Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

Administrators' noticeboard

This is a noticeboard for matters requiring administrator attention.

• If you wish for something to be deleted, please use Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
• If you want to report a bug in Wikidata software, please use Wikidata:Report a technical problem or Phabricator.
• Matters not requiring administrator action should be raised at Project chat.
• Matters that may involve CheckUser should be raised at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser.
• To report vandalism on Wikidata, please click here.
• Please add {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} to resolved sections.

IRC channel: #wikidata^connect

Translate this header box!

Start a new discussion

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 2026/06.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Requests for deletions

medium

_{~82 open requests for deletions.}

Requests for unblock

empty

_{~0 open requests for unblock.}

ABF rule wanted for Grokipedia

One person recently petitioned to have Grokipedia blacklisted using the spam blacklist. I argued against this because we can't say all links to Grokipedia must be bad. I do however believe that any and all use of Grokipedia as a source is unwanted for the same reason we don't cite Wikipedia as a source. I've recently seen people start adding Grokipedia links via P973 too, which I don't believe is helpful.

Could someone construct an ABF filter to warn editors (even auto-confirmed ones) that they probably do not want to add references to Grokipedia, but not block the edit if the editor still thinks it's ok? Infrastruktur (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Infrastruktur

Here's a proposed warning-only filter. An admin may want to test it first before enabling.

An admin can create this at Special:AbuseFilter/new.

Conditions:

action == "edit" &

added_lines rlike "(?i)grokipedia" &

!(old_wikitext rlike "(?i)grokipedia")

Actions:

• Check Warn and paste this exact message:

You are adding a reference to Grokipedia. Like Wikipedia, Grokipedia is user-generated/AI-generated content and is generally not considered a reliable source for Wikidata statements. Please consider using a more authoritative source. You may still save this edit if you believe Grokipedia is appropriate here.

• Check Tag and enter: grokipedia-reference-added
• Do not check Disallow or Block

Settings:

• Public description: Warn when adding Grokipedia references
• Enabled: Yes
• Private: No

This catches P973, reference URLs, and any other new Grokipedia addition by scanning the JSON diff. The old_wikitext guard prevents false positives when Grokipedia was already present. Applies to all editors including autoconfirmed. Monitor at Special:AbuseLog.

Could an admin please review and create this? Thanks! SonalDahanayaka (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, nice. @SonalDahanayaka: Thank you very much! I'll start creating the ABF rule. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we get an ABF rule against unfair proposals, too. It was this discussion what they didn't mention. described at URL (P973) is no reference, only an advice for further information which might be helpful. To block information from Grokipedia in generald cannot be in sense of wikidata by collecting data and information. I was asking for a rule or a guideline that forbids Grokipedia and this should also be in principle a reason to create a filter. Regards --~2026-33287-54 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I see MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-inappropriate-reference has been created now without any consensus. This has to be deleted. --~2026-33287-54 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I answered you in the discussion you linked to. It's well understood what a proper source is, and this abuse filter does not by itself prevent edits. Infrastruktur (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You only repeated your opinion. But this is a theme that cannot be decided by a single person. Do you know from where e.g. the data of Moviefone (Q6926887) or any other database is and how they create such databases? Again, the link to Grokipedia was not used as source. --~2026-33287-54 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that the proposed filter blocks all occurrences of the string "grokipedia". We probably want to catch only links. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Good point. @Infrastruktur: Please update the filter with this revised version that only catches links, not plain text mentions.

Conditions:

action == "edit" &

added_lines rlike "(?i)grokipedia\.com" &

!(old_wikitext rlike "(?i)grokipedia\.com")

This only triggers when grokipedia.com appears as a URL, not when "Grokipedia" is used in labels, descriptions, or aliases.

