:::: Thanks. I will read up on the wiki rules tonight and try not to misinterpret it again and make the same error. Again I sincerely apologize and acknowledge that it was my wrong to not be aware of such protocols. it's not exactly an overly obvious rule to hide edits in log history. You have so many rules and I am still learning the ropes but I apologize to Diannaa and the admimstrators board for not knowing this before. 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Casualfoodie|Casualfoodie]] ([[User talk:Casualfoodie#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Casualfoodie|contribs]]) </span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::: Thanks. I will read up on the wiki rules tonight and try not to misinterpret it again and make the same error. Again I sincerely apologize and acknowledge that it was my wrong to not be aware of such protocols. it's not exactly an overly obvious rule to hide edits in log history. You have so many rules and I am still learning the ropes but I apologize to Diannaa and the admimstrators board for not knowing this before. 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Casualfoodie|Casualfoodie]] ([[User talk:Casualfoodie#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Casualfoodie|contribs]]) </span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Don't worry too much about breaking a rule you're unfamiliar with - everyone makes mistakes, and there are a lot of rules. What's important is that you listen when someone tells you that there's a problem with what you're doing, and that you don't assume they're trying to stop you for nefarious purposes. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 07:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus at this point to remove the IBAN on Sir Joseph.There are not necessarily any arguments being made that are "more grounded in policy" than the other. Some of those in favour of dropping the IBAN feel that TonyBallioni's opposition should not be the sole nail that keeps this coffin closed, but I note that the majority of those who were opposed to this request and said they agreed with Tony also gave additional thoughts as to why they were opposed. That said, the main arguments are variations on "time served" and "he has stuck to the ban", versus "the ban is working, so keep it" and "it's not significantly affecting his editing". Numerically, the opposition has a very slight majority, and with no clear "less-weighted" opinions on either side it's a wash.On the point of the specifics of the IBAN, I believe the discussion in the subsection at the bottom (and briefly mentioned elsewhere) is worth mentioning: this IBAN is only for stopping interaction between Sir Joseph and TonyBallioni, i.e. Sir Joseph commenting directly on or at TonyBallioni. In other words, it does not preclude him from participating (and/or replying to others) in discussions such as this, nor on RFCs/discussions started (or participated in) by TonyBallioni. As mentioned multiple times (by both sides) Sir Joseph has seen little if any ill effects from this IBAN and has been able to productively contribute to Wikipedia despite it. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had an IBAN imposed in October of 2019 and I am requesting the removal of it.
The details are at: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.
I admit that the IBAN was imposed correctly and to avoid disruption and I was 100% at fault in that case. However, I am asking that the IBAN be removed at this time. I don't believe I had any recent interaction, even tangentially but it is hard at times to keep to the IBAN due to the nature of the details.
I am not sure about notifications or comments, but I would request that any discussion I have here be sanctioned by BANEX.
Thank you. Sir Joseph(talk)23:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to keep an interaction ban that has been successful, not only in keeping Sir Joseph away from TonyBallioni but in keeping Sir Joseph on-Wiki (see the ban discussion: Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin). Perhaps Sir Joseph could enlarge on how the ban is preventing him from editing Wikipedia and how he would interact with TonyBallioni if it were lifted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you see in the interaction analyzer, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't. I also feel that there is no more need of an IBAN and we shouldn't keep it just to keep it. It's been well over a year and we shouldn't be punitive. Sir Joseph(talk)14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you want to be able to comment in discussions where TonyBallioni has commented. I would support lifting the IB for that with the advice that I think you would wise to continue to avoid commenting on, about or in response to TonyBallioni; just comment directly on the topic being discussed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal - SJ is aware of the issue and knows to avoid interaction with TB. He has demonstrated that it's possible for him to do so as a mature adult. It's easy enough to restore it, so what's the big deal? Realistically after 6 mos, t-bans and i-bans become punishment to those who have to carry the full responsibility of that ball and chain. They should never be forever anymore than PP should be forever on an article. Atsme💬📧14:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support reduction per WP:ROPE. Would it be possible to reduce the IBAN to merely avoid direct interaction (i.e. addressing directly or responding directly to comments) rather than merely avoiding pages/sections where the other is active? If not, I would also support a full elimination of the IBAN (pending TB's comments regarding the issue) as a second best option. --Jayron3215:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Support reduction I think Jayron makes a good argument and we should allow SJ a rope and if there will be a slight problem the ban could reinstated again. --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the arguments one again and I now Support removal but I urge SJ to minimize his interaction to TB to absolute minimum --Shrike (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Both his admission and the time that has passed with no further events suggest that SJ has learned from the experience, and could interact productively with TB. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess this has started while I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I oppose removal and ask that this be kept open a bit after my response of Sir Joseph's IBAN with me. There is literally no reason to remove it. What does it accomplish? Sir Joseph and I do not edit the same topic areas. I actually can't think of a time where I have come into contact with him recently just through going through the normal pages that I go through. My experience with Sir Joseph is that he harbors grudges and would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Wikipedia.I'm also going to point out that my concerns here have some merit as it was made while I was on a wikibreak for a few weeks. Sorry if I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect Sir Joseph looking through my contributions for no reason, noticed I wasn't around, and then decided to ask for this because he knows that the community is usually unwilling to remove a 1-way IBAN if the other party is opposed. If he's already looking through my contribution history while under an IBAN, forgive me if I assume that he's going to do the same when he's not. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're expressing a lot of ABF in that response and I hope you rewrite it. More helpful than sharing your assumptions would be sharing if you've had any problems with SJ in the last 17 months or not. Because if the answer is "not", it may be you who is holding a grudge here. Levivichharass/hound14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I don’t comment on or interact with Sir Joseph because of the IBAN: its not fair to him. I’m not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed. That’s not an assumption of bad faith or holding a grudge, that’s having an extremely negative experience with someone and not wanting to be subject to it again.The community traditionally does not lift one-way IBANs if one party objects. I’m simply asking that the community give me the courtesy of considering my request that SJ keep from interacting with me. There’s literally no reason for him to do so since we don’t edit the same areas and he’s at no risk of violating his ban on accident. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed" is the very definition of holding a grudge. I'm not suggesting you need to assume good faith, I'm suggesting you should not assume bad faith, like don't assume he went through your contribs, and let go of your grudge. Levivichharass/hound16:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s an odd definition. I don’t wish Sir Joseph any ill will. I’m not asking he be banned from the site. I’m asking that he continue not to talk about me. By your definition you’re suggesting, anyone who has experienced someone behaving overwhelmingly negatively towards them should have their concerns dismissed as a grudge or as assuming bad faith. That’s not particularly fair—it means that people who have legitimate concerns with the way others have treated them simply to have those concerns ignored. The community already decided that Sir Joseph was acting inappropriately towards me. I don’t have to demonstrate that. My concern that Sir Joseph will continue acting that way is a real one, and I think I’m within behavioural norms to express it. I also don’t think I need to defend every word choice I made from in-depth analysis and reframing of arguments when expressing that, so I’m not going to continue engaging in this thread since you appear to have made up your mind, and I am also fairly resolved that I continue to not want to have to worry about Sir Joseph interacting with me. I’ve made my request known. The community can decide, and I’ll accept the result. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the concept of lifting sanctions just because "it's been a long time." The IBAN appears to be working, so why would we lift it? Just for the hell of it? I do not see how it is limiting SJ from doing anything except interacting with Tony, and that's a good thing that we should want to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Wikipedia. - I guess a verbal commitment to not do these would be a positive step. starship.paint (exalt)16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal as the other party opposes the lifting of the ban, and also WP:IBAN says Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other, so I don't see how Sir Joseph's stated reason for lifting the ban, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't is valid as he can still comment on a discussion, just not directly to TB.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It prevents him from commenting on discussions started by TB, and it might be understood by some admins as preventing him from commenting on points previously addressed by TB. François Robere (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It prevents him from commenting on me (directly or indirectly) or replying to me. WP:IBAN does not say that he can't comment on RfCs or the like started by me. Shrike (replying to you here), my view is that WP:ROPE is a really bad essay for IBANs: it'd force me to gather diffs and write out a long explanation of why SJ's behavior towards me is continuing a long trend of thinking everything I do is wrong and going out of his way to comment on me in other forums. I didn't request the original IBAN myself because I thought it'd look bad for an admin to request one from someone who has criticized them, and I'd be pretty unlikely to request it again for the same reasons. That being said, it was very much a relief when someone else proposed it, and I'd rather not have to go back to worrying about him showing up out of the woodwork to say negative things about me.To Jayron32's point, my understanding of WP:IBAN is already in line with what he is calling a "reduction". SJ is not prevented from commenting in or on discussions I have already commented in. He has done so on multiple occasions since his IBAN: he opposed the RfC I recently started on community based desysop. He has supported an RfA where I was one of the main opposers. He commented in the anti-harassment RfC last year, where I also participated before him. He opposed and RfA where I was the nominator. He made this comment at AN after I had blocked the person who started the thread and commented in the thread. He made this comment on a thread about the SashiRolls ban that I had proposed after it was enacted. He made this comment in a block review thread I had already commented in.I would be fine with a clarification to Sir Joseph that he is free to take part in discussions that I take part in or start so long as he does not directly or indirectly reference me or reply to me, but he already seems to be aware of this as he's been doing it pretty regularly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I too would like to know under what conditions you would consider supporting the IBAN being lifted? Or a theoretical other one-way iban with you if that is easier to answer. I'm finding it difficult to interpret your view, and thus the merits of the request, without knowing this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: sorry for only getting back to you now. I'll answer it theoretically since I think it's easier to explain that way. I would be open to lifting a one-way IBAN if the the party consents the overwhelming majority of the time, if not always. In cases where the other party doesn't consent, my analysis would go something like this: has an issue been identified where the IBAN is causing undue difficulty for the party who is under it to edit Wikipedia productively? If yes, would it be better to extend to two way? If not, does it seem likely the issues would return?If you want me to apply my logic above; it'd stop after the first question. The things Sir Joseph says this IBAN prevents him from doing (commenting on administrative discussions I am present in) is both not actually in line with what IBAN says, but as I pointed out above with diffs, he does regularly anyway, oftentimes disagreeing with where I stand, which is fine.My conclusion based on that is that he wants the IBAN lifted so he can directly comment on me. Given my past experience with Sir Joseph, I'm not exactly confident that he'd do so in a way that wasn't combative/hostile and containing personal attacks. That's something I'd like to avoid. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that does make sense, thank you. I still need to think a bit before opining on this request but you have made that easier. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal - I hadn't !voted until now because I was waiting to hear from TonyBallioni. Not knowing that TB was on a Wikibreak, I interpreted his apparent silence as his being OK with removing the IBAN, and since the !voting was going in that direction, I didn't see any purpose in !voting myself. But now that I know that Tony is opposed to removing the ban, I also oppose it, as I would for almost any one-way IBAN in which the victimized editor objects to its being lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal - 17 months with no issues seems long enough for another go. Not a fan of indefinite sanctions with no clear reason why they need to continue. Also not a fan of 1 way ibans either, but that is more a in general thing and not specific to this instance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal 1 way IBANs should only be removed with the blessing of the user who the affected user cannot interact with, with limited exceptions in case of abuse.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal per TB. I'm a very firm believer that sanctions for harassment should not be lifted, ever, over the objection of the victim. Sir Joseph's relentless harassment of TonyBallioni was beyond the pale, and did not stop after many warnings until the moment they were formally sanctioned. Many editors were calling for Sir Joseph to be sitebanned. As TonyBallioni has explained, the sanction is not actually preventing Sir Joseph from doing anything, so why is he asking for it to be lifted if not to resume his harassment campaign? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal per above. We should not remove a 1-way IBAN against the will of the affected editor; that is a recipe for disruption. If SJ plans to not harass Tony, then the TBAN shouldn't matter. If he does plan to harass Tony, then we should keep it. We don't know for certain which one the future holds, so keeping the TBAN is the best option to limit damage. It may be hard for SJ to comply, but it will be harder for us to deal with problems should they recur. — Wug·a·po·des01:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy, it's my understanding from the last time we interacted that we were not going to comment on each other or to each other. I've been keeping up my end of the deal and I'd like to know if that gentleman's agreement is no longer applicable. Thanks! Sir Joseph(talk)00:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal: Wikipedia badly needs admins such as Tony Ballioni who are willing to handle highly contentious matters. The community in return has the obligation to protect them, per their request, from continued harassment by a disgruntled editor. Otherwise admins would have a strong disincentive to get involved in settling disputes. The iban should continue. NightHeron (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal most of the "harassment" was for a very short period of time in September 2019; before then there had been some interaction but not just one way - and following the links I don't see anything before March 2019. Editors opposing prefer the restriction to remain even permanently without any possibility of it being removed - that is unreasonable. Peter James (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's unreasonable. For my part, when I supported the IBAN, I thought I was supporting a WP:SO-in-six-months-if-there's-no-further-problems IBAN. Had I known it would have been permanent until the other party agreed to lift it, I never would have !voted in support of it. I believed "indefinite doesn't mean infinite". (Also, "harassment" was a word only mentioned once by one !voter in the original IBAN discussion; I never felt that SJ engaged in harassment, and it was never my understand that there was community consensus that he did. Not every IBAN is the result of harassment; I didn't think this one was.) Levivichharass/hound17:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from that. TB's a respected editor/admin, but I'm sure even he wouldn't want policy to be re/written purely on his account; I'd be interested to know precisely where it is codified that one party has the right to reject an appeal (or, if you prefer, have the final say as to whether an appeal is successful)? I find nothing at WP:IBAN. ——Serial10:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal The IBAN doesn't currently prevent Sir Joseph from doing what he wants to do so I don't see a compelling reason to go against TonyBallioni's request that the IBAN isn't removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what answer you expect, Sir Joseph, as I'm not sure how the unanswerable can be answered. What could now happen is that an uninvolved admin closes this discussion based on BANPOL while discounting non-policy-based arguments. However. Notwithstanding what might happen, what also should happen... is that you start drafting your appeal to the arbcomittee. ——Serial08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split the distance proposal
IBANs are annoying because you do have to worry about checking each time to see if the other person is involved in the thread/topic/whatever. Each and every time. Tony doesn't have a distinctive signature (which is fine, I don't either) so it makes it that much harder to check. And because it's one way, SJ has to check each time, even if it's someplace he's edited recently. That said, Tony's response here is quite reasonable. But even in the real world, restraining orders (or prison terms) are rarely truly infinite, and this one has already run for ~18 months I believe. So how about we give just a little WP:ROPE by reducing it to "SJ is not to comment on or directly interact with Tony subject the normal exceptions. SJ is expected to avoid other interactions normally associated with an IBAN. If any uninvolved admin feels that SJ is intentionally interacting with Tony or otherwise trying to create friction with Tony they can restore the full IBAN on their sole judgement." Still should get the same impact without having SJ having to check each and every edit. SJ would need to agree to this for at least a year before coming back to ask for it to be removed. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, I guess my confusion with the various suggestions about updating the IBAN to be along the lines of what you're saying is that that's already what WP:IBAN says, and Sir Joseph appears to know it since he already comments on areas I'm I've commented on fairly regularly (I had a bunch of diffs above showing this.) I think I've already said that I would be fine with a clarification that IBAN's do not prohibit him from commenting in discussions I have already taken part in, but this is also something he already appears to know since he's doing what he says he can't do anyway. I guess in my head calling an IBAN something other than an IBAN because we want to clarify something doesn't make much sense to me, especially in this case. But yeah, I'd support making it even more clear that IBAN allows him to comment in the same thread as me so long as he doesn't interact with or reference/comment on me. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
For some background, see User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_12#Please_don't_create_any_more_articles and User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Places_in_Iran. The former link involves the discovery of large quantities of misinterpretation of a source an original research to create a couple thousand place stubs in California that largely turned out to be barely verifiable, false, or non-notable, probably well over 1,000 have been deleted, created by a single user, Carlossuarez46. It is the latter one that is causing this report, though. It was found that something similar happened with creating short stubs from a directory of abadis in Iran - an abadi is a very generic term that in Iran can refer to everything from decent-sized cities to wells, farms, individual buildings, and even gas stations. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi, it was found that Carlossuarez46 created over 5,500 stubs for abadis that are uninhabited. While some abadis are notable, given the background of these, it seems unlikely that any of the ones that are uninhabited are notable, which is the consensus of that AFD. There's no way that 5500+ articles can reasonably be processed through AFD and PROD, so it's looking like a batch deletion of this mess is the best call. I believe there's a list of the relevant ones in existence somewhere. Hog FarmTalk00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list of articles to be deleted (linked at the AFD) is at User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported. I removed the three pages I found that had additional content beyond the original creation, and others with further information may also be exempted from such soft deletion. Carlossuarez46 altogether made about 70,000 articles (pages 2–8 here) on places in Iran from 2011 to 2014 using the 2006 census, and I did not find any approval to do so in accordance with Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 66#Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA. While the discussion linked above indicates half of these tens of thousands of places with are not actually "villages" in Iran (may include e.g. neighborhoods and census tracts) and their status and notability are likewise questionable, these 5,500+ pages have no population reported and are not conceivably auto-passes of WP:GEOLAND. Reywas92Talk01:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I've noticed a lot of stubs about misidentified populated places, usually in California, in WP:PRODSUM for several months now. Based on the aforementioned evidence, I recommend that Carlossuarez46 be banned from creating articles about places. Thoughts? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mass creation seems to have stopped in April 2020 with a run of stubs for ancient sites, so I'm not sure that an article creation ban would be necessary. Hog FarmTalk03:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are large blocks of items beginning with the same word, which likely identifies what they actually are; for instance, place names beginning with Chah-e are most likely wells. I'll ping... Paraw (talk·contribs), the only active user who is fa-N, to scan the list and identify such prefixes so that they can be processed in bulk AfD or mass PROD. Which items on the list reported a population of 0 in the 2016 census, like the farm named in the AfD? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 5573 article I think we have explained all in a/m talking and we ask and recommend the mess deletion of no notable, no village and no populated articles. Please Delete all 5573 article. In FAwiki, as last talking there is Consensus that Abadies there aren't notable.@4nn1l2Shahram08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a mass deletion (we did the same in the past for other similar issues with 1000s of articles by other editors), but an alternative may be to mass-move them to draftspace: that way, people have six months to rescue ones which are mistakenly moved or which they have edited. After six months, the remainder will get deleted anyway. Perhaps other groups of articles by the same editor need to be looked at as well, something like Alīābād, Yardymli gives little confidence, so perhaps all 233 articles with the sentence "suspected that this village has undergone a name change"[2] should be deleted or draftified as well? These are in Azerbaijan and Artsakh, so not duplicates of the above proposal. Fram (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can delete the articles no problem, but I do not have capacity to go through all of them to see what it salvageable and what is not. If there is consensus that all of them have to be deleted, no problem, but I remember that with Sander v Ginkel articles, which I also batch deleted (after time was given to improve them) people were still unhappy with the deletion. May be just move them to draft and let sit there for six months before getting deleted?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have come a long way since it was alright to mass-create articles for places, and experience has taught us some lessons about cleaning up the resultant inaccuracies. It's not completely clean-cut, though and I point to Robert, California (AfD discussion) as a counterpoint. For safety, I recommend restricting any mass deletion to articles that don't tell the reader anything beyond the shaky claims about being villages. If the statement that "X is a village" is shaky in the first place, then an article that says "X is a village and nothing else is recorded about it" isn't particularly useful. Although Robert, California did start out that way, as you can see at Special:Permalink/288124514.
