by Miaow, is not necessary to add because the descriptions should include only the most notable occupations of a person. Cuatrro Remos considered the rest of his edits vandalism (and lack of languages knowledge) and restored the item. Cuatro Remos, who has been previously warned for the misuse of the rollback tool, did it again. Here he used the tool during and edit warring, and I consider this sufficient to remove his flag. As I was involved in his past disputes, I prefer not to do it myself. And, Alexismata7 shouldn't have continued do edit until consensus was reached. The response I give is that the descriptions added by AlexisMata7 shouldn't be restored, and I highly recommend an uninvolved administrator to review Cuatro Remos' use of the rollback tool. Esteban16 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Restoring wrong changes despite being told not to do so is vandalism, and so rollback tool has not been misused. It was not edit warring (only three rollbacks were performed). I could not resolve the issue myself, so I came here. I thank Miaow's comments on Alexis' talk page, which denote again their lack of common sense, as you Esteban put it. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Cuatro Remos: Alexismata7' aim wasn't to harm to item, he just added data he claimed was right, but his actions weren't good. You did good by coming here, but if an user disagrees you, you shouldn't revert them. Esteban16 (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, due to the continuous disputes between the two users, I have imposed an interaction saction between them untill they both agree to collaborate peacfully. Esteban16 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2020 (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. Esteban16 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User RusFasEdit

Offensive username that means Rus(sian)Fas(cist), see his contributions, 4 edits out of total 10 are:

  • [1]: changing Russian description from "form of radical authoritarian nationalism" to "Third Way";
  • [2]: changing Russian description from "form of fascism with elements of racism and antisemitism" to "Official political ideology of Germany from 1933 till 1945."
  • [3]: changing Russian description from "far-right political movement, ideology" to "Official political ideology of Italy from 1922 till 1945."
  • [4]: changing Russian description from "white nationalists' slogan" to "Neonazi slogan"

Wikisaurus (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Two more edits of the same sort: [5] and [6]. Isn't there enough even of fascist pushing, without username, to ban him? Wikisaurus (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Although he is not very active, I see here a general mood for confrontation and promoting a marginal point of view. The observation about the nickname is confirmed by the fact that on his page on the Russian Wikipedia he indicated that he was a supporter of National Fascist Party (Q139596) Carn (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See also en:Wikipedia:No Nazis Carn (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To his honour, he's never wrote here that the White people are better than those who non-white, or something. --Wolverène (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The provocativeness of his username seems still not embarrassing the community of his home wiki. Personally for me, it's not offensive, the block of user because of unacceptable nickname would be a controversial precedent, since for every individual person any hint of anything may be regarded as offensive (hint of fascism, communism, religion, irreligiosity, of feminism, masculinity, pro-Trumpism, BLM, etc.). We'd just be tired of being offended.
    However, I'm embarrassed about what the person's doing here at Wikidata, he's either understands badly what Wikidata is, or he's here for trolling. E.g. such a description changing is in a better case just incorrect (fascism = (ru) "Ideology of The Third Position"), or this description changing that's obviously a vandalism borderline (it's clear for the Russian-speaking community since Ye. Ponasenkov is rather a local internet meme than a true historian so describing him as a genius is bringing a smile). --Wolverène (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Mediation between MovieFex and meEdit

I find myself in an ongoing edit war with User:MovieFex across items and properties that is starting to get quite nasty, even though it is mostly about bagatelles. I know that I have my part in it as I continued reverting even when it got clear that there will be no consensus via communication over edit histories. It seems that MovieFex tends to insulting and/or pejorative comments (unjustified, after checking my points e.g. [7], [8]), stalling and does not seem able to accept other persons positions even when these are backed up by other members of the community and/or guidelines. Incidentally, MovieFex does not seem to be willing to look for advice via talk pages, but does seem to see this as a kind of confession of weakness (if I interpret his comment at [9] and his reaction at [10] correctly). That's why it starts to get quite frustrating for me. I can't stand it any longer, but I can't accept someone getting "his/her way" at the cost of other people's contributions without giving solid arguments and I can't accept to be insulted. There seems to be a general pattern of resentment and I don't want to start a new discussion for every item/property that is affected by our inability to cooperate. So I start a general call for mediation here.