SonalDahanayaka (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata regularly uses imported from Wikimedia project (P143) as a source for cause of death, medical conditions, criminal convictions and number of casualties for mass shootings. I just cannot take the outrage over the use of Grokipedia as a source seriously when this is the standard we already have a far lower standard than anything Grokipedia have done. --Trade (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, so Grokipedia used as described at URL (P973) as additional content with sources shouldn't be rejected. E.g. Maggie Wright (Q140032966) (Grokipedia), Gary Littlejohn (Q140075337) (Grokipedia) or Chrissie Cotterill (Q140067094) (Grokipedia) have no article in any Wikipedia but probably could have one. By refusing all help you won't come further. --~2026-33287-54 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The filter only applies in the main namespace and only for users with fewer than 1000 edits. Experienced editors are not affected. It’s simply a warning mechanism to help newer contributors understand that Grokipedia is generally not considered a reliable source. You can still save the edit if you believe the link is appropriate.

It seems the main goal is just to stop new people from adding bad sources without thinking. I think experienced users get left alone on purpose since they already know what works. The warning shows up only in certain areas though and it does not block the edit completely. Some people might still add the link if it feels right anyway. SonalDahanayaka (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

imported from Wikimedia project (P143) is not a real reference, never has been. In the early days of Wikidata there were lots of importing of data from templates, and this property served as a way of saying where the information was imported from as the name clearly suggests. Wikipedia references are unstructured data, so they can be difficult to automatically import. Using P143 as a reference for something that's been manually added is using it wrong. Using it as a source for death, medical conditions, criminal convictions and similar might also be against WD:LP since in the case of death, without a proper source the person is still considered alive (if it is possible for them to be). If you see someone doing that, they should be given a link to Help:Sources. Quoting from the page: "Statements that are only supported by "imported from Wikimedia project (P143)" are not considered sourced statements. If you encounter one of these statements, please replace "imported from Wikimedia project" with an actual reference." Infrastruktur (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"Statements that are only supported by "imported from Wikimedia project (P143)" are not considered sourced statements." That is both technically and objectively wrong according to Wikidata. If a Property have a "Citation needed constraint" and the reference is "imported from Wikimedia project (P143)" then the "Citation needed constraint" is removed Trade (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The property constraints are part of mw:Extension:WikibaseQualityConstraints. Note that it says Wikibase and not Wikidata. This extension is intended to be used on any Wikibase instance, so the constraints are designed to be applicable to any database. This means it doesn't try to treat special values on Wikidata differently even if they are recognized as special on Wikidata.

There's no shortage of poor references on Wikidata unfortunately: https://w.wiki/R7gh . It matters more for some claims than others. If someone wrote someone that could potentially still be alive, was dead, on Wikipedia and didn't state a reference for it, chances are they would be yelled at. Granted most of these edits are old, hopefully noone adds P143 "references" on claims covered by WD:LP these days. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The same applies if you've added a "reference" consisting only of retrieved (P813) or other metadata properties. The constraints simply can't distinguish these from genuine references. Difool (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for undeletion: Q140051130 (Atelier Emine)

Hello,

I am requesting the undeletion of Q140051130 (Atelier Emine). The item was deleted with the rationale “Spam / advertising”, however the subject meets Wikidata notability criteria (WD:N) through multiple independent platforms and verifiable external references.

The entity is an active Turkish fashion accessories brand with documented presence across independent marketplaces, retail platforms, and third-party directories.

N2 (Independent / third-party sources)

The brand is referenced across multiple independent commercial and informational platforms:

- https://www.hipicon.com/atelier-emine - https://www.trendyol.com/magaza/atelier-emine-m-1154380?channelId=1&sst=0&sk=1 - https://www.bizimfirma.com/firma/atelier-emine/ - https://tr2b.com/companies/C966701

These sources are external to the subject and provide third-party verification of existence and commercial activity.

Official and primary presence (supporting context)

- https://www.atelieremine.com/ - https://www.instagram.com/ateliereminedesign/

While these are primary sources, they confirm identity and continuity of the entity across platforms.

Structural relevance (N3)

The item is structurally relevant within Wikidata because it connects multiple external identifiers (marketplaces, business directories, retail platforms, and social media presence). It represents a distinct commercial entity that exists across multiple verified ecosystems.

Summary

Given the consistent presence of the entity across independent commercial platforms and third-party directories, I respectfully request reconsideration of the deletion and restoration of the item for community review.

Thank you. Atelieremine (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the request. The links are mostly store sites and directories so they only show the brand exists. That does not count as independent coverage under the rules.