Delete all Native Farsi speaker here. Please just delete them all. No more discussions or hesitations. I checked User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported with Petscan, and all of them should be gone, except Sharafabad, Markazi. You can check it yourself. Go to the Templates&links tab and insert "User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported" in the field All of these pages: from the row Linked from. Then go to the Page properties tab and specify a size Larger or equal than 3000, 2900, 2800, ... 2000 respectively and check it for yourself. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered why we didn't ask Carlossuarez46, an active editor and admin, to help clean up his own mess and to go through his creations and delete G7 or draftify all problematic or potentially problematic ones. Turns out that he was contacted about these specific articles (which follow the many similar deletions of US locations he created), at User talk:Carlossuarez46#Places in Iran. His responses there are extremely disheartening though, and the callous disrespect he shows for basic collegiality, sourcing requirements, ... is rather concerning in an admin. He could save us all a lot of work (he should have done so when the first deletions started to happen), but he doesn't seem to care about this at all. Fram (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely subpar responses. It isn't realistic to expect individual review for each page of such a massive number of pages, when an error rate for these reaches a certain threshold. El_C13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be "that guy", but if you don't understand that a Census tract is not automatically notable, perhaps you don't need to have the Autopatrolled bit, no less the admin bit. At this point, I'm forced to agree with mass deletion as I don't think our Draft: system needs to be flooded. Seeing the discussion on his personal talk page did not fill me with hope that he is willing or capable of reviewing these articles himself. This would make me also support a sanction to prohibit article creation outside of draft space, which is very problematic for someone with the admin bit, but seemingly necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, to summarise, so far we have mass creation of California place stubs based on the GNIS database, a lot of which have now been deleted as misidentified railroad sidings/ponds/post offices, a mass creation of Iranian place stubs based purely off the census records, thousands of which appear to be misidentified farms/gas stations/isolated buildings, and looking at the recent edit history of Azizkend and it's associated talk page it looks like there may be issues with their Armenian place stubs as well (again this is an article created using only a place name database). I think this is going to need a major clean up effort - we are dealing with potentially thousands of hoax geography stubs here. Kind of reminds me of the Neelix case from a few years back. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion Having spot-checked the list, these articles don't meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and should be deleted. I also agree with Dennis Brown that based on their comments on their talk page on this topic, Carlossuarez probably should not be auto-patrolled. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support mass deletion of User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported. They don't need to be checked further. When Carlos writes "population not reported", it means the census data said less than 3 families – so obviously not a "village" as claimed. Spot checks by multiple users have confirmed that they are not remotely close to meeting WP:GEOLAND. The problem is that the Iranian census describes both populated and unpopulated places with the same word, abadi (see this comment from 4nn1l2 for useful context), and according to one source up to 25% are "non-residential".[3] The tens of thousands of other articles also need to be dealt with, but this list is a good first step. Thanks to Hog Farm and Reywas92 for compiling it. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the broader issue, I was really hoping that Carlos would be more receptive to helping clean these up. We all make mistakes and if you're mass-creating articles (which I think is usually a very valuable contribution), it's understandable that a simple mistake can create a big mess. As an admin, he could easily have acknowledged the problem and G7'd them all, saving everyone all this trouble. Instead he flat out refused to listen, insisting that other editors laboriously "prove" that each place wasn't notable individually, even after he'd been presented with ample reliable sources showing that they were not notable as a rule, and it had been explained that the burden is on him to substantiate his claims. I don't want to drag anyone to ArbCom over something like, but yeah... autopatrolled is bundled with the sysop bit, so it technically is tool misuse, and I worry about him going on another stub creation spree with no oversight. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support mass deletion I have participated in a few Afd's for these articles, It's about time that someone brought this to administrator attention. I would even support some sort of block for disruptive editing.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd can of worms we've opened. If this were not an admin, I would have already removed the autopatrolled bit from the editor without discussion. Because they are an admin, only Arb can authorize a bit change, and since autopatrolled is automatically included with the admin bit, they would have to remove the admin bit. Without further evidence of gross incompetence or abuse of the admin bit, I don't see this happening. The same for sanctioning an admin. Conventional wisdom has always been that if you can't trust an admin to operate without being under sanction, you can't trust them with the admin bit. Carlossuarez46 is walking a very fine line here, and if I were them, I would be volunteering to never create articles outside of draft space, rather than risk a sanction and possible Arb case to review their bits. If one of the "community desysop" discussions had ended with the community being granted the ability to desysop someone because they lost in faith in them, this would be a textbook case, although I don't pretend to know the outcome in either case. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, some sort of sanction on creating articles is needed. See their responses to the questions about them in the California place names one I linked in the starting post here, or in the places in Iran one. They went on a CFD editing run per their contribs after I notified them about starting this AN discussion. And these 5500 are just the tip of the iceberg. There are tens of thousands of stubs they created that are still dubious, just not quite as bad as this batch request. And they won't provide helpful answers to basic requests about this. IMO this is a WP:ADMINACCT issue. Given the sheer amount of poor quality article creation and lack of communication to questions about it, there should be a restriction on creation of geography stubs - a requirement to send new geography articles through AFC sounds reasonable to me. Hog FarmTalk21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a AFC requirement or removal of autopatrolled are fundamentally incompatible with being an administrator, for an administrator being trusted to be able to write articles is the bare minimum we should expect. I also don't think the proposed restrictions really get to the crux of the issue: the problem here was the mass creation of stub articles based only on database entries. I think a better set of restrictions would be a ban on article creation using automated or semi-automated tools and a requirement that any new articles they make have multiple substantial sources in them (as in sources containing a significant quantity of prose). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support batch deletion - I was initially against this idea but I now can't see any alternative. Having reviewed and PRODed many of the offending articles, I now see that it will take several weeks to getting around to properly looking at them all. Since they make no valid claim to notability, the chances of any of them actually being notable is low enough that I think the positives of batch deletion outweigh the negatives significantly. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)00:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the person who just fixed Escalle, Larkspur, California, I point out that the problem is not notability, and there is a significant likelihood that some of these places are notable. The problem is that we have one-sentence articles hanging around for years (almost 13 years in the case of Azizkend (AfD discussion)) where that one sentence is an outright falsehood, because the source databases were not properly filtered and everything was labelled "populated place" or "unincorporated community". I think that you'll get wide agreement on mass-deleting one-sentence articles whose dodgy mass-creation makes them likely false. Don't make it about things being "just a mill" or "just a railway station", and about notability, though, especially if arguing in the same breath about how great a burden it is to evaluate notability of all of these subjects. You will not get agreement from people like me about "just a" anything. But you will get consensus on long-standing one-sentence likely falsehoods with shaky foundations. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning community restrictions: It is true that only ArbCom can currently desysop (the last community desysop proposal is still open, but is certain to fail, like its predecessors). However, if needed, we can just impose a ban on creation on the articles. A ban violation would be a solid ground for a desysop. However, I do not see any issues with the recent article creation, and I do not see why such topic ban would be needed, In fact, Carlossuarez does not now create any articles, for the last year I only see one, which is a dab and is completely uncontroversial. All the articles we are talking about are from the 2000s, and I do not see any current need of a ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sanctions on Carlossuarez46. He made a big mistake and now even cleaning up his mess gives us headache. I PRODed 100 farms and wells (mazraeh and chah) but got reverted by another contributor who claims these abadis pass WP:GEOLAND. Being unwilling to clean up his own mess, Carlos has wasted a lot of valuable volunteers' time. The fact that he has not contributed to this thread so far means a lot to me! 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The PROD reasons were probably unclear as the articles say "village" and give the population from a census, which would make them notable. Some of them seem to be hamlets or something similar, but others are only farms. Peter James (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the PROD remover@4nn1l2 and Peter James: indeed all the articles that I de-proded stated that they were villages and they also had a number of families. If they are an exception to the general rule that legally recognized places are notable then probably needs to be discussed at a bundled AFD nomination not PROD. I think its fairly likely the rest of the PRODs will be contested by Necrothesp or Phil Bridger or someone else anyway. In any case although we may make an exception that a place that is just a well or petrol station isn't notable even if its legally recognized if we assess that its an exception there's no requirement that a place has people living there to be notable under GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you've missed the thrust of the argument here, possibly because those Proposed Deletion nominations didn't give it. It's not whether these places are notable. It's that the articles have been mass-created as bad stubs that give incorrect context, because everything has been translated to "village". The problem is that editors do not have the correct context to even begin working on the articles. Tolombeh-ye Mehdi Shariati is actually a pump, for example. But an editor looking to do cleanup or expansion won't know it from the bad stub at hand, which says that it's a "village" and leaves it at that. There are over 5000 articles in this class. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If these articles contain false information then I support whatever is needed to fix this even if this means moving them to draftspace or even deleting them however this is generally not allowed but perhaps we can do it per IAR since checking 5000 article is far too much of a job to do oneself. Zero information is better than incorrect info. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support mass deletion and topic ban on geo article creation I support mass deletion of the articles, and I also think that Carlos deserves some sort of sanction. I'd be in favor of a a topic ban on creating new geography articles because of the degree of disruption that the non notable stubs have caused, and I think that that would be the minimum that we would be considering if this were a regular user and not an admin. ( I have to imagine that a new user would get a disruptive editing block for creating this many non notable articles and refusing to clean them up.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz, you have certainly become old, man! You used to be a Commoner and are well aware of Petscan. The Alexis Jazz I knew didn't need some hours (days[!]) to check the status of these articles. He wasThey were able to be done with it in less than 10 minutes. According to the English Wikipedia, the UK has only 3700+ hamlets[4], but Carlos has made 70,000+ articles on Iranian ābādīs! Both Iran and the UK belong to the Old World, so what Carlos flaunted about the New World does not apply here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: Getting vilified causes one's hairs to turn grey. I have rarely found Petscan to be of any use over CirrusSearch, personally. I can't use it to do a history check. The kind of checks I ran on Commons also often took a while. I agree that likely 90%+ of Hog Farm's list should be deleted, but I'd like to filter out the <10% that should be kept or discussed. Btw, feel free to use something from Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I always use neutral pronouns on Commons. I don't know why I switched to "he" on the English Wikipedia. Sorry for that! 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm running the thing now. It takes hours because a) of the sheer number of articles (dealing with 5000+ pages wasn't a common occurrence, even on Commons) b) I'm doing a history check, which is slow. c) There are other things I have to do, I'm spending somewhat less time on wiki nowadays. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sanctions and mass deletion I'm glad to see interest in addressing disruptive mass stub creation, and admin status should be no barrier to the article creation restrictions which are clearly necessary here. It's unfair for an editor who mass-creates thousands of articles from tables (which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:GEOLAND) to demand that others do the work of searching exhaustively to disprove notability. Mass-created geography stubs are a widespread problem [5][6] and a huge time sink since some editors insist on article-by-article deletion instead of PROD or batch work. In my opinion we should have a general rule or process that allows geo stubs to be deleted immediately, with no WP:BEFORE requirement, if they are sourced only to databases. The few notable articles that may exist are useless as long as they're buried under a massive pile of crap. Any editor who would like to search for these hidden gems is welcome to look through the easily-accessible databases and recreate them with better sourcing. –dlthewave☎05:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I show up a lot in a lot of page histories. Support batch deletion, since these are rather unfortunately widely untenable as articles. BD2412T17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I show up in a lot of page histories, but I don't use batch. I primarily fix typo's, broken links, etc. I Support batch deletion. Quebec99 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support batch deletion and sanction - I came to this as someone who is far from a deletionist. Indeed I have been accused on more than one occasion of being some kind of inclusionist. The thing was I started seeing lots of California location articles showing up at AFD that were by the same creator, and written using the same unreliable sources. My efforts to try to save these articles quickly turned into a conclusion that every one of them had the same problem - the editor who created them basically hadn't cared about even the most basic rules of notability and verifiability, and had systematically mischaracterised what a source they had regularly cited (Durham) was actually saying. Diving deeper I saw that the creator was one of Wiki's most prolific article-creators and had created many other location articles all around the world many of which appeared to have similar problems. Reaching out to the creator I saw that they were basically dismissive of any requests for help with dealing with the problems that they had created. Further checking showed that, as a direct result of their negligent editing, some counties of California had more "ghost town" articles (places that they couldn't find population data for ended up being labelled this) that inhabited places - a clearly ridiculous situation.
