Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Systemic failure to enforce UCoC on Wikidata - deletion COI and self-evaluation

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
Johnnytelles (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply Filer (no diff required)
Yamato Shiya (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST)
Bovlb (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST)

U4C member alert: @U4C: Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. Johnnytelles (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Johnnytelles

Description of the problem - (Johnnytelles)

This case was referred to the U4C by WMF Trust & Safety (ticket #154174, Kevin Peterson, 2026-07-22), who indicated this committee as the appropriate channel for UCoC violations where local administrators are unable or unwilling to act. It is not a re-filing of a previously resolved matter.

Scope of this case

Cases A, B, and C below involve items belonging to third parties with no connection to the complainant. The structural conflict of interest documented in those cases is verifiable independently of the complainant's perspective — any editor or investigator can confirm the pattern by examining the archived noticeboard threads. Case D involves the complainant's own items and is included as a fourth instance of the same pattern, not as the primary basis of this complaint.

3a — Structural COI verified across 4 independent cases

Yamato Shiya deleted items and evaluated his own undeletion requests — a pattern verified across 4 independent cases:

  • Case A: Q140368106 deleted by Yamato Shiya — Yamato Shiya evaluates and declines RFU [Section 364, Archive/2026/06]
  • Case B: Q140444355 and Q140444411 deleted by Yamato Shiya — Yamato Shiya evaluates and declines RFU [Section 119, Archive/2026/07]
  • Case C: Q140368106 second RFU with new evidence (Publishers Weekly) — Yamato Shiya evaluates and declines diff=2515285255
  • Case D: Q139762124 et al. deleted by Yamato Shiya — Yamato Shiya applies {{declined}} to the RFU [Section 190, Archive/2026/07]

In no case did Yamato Shiya recuse himself from evaluating his own deletion decisions.

3b — Irregular deletion process

RfD for complainant's items: nominated at 23:42, 7 July with criterion "Self promotion" — absent from WD:N. Nuke executed at 08:31, 8 July before formal RfD closure (08:33). Process completed in 8 hours 51 minutes, zero community votes. diff=2514938154 — diff=2515018003

Deletion reason "Person subject not notable" applied via batch to a company (Q139762140) and a creative work (Q140000366) — entity type mismatch documented.

3c — Institutional conflict of interest

In his administrator Request for Permissions (2026-04-19, 11:43 UTC), Yamato Shiya stated:

"I am currently working for a Wikimedia chapter as a staff using a work account. Due to the current nature of Wikimedia-related projects in Indonesia, I want to avoid disclosing my work account in public. However, I am willing to share this information privately with users holding special rights, such as Wikidata Admins, Checkusers, or Oversights, if required."

RfA of Yamato Shiya

A paid employee of a Wikimedia-affiliated organization, with an undisclosed work account, evaluating undeletion requests for items he personally deleted.

3d — Defense of Bovlb before deletions

On 2026-07-07 at 00:36 UTC, Yamato Shiya responded in defense of Bovlb in the "Report concerning User:Bovlb" thread opened by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. Approximately 32 hours later (08:31 UTC, 8 July), Yamato Shiya executed the Nuke on the complainant's items.

3e — Deletion of rights page during active complainant request

On 2026-07-22 at 05:45 UTC, Yamato Shiya deleted Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Rollbacker with edit summary "Non-controversial housekeeping."

Log: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=672286224

Sequence of the same day:

  • 05:45 UTC — Yamato Shiya deletes page where complainant's rollbacker request was registered
  • 12:25 UTC — Ymblanter: "you can not be trusted with this flag"
  • 15:23 UTC — Madamebiblio: request rejected
  • 17:04 UTC — Yirba: "Trusted members of the community generally do not have disputes like that"

3f — Pattern of non-existent criteria and deletion of items with multiple contributors (July 2026)

The RFU for Q128112598 (JETSAR), opened by the complainant at 01:17 UTC on 2026-07-22, documents a pattern of deletions applying criteria absent from WD:N:

{

Previous attempts at a solution - (Johnnytelles)

Appeal channels were closed by Bovlb — whose cases Yamato Shiya closes systematically. WMF Trust & Safety (ticket #154174) indicated the U4C.

Applicable precedents:

Suggested solutions - (Johnnytelles)

1. Investigation of Yamato Shiya for violation of UCoC §3.2 across the six categories documented above. 2. CheckUser review of the undisclosed work account, as offered by Yamato Shiya himself in his RfA.