Reliable secondary sources would be needed for undeletion. Articles or reviews that discuss the brand in detail seem to be missing here. Without those the item still does not meet notability.

SonalDahanayaka (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request: My Knee Guide (Q137802070)

@Fralambert: I am requesting undeletion of Q137802070. I originally posted this on the noticeboard talk page by mistake. The full request, including sourcing not present at the original deletion, is here: Wikidata talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Undeletion request for My Knee Guide (Q137802070). Would you prefer that I repost the full request here on the noticeboard, or is leaving it on the talk page with this pointer acceptable? Grateful for a review when time allows.

Brian

Orthodoc10 (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don't add it again. I think the large amount of text is one of the reasons people are reluctant to plough through it. Secretlondon (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Secretlondon:

That is a very appropriate and reasonable critique. Would it be permissible if I added to this post a bare-bones skeleton showing only the statements and Wikidata pages that would be used as references on the newly undeleted entity? I would also provide statements for the current 3 Wikidata entities that would be more notable and complete with the addition of the undeleted entity as well.

I will leave all of the background discussion, disclosures, and expanded reference explanations where I originally posted the request. They could be used by an admin if they are willing to consider this request after review. Thanks for your time.

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Secretlondon:

Per the note above, regarding the length of my undelete request, I have provided the core notability statements in this post. The full background, disclosures, and expanded reference notes can be found at Wikidata talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Undeletion request for My Knee Guide (Q137802070) for any admin who wants the detail.

Statements that would attach to the restored item: My Knee Guide (Q137802070)

Identifiers

• official website (P856) → mykneeguide.com
• Apple App Store app ID (P3861) → 614808450 (App Store listing)
• U.S. trademark serial number (P10482) → 85774755 (TSDR record; Reg. No. 4482287; MY KNEE GUIDE, live/renewed)

Described by source (P1343): peer-reviewed literature and structured clinical government endorsed review

• Pellegrini et al. (2021) — Q138774639
• Bahadori, Wainwright & Ahmed (2018) — Q58605668
• Bahadori, Wainwright & Ahmed (2019) — Q98613767
• Franko, Andrawis & Mickelson (2015) — Q138789308
• Marshall et al. (2019) — Q104495950
• Raja et al. (2021) — Q138788937
• Papaliodis et al. (2016) — Q38829617
• Stauber et al. (2020) — Q89530660
• Íñiguez-Macedo et al. (2018) — Q139498088
• Bruns (2019) — Wikidata item not yet created
• clinical review: Healthify He Puna Waiora (Q138836112) structured clinical review and four star endorsement

Affiliation

• participant in (P1344) → Know Your Dose (Q138768327)
  • reference → Know Your Dose campaign partners page

Award

• award received (P166) → HONcode (Q3125151)
  • conferred by → Health On the Net Foundation (Q673445)
  • start time (P580) → 2014
  • end time (P582) → 15 December 2022
  • reference → Marshall et al. (2019) (Q104495950)

Statements that restoration enables on three existing items (pointing to MKG)

• Know Your Dose (Q138768327): participant (P710) → MKG (12th participant) (official partners page)
• Pellegrini et al. (2021) (Q138774639): main subject (P921) → MKG. MKG was control arm of NIH funded RTC study.
• Bahadori, Wainwright & Ahmed (2018) (Q58605668): main subject (P921) → MKG. MKG was #1 of all worldwide apps, including leading every sub-category using validated metrics.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Orthodoc10 (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Restoration request

== Egregor (Q140043744), SovereignBank Web3 (Q140050561), SovereignWeb3 Browser (Q140050630), Sovereign (Q140050995) ==

I'm respectfully requesting reconsideration of the deletion of these four software items, deleted as a batch under the notability policy.

I believe they may meet criterion 2 of Wikidata:Notability ("refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references"). Specifically:

• Egregor is a real, publicly available desktop application with an open

 repository, documentation, an install guide, and a published case study.

• The items were incomplete at the time of deletion — I had not yet attached all

 available independent references. These include technical articles describing 
 the project on Dev.to, Hashnode, Medium, HackerNoon, Teletype and VC.ru, as 
 well as directory listings on SourceForge and SaaSHub.

• The four items form a structurally linked set (an ecosystem), each with its

 own repository and official site.