The Iranian articles are a very extreme case of this negligence. Carlos claims to be able to read Persian, yet they did not notice that they were creating thousands of places with names like "Well no. 3" and "Mechanic Hoseyn Sohrabi", each of which blatantly says that is not populated and may never have been populated according to the sources they relied on to write the article. These articles simply have to go - the only thing I'd like to do is just to check that these are only the articles where Carlos was the creator, since he has edited his phrase stating that the location is not populated into a few GNG-passing articles he did not create.
We should not forget that this negligent editing can have real-world consequences. Wiki's location data gets mirrored onto e.g., Google Maps and you can end up with people going to places thinking they are populated but which are in reality open desert. For this reason, although many of these articles were created some time ago and Carlos has not created any recently, as their negligent editing in 2009-2014 is still having an impact today which they refuse to do anything about it, I support sanctions against Carlos. Frankly, I would support Desysoping him due to a failure of accountability (WP:ADMINACCT), but if this is not possible I would support removing autopatrolled from them. If an Admin without autopatrolled is somewhat unusual, this can be raised with Arbcom.FOARP (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Carlossuarez67 seems to give permission to delete qualifying articles per WP:CSD#G7("withdraw all my contributions...Please make it so.") (I notice the relevant WikiProject was notified also). –xenotalk02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've thought about it, I think a new CSD is needed to hasten deletion of low-quality mass-created articles. For some of these large batches, we do not have the patience to check that every page meets WP:V and WP:GNG. A user recently closed this ANI about cricketers and populated places in Turkey mass-created by Lugnuts (talk·contribs) from an unreliable database. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, a reply to a red-dot notification, that ANI was not about "cricketers AND populated places in Turkey..." (my emphasis), but just the latter. The cricketers do have a RS, while the places apparently do not. With regards to that, I am working my way through all of them to replace that source. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion mass creation creates a huge issue when done poorly, and this was clearly done poorly. I hope we're strengthening our norms to allow mass creation done only with proper vetting and permission. I also support Alexis Jazz's comment to check the history of these, just in case there's a few which are valid encyclopaedia articles. The issue is not with WP:GEOLAND stubs which are reliably sourced, and I'm worried that'll be next - the issue is poor creation of stubs which fail WP:SNGs/WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C20:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz has raised what to do about the article creator on another noticeboardbelow, so I'd like to focus back on the original request by Hog Farm and Reywas92, which is what to do about the articles in the list at User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported.
Summarizing the above so far:
It appears that we have 9 people supporting mass deletion of the articles on that specific list; and 1 wanting to do more checking xyrself.
The Proposed Deletions that there is disagreement over, such as Special:Diff/1014460959, appear to have been of articles not on this list.
Ymblanter has offered to do the mass-deletion if there is agreement.
Any people opposed?
Any more people wanting to do some checking for themselves?
Obviously, there's no rush to closure here; we give AFD discussions a week, after all.
I'm just trying to keep focus on the original proposal and whether there is consensus supporting an administrator doing this.
Uncle G (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G: I would like to confirm your second point. For PRODing 100 articles, I went after specific articles with special conditions. First, all of nominations have the terms mazraeh and chah (farm and well respectively) in their names. Second, they had some population, because I assumed and still assume the 5000+ "uninhabited" abadis are definitely gone sooner or later, so I spared them. Third, I nominated those with a population of less than 100 people and 20 families, because Iranian villages must have a population of at least 100 people or 20 families according to the law. See my comments here and there to become more familiar with Iranian villages. We don't have the concept of hamlet in Iran (except in Mazandaran and Gilan which have a Mediterranean climate). Generalizing this Anglo-Norman concept to arid Iran is a kind of Eurocentrism. Settlements in Iran are basically of two kinds: 1) cities [شهر]; 2) villages [ده، روستا]. We don't differentiate between towns and cities. We don't have communities or concepts such as incorporated, chartered, etc. Everyone should read this academic article about Iranian villages. The following paragraph is of interest:
The basic statistical unit. Much of the available information about rural areas in Persia and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan has been collected at the village level. As delimitation of villages varies according to different government sources, however, that is not a guarantee of accuracy. Uncertainty is greatest in the Caspian lowlands and Ḡilzay country, where the so-called “villages” are generally artificial groupings of maḥallas (see, e.g., Bazin, 1980, I, pp. 100-01) and qalʿas respectively. In other areas, too, it is often difficult to ascertain whether a small settlement is an independent village or a mazraʿa attached to a larger village nearby (see, e.g., Patzelt and Senarclens de Grancy, p. 225). Gazetteers of inhabited places in Persia thus include from 14,721 (Mofaḵḵam Pāyān) to 80,717 names (Pāpolī Yazdī, 1989), and estimates of the total number of villages range from 42,000 to 58,000. A figure of 48,592 was used by the Persian government for purposes of land reform (McLachlan, p. 686). In Afghanistan conflicting figures have been published: In 1339 Š./1960 the Ministry of agriculture and irrigation enumerated 14,205 villages (Survey), a figure that was increased to 15,270 after the agricultural census of 1346 Š./1967 (Natāyej); the Ministry of interior, on the other hand, listed 20,753 villages, of which 15,599 were classified as “independent villages” and 5,154 as “associated subvillages” (Aṭlas). Although the Ministry of agriculture’s figures for villages and the Ministry of interior’s enumeration of “independent villages” are similar, they only partly coincide. Combining both lists would produce a total of 22,425 inhabited places (computed from Aṭlas). It is thus necessary to use the data from gazetteers with caution.
The article is a bit old. It dates back to 1994. According to the latest data, Iran has 45,926 villages. Now Carlos should explain how he managed to create 70,000 articles on Iranian "villages". 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this section. ☺ Let's keep it just to the articles and getting a consensus on what we do to them. It looks like there's a case to be made for Hog Farm et al. creating another list. But Proposed Deletion rationales would need to explain all of that and not just be "fails WP:GEOLAND". Because if people don't get a decent rationale they will not know all of that and will work from what the article says on its face. I suggest that you work with Hog Farm et al. on another list, for a second discussion, and we focus here on the "population not reported" one initially. I also suggest that you update any still active unchallenged Proposed Deletion rationales of yours to at least point to Special:Permalink/1014651141#The articles, specifically. Uncle G (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the places are groups of houses separate from other groups of houses; if these places are not hamlets, are too small to be villages, and "farm" is inaccurate, what would they be described as? Peter James (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Akili: extensively vandalized (I filtered a bunch of vandalism, but unfortunately the "Reverted" tag was not made available retroactively. The list could have been shorter otherwise.)
We should take a closer look at these 528. Some additional filtering may be possible. (please ping me with suggestions)
If someone who is normally a WikiGnome actually added a source in some instances, sadly I couldn't realistically differentiate between that. I filtered all edits from known WikiGnomes. There's other theoretical issues (every edit before a revert was also filtered, but someone adding a source right before someone else reverts an earlier edit is probably extremely rare), but the lists should mostly be accurate. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I have indeed editedAhmadabad, Avaj, but what does that mean to you? New counties/townships (شهرستان) get created in Iran by splitting, etc. Avaj County was created in 2011.[7] Carlos has used the data of the 2006 census when this abadi was in another county. I just updated the data in 2017. Why didn't I react back then? See my comment here near the facepalm and you will understand why this topic matters to me now. I was not and still am not an editor of the English Wikipedia, so why should I care? 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: It could indicate that there's something special about the article, but in this case you were a WikiGnome. I'm thinking of some better/other ways to filter. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have two questions:
Hog Farm, Reywas92, 4nn1l2, et al.: Is this list of 528 articles small enough for you three (and whomever else) to review by hand?
Alexis Jazz: Do you think that Hog Farm's list should be reduced by these 528 articles?
I ask because I looked through some of the ones that you mentioned and I'm not yet convinced that we have a case for removing them. That Darafsh used the same prose wording for the likes of "the water beneath Haji Ali" and called it a "village" with "population not reported" only emphasizes the robotic nature of these contributions, and that this is boilerplate wording constructed from a problematic source database. And the source cited at Special:Diff/300106952 is a WWW page that gives a Google Maps reference to a farm, emphasizing the fact that there's an echo chamber of bad information on the WWW that we at Wikipedia are part of.
I think it can be trimmed a little bit. Akbarabad-e Olya is just Carlos, bots, a gnoming edit, and somebody adding a hatnote. Mazraeh-ye Afzalabad is Carlos, two bots, a AWB run, and a gnoming edit. Mazraeh-ye Kaleh Chub is Carlos, the same AWB run, three bots, somebody changing the spelling in a category, and somebody reverting said change. There's a few others like those. The 528 list looks pretty close, although there's some false positives in there. Hog FarmTalk22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally am still persuaded by your argument that a collection of articles calling things like "the best farm" and "Wood Head farm" (fa:مزرعه) a "village" are bad stubs with falsehoods as their context. ☺ So perhaps that 528 article list can be re-filtered, at least for the obvious groups with falsehoods revealed by their titles. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm:Akbarabad-e Olya is on the list because of Prana1111's edit. (I already filtered M.k.m2003 as a WikiGnome) Mazraeh-ye Afzalabad is on the list only because of the edit by SACRED. Mazraeh-ye Kaleh Chub includes a manual revert, if Bearcat had reverted NikolayEfesenko (or the "reverted" and "manual revert" tags would be available everywhere) it wouldn't have made the list. I can probably filter small edits (like these -4 overlinking edits, edits marked as minor were already excluded but these were not marked as minor) and I think there are some other ways to get that 528 further down. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to exclude anything with the AWB tag, as well? Anything done with Auto Wiki Browser is likely to be gnoming, formatting, or something minor like that. Hog FarmTalk14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Never edited by Carlos. But it follows the same style. So... wut?" - It is not a surprise to see other editors creating articles in the same style as Carlos, people learn how to write articles from other editors on Wiki, particularly admins. This is why this behaviour is so harmful. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: There doesn't seem to be any objection other than making sure the list is proper. If you need someone to complete the technical step once complete, please let me know. –xenotalk02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like to see Alexis Jazz take another pass over xyr 528 articles to be taken out list with respect to the article titles that (as noted earlier in this discussion, with transliterations) clearly identify pumps (fa:تلمبه), wells (fa:چاه), farms (fa:مزرعه), mechanics, and so forth; as I strongly suspect that having been edited by someone else has not fixed the problem of these things falsely being categorized as populated places and called "village" with "population not reported". Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G: I'm working on filtering the list another way, am making progress and it looks fairly promising so far. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited 95 of the unchecked articles (two of these edits have been self-reverted) which just means I have added info and reference on ethnic composition. The fourth village on that list (Abza-e Dudera) is stated to have a non-reported population according to the 2006 census used on Wikipedia, but was reported to have had a population of 24 according to the 2011 census[8]. A settlement like this one, I believe, should not be deleted. (Since this area is Luri-populated it could be a case of nomadism but that's just my guess.) Now my reference does also have the note "(less than 3 households; population not specified in 2011 Census for reasons of privacy)" on some of these settlements, but I frankly ignored this and carried on with adding the info. Perhaps these are the settlements that should be put in group 4? --Semsûrî (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As aforementioned in this discussion, there are lots of articles that you can immediately include by their titles. Since we know that this list is a list of things where the prose says "village" and "population not reported"; all of the "chah-e" articles about (water) wells (fa:چاه), for example, must be factually wrong. And there are several such title groups in that list.
@Uncle G: I'd rather not automatically exclude pumps or wells, even if the odds of collateral damage are quite low. The "chah-e" on the list are false positives due to entries that don't use {{IranCensus2006}}. I've moved them. There was only one "Mowtowr-e" in the list of 398, cases where at most a few entries exist are not worth automating. I went over the list of 398 articles by hand, one by one, moving obvious false positives to the relevant section. This leaves us with 164 articles that I think we should take a more fine comb to. @Semsûrî: How does the list look to you now? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G: I moved the false positives due to redirects. I've also moved all entries that link iranatlas.net (edited by Semsûrî) to the section for articles that shouldn't be mass deleted. If anyone wishes to challenge those, I believe they should go to AfD. There are only 65 entries left now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that is a more manageable size for manual review. Several are on your list only because (like Jahangirak and Tolombeh-ye Hajjiabad, Anar for examples) people have tried to make them verifiable by citing Wikipedia mirrors or aggregators that use Wikipedia. Let's see what other people think.
Thanks. I have some more work to do anyway. You just can't trust Visual Editor not to produce garbage. It's a reasonable assumption that {{For}} appears on its own line, but with VE all bets are off. Not too many articles are affected (probably just a handful), but playing fast and loose when filtering always comes back to bite one in the arse. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say you save one article or two out of this mess. Is the English Wikipedia with over 5M articles thirsty for an article on an Iranian abadi? Of course, not. With all due respect, Alexis Jazz, I think you are just wasting your time and other volunteers'. Just delete the whole batch as soon as possible. There are more important things to do, such as going after abadis with an actual population (but less than 100 people). 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: There's always something more important to do. But checking thousands of something is what I do. And I think we should be thorough, show that we aren't ruthless. Even if we end up deleting everything, we can show we didn't trash anything of value. If these badly sourced stubs had been detected and proposed for deletion shortly after creation, we could have blindly deleted them. But years have passed, so now we need to check if others have contributed to these stubs. I didn't waste our time - Carlos did. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning on reviewing all of these edits of mine. Where should I make the potential list of articles that I believe can be deleted? As I mentioned above, two of the articles I have edited, I have self-reverted but have been moved to 'Manually checked articles that may not be eligible for mass deletion'. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî: Dump it here, dump it on my talk page, move them to garbage pile yourself. I take it you misidentified some? Just for clarity, being saved from mass deletion doesn't mean these articles (currently 44 remaining unchecked plus 97 with iranatlas ref) are saved forever, just that they shouldn't be blindly mass-deleted. (which is a fairly low bar, far lower than WP:GNG) Discussions might be started from some anyway. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî: Can you please move the entire line unchanged (this makes it easier to review the diff) and move it to the "Manually checked articles (Vandalism, etc" section? The last section with 5000+ articles was created by running a filter, these were not looked at one-by-one. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî: Nevermind, I see your second batch was already the final batch and I've moved it the way I wanted. I just want to be sure that nothing gets accidentally broken, that's easier to check when lines are moved unchanged. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the 5227 stubs at User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess#filtered garbage (which is a subset of Hog Farm's list) can be deleted. I have done another check to make sure I haven't missed anything that includes "http" (which might be a ref), and nothing was missed. (unless somebody quietly added links in the past few days, which seems unlikely)
I have my doubts about Fram's suggestion to maybe move to draftspace: after all the filtering I did, saying that 99% of the stubs on Hog Farm's list is rubbish isn't all that far off. And moving them wouldn't contribute to making draftspace more manageable.
