Open main menu

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 2019/04.

Requests for deletions


49 open requests for deletions.

Requests for unblock


0 open requests for unblock.


Q33129158‎: unreferenced statements additionEdit

One or two users affiliated with a partner paid by WMF to contribute content insists on adding statements without references to an item. The users had ample time to add these references, but have not done so.

Please delete the statements on Q33129158‎ and protect the page until references have been found and reviewed on the item's talk page. --- Jura 16:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jura1 is showing a persistent behaviour of edit-warring on this item, to the degree that a topic ban may be advisable to bring him to his senses.
He put his objections to membership of the Estonian Riigikogu being modelled through items like Member of the 13th Riigikogu (Q33129158) to RfD in July 2018, where his objection was unanimously rejected 4-1.
Despite that ruling, he has continued in an ongoing campaign of low-level edits to try to undermine the item, and create constraint violations if it is used as a value of position held (P39), reaching a low point of active edit-warring on the item today.
Since apparently he views any third-party attempt to caution him about this conduct as a "personal attack" [1] (diff), regrettably I believe admin intervention is now necessary.
This is not acceptable, and cannot continue. Jheald (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Oravrattas, Andrew Gray, Deryck Chan, VIGNERON, Pasleim: as the participants in that RfD. Jheald (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems that you omit reading the linked discussion to avoid having to provide the requested reference for the statement you insist re-adding. Similarly contributors employed by or affiliated with the former WMF grantee have problems to provide requested references for their statements. Maybe it's not unsurprising that a further WMF grant was denied given concerns with documentation practices. --- Jura 16:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
+1 with Jheald if any admin action is to be considered, it's seems it should be whether or not Jura should blocked than to block uses of this item which is globally consensual. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As the numerous promised references aren't or can't be provided, we suggest blocking the questioning user? Seems like a problematic point of view, for Wikidata in general and an administrator in particular. --- Jura 18:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a better proposal, Jura, for a user who is edit-warring dspite consensus about the legitimacy of that which you are warring against? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm just cleaning up other people's stuff, as frequently. What is your affiliation with MySociety? --- Jura 18:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: yes, I'm suggesting to question if you should be block or not as in general, you are quite regularly in conflict with other users and unable to have a collaborative attitude (or even listening to others contributors, a good example among many other is that I already told you that I'm not an admin here!). In this particular case, you asked for a deletion that was denied and now you keep insisting to delete statements on this kept item despite several people on the talk page that this statement shouldn't be deleted (and ranting about non-related facts), this is what is really problematic here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, didn't know that. Anyways, you should still be aware that deleting statements and deleting items are different. It's possible to have an item for "death and funeral of Douglas Adams", but that doesn't make it an item that would have P31=Q5. --- Jura 21:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am one of the users Jura1 is referring to. Over the last two years, Jura has often challenged the detailed per-term data model used for politicians in many countries. He listed this item for deletion last year, along with a similar item; the deletion request was rejected. Other discussions about similar items (eg here) have not found consensus for his proposed changes.
He always tries to make these discussions about MySociety's involvement in developing the EveryPolitician project, which uses and helped develop this model (eg the "partner paid by WMF" complaint above). I understand he does not like that project, and that is fair, but he seems to write as though the data model is purely for an external service's benefit. It was developed because it was the best approach for Wikidata, and all my work on these topics has been focused towards making sure things are represented in a way that works for us and for people reusing our data. (For the record, I have never been affiliated with MySociety in any way, and I have said so before.)
In this case, he has already indicated he does not think the items/system should exist at all, so I don't know what references he thinks would be enough - and I don't think it's appropriate for him to be acting like this given his past involvement. There is certainly a broader question about how we can provide appropriate references for P31/P279 statements like these, as they are ultimately linked to how we choose to model the data - I'd love for us to have that discussion, but I don't think we should be doing it by one person removing statements on individual items they don't like. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The problematic statements added/readded on Q33129158‎ are lacking references. In the deletion request the creating user promised that there are plenty of references for these statements. The problem about unreferenced statements being added to Wikidata is unrelated to the question of the deletion of an item (or the non-deletion) or whether Andrew Gray likes it or not.