If full restoration isn't appropriate yet, I'd welcome guidance on what specific sourcing threshold would make these items acceptable, so I can meet it before re-creating them. Thank you for reconsidering.

Vladislav Shter Vladislav Shter (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough explanation! However, when it comes to undeletion, we really need to see the actual links to independent sources. Just mentioning “Dev.to, Hashnode, Medium, HackerNoon, VC.ru” isn’t quite enough. Could you please share the specific URLs to those articles or case studies? This way, the community can assess whether they meet the criteria for WD:N. Storefronts and directory listings, like SourceForge or SaaSHub, do confirm existence, but they don’t count as independent coverage. Without verifiable links to trustworthy secondary sources, the items will still be considered non-notable. SonalDahanayaka (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose undeletion, doesn't appear notable. Ternera (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Urgent Undeletion Request: Q139908160 (Jemshit Batyrow)

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to respectfully request the immediate restoration of the item Q139908160 (Jemshit Batyrow), which was deleted under the "notability policy".

Jemshit Batyrow is an internationally recognized, professional musical artist with officially verified accounts (blue badges) across all major global streaming and authority databases. He strictly meets the Wikidata notability criteria for creative professionals.

Please find the official and verified authority links below for your review:

• Official MusicBrainz Artist ID: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/3f057f75-4f72-4272-b036-6f5bf7697517
• Verified Spotify Official Artist: https://open.spotify.com/intl-tr/artist/6nmBI14gtHvtSq0bL9xihl?si=NlVBk4M5TrKCQJf58E3e7g
• Verified Apple Music Artist: https://music.apple.com/tr/artist/jemshit-batyrow/1483213689
• Verified YouTube Official Artist Channel: https://youtube.com/@jemshitbatyrow?si=D4JJsGCeCurGVLl4

The previous deletion occurred simply because the item lacked statements during creation. Upon restoration, we will immediately populate the item with P434 (MusicBrainz artist ID) and P1902 (Spotify artist ID) to ensure full compliance with Wikidata standards and prevent any automated flags.

Thank you for your time and for protecting the database integrity of real global artists. --Jemshitbatyrov (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jemshitbatyrov see WD:Self-promotion WikiBayer (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear WikiBayer and Administrators,

Thank you for your guidance. I understand the "Self-promotion" policy now and realize my mistake in creating the item directly through my own account. As an artist, I was simply unfamiliar with the technical conflict of interest guidelines of Wikidata.

Since my official and verified profiles on MusicBrainz, Spotify, and Apple Music fully satisfy the global notability criteria, I respectfully ask if an independent administrator or a bot could kindly restore or recreate the item on my behalf. This will ensure that the entity exists neutrally and correctly within the database. Thank you for your understanding. --Jemshitbatyrov (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jemshitbatyrov Identifiers by themselves don’t make an item notable. What really matters is having independent coverage from trustworthy sources. You don’t have to create your own entry. other editors will step in once genuine notability is recognized. The best strategy is to hold off until that independent coverage shows up, and then you can safely recreate or undelete the item under WD:N. and @Madamebiblio: have already explained this to you on your talk page, and I’m just repeating it again for clarity.

SonalDahanayaka (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose undeletion. Not seeing anything that shows notability. Ternera (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2A02:908:E37:F780:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:908:E37:F780:0:0:0:0/64 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―Icodense (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2026 (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. Samoasambia ✎ 10:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:6767 betti giovanni

6767_betti_giovanni 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. SonalDahanayaka (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

No edits after first warning. I note that user is already blocked on FRWP. Bovlb (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Капібара27