Diffs and links:

  1. diff=2515285255 — Case C, self-evaluation of own deletion with new evidence
  2. diff=2514938154 — Graham nomination with non-policy criterion
  3. diff=2515018003 — Nuke + RfD closed 2 minutes later
  4. RfA of Yamato Shiya — Wikimedia chapter employment declaration
  5. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=672286224 — rollbacker page deletion log
  6. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_undeletion/2026/07#RFU:_Q128112598_–_Journal_of_Educational_Technology_Studies_and_Applied_Research_(JETSAR) — RFU Q128112598 (JETSAR)

— Johnnytelles (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Yamato Shiya

Previous attempts at a solution - Yamato Shiya

Regarding 3a:

  • My actions were guided by a community practice where the deleting administrator may participate in evaluating an undeletion request.
  • In RFU cases involving items I deleted, I consistently invited input from other administrators and community members.
  • When an RFU was posted on my talk page and I declined the request, I directed the requester to open a new RFU at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, where the matter could be discussed more broadly.
  • During those discussions, I attempted to limit my participation to explaining the deletion rationale and documenting my administrative action.
  • I did not formally close those RFUs, they remained open for community input until archived by the bot or closed by another administrator.

Regarding 3b:

  • The deleted items were connected to the complainant because the item labels corresponded to the complainant's username.
  • The formal deletion reason was not self-promotion. The deletion log states:
Does not meet the notability policy: Person subject not notable, although already own some publications, most of them were preprints and self published, the rest articles are not notable due to low readership and limited citation.
  • This conclusion was reached after reviewing the sources associated with the deleted items.
  • The entity mismatch allegation appears to arise from how the Nuke tool applies a deletion reason across multiple items.

Regarding 3c:

  • My deletion actions were unrelated to my employment with any Wikimedia affiliate.
  • My participation in subsequent RFU discussions was in my capacity as a Wikidata administrator, consistent with the explanation provided in section 3a.

Regarding 3d:

  • Expressing an opinion in a discussion is separate from exercising administrative deletion authority.

Regarding 3e:

  • The page cited by the complainant concerned a request filed in the wrong page. The complainant later recreated the request on the correct page. The deletion had previously been requested by another user.

Regarding 3f:

  • The RFU concerning JETSTAR Journal was related to an item that I deleted during a patrol of Indonesian publishers and journals.
  • The deletion rationale was based on the absence of evidence that the journal met Wikidata's notability requirements. At the time of review, I could not identify a SINTA profile documenting accreditation, and I did not find evidence of significant independent coverage or citation impact.
  • For clarity, SINTA is the accreditation and indexing system relevant to Indonesian scholarly journals, whereas GARUDA is a repository platform and does not itself establish accreditation.
  • Additional reliable sources would be welcome. If the complainant provides a SINTA profile or other evidence demonstrating that the journal meets Wikidata's notability criteria, the item may be reconsidered through the normal undeletion process and community review.
  • Note: the request was not made in the appropriate channel in accordance of the guideline currently available in Wikidata: i.e. contacting deleting admin and/or posting the request on Wikidata's Administrators' Noticeboard. Due to this I am not aware of this request before it was raised here.

Thank you. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 06:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Suggested solutions - Yamato Shiya

I believe that normal Wikidata's community procedure is sufficient. I would ask the U4C to consider the complete sequence of events, including the requests that the complainant made before in Wikidata:Administrators' Noticeboard, Project Chat and other venues. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 06:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Bovlb

Previous attempts at a solution - Bovlb

My involvement in this matter has been peripheral.

This sequence of events began when Johnnytelles created a number of items concerning themselves and their own works. Those items were subsequently deleted. I played no role in those deletions.

Johnnytelles has since opened numerous discussions across multiple venues seeking undeletion of those items and raising related complaints. I closed several duplicate discussions on the principle that a single dispute should be discussed in a single venue. There is currently one active discussion on the matter on Wikidata’s Project Chat.

My only other involvement has been as the target of various allegations. Johnnytelles and Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton have made a number of serious accusations concerning me in multiple venues. I have attempted to resolve these issues with questions and explanations, but they have yet to identify any specific conduct by me that might support those allegations. I always welcome feedback, but I believe this pattern falls short of community expectations and may be inconsistent with the Universal Code of Conduct. Bovlb (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Suggested solutions - Bovlb

I believe this is already being adequately handled by normal community processes. If the U4C accepts this case, I ask that it also consider whether repeatedly making serious allegations across multiple venues without adequately substantiating them is consistent with the Universal Code of Conduct. Bovlb (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

  • Comments/replies may not be longer than 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section.
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed.
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links.

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2026/Systemic_failure_to_enforce_UCoC_on_Wikidata_-_deletion_COI_and_self-evaluation&oldid=30853676"