      We could debate about having an item for the "death and funeral of Douglas Adams" and conclude that we should, but adding P31=Q5 to that without a reference wouldn't be helpful. (edited) --- Jura 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Andrew Gray's observation. The opening "One or two users affiliated with a partner paid by WMF to contribute content" apears to be ad hominem. It's not at all relevant to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Multiple references have previously been provided to show that that this position is described exactly in this manner by both the Estonian Parliament and the Estonian Government, and that Estonian Wikipedia overwhelmingly uses exactly this formulation in the introductory paragraph of members' bios. None of this, however, has been enough for Jura. Others have also noted that even if the position were not to "exist" in some very formal sense, then it is still entirely acceptable where it provides a structural purpose. Jura is also on record as accepting exactly the same model and underlying items for membership of the UK Parliament, with no justification as to why it would be OK in that case, but not Estonia or others.
Further, although I do not see how is it at all relevant to the issue at hand, I also cannot let the snide remarks about mySociety to pass unchallenged, especially as they now seem to be expanding into being used to even attack people with no affiliation with mySociety, as if disagreement with Jura's position could only be explained by being somehow tainted by association.
The "partner paid by WMF to contribute content" is yet another entirely baseless claim trotted out repeatedly by Jura. As has previously been explained multiple times, WMF provided mySociety with a grant, but that was not for contributing content — it was used for producing tooling, running events, etc as described at w:meta:Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician. None of the grant funding was ever spent on editing. As an organisation, mySociety has been very generous by enabling and encouraging staff and partners to contribute to Wikidata (and disclosed as such, of course), but none of that was ever paid for with WMF funds. Similarly, many current and past members of mySociety staff (myself included) have also contributed, and continue to contribute to Wikidata entirely on their own time, completely independently from any ongoing or former organisational involvement. My interest in making Wikidata the best source of political data in the world largely aligns with mySociety's, but is separate from it, and certainly not subservient to it. Repeatedly attempting to discredit people's contributions on spurious grounds of involvement or association with a project is simply abusive, and serves mainly to drive people away from wanting to be involved here.
I, like Andrew Gray above, am very happy to continue discuss ways of evolving and harmonising the different approaches to this sort of data, and work towards models that are as simple and consistent as possible whilst being flexible enough to cope with all the variations that exist. But that needs to happen through reasonable discussion, not by these sorts of structural attacks. --Oravrattas (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not add the references to the item? You should be aware by now how to add references to statements. We would all happily review them.
    Maybe it's worth discuss further what WMF actual paid for or got out of its generous grants. Whether it lead to paid employees of MySociety editing here or not. --- Jura 21:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • You are demanding references for the statement , which is rather ridiculous, as this should be entirely self-evident. Virtually no subclass of (P279) statements across all of Wikidata include references. But even worse than that, you clearly reverted a version of it that did have a reference provided, and have been abusing Rank:Deprecated as part of an edit war based on your perverse insistence the item has no value — a claim that, as has been pointed out several times, was unanimously rejected when you previously attempted to have the item deleted. Marking the instance of (P31) and/or subclass of (P279) values of a structural item like this as deprecated, thus preventing it (or anything using it) from turning up in most queries, is certainly an innovative response to failing to get any support for deletion, but your wide-eyed innocent claims that this is solely about references is stretching credulity, especially when wrapped up in clear personal animus against mySociety and multiple repeated attacks across many channels against anyone and anything tainted through association. If you want to have further discussion on what WMF got from their grant, then there are obvious places where you can go do exactly that. But that should have no relevance whatsoever here. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed topic banEdit