Капібара27 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: this Ukrainian-biased user keeps removing Russian-focused websites from random Ukrainian music artists, stating they are "unofficial sources" and "pirate websites"; however, whether they like it or not, their statements do not match the reality (for instance, they've been removing the Yandex Music property, and that's a legit music platform where the artists' releases are legally made available by their labels). France3c0 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC) ―France3c0 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could point to where you have discussed this issue with them. I note that their talk page is empty. Bovlb (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bovlb: this issue has sufficiently been discussed through the edits summary: you can clearly see it from their and my past edits. France3c0 (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t use edit summaries in place of discussion. Bovlb (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I would only like to say that this argumentation is far-fetched. Yandex.Music removed (or was forced to remove) a myriad of non-Russian artists since 2022 due to known restrictions. If Jerry Heil and Tina Karol say that their music is used by Yandex.Music without permission, there are two options -- 1) they lie (because they still have a relatively noticeable Russian audience and hardly like to stop taking its money, while stating whatever), or 2) the listed tracks were released by some third-party labels which are not ceased the collaboration with YaMusic, it is up to the artists and their management to revoke the rights from labels, it is not a problem of a streaming service. My opinion is that such removal of identifiers does not make much sense, at least because bots and other users will keep on adding these identifiers not really caring about a deemed 'legitimacy.' But this is just my opinion. --Wolverène (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:~2026-34102-47

~2026-34102-47 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Page deleted. User warned. Bovlb (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2026 (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. Samoasambia ✎ 10:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:~2026-33937-93

~2026-33937-93 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Pages deleted. User warned. Bovlb (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2026 (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. Samoasambia ✎ 10:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:GODSPOWERTV

GODSPOWERTV 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User warned. Bovlb (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2026 (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. Samoasambia ✎ 10:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Xboomxz

Xboomxz 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

User warned. Empty page deleted. Bovlb (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Spam

Catholic Encyclopedia Wikitólica ID (P14483), Q138827465, Q138600930. Please delete these as they've been created as part of a cross-wiki spam crusade. Please also block XeNivalys, already blocked on Commons and Abstract. Bedivere (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not true. He's deleting everything I've done in this and other spaces and articles, asking everyone to block me, without even trying to speak with me. XeNivalys (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Could we have some links to previous discussion for context, please? I found es:Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Wikitólica and Wikidata:Property_proposal/Enciclopedia_Católica_Wikitólica_ID. Bovlb (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There was no prior discussion. He simply started deleting and reporting me for spam everywhere. Those two things have been my meager defense. I left a comment on his profile, but nothing. XeNivalys (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Also meta:Steward_requests/Global#c-Bedivere-20260609135600-Global_lock_9, meta:User_talk:Bedivere#Increíble_tu_agresividad_contra_mí_sin_motivo_(Wikitolica), also CC @Tanbiruzzaman as other blocking admin. Bovlb (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

abstract:Abstract_Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Creations_by_XeNivalys Bovlb (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, no answer as you can see, and reporting me everywere. Also https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Wikit%C3%B3lica XeNivalys (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What I'm looking for here is the original argument why this is spam, which would underly the widely-repeated claim that it is a "cross-wiki spam crusade". Catholic Encyclopedia Wikitólica ID (P14483) passed our property proposal process, which is not a trivial step. If we're creating spam properties, that would be a serious concern, but I'd like to solidify the case that it is actually spam first. Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to leave Wikipedia and Wikidata. The element and the property will probably become orphaned, lacking any connection to other Wikimedia projects, and will become "irrelevant." Beyond the spam accusation itself, I still don't know the reasons; at least, they haven't been communicated to me. And everything has happened too quickly, too global, and without any calm discussion. Thank you for taking the time to investigate the matter. XeNivalys (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@XeNivalys Please don't rush into any such decisions just yet. We're still waiting to hear from Bedivere what the basis for this claim is. It sounds like you also want some clarity on that matter.

I added a brief note on the global lock request pointing at this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Here you have, the "reasons". Thanks and good bye: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:XeNivalys edit: even removed youcat which is a Vatican-related german initiative https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youcat XeNivalys (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not fluent in Spanish, but I have a little trouble aligning the evidence presented in that discussion with the claims they apparently refute, certainly not to the extent where I would have said something like "Lying is a sin" when declining an unblock request.

It's clear that this user has a narrow focus, but that's not necessarily a dealbreaker for Wikidata. Once a property is approved and created, then populating it is an expected activity, not usually considered spamming.

