Benutzerin Diskussion:Praxidicae

Romulus Stoicescu

Was ist das denn wieder für ein unsinniger, komplett fehlerhaft begründeter SLA? -- - Majo Senf - ^{Mitteilungen an mich} 19:41, 9. Mai 2019 (CEST)

Sorry, I only speak english but this is an xwiki LTA who has created many hoax articles about himself (see here) and has been deleted repeatedly from IMDB as well. Basically everything he says is untrue and he's just trying to spam his own name.Praxidicae (Diskussion) 19:47, 9. Mai 2019 (CEST)

request for speedy deletion

Hi, your request was declined. As a professional soccer player there is notability. Unless it's fake. However,you did not elaborate. -- Wo st 01 (Sprich mit mir) 17:58, 3. Feb. 2021 (CET)

It was literally created by an xwiki lta who is globally locked for creating hoaxes. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 18:03, 3. Feb. 2021 (CET)

However, the person in this article does exist and is indeed a pro soccer player. -- Wo st 01 (Sprich mit mir) 22:34, 3. Feb. 2021 (CET)

Cross-wiki spam?

I’m sorry, but you can’t just request a speedy deletion for an article like Ivan Senoner without an actual explanation! Maybe the notability is debatable, we will see about that, but in no way does it fulfill the criteria for a speedy deletion.–XanonymusX (Diskussion) 19:31, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

It was a result of crosswiki spam, by a now globally locked editor promoting this borderline hoax. I'll refrain from commenting further given another editor here called me a stalker in the article itself. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 19:48, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

I will delete the “stalker” comment. If you seriously consider this article a “borderline hoax”, I can only advice you to refrain from any further requests for speedy deletions on dewiki. “Cross-wiki vandalism” is not a reason for a speedy deletion on dewiki. Abuse of the instrument is itself vandalism and I would really expect a global sysop to be more careful. Regards, XanonymusX (Diskussion) 19:57, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

It was crosswiki spam, I've tagged many such pages here. If spam deletions aren't allowed, so be it but this seems unduly harsh and the accusations of tool misuse and vandalism is patently absurd. As a note, many other projects appear to agree that this is non-notable, borderline hoax vanity spam per the deletions here. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 19:59, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

These are the criteria for speedy deletions. If they are not fulfilled, you must not request one. Nothing about the article is a hoax and even its notability seems to be okay (two books published, several awards); in any case there needs to be a discussion of at least seven days. Regards, XanonymusX (Diskussion) 20:08, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

XanonymusX, if a spammer creates borderline-hoax promotional articles on a dozen or so projects after which their spam account is globally locked, and one of the articles is on dewiki, am I to understand that the community of this project has no interest in deleting such an article? Vermont (Diskussion) 20:27, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

To note, I've reviewed the situation a bit further and I have a slightly different question. On most projects, criteria exists to delete spam/paid/promotional pages by virtue of that aspect of their creation, regardless of whether the subject is notable. Is this different here? Best, Vermont (Diskussion) 20:30, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

I can only try to explain the existing rules. Cross-wiki spam is certainly not a reason for deletion in itself (why would it?). Hoax is a reason, obviously not notable is one, and obviously promotional (without any encyclopedic content) is another one. This article is none of the above. A vague "borderline-hoax promotional" is no reason at all (and I find it worrying that on other projects it might be, I know that from itwiki already). --XanonymusX (Diskussion) 20:37, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

Du wurdest auf der Seite Vandalismusmeldung gemeldet (2021-04-29T18:19:19+00:00)

Hallo Praxidicae, Du wurdest auf der o. g. Seite gemeldet. Weitere Details kannst du dem dortigen Abschnitt entnehmen. Wenn die Meldung erledigt ist, wird sie voraussichtlich hier archiviert werden.
Wenn du zukünftig nicht mehr von diesem Bot informiert werden möchtest, trage dich hier ein. – Xqbot (Diskussion) 20:19, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

All I did was tag content created by a vanity spammer as spam. This was not vandalism and this is egregious. I didn't restore the tag, I didn't even argue it. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 20:21, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

Just to be precise: you did not just tag the article as spam (which is not possible), but you requested a speedy deletion. That is two different things. As to whether that is sanctionable, my colleagues will have a look at it. Regards --XanonymusX (Diskussion) 20:31, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

I fail to see how one disagreement - where there is no disruption is sanctionable. Anything else would be nothing short of punitive. My edits other than one speedy tag several months ago have not been disputed. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 20:33, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

Further, there seems to be an implication that I'm somehow abusing advanced or global rights - applying a speedy tag is not unique to any right, let alone a global right. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 20:37, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

You are right, I cannot see abuse of advanced rights. It is more the expectation here that users with advanced rights should be more careful in general. And the other problem is that a request for speedy deletion coming from a user with advanced rights might not be as thoroughly checked as one coming from a normal user or even IP.

One request for speedy deletion without a valid reason is not vandalism. But doing it repeatedly (more than once) is at least borderline-vandalism (to use your words). So I can understand why someone would report you. Regards --XanonymusX (Diskussion) 20:45, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)

This is one of 2 tags I've made in the last year plus that has been disputed. I didn't disrupt anything, it was not vandalism and nearly every single project has deleted it for being cross-wiki spam. Speedy criteria on any project are a matter of opinion which is why they can be removed. I'm not edit warring, I'm not even arguing about it but I really don't appreciate the implication that I'm nothing more than a vandal or incompetent considering I've had hundreds of uncontested, successful edits here. Praxidicae (Diskussion) 20:24, 29. Apr. 2021 (CEST)