1. Edit war about the use of deprecated rank (since May 20 2020‎):

  • Start of edit war at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), 12:36, 20. Mai 2020: [11]: MovieFex deleted the statement indicating the Dutch title, backed up by the European Film Academy Archive of the European Film Awards. I restored it suggesting to deprecate the statement if one is sure that the French title is really the original title. After doing some research I deprecated the statement with the reason that I could not confirm this with other sources. MovieFex does not agree with the deprecation.
  • I seek mediation at Wikidata:Project_chat#Deprecated_rank. Other participants in the discussion support the deprecation.
  • At the same time we have a discussion about the question if deprecated statements trigger constraint violations (User_talk:MovieFex#Deprecated_ranks_and_constraint_reports) leading to MovieFex to claim that the depreation of statements is one of my "special ideas" and asserting that "I [MovieFex] was confronted with many of your ideas that are absolutely unreasonable and it only shows that there sometimes is a lack in understanding. But for today I've wasted enough time in substantive discussions". When I referred to all the guidelines supporting the deprecation of ranks (esp. Help:Property_constraints_portal/Single_value#Possible_actions, Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank) there was no reponse or counter argument.
  • I restored my edit at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), 20:32, 23. Mai 2020‎, after some days to give time for consideration. He/She reverted me again, in the end because of "monolingual text". I still don't see what a deprecated statement has to do with "monolingual text".
  • I seek mediation, again at Wikidata:Project_chat#Deprecated_Rank_and_constraint_violations. There another user backs up the deprecated statements. MovieFex does not seem to be willing to restore the deprecated statement or answer to the points brought up against his position.

I have no idea what to do after some waiting period without any response by MovieFex: Should I revert, again, and risk to start another edit war? Should I ask some other person to revert or restore my edit?

2. Edit war about the indication of premiere dates of films (since May 21 2020‎)

Several persons including myself add premiere dates to films. In 2017 it was accepted at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies/Properties#Looking_for_right_Properties and documented at Property_talk:P793 to use significant event (P793). date of first performance (P1191) was dropped with the reason that it should be reserved for live performances. significant event (P793) was confirmed, again, at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Datum_der_Erst-_oder_Uraufführung_(P1191)_for_films with the only opposing person being MovieFex. He/she did not provide any alternative way to indicate premiere dates or give his/her reasons for blocking the indication of premiere dates of films in Wikidata altogether. Instead, he/she deleted such a statement at Siberia (Q83954889) with the reason "no consensus" ([12]). I started a new section for discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Deletion_of_statements,_possible_options but MovieFex did not respond there, yet.

Again, I have no idea what to do, as I don't want to risk another edit war.

3. Edit war about the use of name of the character role (P4633) (since today, May 26 2020)

Some background: Even though name of the character role (P4633) was proposed for performing arts productions it is also used on films, which seems to be reasonable to me, as there is often a list of role names in the credits being part of the film which can be thought of as corresponding to the program of a performing arts production. It should ideally be used along with character role (P453). Nevertheless there is a comment in the property proposal by the person who proposed it, Beat Estermann, pointing out that the qualifier could be also used without character role (P453): "[...] it also comes with the advantage that it can be used when the target WD item for the character role is unknown or has not been defined yet; from this point of view, it also functions like author name string (P2093).", admitting the use without character role (P453). In this way the property is often used where the creation of an own item may seem excessive, eg. for very minor roles in films (see Iron Man 3 (Q209538)).

name of the character role (P4633) was proposed with Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick) (Q40289399) in mind, giving "Dienstmann" as an example (Wikidata:Property_proposal/name_of_the_character_role). "Dienstmann" is not a personal name, but a name (Q82799) identifying the role in the context of the play. Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick) (Q40289399) is full with "names of character role" being not personal names but job titles and similar.