I'm finding it very difficult to determine from these discussions whether the concern is primarily promotional editing, an undisclosed conflict of interest, or something else entirely. If there is additional evidence underlying those concerns, it would be helpful to have it clearly articulated. Bovlb (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, a very evident one, crusading across several wikis to promote this website. For a reason they've already been blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia, Abstract Wikipedia, and Commons (the latter issued by me). Bedivere (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to note that this first came to my attention by reading this thread, where fellow commons admin @Strakhov: mentioned the spammy nature of the addition of this "encyclopedia". [1] Bedivere (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to bring in those who participated in the property proposal discussion.

@Epìdosis, KerigMsg, ZI Jony: Bovlb (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Bovlb that "Once a property is approved and created, then populating it is an expected activity, not usually considered spamming". Regarding Catholic Encyclopedia Wikitólica ID (P14483), looking at some example pages I think its general quality is in line with other similar external-IDs which have long been present in Wikidata, e.g. Santiebeati ID (P6126) and Ökumenisches Heiligenlexikon ID (P8080). Epìdosis 21:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Bovlb.

I agree with you and Epìdosis here. I get that there are cross-wiki concerns, but on Wikidata P14483 went through a full property proposal and passed. Populating an approved property with valid IDs isn't spamming, it's just standard work. Unless the database itself is completely useless or the edits are breaking items, we shouldn't be rushing into deletions or blocks.

XeNivalys: Please don't leave just yet. The discussion is still ongoing, and we are looking at this objectively.

Let's hold off on any admin actions here until we actually establish if there's any real harm being done to our data. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The user in question has been globally locked, by the way.

While the website itself might be fine, what really bugs me is the way that they've made it across several wikis, very shortly after the website's creation at the end of 2025, by creating these now deleted articles, prompting the creation of the property here at Wikidata, then playing the victim card alleging a witch-hunt, when their only purpose here, there and everywhere has been to promote and ascend this wiki's (Not a real wiki btw) reputation. What earns "Wikitolica" by inserting links on thousands of items leading to their website, here on Wikidata? of course better positioning on web searches, in the first place. Now, their attempt at adding the recently created property into the authority control at Spanish Wikipedia is yet another attempt at spamming the website. I don't attack the website itself, in fact, I see it as a legitimate attempt at promoting Catholic content (I'm not even a Catholic myself anyway). However, it's the whole pattern and course of things that leads me to thing this is nothing but an organized attempt at spamming the website. This makes it objectionable to say the least. Unfortunately this passed the property voting somehow, I don't blame you for supporting it, but if you had made a little investigation at the user proposing the property in the first place, this could have been stopped before. Bedivere (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry if my writing isn't perfect, English is not my mother tongue and I hate using AI to refine comments or content, but I think the point is well explained. I hope that you can understand it. Bedivere (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

With the user globally locked, there’s no point in discussing a block here. Is there any reason to review the property, or can we consider this resolved? Bovlb (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the main request is to delete both the property and the items related to Wikitólica. See canvassing at Spanish Wikipedia to get the property approved. Bedivere (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, then that normally takes place at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion. Bovlb (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Property deletion proposed at Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P14483. Yirba (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2026 (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. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request: Q139742617

Hello, I'm requesting restoration for Q139742617 for my company, deleted on 17 May 2026 per notability policy. Company is real and it has official documentation on public also at website:

• Legal name: KHK Konut Hizmet Yöneticilik ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi
• MERSİS ID: 0548064763000014 (verifiable via the official Turkish central registry - https://mersis.ticaret.gov.tr/)
• İzmir Trade Registry No: 190305, first registered date is 19 August 2016
• İzmir Chamber of Commerce member registration No: 1765351
• NACE code: 68.32.02
• Registry certificates published at:https://khkyonetim.com/ (section: Belgelerimiz)
• Independent directory record generated from public trade registry data: https://www.find.com.tr/Company/khkkonuthizmetyoneticilikveticaretlimitedsirketi. Khkyonetim (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relevant items: Q139742617 (Khkyonetim). CC deleting admins @MisterSynergy Bovlb (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can't see how this is notable. Every proper company is registered on some register, and there is no doubt that this entity may exist. Independent perception would be helpful for evaluation. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:খন্দকার রিপন

খন্দকার রিপন 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Warned and contribution undone. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 14:46, 10 June 2026 (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. Samoasambia ✎ 10:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The newcomer dashboard should be live in the week of 15 June

Hello again Admins.