The 242 stubs at User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess#garbage pile can be deleted as well I think. For the list of 5227 stubs I tried to filter in way that would avoid having stubs wrongly marked as not containing any additional contributions. The changes (as included on the list) for those 242 were all checked manually. It's a combination of false negatives (because the 5227 were filtered conservatively), some vandalized pages, pages that only had a citypedia.ir ref added which appears to be completely unhelpful, a few with a citypopulation.de ref which doesn't appear to go beyond county level (so doesn't mention the abadis) and a bunch with an iranatlas ref that Semsûrî (who added those refs to begin with) has reviewed and found they had misidentified. [9][10]
The articles in the two top sections (44 "unchecked" and 54 with an iranatlas ref that Semsûrî hasn't marked as misidentifications) should not be mass-deleted, I think. These have references or additions of some sort. They can still go to AfD or get PRODded where appropriate.
Are the other articles okay? I can't read Farsi but "Woolen Goods Prairie Pumping Complex" doesn't sound like a village, and (at a skim) there's not many results on Google (that aren't just based off our article) for either the English or its Farsi translation. Yet when you search "Woolen Goods Prairie Pumping Complex", Google (based on Wikipedia's article) seems to believe that's a village. I guess it's reasonable that a small Iranian village might not have results on Google and that'd meet WP:GEOLAND, but if all these are mass-created from an Excel document and some of the creations are dubious I feel like it's worth making sure the rest are reasonably accurate before closing the thread?
Also, just curious, how does Wikipedia do transliterations for places without English names? The Excel document has no English names for that article I linked or the others, but isn't it borderline original research to just use Google Translate and come up with an English/romanised translation and title the article as such? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I think it's not uncommon for multiple different transliterations to exist, 4nn1l2 may be able to say more about this. I understand your concern, but this discussion about mass deletion concerns User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported and my list which is just a filtered version of C46 population not reported. For the other lists, we'll need another discussion. There is no consensus for deletion of the articles on the other lists because that hasn't been discussed yet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader and Alexis Jazz: Bad translation by Carlos. Sigh. Apart from passing off âbâdis as villages, another aspect of original research by Carlos is his translations. The correct translation into English would be "Pashmine-zâr Farming Pumps Complex". Pashmine-zâr is a proper name here and should not be translated. By the way, the English Wikipedia has an article on Pashmina. Carlos has translated this word into "woolen good". He has also wrongly translated -zâr (Persian suffix) into "prairie". I can understand why he got it wrong, but this suffix only denotes the concept of "multitude". Pashmine-zâr means a lot of pashmine, not a prairie of pashmine! Anyway, the article should be deleted.
@4nn1l2: What's normally good practice for notable (per GEOLAND) places that have a name in the local language but no sources exist for the place and hence there's no Romanised name to use? If a Wikipedian does the translation, even if it were 'correct' linguistically speaking, that's still surely OR? This seems to apply for pretty much all of these articles - the census Excel file doesn't have English names for any of them. My feel/guess is that we wouldn't create the article at all? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: I'm willing to help, I have already identified a few to PROD/AfD, but before I start on that I want confirmation that sections 1 and 2 won't be mass-deleted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. So that leaves, for those interested, manual review of the other part of User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess, which has a far more approachable size. We've also been coming up with other lists. For the California GNIS problem, I found a book of California springs, which we've used to quickly correct a whole bunch of "Something Spring, California" articles at User:Hog Farm/springs to at least not say unincorporated community any more, and find a bunch of problem articles that need more in-depth attention. Editors have been checking things like Salminas Resort, California (AfD discussion) and Ettawa Springs, California (AfD discussion) against the Arcadia Publishing Resorts of Lake County. I'm sure that any further efforts to whittle away at this huge problem will be welcome at the Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force as well as further ways to look at Iran articles (perhaps an Iran WikiProject cleanup page is needed). Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to look at the disambiguation notes that might have been deleted in the recent batch (e.g.). I think the easiest way is checking a recent database dump unless someone has an easier way. Alexis Jazz: thoughts? –xenotalk16:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a few probably got missed. Reywas92 did a good bit of filtering work as well. But with 70,000+ articles, it's almost a given that a few will slip through the cracks. With stuff like that, I'd say it's best to just PROD them with a permalink to this discussion. Hog FarmTalk00:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I generated the original list User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported via JWB, then alphabetized and removed duplicates in Excel. Doing the same thing to this list actually removed 62 items so I'm guessing that there's an issue in JWB's "generate from search" function (or more likely the Wikipedia search itself), and there may still be some left that it didn't pick up after this set is cleared. This will take another batch of 1700 from Xeno, then the last few dozen could perhaps be prodded. Thanks! Reywas92Talk01:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This list isn't complete, it's just a quick spot check. It would be helpful to bring in some people who are familiar with those wikis to bring the issue to their attention. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea which only escalates the situation. I'm sure the English Wikipedia knows very well that it has no jurisdiction over other WPs. Some of these WPs that you cited are failed projects which only try to boost their number of articles by creating whatever that can be created regardless of quality. Arabic Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia are engaged in a contest! (See also Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict.) Egyptian Arabic (arz) is just another Cebuano or Waray-Waray. Leave these projects alone and let them be busy with their own games. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be responsible to inform them, but seeing as it's mostly bots and I have pinged them here, I suppose that's enough. And Wikidata is forced to keep anything that has a translation, which is nearly everything. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested edit restriction for Carlossuarez46
[Note: The section below was originally posted on ANI. Since it concerns a proposal for a sanction, it should have been posted here on AN. Since there is an ongoing discussion about the editor in question here on AN, it should have been connected to that discussion. For these reasons I have moved it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)][reply]
I suggest an edit restriction is put in place that requires Carlossuarez46 to inform the community before mass-creating articles and give the community a reasonable amount of time to respond, Carlossuarez46 should explain based on what they will be creating articles and how they can ensure that the articles they create will be accurate and about notable subjects. Carlossuarez46 should also respect the comments on these announcements.
I have kept the details deliberately vague, as is usual to avoid gaming the system. We're all grownups (right? right?) and the goal of this restriction is simply to make sure we won't suddenly have another 5000+ dubious stubs that may require mass deletion.
I am aware Carlossuarez46 is an admin, and as usual, I don't care. Adminship doesn't make one immune from edit restrictions. If they stop being an admin in the future for any reason, that wouldn't affect this edit restriction. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: Absolutely baffled by your comment. I genuinely forgot. I did mention your username so unless you disabled notifications, which no admin should do under normal circumstances, you were alerted to the existence of the thread. That would make this a rather shittily executed conspiracy wouldn't you agree? I initially thought several commenters below were a bit harsh, but now I think maybe I've been far too kind. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support stronger sanction: no article creation outside of AFC - Normally, I would not support sanctions on edits this old, but this is the type of action that might go unnoticed for years, and it indicates a lack of understanding of our general policies on article creation. Personally, I think this sanction is too weak. That they are an admin only makes the point stronger that a sanction is needed. Admin are supposed to know better. I would support this sanction, the stronger sanction I am recommending, or even stronger sanctions. The fact that they have been editing yet refused to participate in this discussion, thus avoiding all accountability for their actions, makes me think they shouldn't be an admin at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support stronger sanction I would prefer Dennis Brown's stronger sanction to the originally proposed ones, but if Dennis' don't pass then I would support Alexis Jazz's sanctions because something needs to be done about this, and Carlos shouldn't get off scott free just because they are an admin after causing this much disruption through creation of thousands of articles and refusing to clean them up. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support stronger sanction: no article creation outside of AFC - The question is can we trust them to create articles that are not formally reviewed? Since almost all of there article creation is this sort of stub, and discussions have been going on on their talk page for months about there mass-created articles, in which they have not recognized that any of this creation is problematic in any way, I don't think I can trust them to create articles that then sit around for years and spread false content. To show the full extent of this mess, compare this Wikidata entry to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow Bend, California. Thanks to mass creation, azbwikipedia and zhwikipedia now have articles claiming that an obvious non-community Carlossuarez46's mass creation of stubs has essentially polluted the entire internet with false content. Hog FarmTalk18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He has created lots of 1 or 2 sentence stub articles and many of them are suspected hoaxes and are getting nominated for deletion. He only uses 1 source, from the GEONet server and most of the time doesn't cite sources, and when he does they are unreliable like this pdf source in Azerbaijani (feel free to translate it) that was politically biased. I think we should prevent him from making articles or even de-adminship. Cupcake547Talk. Thanks, 20:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Lately I've been adding information on the composition of hundreds (if not more) of settlements in Iran. I can see that I have also edited some of the settlements where the population varies from 0 to 3, which just means that a reliable reference have not only recognized their existence but also their composition. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You edited "the well of Abbas Ali" (c.f. Special:Diff/1014289529) and called it a "village", citing an aggregation WWW site that cites Google Maps, and hence Wikipedia, as one of its sources. You seem to be making the very same errors as Carlossuarez46, just more indirectly, and should probably take a lot more care. Uncle G (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G I'll take a look at the edits I made at these troubled pages (User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported) and try to verify the 'village'-ness or revert my edits. I can see that I haven't edited that many of them. Regarding Cham-e Abbas Ali, I will revert my edits made since I must have mistaken it for another settlement in the area. I can't seem to find it in the source either. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found Abza-e Dudera (or Owzā Dudarā[11]) and it is stated that it has a population of 24. Searching its coordinations ('31.36302, 50.81570') on Google Maps gives this result[12] which to me does look like a populated place. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me formally oppose per my reasoning above. The real problem here is not that Carlossuarez46 created a bunch of purely sourced stubs in 2006. At that time, we still did not understand very well what can be done and what can not be done, and whereas there is no way someone would create such stubs today, it was not uncommon at the time (you know, eventualists, article rescue squadron and so on). The problem is not that Carlossuarez46 continues to create stubs of doubtful quality, because he does not. In the last year, he created only one article which is a dab, and the quality is ok. Ban for article creation is not going to solve any problems. We could also propose a topic ban for Iran, we have even general sanctions in the are, and such topic ban would equally not solve anything, because Carlossuarez46 is not editing in the area. The problem is that currently Carlossuarez46 refuses to discuss the issue and do something about this. On top of this, Carlossuarez46 is administrator, and I see here breach of ADMINCONDUCT. I think the only issue to be discussed here which solves a real problem is a desysop, and then someone should prepare and file an ArbCom case. May be we are not yet ready for arbitration, then this thread must be closed with a formal warning, or may be a block if people think it is acceptable (I do not see why we need a block here, but I understand that other opinions are possible), but I do not see why we need a topic ban on article creation in this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian stubs have been created in 2014 using old data from the 2006 census while the data of the 2011 census was available. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Ymblanter, I think the fact that this activity lasted for almost a decade, during which time the person concerned was an Admin and expected to be familiar with WP:GNG (already a guideline in 2007) and WP:GEOLAND (created as an essay in 2008, promoted to guideline in 2010), and which many times the problems with their articles were pointed out to them (see e.g., here). One of the worst periods for Carlos's article creation activities appears to have been in July 2009 after the creation of the leaderboard for who as created the most Wiki articles - I don't think I am breaking WP:AGF by saying that their article-creation activities were likely motivated in part by a desire to score highly on that board rather than being here to create an encyclopedia (i.e., they have been WP:NOTHERE for more than a decade). FOARP (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support stronger sanctionsAs far back as 2009 Carlossuarez46 has been completely dismissive of anyone who suggested that his article creations were questionable, consistently refusing to acknowledge that his mass-productions include errors or fail to demonstrate verifiability and/or notability. His continued rebuffing of those who have put in far too many man-hours cleaning up his mess is callous and unbecoming. Looking at the logs, Carlos has not used admin actions in many years, other than to delete pages to make way for moves of his mass-creations, so perhaps he doesn't need those privileges! Very sad to see downright false information not just here but on Wikidata and other languages that is even harder to fix due to his sheer incompetence and refusal to conduct adequate verification before mass-spamming of articles, even after being informed of the problems! Reywas92Talk21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to comment on the possibility of an Arbcom case here. I would support anyone proposing a possible Arbcom case request in addition, but not in place of, community sanctions, for the purpose of determining if this is enough for a desysop. I doubt that Arbcom would ultimately decide that a Desysop is warranted since the misuse of article creation occurred years ago, but I think it's worth a case request to investigate further. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest way to get arbcom to deal with this if needed is to establish a mainspace article creation ban . A subsequent violation of such a ban by an admin would be probably fall within their view of ADMINACCT. And if there are no subsequent violations the problem is solved. Sanctions are for prevention. If similar things happen with other editors, the ban is a good precedent. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support stronger sanction - Ban on mainspace article creation per DGG. If Carlos restricts themselves to their present work on categories this is harmless, but anything beyond this they simply cannot be trusted to do. For more than a decade they abused their position as admin to create vast number of articles that they must have known (because, as an admin, they are expected to know) failed WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. This was done with the apparent goal of simply boosting their article-creation stats to score higher on this board (i.e., WP:NOTHERE behaviour). We all may make mistakes, but most of us don't simply keep on making them even after they've been pointed out to us. Most of us will try to fix our mistakes. Most of us won't simply be dismissive and refuse to help as it becomes apparent that we have created an immense problem for others to clean up. Admins are expected to be accountable per WP:ADMINACCT yet Carlos shirked any accountability for their GEOFAIL stub creation. Yes, it will be a novelty to have an Admin who isn't even trusted to create articles, but here we are. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Let's see the lynch mob wants to punish me for things done ten or more years ago - before WP:GEOLAND was established without WP:BEFORE to determine notability of anything? and most of these comments being basically unWP:Civil. Wondering whether a non-Latino would face this... Wikiracism at its worst. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This response convinced me to withdraw my opposition and encourage someone to file an ArbCom case. We have a clear breach of ADMINACCT here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I'm sufficiently pissed off at the blatant racism and attacks that I really don't care what more you do. You all have sullied WP. I would like to withdraw all my contributions here as you all don't want them. Please make it so. I'm gone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also take objection to the accusation of racism - since I'm the OP and was involved in the deletion of a lot of these articles, I think it's reasonable to assume this is at least partially directed towards me. I've seen no indication that anyone was connecting this to your ethnicity before you comment, and this really comes across as a WP:NPA violation. Really starting to think that ARBCOM may be necessary - agree with Ymblanter that this is very concerning from an ADMINACCT perspective. Hog FarmTalk19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Freaking where? Glad to sanction any blatantly racist commenters but you're just trying to play the victim. Thanks for finally changing your mind, every other time you've just stonewalled, so now G7 applies! Reywas92Talk19:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: G7 has to be "requested in good faith" which this arguably isn't as they just requested indiscriminate deletion of all their contributions, which would be highly disruptive. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 and others have discussed elsewhere the strain that this would put on the speedy deletion or proposed deletion system, so I doubt that this is a course that any of them is seriously considering. Just in case: I recommend that no-one do this; and that we continue discussing what to do with the articles calmly, without reference to the high-jinks surrounding their creator. Uncle G (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL We've done HUNDREDS of before searches on your California crap, and that's likewise what we've been doing here, more so than your making one every few seconds. It doesn't take more than a glance at the wall of notices on your talk page to see how much of a burden this has been for us, yet you haven't once provided more substantive sources to establish notability and accuracy or otherwise indicate why any or every thing we've done is wrong. Heck, GEOLAND lowers the bar for places, so since this was before it was approved, GNG would have been the controlling guideline and these are even more blatant failures of that! Moreover, 2009's Wikipedia:MASSCREATION was also ignored – this is exactly the reason we have that. The number of falsehoods you wrote in the California places that are inconsistent with what the Durham book says (e.g. calling hot springs or other names described only as "places" communities) is astounding. Piss off with your BS accusations of racism, an evidence-free personal attack itself here. I don't give a darn what your ethnicity is, and these articles and the response to their inaccuracies have nothing to do with the Latino world or people or your background. Reywas92Talk19:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46. you have truly jumped the shark with your claim of racism here. You need to strike that attack on the editors here, which I consider a personal attack, and worthy of a block. So far, you have done nothing to fix the problem, and are instead attacking the messengers. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, looking at the 3 articles Carlossuarez46 has created in 2020/2021 (ignoring DABs and redirects) I only see 3 in April last year on Greek former settlements (Lagos (Phrygia), Takina and Lysinia) and all seem fine so given the small amount of article creation in the last year and that those seem OK I don't see any reason to ban. Regarding mass creation I think we need more of it namely for things like municipalities, districts, settlements (with a population figure) and islands which should probably be done with a bot or tool after consensus to make sure that they are both correct and notable. Perhaps the abadis that claim to be a village created by Carlossuarez46 claiming to be a village etc could be changed by a bot to simply be a abadis? since zero info is better than incorrect info. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support INDEF block I was planning to oppose sanctions if Carlossuarez made a reasonable statement; the behavior was so far in the past that a block would be punitive, there are almost no recent page creations, and community views on this type of creation have shifted over time. Instead, Carlos has baselessly accused everyone here of "racism", claimed this is a secret conspiracy, and placed a rage-quit {{retired}} banner on his userpage. This is incompatible with ADMINACCT. As Ymblanter suggests, the personal attacks are blockable, and a block is probably simpler than a full ARBCOM case (though I wouldn't object to someone else doing so). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sanctions, per WP:NOTPUNISHMENT. I realize that Carlos's behavior in this discussion has rustled a lot of feathers, but Carlos has not created any pages in quite some time, and has given no indication that they plan to mass-create community pages in the future. Many of the reasons others have given for sanctions are ultimately based on unwritten rules of courtesy (such as preferring immediate mass deletion per G7) that Carlos was under no obligation to follow, and may have had legitimate reasons not to do so, such as if they were planning to review the articles on a case-by-case basis on their own.--Molandfreak(talk,contribs,email) 00:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's back away from the brink for a second. Carlos hasn't created articles in quite some time--years it seems--so I really don't see how this restriction would do anything. His response leaves a lot to be desired, but looking through the discussion, we don't seem to have been particularly kind either. Given that the problem doesn't seem to be ongoing, I'd really rather we try to de-escalate and take time to cool off. — Wug·a·po·des02:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was the first to propose sanctions for this user, and I still stand by it based on evidence presented here. The sanction I proposed was a ban on articles about geographic locations, but I can support a ban on mass-creation of articles. But ArbCom will impose sanctions that are deemed necessary, if we fail to reach a consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Desysop and block per above. His response to all of this isn't what I want to see from an admin and such behavior prior to an RfC would pretty much guarantee its failure. ♟♙ (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support this as advice, not as a restriction. The articles were in Special:NewPages and if they were not autopatrolled would have survived new page patrol without these errors being noticed when they were created (and it's possible that they still would). If creation of articles such as these resumes and there are similar problems then I would support a restriction. Arbcom can make the decision on whether to desysop. Peter James (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Probably all moot, but if they're not creating articles at the moment, then there's no real need for restrictions, though I would prefer if they weren't autopatrolled. SportingFlyerT·C20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ARBCOM has issued a decision about Desysopping C46 (essentially he is temporarily desysopped for the next three months and will be automatically desysopped thereafter, unless he opts for a full Arbcom case in the meantime). This does NOT mean that no community sanctions should be issued. The essay Wikipedia:Mario problem is very persuasive that desysopping should not be treated as a replacement for community sanctions as this elevates admins about ordinary editors. There is a clear consensus above for a community sanction and I urge it be carried out. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a consensus here that a block is not going to happen at this time; instead, much of the discussion in this section has diverged into a discussion about desysopping. Current Wikipedia policy only allows the Arbitration Committee to desysop administrators. Accordingly, further comments about desysopping should be directed to the Arbitration Committee at the pending request for arbitration against Carlossuarez46: see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Carlossuarez46. Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments copied from above that have frankly gone beyond the scope of the original suggested edit restriction (which, to be absolutely clear, also remains on the table):
I also take objection to the accusation of racism - since I'm the OP and was involved in the deletion of a lot of these articles, I think it's reasonable to assume this is at least partially directed towards me. I've seen no indication that anyone was connecting this to your ethnicity before you comment, and this really comes across as a WP:NPA violation. Really starting to think that ARBCOM may be necessary - agree with Ymblanter that this is very concerning from an ADMINACCT perspective. Hog FarmTalk19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support INDEF block (now supporting de-sysop 04:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)) I was planning to oppose sanctions if Carlossuarez made a reasonable statement; the behavior was so far in the past that a block would be punitive, there are almost no recent page creations, and community views on this type of creation have shifted over time. Instead, Carlos has baselessly accused everyone here of "racism", claimed this is a secret conspiracy, and placed a rage-quit {{retired}} banner on his userpage. This is incompatible with ADMINACCT. As Ymblanter suggests, the personal attacks are blockable, and a block is probably simpler than a full ARBCOM case (though I wouldn't object to someone else doing so). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(noting that Hog Farm noted WP:NPA but didn't literally support a block in the above comment)
And frankly I support this. To paraphrase Ymblanter, I do not think I will let an accusation of conspiracy against me for forgetting a talk page notification stand. Admins are a subset of users. Any user would likely be blocked for this, and since Carlossuarez46 is a user, well. Now, how Carlossuarez46 is actually going to use their admin tools if they are blocked, well, that ain't my problem is it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of NPA blocks is to prevent further attacks from happening in the future – either because further attacks are technically prevented, or because the editor wants to avoid another block. Neither really seems to be applicable. An indefinite block of a retired editor could simply be appealed in a few months, with a promise not to personally attack other editors again. It seems likely that such an appeal would happen and be successful. Without block and appeal, the result would be the same (perhaps minus a forced apology with doubtful sincerity – you want that?). An indefinite sanction against the behavior that led to the entire discussion, however, seems to be very effective in achieving exactly the desired effect: Preventing the behavior that led to the entire discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: How is retirement enforced? In practice, Carlos can simply unretire next week (or maybe next month) like nothing happened. I disagree that someone declaring themselves retired is a reason is skip sanctions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ToBeFree that a NPA block wouldn't really have much effect in preventing disruption here. However, I do support desysopping. Clear WP:ADMINACCT issues here. Between mass-creation, the general refusal to discuss and when discussing, refusal to recognize wrong, followed up with the bright-line WP:NPA violation above, gives me very little faith that they should have the advanced tools. Hog FarmTalk23:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support desyopping Having read ToBeFree's comment, I don't think a block would do much good, so I am abstaining on that question, but I think the WP:ADMINACCT violations overall are bad enough to warrant a Desysop.I hope somebody starts drafting an Arbcom case requestJackattack1597 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackattack1597: Why don't you? Everyone seems to hope that "someone" will. My excuse is that I have near zero experience with ArbCom and will probably screw it up, but it seems I may well end up drawing the short end of the stick. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be worried about accusations of being a Sockpuppet, or being NOTHERE, because of my limited number of edits and my large proportion of edits on AN, if I posted a request in the cesspit known as ARBCOM. I could try writing up a basic request, but I'd prefer if somebody else submitted it . Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't feel like I have as much to do with this as Hogfarm; I think he'd be a better filer since he has actually had to deal with a lot of Carlos' articles, and I really haven't had any interaction with him.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness. Never been involved with ARBCOM before, no idea how to go about that. Also gonna be somewhat busy with work until after tax day. Hog FarmTalk01:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackattack1597: Please write up something basic (I can fill in details myself) and any suggestions for the process. If Hog Farm won't, I can submit it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: He pretty directly accused me of conspiracy, so I think it would be fair to include me. Similar for Ymblanter I think. Beyond that I'm not sure. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysopping, hold off on NPA block. I agree with Alexis Jazz when they mention that retirement should have nothing to do with sanctions, and I do think the ADMINACCT violations are bad enough to desysop, but a block seems a bit overkill for now. Obviously we shouldn’t trust the user in question with a mop, but if a non-admin like myself did this, I don’t think we would be indefinitely blocked. After all, all admins are still users, and the mop shouldn’t make them "immune" to blocks/other sanctions, but I don’t think I would be blocked if I did this, so I don’t think Carlo should be blocked either.D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)02:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: It would probably depend on the mood of the admin, but I think this behavior would be blockable. If an unblock request is made with a credible claim that that behavior won't continue, an unblock could happen relatively soon. But at that point the user would have to tread lightly to avoid more blocks, which fulfills the goal of such a block. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for the clarification. I still stand by my "don't block for now" statement as I’ve read the other comments in this thread and I agree with them, but I’ve struck through some of my text above due to what you told me. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321(let's chat!)12:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might make sense to hold off on further action to give Carlossuarez46 (who has marked themselves retired) time to reflect on their ill-considered remarks (and hopefully withdraw them). Their most recent contribution to this thread allows for any disputed articles without substantial contributions from others to be deleted per WP:CSD#G7. –xenotalk02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G7 has to be "requested in good faith" which this arguably isn't as they just requested indiscriminate deletion of all their contributions, which would be highly disruptive. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as them withdrawing from the thread and acceding to deletion. Along with the general agreement above, I don't see any barrier to carrying out the deletions once the list has been checked for false positives. –xenotalk02:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysopping. Wow, I take a few days off and things get busy. I spent many hours along with many other people attempting to clean up a number of non-notable California locations. My hope was that Carlossuarez46 would participate in the effort, but I don't recall that they did, despite many notifications from many editors. If Carlossuarez46 was applying to be a sysop today, I don't think that they would win an election unless they participated materially in the cleanup. On the basis of their lack of effort in cleaning up the mess, I have strong misgivings about why they have any special privileges here. I'm very concerned about possible non-notable places in Iran, but as I have virtually no experience in that area so I'm not sure I can help. A block could help prevent future similar issues and might be useful as an example of how to avoid similar mass edits by other editors. Concerning the suggestion of racism, I've not seen any evidence of anyone being racist towards this user. Perhaps an apology is in order and we can move on? Cxbrx (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support de-sysop clearly, no admin is going to block unilaterally for the personal attacks, and one comment doesn't justify a community ban. I think that if a new user had responded to concerns about their editing this way, they would have been blocked; probably not forever, but indefinite blocks are not infinite. But no matter. The violation of ADMINACCT and the personal attacks clearly justify preventing Carlos from using the admin tools. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on anything else, and pardon me if I've missed something here, but since anyone can create an article, and even autopatrolled is unbundled, creating an article is not an admin action. So, ADMINACCT does not apply. Usedtobecool☎️04:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is being said here is that Carlos wouldn’t have been able to get away with this mass-failing-article-creation if they hadn’t had autopatrolled, which is something they received by dint of being an admin (even if it is unbundled). Additionally, their uncivil, disruptive, and uncollegiate behaviour is simply not that expected of admins. Failing to communicate, failing to follow basic policies, are all potential reasons for desysop under WP:ADMINACCT. FOARP (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysopping If there is any victim in this scenario (which I think there is none), that is the poor Iran with all those misinformation Carlos spread about all over the internet. No, Carlos, you are not a victim here and you should be de-sysoped now for pretending to be one. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysop. He creates a lot of articles about villages, not only in Iran, but in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. He has created way more village articles than in the censuses of these countries. Since, he is spreading all sorts of misinformation and blaming people, I support a desysop. Cupcake547 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I've boldly promoted this to a level 2 header, on the grounds that the article-creator-related part, above, is going to live forever on this noticeboard and never get archived otherwise at this rate, as we keep finding more and more groups to mass-address. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
232 other articles that need mass deletion as well
It got a bit buried in the above long discussion, but there are also 200+ articles about "towns" in Azerbaijan and Artsakh, created by CarlosSuarez, with the text"suspected that this village has undergone a name change"[13]. Basically, the article itself makes it clear that these are probably Geonet errors, but they have been created anyway: "It is suspected that this village has undergone a name change or no longer exists, as no Azerbaijani website mentions it under this name."(Dondar-Azaply). Can these be mass deleted as well please? Fram (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should, given that what articles we are actually dealing with in the first place is shifting around below, to include Haran, Azerbaijan which is not what is talked about at the head of this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There was a recent difficult AfD where a former Azeri village in Armenia - not with this pattern - was deleted even though the Azeri government had it listed in their government encyclopaedia as a "former town." I have absolutely no problem with the mass deletion of these as long as it doesn't prevent them from being recreated if more sourcing is ever found (I know this is probably obvious, but wanted to put it on the record.) SportingFlyerT·C17:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GEOnet Names Server (the only source in the article) includes Dondar-Azaply only as an unverified name; its status as unverified is only mentioned on the search results page and not on the name page and was possibly changed to unverified in 2016 as that was when the entry was last updated. There are no names in other languages at the source. It's possibly the same as Dondar Quşçu or Azaflı, which are nearby, or a combination of the two. Peter James (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am so done with this. GEOnet is run by the same people who run GNIS, under the same methodology as far as I know, and is unreliable for the same reasons - probably more so given at least GNIS is only related to US features and more easily corrected. FOARP (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It signals a lack of effort, which clicking through to read the one-sentence article confirms. These appear to be overwhelmingly one-sentence, unreliable referenced articles. Personally, I’m long past the point where I have any time for Carlos’s work - I’ve saved a very few of them (eg Ab Malakh) but it doesn’t feel worth the effort, why not just WP:TNT? FOARP (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Korlar seems to be a small hamlet (Tatlar, Jalilabad is either the same place or a farm nearby). The next two have Azerbaijani sources in the article. With the exception of Korlar, which possibly fails the notability guidelines, all have more content in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Peter James (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because, for one thing, at the moment we only have your and Fram's vague handwaves with Special:Search in the direction of a shifting and inconsistent list of articles instead of a proper list like Hog Farm made, and we don't know what list people are even agreeing on; and because, for another thing, whilst Haran, Azerbaijan is sourced to GEOnet, az:Haran is sourced to the 2009 Azerbaijan census, so one obvious thing to do is to filter for the GEOnet places that the Azerbaijani census does not have and look at deleting only them. Another thing to do is filter for the Carlossuarez64 creations that originally used {{AZnote}} and again eliminate everything that's on the Azerbaijani census and focus on the Nagorno-Karabakh ones that aren't even on a census. This involves creating the lists that I asked about. az:Azərbaycan əhalisinin siyahıyaalınması (2009)appears to hyperlink to a spreadsheet that you can use. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G - FYI this is the same kind of searching we used to build the first pass of the Iranian “village” list. Got to start somewhere, right? FOARP (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be leaping straight from start to the finish. Think of the poor administrator who will get to do this. Xe needs a nailed-down list that people actually agreed on. Uncle G (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is proposing simply leaping. The first draft of the Iranian village list was a search exactly like the one I’ve just performed (I know, because I was involved in it). FOARP (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, instead of accusing me of "vague handwaving", is there any artice in the original batch of 232 that is worth keeping in your view? If not, then what is the problem? Fram (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained the problem above. Honestly, Fram, think! You are about to step on the area of Azerbaijan places and their articles that is on this very noticeboard at #Suspicious activity on ARBAA2 articles with only a vague handwave at Special:Search, and a mass deletion instead of just moving articles around, and potentially get embroiled in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Put the effort in to make a proper list page for what you want, instead of a vague handwave at a shifting and inconsistent list of articles, that the poor administrator who has to enact this can use. Get people to agree on that specific list, or on a larger list if FOARP can come up with more than "possibly", with a laid out rationale that shows that this isn't taking sides but a concern over source database misuse. And stop rushing to the end. Hog Farm did it right, and FOARP has just mentioned that this is the point where one makes the list first. You are not doing it right. Think about the toes that you are about to tread upon. We need to approach this in a methodical and neutral way that won't get people's backs up. Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a lot of fearmongering and little actual substance. I have no idea why you think I would be dragged to ArbCom or put into AE for the above, but don't run that risk when I put the exact same query through AWB and generate a list. Whatever makes you happy, I guess, but next time you want some cooperation, don't start accusing people of "vague handwaving" (and repeating it after being asked to stop this), not making any effort, not providing a rationale (oh yes, a list of articles created by CarlosSuarez about villages that don't exist is "taking sides", obviously), and "rushing" (how long has this been going on?). Oh, and lack of neutrality, stepping on toes, anything else? What a bloody brilliant method you have to get someone to provide you with a list you could have created in 2 minutes as well, if you are so desperate to get it. "You are not doing it right", indeed. Let me know when I am dragged to AE or ArbCom, it has been a while, and rarely for something this petty. Fram (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: I had a look through roughly 100 of those articles on your list. The vast majority look like uncontroversial deletions to me. There are two subsections I'm concerned about. The first is articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh (as all of these articles I've seen so far have been edited by editors involved in that conflict area since creation, and a number (if not all) seem to have been mass-created on the Azeri wiki in March 2010 by a single editor). I support deletion of these but they should be handled with care, possibly case-by-case? The second group is articles created on the Azeri wiki outside of NK. So far I've only seen one, Namekyash, but this could suggest they have some notability if they've been manually created. Jr8825 • Talk18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mass Deletion. He has created so many articles about this area, most of them very insignificant and poorly referenced, so we should mass delete all articles about Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia. We should also consider stopping him from creating such articles. Cupcake547Let's chat!02:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
31 Mar : IC picked up the stick again and returned to the SPI report with the "evidence" that one edit by Reiner Gavriel matched another edit also by Reiner Gavriel. This may have been a move in the conflict that resulted in the EW report.