  • Because of Jura's combative behaviour in this topic area, I propose a topic ban: Jura1 should be forbidden from undoing another autoconfirmed editor's edits to items about politicians, politics, and government without prior discussion, until further notice. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    I already experienced this "combative behaviour" in the past. In the current situation, I support your proposal Deryck Chan hoping it will help to cool down the debate. Pamputt (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the ongoing disruption, support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As a note, this should be logged at Wikidata:Editing restrictions if this passes. --Rschen7754 17:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Having reviewed the discussion I support the restriction. --Rschen7754 16:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just on a formal note, I am not sure how useful the ban is in the given form, given that the without prior discussion clause makes it slightly hard to enforce - Jura1 could still undo these edits after posting a message somewhere, no? Would it not be clearer to simply forbid undoing any edits from autoconfirmed users in this domain? − Pintoch (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Jura1 should keep calm for a period on most topics. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Unanimity and argumentsEdit

I do not follow all those moves to delete or keep whatever item; typically I do not care. However, had I known about this "vote", there would have been no unanimity. Typically a "member of parliament" is seen as a position in the same way as a "president" is a president. The position of mr Trump is "President of the United States" not "45th President of the United States". This is true for parliamentarians as well. In addition with parliamentarians you can deduce in what session of a parliament they were participating because they have as a qualifier a from date and to date.

The problem with votes is that they suggest a consensus where it is not obvious that the position actually makes sense. I fail to understand why this position was taken, what the upsides are. I only see the downsides. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

URL shortenerEdit

Given today's launch of the WMF URL shortener, prompt closure of Wikidata:Property proposal/WMF short URL would be appreciated, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird to decide that a property is ready while you are the proposer of it. I'll rather see someone uninvolved taking a decision based on the given arguments by other people. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not in the least bit weird, and is on the contrary perfectly normal and reasonable. Stop your baseless sniping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I marked the above discussion as ready for assessment by a property creator, but I have been reverted, even though it clearly is ready. The edit summary for the revert was "It's up to unbiased property creators or administrators to make that decision" which is clearly (and with much precedence) nonsense; not least as no "unbiased property creator or administrator" ever need set the flag: they would just create the property. As I said above, prompt closure would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A week after my suggestion that "prompt closure of would be appreciated", the discussion - which was last edited four days ago - is still open. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation request for Q57643977Edit

It was (almost certainly, I am unable to look at its history) created to document existing convenience shop chain as part of project.

Shop chain passes "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." (Wikidata:Notability), so I guess that either entry was missing some mandatory parts.

What are minimal requirements for Wikidata entry describing shop/restaurant/hotel chain that were not met for this entry?

I asked initially person who deleted it (at Topic:Ux8dwrn1pixolm7a) but for over week I got no reply as (s)he is currently not editing Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Per this page it seems to have been "Tiger Mart". Andrew Gray (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was supposed to be about Tiger Mart Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Q63109465 a restaurant chain called Якитория and also Q63109159 a hair dresser chain Marco Aldany were both deleted recently to, very quickly after both of their creation. I'm not sure how nobility can determined or not by an admin when an article is deleted before someone has time to add the necessary information to it. I also think it would be hard to the notability in the first place, of a none English brand by an English speaking administrator. So if the administrator who deleted Якитория isn't a Bulgarian speaker, I think the deletion should be reversed for someone who is to determine its notability or not. As it is the chain has 86 stores that we know of and there could be more. I think that's more then notable. Maybe just not to an administrator in America or somewhere else outside of Bulgaria who hasn't heard of it before. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


BandiBot (talkcontribslogs) has ~100k edits but isn't using the bot flag. The bot doesn't have User or User Talk pages. A search on Wikidata:Bots doesn't indicate the bot is approved. --William Graham (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Left a comment on the talk page. --William Graham (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Got in touch with the owner and directed him to Wikimedia:Bots and its talk page. I guess no action is needed. Most of the edits look like they're importing "ast" language names from the ast Wikipedia. William Graham (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@William Graham: They're most likely not coming from astwiki, but rather copied directly from some other language. Mahir256 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm using QuickStatements to add labels of person names and localities that are not translatable in Asturian and therefore coincide with the use in the rest of languages. Also to add generic descriptions in Asturian. --BandiBot (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Numangoof (talkcontribslogs)

Probably Tacocured (talkcontribslogs). This user replaces French descriptions and labels by charming names : contributors' username + the word "dictator"... --BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done A été bloqué par Nikki. Pamputt (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neus Català PallejàEdit

I think the "validated" badge on the German page of this item is wrong. Could anyone remove it? --Redrobsche (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Masegand (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