A quick follow-up to the discussion earlier this year about enabling the Newcomer Dashboard. From the dev side the technical work is now complete and the dashboard is ready to be enabled (T418115#11934307). The configuration is scheduled to be live during the week of 15 June 2026. Once the feature is available, an administrator will need to implement the settings we discussed as the final step is an on-wiki configuration.

This is just a heads-up so you can anticipate the change.

Thanks for your support in making this happen. -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Xzonn2000

Xzonn2000 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Official website do not add Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese. URL not working. ENZH―Sim Chi Yun (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User_talk:Xzonn2000#官方网站：Traditional Chinese (Q18130932) is a variant of Chinese (Q7850), and clearer values should be used to prevent ambiguity. Please edit that template rather than edit Wikidata. Xzonn2000 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't need Traditional Chinese (Q18130932) and Simplified Chinese (Q13414913). The Chinese Wikipedia isn't here. Only the Chinese (Q7850) is linkable. Template:Official website (Q5614958)only has one in Chinese (Q7850)Sim Chi Yun (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning items related to G. Scott Graham

Hello, everyone. During my patrol I noticed items created by three accounts I suspect operated by the same person:

• Gscottgrahamstephens
• ~2026-17498-60
• ~2026-33970-59

The items mostly are non notable, I mass deleted items created by ~2026-33970-59 but after looking at the network, I realized they already casted wider network of non notable items. I request help from another admin to look at this and help whether a partial block is warranted, and whether some items has any trace of notability, or whether this kind of phenomenon warrants CU inspection. Thank you. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 02:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Related RFD. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 02:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I also found more temporary accounts by the same person: ~2026-20343-65 (talk • contribs • logs), ~2026-22649-12 (talk • contribs • logs), and ~2026-22438-81 (talk • contribs • logs). Mercyndungu96 (talk • contribs • logs) also seems to be involved, having added over 100 items related to G. Scott Graham. I have mass deleted several items, but many more remain. I support a CU request. Saroj (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, CU doesn't help here, see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gscottgrahamstephens. --Lymantria (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Also found Karimul12 (talk • contribs • logs). Seems like Gscottgrahamstephens hired others to help mass add items related to them. --Lymantria (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2026 (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. Lymantria (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and lock-evasion

The following users are Sockpuppets and lock-evasions of User:Didicher (not active here). The person behind these accounts is abusing Wikimedia-projects (mainly dewiki) since 2005 (POV-pushing, harassment, doxing, sockpuppetry, incivility/insults, account-sharing, see de:Benutzer:NDG/SG-A)

• Supermohi (talk • contribs • logs)
• Wienerschmäh (talk • contribs • logs)
• Bodenhaftung123 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Yoghurtmiterdbeer (talk • contribs • logs)
• Toni aus Minga (talk • contribs • logs)
• Freimanner Heide (talk • contribs • logs)
• Ungereimt (talk • contribs • logs)

Please consider to block them, most of them were inactive for years but it is possible that the accounts might be reactivated. Thank you NDG (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If they are inactive here, but dangerous to multiple Wikimedia projects, consider asking for a global lock or a global block. —Andrei^talk 08:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Andrei Stroe That's possible and would be another step, one I'm very familiar with. In that case, they'll probably look at local blocks again. That's why I'm now contacting projects where some of the accounts have the most edits. NDG (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If the edits are not recent and destructive, we don't have grounds to block.  —Andrei^talk 09:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. NDG (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Protection request for Event:Wiki Loves Pride 2026

Please semi-protect Event:Wiki Loves Pride 2026. Reason: Persistent vandalism XReport --كريم أحمد (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Protected for 1 week. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 12 June 2026 (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. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:StylabsJewellery

StylabsJewellery 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done, deleted the page. Samoasambia ✎ 10:06, 12 June 2026 (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. Samoasambia ✎ 10:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Coack me patty cake

Coack me patty cake 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Long-term abuse ―Tbhotch (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely. --Saroj (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2026 (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. --Saroj (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:~2026-34419-59

~2026-34419-59 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. ―Kokage si (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely. --Saroj (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2026 (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. --Saroj (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:北海道ジェイ・アール都市開発