This is no longer (if it ever was) a content issue, it's a behaviour problem. IrelandCork is incapable of WP:AGF toward Goddard2000, and just as incapable of ignoring them. Over two weeks sparring on the dramaboards is enough. The imposition of a 1 way IBAN on IrelandCork wrt Goddard2000 seems the least that can be done here. Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, reported what I saw. Your diff shows it's not all one-way. Quite happy for a 2-way ban, but this drain on resources needs to be curtailed somehow. Cabayi (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi, Uncle G I added IrelandCork to the investigation report after he updated his report against me with more diffs. I didn't even include him in the original report, you can check the edits. Also the "acting like a baby" comment was long ago, other admins already talked to me and warned me not to talk like that. I apologized for getting too aggressive and from that on i stopped. I did my best to ignore Irelandcork after this despite his accusations against me and reports after he "dropped the stick" in his previous report. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi Two-way ban? Only thing i did after we had a truce was add Irelandcork to the report i made long time ago AFTER he accused me of being Lamberd, Gavriel again and making several new edits despite agreeing to stop in the previous report. Maybe you want to check out these comments made by both Krackduck and Irelandcork? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uchar-hadji
"Congrats on making a laughing stock out of admins here," -Krackduck
"You may be proud with your mastery in deception of admins here" -Irelandcork
Again this was after they allegedly "stopped" and "dropped the stick", i didn't even report them for these comments because i wanted to be done with them but since you are talking about banning me i feel like i have to say something. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take this chance and show the moderators a compilation of IrelandCork attacking me/other users or accusing me/other users.
If they've managed to cause this many problems with only a couple hundred edits under their belt, maybe neither is capable of working in a collaborative project. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered names from some recent AN/ANI reports, see the following table. I have evidence suggesting IrelandCork is Arsenekoumyk but I would prefer to email that to anyone doing a CU. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 and was given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). Within a week of the block ending, Solavirum violated the topic ban again. --Steverci (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Seljuk prince in Syria is not related to WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azerbaijan. I don't know how expanding an article about Turkey and Syria is violation of the topic ban. You can ask about it to more experienced editors in the subject like HistoryofIran and Cplakidas. With this rate, I'm not going to be able to edit any article in Wikipedia. Your application is basically WP:WITCHHUNT. --► Sincerely: Solavirum16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I see nothing in the diffs other than a commendable expansion of well-researched, neutral history. The edit does indeed include a tangential passing mention of a historical Armenian prince, but I think the context of the mention is important here. It's neutral, relevant and supported by the source; the subject of the expansion is clearly outside their topic ban, yet relevant enough to Solavirum's interest in regional history that they're willing to dedicate their time to write about it. With an edit this constructive, I'd encourage the reviewing admin to be generous and fair-minded. I can see how a blanket ban on using the word Armenian in all historical contexts, even when the subject is clearly not Armenia and Armenia is only being touched upon in the briefest contextual manner, could be obstructive to their efforts to contribute to other regional topics. Given that the edit is productive and in clear good faith (rather than an attempt to "nibble round the edges", which is what WP:BROADLY is designed to prevent), I'd be inclined to allow Solavirum to mention Armenia in a contextual manner on articles related to medieval history, provided that they strictly avoid directly discussing Armenia or Armenians themselves. BROADLY has a provision for determining "whether or not a particular edit violates a sanction ... on a case-by-case basis" after all. As an aside, I don't think the comparison with Solavirum's previous violation is accurate here, as that incident was a blatant violation in which they directly discussed a source related to the contemporary Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict on my talk page. Jr8825 • Talk17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)[reply]
Without digging too deeply, and taking the content of this discussion at face value, I would say that a "tangential passing mention of a historical Armenian prince" is indeed a violation, but likely an innocent one so I'm not inclined to slam down the ban hammer. "Broadly construed" means just that, and while sometimes these tangential edits go unnoticed, when they are noticed, we don't have a choice but to remind the editor that this really needs to be avoided. I understand this can be frustrating, but I wouldn't hold this one set of diffs against you in a future request to lift the restriction. As a guide, if there is any question that an edit might breach the topic ban, it is best to avoid it. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalistic vandalism, pushing of the Belarusian propaganda to the article of Pahonia
Hello, I have encountered a nationalistic vandalism, pushing of the Belarusian propaganda in the article of Pahonia as user Kazimier Lachnovič persistently removes content about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuania from this article, and falsely tries to prove that Pahonia is only the coat of arms of Belarus (e.g. this edit clearly shows his nationalistic vandalism). I tried to structure this article in a neutral form, which uses the historical coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the primary illustration and included the Lithuanian, Belarusian and Pogon Ruska coat of arms as its other versions (see this edit of mine), however Kazimier Lachnovič systematically started an edit war with me and pushed the Belarusian variant as the primary illustration (e.g. see this edit of him and pay attention to his explanation of this edit "The Pahonia is Belarusian CoA, the Lietuvan (modern Lithuanian) version is already mentioned and has a separate article").
For those Wikipedians who are not familiar with the coat of arms of Lithuania here is a short explanation in order to easier understand the issue: the Lithuanian coat of arms had a few different names throughout its history, which includes Vytis and Waikymas in the Lithuanian language, however in the Polish and Ruthenian languages it was called as Pogonia, Pogończyk, Pogoń, Pohonia and there already is an extensive article of the coat of arms of Lithuania which analyzes this question from the beginning to the modern times. On the other hand, there are articles of the National emblem of Belarus and National symbols of Belarus which describes the Belarusian coat of arms and also includes the short history of the Belarusian variant of this Lithuanian coat of arms.
As a result, it was objectively and reasonably proposed by user Itzhak Rosenberg (see this discussion here) that the article of Pahonia should be merged into the article of the coat of arms of Lithuania as it is nothing else than one of the names of this Lithuanian coat of arms (e.g. Lithuanian name of this coat of arms – Vytis is a redirect page since 2004). His initiative received the majority support of non-Belarusians, of whom some desperately tries to steal the entire history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and spreads propaganda that its entire history is Belarusian only (crazy idea, which is part of the flawed nation-building of Belarus (White Ruthenia), and reminds the situation when North Macedonia attempted to steal the entire history of Kingdom of Macedonia from the Greeks). The discussion of this merging began on 14 May 2020, so its been almost an entire year already and we finally must take actions to solve it because this pushing of propaganda intensifies every day.
By the way, there was a referendum regarding this Lithuanian coat of arms usage in Belarus (see the article of the 1995 Belarusian referendum) and 78.6% of the Belarusians said that it should be removed (as it shortly was in use since 1991, after the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1990), while only 21.4% supported this Lithuanian coat of arms, so even the majority of the Belarusians clearly do not support its usage as the national coat of arms.
On the contrary, the Pahonia/Pogonia/Pogoń/Vytis/Waikymas coat of arms was accepted in the Republic of Lithuania immediately by the majority of the Lithuanians and there were no concerns regarding it nor in the interwar period, nor in 1990, so it is clear who are the more visible inheritors of this coat of arms. If any Polish (maybe Ukrainian as well) editors of Wikipedia will participate in this discussion, I am pretty sure that they will testify that they call the Republic of Lithuania coat of arms as Pahonia/Pogonia/Pogoń as already in 1551 Polish chronicler Marcin Bielski named the Lithuanian coat of arms as Pogonia, Pogoń, so it is a complete non-sense to separate the name Pahonia from the Republic of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Whatsoever, I see absolutely no problems with the usage of word Pahonia/Pogonia/Pogoń in the articles of the National emblem of Belarus and the National symbols of Belarus to describe these 5-6 years when it was the official coat of arms of Belarus, however Belarus (White Ruthenia) clearly is not the primary inheritor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania history and its coat of arms as this medieval state was created by pagan Lithuanians, not by Orthodox Belarusians (every reliable non-Belarusian/non-Russian source will confirm this fact, so you can check it yourself).
Finally, the 1991–1995 variant of the Belarusian Pahonia is nothing else than a copy-paste from the Marcin Bielski's 1567 version of the coat of arms of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which he drawn in a book Kronika Polska (Chronicle of Poland), see this and this, so it is not a Belarusian, but a Polish design. -- Pofka (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kazimier Lachnovič is a highly problematic user who consistently pushes Belarusian nationalistic POV (including pushing their fringe Belarusian Latin alphabet which would, in particular, give Miensk for Minsk). They have blocked here for this. Recently on Commons I came in collision with them, when they gave a file an offensive name, and they accused me in Nazism (and, as expected, they got away with this even without warning, and duly moved the file back to the offensive name). I have never seen them listening to any arguments. The sooner they get long-term blocked here the better for our project.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just some information about User:Ymblanter: 1) definite prejudge to Belarusian language (like [17] while it is easy to find in w:en:Languages of Belarus that the statement about 95% of the population with the native Russian has nothing in common with the reality); 2) insulting the community of Belarusian Wikipedia (be-tarask is a project usurped by a group of ultra-nationalists[18]); 3) insulting the Belarusian language by comparing with Pidgin as well as Belarusian scientist by comparing them to KKK members ([19]); 4) the statement about the offensive name is not true, the offensiveness of the mentioned Belarusian scientific term in Belarusian language was never proved by the user. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said what I wanted to say. All contribution of this user is nationalistic POV pushing. They are not really interested in anything else. And btw it is not me who is the subject of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to point out for the reasonable users that the statement All contribution of this user is nationalistic POV pushing is just another unproved lie. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good tactic. It worked on Commons, which is an absolutely disfunctional community as far as long-term users are concerned; I do expect the English Wikipedia community to be indeed more reasonable. You better explain how your contributions here are not nationalistic POV pushing. We have enough references in this thread showing they are.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't provided any sound reference based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Just your personal opinion, which has nothing in common with the reality like your previous statement about "Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population of Belarus". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources saying that User:Kazimier Lachnovič pushed nationalistic Belarusian POV on various Wikimedia projects. For a simple reason that reliable sources do not give a fuck about what happens on Wikipedia. One or two administrators to have a look at your contribution, or indeed to read this thread, would be sufficient. I am unfortunately involved because of your personal attacks on me here and on Commons, otherwise you have been already blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the definition of someone contribution as nationalistic Belarusian POV should be based on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources not on someone personal opinion that this contribution is nationalistic Belarusian just because someone doesn't like reliable sources in Belarusian language. And you are the one who is haunting me and looks like trying to attack me personally. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haunting? Really? Are you planning to apologize to me for the accusation in Nazism? Or may be you want to see reliable sources showing that I am not a Nazi first?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter:@Kazimier Lachnovič:Here are some of the finest examples of Kazimier Lachnovič's nationalistic POV pushing: check these edits of him here, here, and here. This nationalistic-propagandic attack of his began before any defensive stances of the Lithuanian Wikipedians. -- Pofka (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Actually, you was informed here (revert, based on the reason provided in the file talk, main article for the history of Belarusian CoA) and here (Pushing the non-consensual edit + rejection of discussion on the talk page, the page protection will be requested). I would also like to point out for the reasonable users that the initiator is the one who push chauvinistic propaganda [20] (The Belarusians destiny from the beginning was to serve the foreigners <...> [you] still kneeing in front of Russia, not able to establish a sovereign country <...> Belarusian lands constantly were a land-locked colony of foreign powers). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Your newly created discussion was nothing else than an attempt to extend this question for another year or two. As I already noted, this question was discussed here and was opposed only by the Belarusian nationalistic propagandists like you and others who uploads pseudo-historical maps (see this discussion here) where Lithuania proper is presented as a historical region of Belarus (which is a pure lie, propaganda, not accepted by anyone outside of Belarus and maybe parts of Russia, therefore this illustration was nominated for deletion). Quote of mine you presented here was a response to your chauvinistic-propagandic statements in which you called the Lithuanians as "Samogitian chauvinistic rubbish" (see these edits: here, here, and here) and it was based on the historical facts as Belarus was under the influence of foreign powers since the very, very early days (and undoubtedly still is). It is not an insult to call the British India as a colony of the British Empire or African countries as colonies of the Europeans as long as it is based on historical facts. Same with Belarus which was under the influence of Lithuania until 1795. The Lithuanians are the reason Belarus exists as of now as otherwise you would have probably ended up in the same way as Principality of Smolensk, which Lithuania failed to hold on to constantly due to the Muscovites invasions, so calling us as "rubbish" is a pure disrespect. After 200 years of the Russian rule, the sovereignty of the Belarusian nation and the language usage was almost completely annihilated and it is the opposite variant of the Lithuanian rule. -- Pofka (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Readability improved by the insertion of paragraphs.