I used this property at Life is Beautiful (Q19355) (besides others) to indicate that "Madre di Dora" is the name of the character role of Marisa Paredes (Q235398) as given in the closing credits of the film. MovieFex deleted the qualifier. I restored my version pointing out that this is the way the person is mentioned in the credits. Even though "Dienstmann" is given as an example in the property proposal and Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick) (Q40289399) is full with "role names" being not personal names, MovieFex does not accept that name of the character role (P4633) can be used with anything than personal names (you can see the edit war history at [13]).

I started a new discussion at Property_talk:P4633. There was no response, yet, so I don't know where this will lead, but I wanted to include this case for completeness. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MovieFex: Please answer here or at Property_talk:P4633 before continuing your deletions of name of the character role (P4633) (such as at Little Tony (Q1627206) [14]). "vriendin" is how the role is mentioned in the credits of the film. You give no evidence at all that your interpretation of that property is right. [15] should probably be one. But your reference does not support your claim. The property proposal, the use in relevant items created by the proposer of that property and the example at the property page oppose your view. Please give evidence that supports your view that personal names are allowed only. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@MovieFex: I'm going to restore my edits in the course of the next week if there is no reply by you here or at any of the discussion sections. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record: I restored my edits at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138), Siberia (Q83954889) and Little Tony (Q1627206) today. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Continued deletion of deprecated statementsEdit

MovieFex deleted the deprecated statement at A Tale of the Wind (Q3801138) again without any concrete reason and without engaging in any discussion. What can be done if one person does not accept such general rules as those about deprecated statements? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User: (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) He have been adding unsourced birth names to a lot of items about adult actors. Since i can:t find any of the birth bames on Google it's unlikely to be pu lc knowledge and as such believe his edits are violating our policy regarding the privacy of BLP.--Trade (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Some names have to be real (e.g. John Strong doesn't hide his real name). However I guess that the main source of birth names were now-closed PornWikiLeaks, which was leading the "wh*re hunting" (c) and used the information that has been stolen from a clinical database, so it's not that situation when a person disclosures the name by his/her own, or when a person wasn't careful to hide the personal data making it easily googled.
    I've heard what was happening to adult actors who have been unmasked on e.g. imageboards - they were harassed, they lost regular jobs and such. This shouldn't be encouraged so it's better to block the anonym for some time. --Wolverène (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have emailed a oversighter to take care of this. --Trade (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is somewhat urgent.@Ajraddatz:--Trade (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
FWIW I haven't received an email about this, or any notification until now, so if by your ping you meant to say that you emailed me then I'm afraid it didn't get through. As to the case, I'm not sure how best to handle this -- I looked through a sample of eight, and was able to easily find the real name of the individual for five of them. It's not clear to me that all of this qualifies as suppressable content. That said, if these people are all notable for being porn actresses/actors, then maybe it's best to just remove their real names from the alias column? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
S/he's adding these data exactly in the alias column. --Wolverène (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I am aware. Should we remove the real names from the alias column across the board, even for those that are verifiable? That would make sense to me. If the real name is public, it can be cited as a statement. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll be okay hiding all the changes just to be sure. Someone importing sensitive information from PornWikiLeaks is unlikely to be acting in good faith. It's better to act now rather than waiting for the subjects to fill complaints or goes to the media.--Trade (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Reverted and in the process of hiding. I don't think suppression is needed here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))@Ajraddatz:--Trade (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Peque, Zamora (Q744207)Edit

Dear administrators,

The item Peque, Zamora (Q744207) has been vandalized for several IPs since May 27, I think it should be semi-protected so just registered users could edit it. The items is not very edited (the last editions before the vandalism are from bots), so I think it may be semi-protected for some weeks. I leave this to your criteria.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As a note, IPs involved: and And there is one user, Wiiiiikiiiii, with just two edits, the same as the ones made by the IPs, that presumably may be another vandal. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Another IP involved: The vandalism in the element persists. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 15:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The situation of this item and the battle of the IPs involved are being really exhaustive... Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked the last IP involved in edit warring, and semi-protected the item for six months. --Sannita - not just another sysop 19:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Sannita. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:59, 30 May 2020 (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. Esteban16 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ELSONRICSEdit