北海道ジェイ・アール都市開発 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism. Long-term abuse XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Blocked indef. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2026 (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. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request semi-protection for Q39241940

Hirokawa (Q39241940) - Vandalism by ja:LTA:NRE since March.--Y-route (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Protected for 1 month. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 12 June 2026 (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. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request semi-protection for Q171530

Patrick Bruel is in the fire of actuality and suffers a lot of vandalisms on WD. Thanks Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for a month and blocked a few temporary accounts. Bovlb (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning ~2026-34567-18

~2026-34567-18 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Alec Smithson/Lake Como LTA. As always, the request includes massive rollback + deletion of created items. Horcrux (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely. --Saroj (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2026 (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. --Saroj (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:PrincessAesthetic1831

PrincessAesthetic1831 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot. cross-wiki abuse, Wikidata:Autobiography XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked globally.

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Sjö (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for undeletion: Q140188528 (Anthony Q. Bowen)

Hello,

My Wikidata item (Q140188528) was deleted on 13 June 2026 with the reason: "Does not meet the notability policy — research outputs are limited and does not receive wide readership yet."

I respectfully request that the item be restored, as I believe it now meets Wikidata's notability guidelines. Please consider the following evidence:

• • 1. Peer-Reviewed Academic Publication**

My research paper, "The Knowledge Structuring Model (KSM™): A Socio-Technical Framework for AI-Mediated Visibility and Citation Authority," has been published on SSRN (a respected social science research network) and distributed across multiple academic journals.

- SSRN abstract: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6721140 - SSRN paper ID: 6721140

The paper has been included in the following SSRN eJournals: - Generative AI eJournal (InfoSciRN) - Managerial Marketing eJournal - Advertising eJournal - Brand Management eJournal - Behavioral Marketing eJournal - Internet Marketing & E-Commerce eJournal - Marketing Strategy & Planning eJournal

• • 2. Published Book**

I have authored a book on the same subject, published on Amazon:

- Title: "AI Visibility, AEO & GEO: Understanding the Knowledge Structuring Model (KSM™)" - ASIN: B0H4WXRLJB - Amazon URL: https://www.amazon.it/gp/product/B0H4WXRLJB

• • 3. Institutional Affiliation**

I serve as graduate faculty at Grand Canyon University (GCU):

- GCU faculty page: https://gcu.edu/faculty/anthony-bowen

• • 4. Verified ORCID Profile**

My ORCID iD is verified with my institutional email and includes my employment and publications:

- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7761-0364

• • 5. Other Scholarly Profiles**

- Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cW4OIWMAAAAJ - ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anthony-Bowen-4 - Academia.edu: https://gcu.academia.edu/AnthonyBowen

• • Summary of Notability**

Under Wikidata's notability guidelines, a person may be considered notable if they have "at least one reliable source that indicates they are notable within their field." My work has been: - Published by SSRN, a recognized research platform - Distributed across multiple academic journals - Published as a full-length book on Amazon - Verified through multiple scholarly identifiers (ORCID, Google Scholar, ResearchGate) - Affiliated with an accredited university (Grand Canyon University) Aqbowen2026 (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am the deleting admin. For some reason I could not access the Scholar page. The Scholar record only shown three research outputs, only one has (limited) citations, the rest are recently published with no citation records. For the ORCID, the record shows only self added records, which shows that the works arent indexed yet, hence, the subject is still not notable yet. For these reasons, I Declined restoring the item. I welcome opinion from other admin. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 06:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

My Background with my records on my contact page

https://dranthonyqbowen.com/ ~2026-34589-58 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You can see my Doctoral Dissertation is published and cited by several academic Journals as well. This research is new and current / forward thinking. However my other papers warrant credit to be notable.

Regards

Dr Anthony Q. Bowen ~2026-34589-58 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:~2026-34635-37

~2026-34635-37 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport ―Mitte27 (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Warned. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Missionedjcdt

Missionedjcdt 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:ジェイアール東日本ホテルメッツ

ジェイアール東日本ホテルメッツ 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: official website Vandalism-only account. Long-term abuse ―Mugidai (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Deltaarbim

Deltaarbim 🔕 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) — Reasons: Spam / spambot XReport ―MathXplore (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)