Nikaivanishvili (talkcontribslogs)

Please block this user for indifinite period.--DiMon2711 12:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reporting userEdit

Persistent vandalism on Q180733

Seby1541 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The vandalism has stopped now. I can block if they start up again. Thanks, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Please block (talkcontribslogs)) for excessive vandalism on this item. Kirilloparma (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done, 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)



Thanks!--DiMon2711 20:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User has been vandalizing pages persistently

Seby1541 (talk) (contributions) 21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

VandalEdit (talkcontribslogs)) vandalising and massive removing of several items. Kirilloparma (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Null editsEdit

Could an admin check Special:Contributions/Torogertu? The user seems to have made thousands of null edits at a rate of almost 30 per minute. Jc86035 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


On 6 November 2018 at User talk:Hasive#Request, I requested that Hasive cease and desist from editing any WMF project in violation of m:Terms of use#paid-contrib-disclosure, and disclose paid editing activities. He has ignored that request and continued his paid editing here. Please stop him.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done indef'd, though it has been three months since the user's last edit on Wikidata. Mahir256 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thanks!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

VandalEdit (talkcontribslogs) Regards, --DiMon2711 20:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped, so I guess a block is not necessary. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Please semi-protect this item--DiMon2711 04:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jianhui67: and Q58640952 too--DiMon2711 04:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jianhui67: also Q27786579 please--DiMon2711 04:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done by Pamputt--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Page needs temporary protection due to persistent vandalism

Seby1541 (talk) (contributions) 04:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


@Ymblanter: (talkcontribslogs) Kalendar (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Поздно, вряд ли ещё появится.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jacqueline Wong (Q41333)Edit

Page needs temporary protection due to persistent vandalism due to the said celebrity cheating behavior in Hong Kong Blacktc (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done Semi-protected for 1 week. Pamputt (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Alan García Pérez (Q167211)Edit

Please semi-protect this. Persistent vandalism of a recently deceased politician. --Ovruni (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Abián--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Again (talkcontribslogs), persistant vandalism on this item, need semi-protection or block him. Kirilloparma (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Above ip is vandalising. Please block.--BRP ever 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done by MisterSynergy--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please block

Persistent vandalism on Q9535 after final warning. -LiberatorG (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  DoneMisterSynergy (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Shwahni (talkcontribslogs) vandalism-only account--DiMon2711 20:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Copyright vs. Wikidata:LicensingEdit

Wikidata:Copyright should be redirected (and content merged, if not already present) into Wikidata:Licensing, but the former is protected. Can an admin either do this, or unprotect so that I can? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Not sure that we should redirect a policy page to an essay page.
(2) Isn't Wikidata:Copyright the text that gets transcluded below every page? Jheald (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the footer text came from MediaWiki:Wikidata-copyright and/or MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright in the past, but nowadays there is a MediaWiki extension WikimediaMessages installed (per Special:Version) which controls the footer text. Wikidata:Copyright has a different content than what is displayed in the footer anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Who says Wikidata:Copyright is a policy page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence in the first major section of Wikidata:Licensing says: 'The statement of Wikidata's policy is at Wikidata:Copyright'. Please note there's a currently open RFC that refers to both pages: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Non-free content. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Donatello (Q37562)Edit

Persistent vandalism: Please semi-protect it. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for 1 month. Esteban16 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Block of User:

This guy has only one intention: sabotage. He had several chances to change his mind, but he did not. Now it's time to block him forever. -- MovieFex (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked for six months. Esteban16 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia App (Q4390943)Edit

Persistent vandalism: Please semi-protect it for a month? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


There have been several vandalisms in the French label for this page in the last month, I believe it should be semi-protected. Ælfgar (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done, 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC) (talkcontribslogs) has been vandalising Eugène Guillevic (Q733125) for months. Montgomery (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarded : Pakistani Director& Editor Farhan Rana RajpootEdit

Regarded : Pakistani Director& Editor Farhan Rana Rajpoot  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farhan Rana Rajpoot (talk • contribs) at 12:29, 20 April 2019‎ (UTC).

@Farhan Rana Rajpoot: It's unclear what you're asking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)