You'be got that backwards. Paragraph breaks make long amounts of text more easily readable and allow for "easier development of discussion." Walls-o'text makes for eyes glazing over. Use logical paragraph breaks, please, here, and elsewhere in life -- unless you're writing a stylistic masterpiece that will keep the reader's attention in spite of no visual rests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I just now structured my initial report into paragraphs. I use paragraphs every time I edit Wikipedia, but I was not used to this reporting. Thanks for advices. -- Pofka (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Providing additional information about how Kazimier Lachnovič is pushing nationalistic POV in Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Just check out his Wikimedia Commons user page, which has a text in Belarusian: "! ВАЖНАЯ ІНФАРМАЦЫЯ ! Пры выкарыстаньні загружаных мною выяваў вельмі прашу спасылацца не на абстрактавую Вікімэдыю (WIKIMEDIA.ORG) або Вікіпэдыю (WIKIPEDIA.ORG), а на Беларускую Вікіпэдыю клясычным правапісам (BE-TARASK.WIKIPEDIA.ORG). Такім чынам вы дапаможаце папулярызаваць адзіную вольную энцыкляпэдыю, дзе нашчадкі гістарычных ліцьвінаў — беларусы — могуць вольна ўжываць свае традыцыйныя гістарычныя непалітызаваныя назвы (не спаскуджаныя расейскімі ўладамі дзеля маскалізацыі і калянізацыі Беларусі) і распрацаваны беларусамі для беларусаў свой традыцыйны клясычны правапіс (шырэй — норму беларускай мовы) без якіх-кольвек гвалтоўных сталінскіх палітычных перакручваньняў-спаскуджваньняў дзеля штучнага набліжэньня да расейскай мовы з мэтай далейшага зьнішчэньня беларускай мовы і асыміляцыі беларусаў".
I do not read in Belarusian myself, however the Google translate also quite well displays his nationalistic POV pushing as this text translates as: "!! IMPORTANT INFORMATION! When using the images I have uploaded, please refer not to the abstract Wikimedia (WIKIMEDIA.ORG) or Wikipedia (WIKIPEDIA.ORG), but to the Belarusian Wikipedia with the classic spelling (BE-TARASK.WIKIPEDIA.ORG). In this way you will help popularize a single free encyclopedia, where the descendants of historical Lithuanians - Belarusians - can freely use their traditional historical non-politicized names (not distorted by the Russian authorities for masculinization and colonization of Belarus) and developed by Belarusians for Belarusians their traditional classical orthography. ) without any violent Stalinist political distortions for the purpose of artificially approaching the Russian language in order to further destroy the Belarusian language and assimilate Belarusians". Pay attention to the line "where the descendants of historical Lithuanians - Belarusians - can freely use..." as it repeats these Belarusian chauvinistic-propagandic statements he spreads in the English Wikipedia and elsewhere which claims that the modern Lithuanians are Samogitians.
I repeat: check sources from your own country about Lithuania and you will realize that such statements are a pure propaganda, which cannot be tolerated in Wikipedia as it violates the Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia rule. The Samogitians originates from the Duchy of Samogitia and there currently are about 0,5 million Samogitians in Lithuania, so they represent only 1/6 or 1/5 of the population of the modern Lithuanians, living in the Republic of Lithuania (and even less if we include 2,5 million of Lithuanians living abroad - the Lithuanian diaspora). -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you left here and elsewhere a bunch of personal attacks and do not have time to be responsible. Perfectly in line with your general behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that first saying "You are a Nazi" and then, when being challenged, to respond "I do not have time discussion discussing with Nazis you, bye" is an acceptable behavior. Even if you called me a Nazi on one Wikimedia project and got challenged on another project.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A passing comment: this report fails on a number of important respects. It's too long. It presupposes reviewers would view evidence which the OP maintains is "clear," erm, clearly. I suppose it's clear to them (and Ymblanter and possibly Kazimier Lachnovič), but otherwise presupposing such familiarity for a subject of relative obscurity (in Anglo-American culture, etc.) is very much an unrealistic expectation. Finally, the egregious and the recent do not really seem to meet in the overall diff evidence. There's some egregious diffs presented, but they're from a June 19 conversation. Then, there are recent diffs, but they do not appear to be that egregious in nature. Whatever fault these represent (ethno-national POV pushing-wise), was something I wasn't able to immediately parse. Possibly, there are reviewers of this board who would be able to peer deeper into this — that is, without too much study into what the mainstream and scholarly consensus is for this matter (matters?). Lastly, Ymblanter: you keep saying that Kazimier Lachnovič called you a "Nazi," but have provided no diff evidence to support that claim. If it's on a Wikimedia project, there should be diffs, no? Just so a reviewer can get a sense of what was said, the context, etc. [For fun, no paragraph breaks!]El_C11:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A quick answer: This is the Nazi diff, this was their response in the same thread when challenged: [21]. Both diffs are on Commons. Now, here they made in total 727 edits, and a great deal of these of these are file renames on Commons, so obviously there are not so many ecent edits. However, I do not see many good recent edits. Essentially, they edit-warred with the topic stater at Pahonia, starting from here, and made, if I count correctly, six reverts in two days, which is the continuation of this discussion, which featured gems like this (this one is from a month ago). My conclusion is that they are only here to push pro-Belarusian POV (their idea, which they talked about multiple times, is that only Belarusian Tarashkevitsa, which is not in use in Belarus, is a "true" language, and Belarusian which is in use in Belarus and which has a separate Wikipedia is contaminated by Russian and is not a true Belarusian). --Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment:Ymblanter, thanks, but a diff for I do not have time discussion with Nazis, bye is what I really was after. Regardless, Kazimier Lachnovič, my impression is that you are engaged in promoting some sort of ethno-national supremacism and, worse yet, doing so using inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks. Also, you repeatedly quote WP:5P above as some sort of a defense for some reason, but is of course far too vague to to be of any real use for our immediate purposes here, in any substantive sense, at least.
Anyway, I'll give you a day or so to respond, but at the moment, I'm leaning toward sanctions of some sort, up to and including an indefinite block. Still, by all means, feel free to try to explain your position better — specifically, by addressing Ymblanter's points in his comment directly above this one. Needless to say, I urge brevity on the part of any and all participants. El_C16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I'm not engaged in promoting any sort of ethno-national supremacism. Could you please give any exact quote of mine that make you think in such way? I would also like to notice that the conflict with User:Ymblanter started from his abusing of Wikimedia Commons guidelines and his attempts to censor Belarusian language based on Russian and English languages which is a real manifestation of ethno-national supremacism. I would also like to notice that my position find a support from one of non-engaged in the conflict Wikimedia Commons administrator [22], who recognized that User:Ymblanter is actually the one who is highly problematic. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted WP:5P because these are the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. According to the fourth pillar Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. And I believe that tolerating of such obvious (not supposed) direct personal attacks [23][24] and dirty language [25] now and here (not in some other project with other background) coming from the administrator is really shameful for the English Wikipedia that is positioned as an example for other local communities. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed, they did not say this literally. I have striken out the Nazis above and replaced by you - this is what they are saying in this very thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eep, Ymblanter, that's a serious misquote... Well, at least it's corrected now. But it could have gone unchallenged and accepted as true by many reviewers who wouldn't have bothered to ask for the evidence. This is why serious allegations require proof in the form of diff evidence as a matter of course. I don't like quotes of a serious nature not be accompanied by diffs. It's just not on. El_C16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I provided above the links to all the threads where these quotes are found, but indeed I should have been more careful with quotes and diffs. It is not like I am called a Nazi every day - and it does not really help that I have some Jewish ancestry.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: The main reason why I reported Kazimier Lechnovič here was that he was fighting an edit war with me and was pushing propaganda into the article of Pahonia as he presented it as the coat of arms of Belarus (as primary inheritor), which is not true as it is the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania (it is a Slavic/Polish/Ruthenian name variant of this coat of arms since about 16th century when there was no Belarus at all ; Polish Wikipedia article of the Coat of arms of Lithuania also uses word Pogoń). Belarus currently is searching for its national identity, therefore some of the nationalists goes way too far. I reported it here because I do not want to fight an edit war with Kazimier Lechnovič as it is against the rules of Wikipedia, so I expect civilized actions from the administrators of Wikipedia against him. Otherwise, I will be forced to fight an edit (revert) war with him until the administrators steps in and finally takes actions against his pushing of propaganda into the article of Pahonia. The initial report is long because I provided reliable information for those who are not familiar with this issue and the history of this region of Europe. You can check any of the facts I provided, if you have any doubts about them. They are not propaganda and are recognized internationally, unlike the propaganda of Kazimier Lechnovič who desperately tries to prove that the Republic of Lithuania is Samogitia (Duchy of Samogita), as already shown by Ymblanter here. Such actions of his: pushing nationalistic POV, propaganda, edit warring, and personal attacks clearly is against the rules of Wikipedia. I and Ymblanter provided examples of such behavior. -- Pofka (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Yet another Belarusian nationalist is starting an edit war with me at Pogonia (disambiguation page of the same topic). Check this edit and his user page, which shows that he is Belarusian (it has Belarusian language template). It has become a serious problem in Wikipedia when the Belarusians tries to distinguish the Republic of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and this way later present the largest part of the history of Lithuania (pre-1918) as theirs (Belarusian). Civilized people do not search for national identity by stealing others history. England is England. France is France. Lithuania is Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka, unless you disable the boldface in your comment, I'm just not gonna read it. I'm sorry, but it feels like a discourteous manner in which to communicate (i.e. My eyes, the goggles do nothing!). I'd disable it for all of your comments, in fact. Just letting you know that you're doing your report a disservice by engaging in this practice to such an extent.
Kazimier Lachnovič, I'm seeing ethno-national hostility from you, call it supremacism or whatever. Anyway, have you tried normal dispute resolution? Like settling this dispute through a formal dispute resolution request, such as an WP:RFC or WP:RSN query? Because, until this is done and the dispute is for the moment resolved, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying.
Finally, that Nazism insult was very much to your discredit. And it's beyond bizarre to me that you actually complain about civility above, but still haven't offered no apology for... well, the most egregious thing in this entire dispute(!). I'm sorry, but that does no inspire confidence. Finally, as Ymblanter noted, you seem to have gotten your Commons admin/editor status reversed. El_C21:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, Actually, calling it "supremacism" was your initial assessment [26], not mine. Anyway, could you please provide any example of my quotes with "ethno-national hostility"? And I'm really OK with status quo ante version of Pahonia, which was illustrated with Belarusian CoA since ~2006 [27]. That's the initiator of this request, who tried to change the previous consensual version, which was stable for many years, by refusing to discuss these controversial edits [28].
I'm really happy that the incident in the separate project really matters for the English Wikipedia. Actually I don't think that the result obtained there was fair (I mean the opponent didn't get even warning for obvious abusing the guidelines). And I did confuse the rights of the user, who supported me, but still this user has Rollback and Patrol flags there. Does it change anything? I've already explained my position in the Wikimedia Commons [29], but I will gladly offer my apology for emotional saying that the demonstrative language discriminations is close to Nazi ideology (where the Nazis began) to the opponent right after opponent's apology for direct calling me (as an administrator of the Belarusian Wikipedia be-tarask) and the whole local community by "a clique/group of ultra-nationalists" [30][31] that took place earlier. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Well, it was a presumption, however Лобачев Владимир's nationality does not really matter for me. Any attempts to separate Pahonia/Pogon/Pogonia from the Republic of Lithuania is a propaganda, as I just proved that the Poles calls the coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania (just like the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well) like that. So all these pages must redirect to the coat of arms of Lithuania as it covers history from the GDL period to the present day and the Republic of Lithuania is the primary successor state of the GDL. Exactly like the Republic of France is the successor state of the French Empire or the Russian Federation is the successor state of the Russian Empire. If some other countries later begins to use your coat of arms, it does not make it theirs since the beginning, so Lithuania has exclusive rights to Pahonia/Pogon/Pogonia/Vytis/Waikymas. -- Pofka (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kazimier Lachnovič, the hostility (supremacism?) is what I picked up on when you had said: I have no time to discuss anything with Lietuvan (Samogitian) chauvinists (diff). Anyway, listen everyone, I'm sorry, but I just can't really make out what's happening —not on Commons, not here— and simply do not have the time to investigate this too intensively. So, hopefully someone comes along that can. But if not, and I'm the best you got, my advise is for you to just launch an RfC on the question to settle it once and for all, and for the record. Until that RfC is concluded, the longstanding version should be displayed. But, if the original 2006 longstanding version was supplanted by a contending version, without it being disputed as such for, say, a couple of months, then the 2006 version, when re-introduced, has now converted into the contending version, while the newer one becomes the longstanding one (I counted eight commas in this sentence!). If that make sense, or is even readable. El_C20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C. It was a response to the personal attack of the opponent ("It is a typical and sad example of 'litvinism' on Wikipedia - User talk:Kazimier Lachnovič" [32]) and I actually don't see see any national hostility there, just the fact that the opponent stick to the chauvinistic version of the Belarusian history. Anyway, I agree that responding to a personal attack with a personal attack is not a good example of conversation, but this incident happened a while ago and from that time we had a quite civil conversation with the same opponent. Maybe RFC is a good option, but I believe that the request should be closed first as the initiator started it without even trying to discuss [33] his controversial edits like [34]. Is it accepted here to start an edit war in order to push repeating the same sentence twice in the beginning of the article one variation of which is the current coat of arms of Lithuania <...> The variation of the historical coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the current coat of arms of Lithuania? BTW, the 2006 version (i.e. illustrated with the Belarusian CoA) was unchanged till this non-consensual edit of the opponent. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected the article so the differences can be solved on the talk page rather than by a revert war and please be more civil to each other and WP:AGF. As it was suggested I have restored the version prior to the start of the edit war. As an editor I feel like since we already have an article on Coat of arms of Lithuania then in Pahonya we should emphasize other usage of the symbol particular in Belarusian context. Especially this symbol is widely used in 2020–2021 Belarusian protests and many people come to Wikipedia to check if Lukashenko is right claiming that this is a foreign Nazi symbol (he is obviously wrong). On the other hand the symbol is on the current coat of arms of Lithuania but not on the current coat of arms of Belarus, so I guess Lithuanians can claim precedence. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Bakharev: Thanks for your comment. Yes, the Belarusians do use it for protests recently (before the protests this symbol was quite rare and not very popular, at least certainly was not used by the majority, which is still very debated if the majority of the Belarusians support it now or they just want Lukashenko out), however why do the Belarusians need two separate articles (National emblem of Belarus, which also describes Pahonia, and Pahonia) when Lithuania, which used this coat of arms since the 16th century (or even earlier), deserves only one? Plus keeping Pahonia as the primary coat of arms of Belarus (which is not true even now) separates this Polish/Ruthenian name of the coat of arms of Lithuania from the Republic of Lithuania (as I already stressed in this discussion before, this is exactly what some of the Belarusian propagandists tries to do in attempt to steal nearly the entire history of Lithuania part about Grand Duchy of Lithuania and to prove that the modern Lithuania derives from Samogitia (Duchy of Samogitia), not GDL; I provided edits where Kazimier Lachnovič aggressively tries to prove such a lie, propaganda). I believe it should be described in the National emblem of Belarus that A variant is the official CoA (pro-Lukashenko), but there also is B variant of the CoA (pro-opposition, derived from Lithuania). This way it would be much clearer about the tensions between the pro-Lukashenko and pro-opposition symbols and its supporters. Articles in the Polish Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia use both terms to describe the coat of arms of Lithuania: Vytis (Lithuanian), Pogoń (Polish/Ruthenian). Leaving Pahonia/Pogoń as the CoA of Belarus opposition (primarily) would mean that we should remove words Pahonia/Pogoń from the Polish and Ukrainian Wikipedias articles, which does not make sense as that is exactly how the CoA of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called before and the CoA of the Republic of Lithuania is still called just like that in the Polish/Ukrainian/Belarusian (+Russian?) languages. -- Pofka (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion. I'm from Russia. Regarding the coat of arms Pahonia: to which country should he be attributed? The national elites of both countries claim the inheritance of the Grand Duchy. I think that legally neither the Republic of Lithuania nor the Republic of Belarus are the legal successors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore, it is wrong to consider the symbol as Belarusian or Lithuanian. Moreover, the Pahonia existed before the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in addition to the state emblems, the Pahonia is the patrimonial emblem of the Gediminovich princes and the emblem of the regions and cities of modern Belarus, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine and Poland.
