Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P9395

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

P9395 (P9395)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
concensus to delete.-BRP ever 05:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P9395 (P9395): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This property is problematic for a number of reasons:

  • Its proposal was by a user who has been inactive since July and was supported only by two other accounts, one of whom only ever supported that property proposal and created stub user (talk) pages for themselves and the other inactive since November but the majority of whose edits on Wikidata pertained to the owner of the site. It thus did not garner the sufficient level of exposure/criticism by the sufficient number of actually active users that would be expected of other property proposals.
  • I suspect that the site itself is an elaborate vehicle for SEO by its owner, given that the very name of the website suggests some level of integrity in its data that cannot actually be independently verified, and given that the page structure of the website is inordinately too complex for the amount of actual information residing within it ('loftiness' might be a better word here).
  • More recently, beginning in the evening UTC on 16 February, someone began additions of this property to items 1) anonymously, 2) en masse, using the "Wikidata User Interface" edit tag (only ordinarily available from the Wikidata web client), and 3) changing IP addresses every ten seconds. This sort of network connection behavior is in my view cause for concern and, if coming from someone connected to the site (whether or not this person is the owner of the site), should be grounds for not continuing to tolerate additions of that property.

@Lymantria: who created this property. Mahir256 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I've seen these edits from IPs too and the site literally just copies Wikidata. There's nothing unique about it. Also, all of the voters of the original property proposal have very few edits which makes it very shady. Lectrician1 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete See the abuse filter log. I've had contact with said site's devs - they claim a dataset file was leaked (relevant email). But why someone would use all these IPs for this bizzare purpose? Dislaimer of sorts: I'm a paying customer to the non-profit (see the link on my user page) and was considering requesting bot permission to use with one of their datasets (enquiry email), which I had been in contact about but not obtained as it wasn't ready - the activity seen in the last 12 hours isn't the way to do this. Instead a standard request for bot permissions with all things considered. Commenting here due to my previous interest as I doubt the devs would. --Toastskat (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edits stopped as of 8:30 GMT (history) in parallel with their database going offline from this correspondence. Property should be deleted and only brought back after a successful thorough disscussion of its use. --Toastskat (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Moebeus (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --Nw520 (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as spamming. Also the fact that the site seem to be use only Wikidata content, this is no use for us as a ID. --Fralambert (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete -- TNT (talk • she/her) 13:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete original discussion appears suspicious, and usage further adds to that suspicion --DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per DannyS712 --Zabe (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Mahir256 - Premeditated (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Should a checkuser be made on those accounts to confirm whether this is a case of vote stacking? I also spotted another account who wrote on the proposer's talk page, which follows the same pattern of the only contributions it has ever made being related to the founder of this website. --SilentSpike (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete -- Meisam (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --Alaa :)..! 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

out of process deletion

[edit]
  • Is there a reason why this was removed from the items before the deletion was actually decided? The somewhat hasty handling doesn't allow to do analysis on the property. --- Jura 08:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, the deletion is not 'out of process'. The Proposal ran it's course and was closed after 7 days since the consensus was reached. And secondly, if you have gone through the discussion above, you will find that it was actually a spam that was added in thousands of pages, so it's early removal makes sense. That being said, the deletion discussion is over, if you have any more questions/concerns, please take it to WD:AN. Thanks -- BRP ever 11:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The statements were deleted on February 21, not after 7 days. --- Jura 12:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, by 'deletion' I meant deletion of property and not the removal of property from the items. Anyways, it was a spam.-BRP ever 12:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion/P9395&oldid=1585862320"