ELSONRICS (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC))Reasons: All his edits are involved in the deletion or modification of statements in current items without any reasons; including the creation the of promotional items that does not comply with the Wikidata's notability policy. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User has not edited since first warning. Blanking and repurposing is (regrettably) a very common first interaction for users. In many cases, the user is redeemable. See also Wikidata:Project_chat#Américo_Castro. Bovlb (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I hope you are right, Bovlb. And yes, I fixed the one of Américo Castro. I will be careful, due in Commons it just persists in Américo Castro and in the upload of photographs (probably of himself): check his contributions. Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


Four users have now complained about behaviour of User:KrBot at User talk:Ivan A. Krestinin#GND ID replacement of redirected ids. However the bot owner is not responding to our comments. Shouldt the bot be blocked until the user is able to respond? Ping @Kolja21, MrProperLawAndOrder, Raymond: Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I now blocked the bot--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: See response at User_talk:Ivan_A._Krestinin. BTW next time partial block should be used instead.--GZWDer (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
As far as I see, there is still no consensus at that page. When there is consensus, of if it converges to a situation where only one person is unhappy and nobody else cares, I will unblock the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has switched to removing the IDs manually... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It's a process working for years for these ids. If it's not appreciated by a globally banned user, please don't post or intervene on their behalf. --- Jura 06:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Please acceptEdit

I want to tell that please accept my badges i wanted to put good badges only because i appreciate your work. So please why cant we put badges at least good ones.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master 371 (talk • contribs) at 08:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Individual Wikis have policies about what articles should get badges. Badges aren't a way for users to express articles they appricate. You can use the "thank" feature in the edit history to express your appreciation. ChristianKl❫ 09:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:ShadessKBEdit

@1997kB: Should rename to User talk:Shadess as this user renamed their username 3 months ago. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: done, why it didn't happen automatically during rename see phab:T150572. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2020 (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. Esteban16 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding countries to Wikidata pagesEdit

Heyo - I'm Dibbydib and a while back I've made pages on countries on the Indonesian Wikiquote. They need linking, but the pages are protected (for good reason, too).

I have made a list of pages to be added, with their translations:

Can someone put these on? Happy editing! Dibbydib (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have granted you "confirmed" status, which should allow you to edit these semi-protected items. Please let us know if this does not resolve your problem. Bovlb (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dibbydib: Forgot to ping. Bovlb (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, they work now! Dibbydib (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done adding them, thanks Bovlb! Dibbydib (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Entity Schema EntitySchema:E219Edit

A new entity schema EntitySchema:E219 is created by In my opinion, it looks like spam. There is no schema text and no clear description. Currently, there is option to mark this page for deletion. John Samuel (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Undelete Q95578521, a member of a notable associationEdit


It is a member of Q55657189, which is a notable association. The association probably can be considered a cartel or a former cartel (at least one member proposed a discount if you find another member of — I think — that same association that had a lower price), and has now been controversial for years for successfully lobbying increases of tariffs and other hindrances for customers of foreign online stores. I think items for its members improve information on the association and thus fulfill a structural need. I am not sure I should also list the members on the association's page, considering that the association is rapidly growing now for some reason. I also prefer not to help the members with links to their sites, but more to link from them to the pages about the controversy. --AVRS (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bencemac:--Trade (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote AVRS, I deleted it because I had agreed with the nominator (and the item didn't have any internal or site links). I don't mind if the item will be undeleted, I have already recommended AVRS to make this request. Feel free to add your comment! Bencemac (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've temporarily restored it to aid the discussion: I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. --AVRS (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I added the store's OKPO ID (P2391) from a state financial database of year 2012. The database also contains its taxpayer ID (same as at the website, but no property for that) and "51.64" for, I think, OKVED 1.1 code of the economic activity (P3243) (but 51.6 seems to be missing from the OKVED classifier), and other data. --AVRS (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)