There is, for example, article Double-headed eagle on the heraldic symbol, and there are articles on the coats of arms of specific countries: Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire, Coat of arms of Russia, Coat of arms of Montenegro. I think that the same should be done in this case. Otherwise, any preference of one of the parties will be wrong and cause controversy on the other side. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: Wrong. Duchy of Lithuania and Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created by the modern Lithuanians ancestors Balts, not Slavs (scientifically proved, recognized by the absolute majority of scientists, historians internationally). The Hypatian Codex associates word Pogonia with Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytenis (reigned Lithuania in 1295–1316), as in the codex it is written that Vytenis named his coat of arms as Pogonia. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania ceased to exist just because of the Russian Empire invasion and the Third partition of 1795. The Third Statute of Lithuania legally had established that Pogonia (Pahonia) is the official CoA of Lithuania since 1588. When Lithuania's statehood was recreated slightly more than 100 years later in 1918 as the Republic of Lithuania, it immediately, without any other choices, chose name Lithuania and from the very first days restored Pogonia/Pahonia/Pogoń/Vytis/Waikymas as its coat of arms. On the other hand, Belarus (White Ruthenia) in the same year (1918) was established as well and it identified itself as the Belarusian People's Republic (so absolutely NOT anywhere close to something like the Lithuanian People's Republic), also Belarus (White Ruthenia) never identified itself as Lithuania, just as a new state which formed in the former territories of the GDL/Russian Empire. Moreover, even the Belarusian song Pahonia (which was considered as one of the candidates for anthem of Belarus in the 1990s) has words "Ancient Lithuanian Pahonia; Cannot be crushed, cannot be stopped, cannot be restrained! (...) Where is your path, and where does it lead? Maybe, Belarus, they are chasing", so it does not sing Belarusian Pahonia and it clearly separates the Lithuanian Pahonia from Belarus (White Ruthenia). There are no pre-Grand Duchy of Lithuania sources which uses term Pahonia to describe some kind of CoA (but it was later used to describe similar coat of arms). The term was first used in 1551 when Polish chronicler Marcin Bielski named the Lithuanian coat of arms as Pogonia, Pogoń for the first time and with the spread of the Polish language and culture, the term gradually became established. The Pogonia/Pahonia/Pogon/Vytis/Waikymas is not anywhere close to the wide spread Double-headed eagle, which is a Byzantine Empire symbol, therefore it is popular among Orthodox countries. Articles of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and the National emblem of Belarus is more than enough (the Belarusians can freely describe in their respective article how Pahonia was used in their cities, towns, etc; I'm not trying to prove that they have absolutely no rights to this CoA, however they are not the primary inheritors of the coat of arms of Lithuania; plus this article also describes the usage in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).
I would love to see a discussion when in a parallel universe, for example, Ukraine would claim that the Coat of arms of the Russian Empire is the coat of arms of Ukraine, so we must have a separate article for the Coat of arms of the Russian Empire as the Russian Federation is not the primary inheritor of this CoA (that's exactly what you are trying to prove here). So your opinion sounds very biased and only repeats the Belarusian propagandists opinion that the Republic of Lithuania is not the continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Then the Russian Federation is not the continuation of the Russian Empire, the Republic of France is not the continuation of the French Empire, etc. So why there are not separate articles for these countries coat of arms? :) For example, National emblem of France includes every coat of arm (from before 1305, to the imperial period, to the republics period) as French only as all these different types of French statehood are seen as continuation, so exactly the same situation is with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania. The Wikipedians certainly would not create a separate article for the coat of arms of the French Empire just because some kind of newly formed country (for example, in the territory of Germany, which was part of the First French Empire) would use nearly the same CoA of France and would call it in the same name. So your opinion is very, very biased as you try to prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania. Try proving that Russia is not Russia and that France is not France. -- Pofka (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Republic of Lithuania nor the Republic of Belarus are legal heirs to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Or provide a document stating the opposite. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: Here you go: "Lithuanians belong to the Baltic group of Indo-European people. The Balts settled at the Baltic Sea as far back as the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC. They lived on the territory between the lower Vistula (Wisla), the basins of the Nemunas (Neman) and the Daugava (Dvina) up to the riverheads of the Volga, Oka and Dnepr. The first ruler to have united Lithuanian tribal groups and founded the state of Lithuania is considered to be Mindaugas, the first known Grand Duke of Lithuania" (the quote is from Eurydice Network's article about Lithuania: HERE). Here is who the Belarusians are: "Customarily, Slavs are subdivided into East Slavs (chiefly Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians), West Slavs (chiefly Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Wends, or Sorbs), and South Slavs (chiefly Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins)" (the quote is from Encyclopædia Britannica's article about Slavs: HERE). So if the Belarusians are not Balts, how they could have created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Kingdom of Lithuania)? :) So you are also spreading a pure propaganda and is one of these Belarusian propagandists. -- Pofka (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: That is not my opinion. These are facts provided by the Eurydice Network and the Encyclopædia Britannica. If you want legal documents, then check out the Third Statute of Lithuania of 1588, which has a text that the coat of arms of Lithuania is named as Pogonia. So if the Balts (Lithuanians), not Slavs (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles) created the state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, why the modern Balts don't have the primary rights to this name and the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? :) By the way, the 17th article of the modern Constitution of Lithuania claims that "The capital of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the city of Vilnius, the long standing historical capital of Lithuania" (check yourself HERE). Does that sound like the Republic of Lithuania is not the continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? :) Stop spreading propaganda. Lithuania is Lithuania, Balts are the modern Lithuanians. Scientifically, linguistically, and historically proved. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER VANDALIST ENCOUNTERED (who also participates in this discussion): user Лобачев Владимир is persistently reverting edits of mine and of user Onel5969 (autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, extendedmover, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker with over 469 290 edits in the English Wikipedia) in the article of Pogoń (Onel5969's edit/revert/opinion). User Elmidae (extendedconfirmed, extendedmover, patroller, rollbacker) also reverted his propaganda in the article of Pogoń (Elmidae's edit/revert/opinion). Wikipedia's administrators actions must be taken as soon as possible in this situation as the propagandists anti-Lithuanian attacks are real and persistent. -- Pofka (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazimier Lachnovič: The main part of his words are: "We should rejoice, I think, that they do not reject the idea of Lithuania and respect our sovereigns". He does not say nowhere that we (Lithuanians) should respect the Belarusian sovereigns as our rulers because we are Samogitians, derived from the Duchy of Samogitia. So this quote changes nothing. Let me remind you, that Queen Elizabeth II was/is the sovereign of Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of New Zealand, Dominion of Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. Belarus (White Ruthenia) was the same thing to Lithuania and the Lithuanian rulers (sovereigns) as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Nigeria were/are to the British Empire/United Kingdom/Commonwealth realm and Queen Elizabeth II. There even is a book, published by the Cambridge University Press, which calls the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as "A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe" (check it HERE), so not as an Orthodox/Belarusian Empire. You have every single right to respect the Lithuanian sovereigns and the coat of arms of Lithuania (Pahonia), but not to claim it as primarily yours because it is not. -- Pofka (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is quite obvious, that in fact the main part is the Bumblauskas' conclusion, which I've highlighted in bold. But the most interesting thing is that according to lt:Zenonas Norkus, the concept of the GDL as "empire" was an invention of the Smetona's Nationalist regime: "The inventor or discoverer of the GDL as empire was a Lithuanian geographer and geopolitician Kazys Pakštas (1893–1960), who provided seminal imperiological analysis of the ancient Lithuanian polity in his book Political Geography of Baltic Republics (1929). <...> Pakštas’ ideas were most probable source of inspiration for numerous digressions on GDL as empire in the speeches by Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona (1874–1944) <...> Nationalist (tautininkai) regime, which was established in Lithuania after 1926 state coup, used the jubilee celebration to consolidate itself and to strengthen the Smetona’s personal authority. Lithuanian dictator gave numerous speeches, referring to GDL as empire on at least four different occasions. <...> The reference to GDL as empire in Smetona’s speech was no accident, which can be explained by special circumstances, because the term recurs after the anniversary year 1930. Smetona described ancient Lithuanian polity as empire in later speeches delivered on various occasions in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1937" (p. 409, 419—420). At the same time "Despite the important, if not central place of “Vytautas empire” in the historical memory of interwar Lithuania, the word “empire” was only occasionally used in the work of the Lithuanian professional historians, and never was applied as analytical category structuring the historical interpretation" (p. 426). So, here is the answer to the question of who really pushes the nationalistic POV here. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Book Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345 (HERE) was written by Stephen Christopher Rowell, who is not Lithuanian in any way. S. C. Rowell was born in Leicester, United Kingdom, he graduated from Magdalene College, Cambridge and from the University of Cambridge (his biography can be found HERE). That's why his book was printed by the Cambridge University Press (which certainly does not print any propaganda or lies by risking their top-class reputation). He analyzed the situation of Lithuania in 1295-1345 certainly not from the Smetona's interwar point of view as he scientifically analyzed the question why it is an Empire, not a Grand Duchy. No matter how Lithuania of 1295-1345 should be called: Empire/Kingdom/Grand Duchy, it does not change the scientifically, linguistically, and historically proved fact that the Duchy of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created by the Balts (Lithuanians), not Slavs (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc.), so it makes the modern Balts (Lithuanians) as the primary inheritors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania history and its coat of arms. Other nations (including Poles, Ukrainians) certainly contributed to its history, but did not created it, which is the main fact in the question of inheritance, continuation of statehood. -- Pofka (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: For obvious reason you didn't mention a one important detail about Stephen Christopher Rowell as an employee of Klaipėda University since 1993, while the mentioned book was published in 1994. In any case, according to the cited Norkus' work (p. 431), The same effect had the book of British historian, now working in Lithuania, Stephen C. Rowell. Although he did not use imperiological framework for the comparative analysis of GDL, the very designation of GDL as empire in the title of the book had accustomed Lithuanian readers to the idea even before the much more daring ideas by Beresnevičius. At the same time I can quote a really neutral American historian Timothy D. Snyder, a Professor of History at Yale University: During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 22). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81), As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). Despite the proved fact that the initial creators of the GDL don't really matter, your identification the Balts just with one modern Baltic language-speaking nation is an example of nationalistic falsification of the GDL history. Yes, Lietuvans as Baltic language-speakers are Balts, but not all Balts are Lietuvans. And, just like Slavic languages, not all Baltic languages are even understandable for different Baltic people. Moreover, some old Baltic people like Yotvingians took part in the ethnogenesis of Belarusians. And keep in mind that Baltic and Slavic languages are the closest language families. So listen your historian Bumblauskas, who says really reasonable things about sharing the common history. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazimier Lachnovič: Haha, East Slavic realm in which the Orthodoxes and Ruthenians were prohibited to build new Orthodox churches and to be appointed to the highest positions (such as Voivode of Vilnius)? Do you know what was one of the main requests of Konstanty Ostrogski to Sigismund I the Old in case he wins the Battle of Orsha? It was that he will be allowed to build an Orthodox church in Vilnius (afterwards he was allowed to build quite small one). That's the reality of the Orthodoxes position in the state during the rule of the Jagiellonian dynasty (a Lithuanian dynasty, of whom Jogaila and at least his sons we able to speak in the Lithuanian language). It once more proves that the Gediminids (Jagiellonian) rulers never were Orthodoxes and simply used Ruthenians to strengthen their forces against the Teutonic Order. I just recently quoted the most important part of Bumblauskas words and I will repeat it to you again if you failed to understand: "We should rejoice, I think, that they do not reject the idea of Lithuania and respect our sovereigns". You can admire Vladimir Putin, you can admire Joe Biden, you can admire Gediminas, you can admire Vytautas the Great. You are free to admire any foreign rulers if you fail your form your own history (well, everybody sees what happened when you attempted to create a Belarusian state and democratically elected Lukashenko). By the way, what changes that Stephen C. Rowell worked in the Klaipėda University (as an expert)? Klaipėda University does not control the Cambridge University Press and they would have reject any propaganda/falsifications right away. The only rejected and ridiculed theory is Litvinism. About your propaganda towards languages: show a Lithuanian language text to a Belarusian/Russian/Pole/Ukrainian and we will see how much they are related. They will understand zero words and fail to pronounce most of the words. On the contrary, the Slavs are able to understand each others language very well. The only linguistically related group to the Lithuanians are our Baltic brothers Latvians (I would not dare to question the Latgalians possible relations to the medieval Lithuanian rulers genetically as they are true Balts, unlike the Slavic Belarusians).
Here's a cherry on the cake for you which will allow us to communicate to Grand Duke Gediminas himself (quote from the authentic 1338 Peace and Trade Agreement, concluded in Vilnius, between the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas and his sons and the Master of the Livonian Order Everhard von Monheim, establishing a peace zone):
"This is the peace made by the Livonian Master and the King of Lithuania and expressed in the following words:
(...) Next, a German merchant can travel safely concerning his life and property through Rus' [ Ruthenia ] and Lithuania as far as the King of Lithuania's authority seeks.
(...) Next, if something is stolen from a German merchant in Lithuania or Rus', it must be put on trial where it happens; if it happens that a German steals from a Rus [ Ruthenian ] or a Lithuanian, the same way it must be put on trial where it happens.
(...) Moreover, if a Lithuanian or a Rus [ Ruthenian ] wants to sue a German for an old thing, he must apply to the person to whom the person is subordinate; the same must be done by a German in Lithuania or Rus'.
(...) That peace was made in the one thousand three hundred and thirty-eighth year of the birth of God, on All Saints' Day, with the consent of the Master, the Marshal of the Land and many other nobles, as well as the City Council of Riga; they kissed the cross on the matter; With the consent of the King of Lithuania [ Gediminas ], his sons and all his nobles; they also performed their sacred rites in this matter [ Pagan ruler rites ]; and with the consent of the Bishop of Polotsk [ Gregory ], the Duke of Polotsk [ Narimantas ] and the city, the Duke of Vitebsk [ Algirdas ] and the city of Vitebsk; they all, in approval of the said peace treaty, kissed the cross." The original source in German and Lithuanian (pages 380–385): https://www.epaveldas.lt/recordText/LNB/C1B0002960629/Gedimino_+laiskai.pdf?exId=315462&seqNr=2. Do you truly believe that Gediminas (according to your propaganda an Orthodox ruler - Litvin, who ruled the Samogitians) would separate Lithuania from Rus' (Ruthenia) if he himself was an Orthoox Rus (Ruthenian)? So what was Gediminas' Lithuania if it was a Rus country? What's the point to separate these two things if there is no difference between a Lithuanian and a Rus? That's an authentic source, not some kind of analysis of a historian. Gediminas' had no doubts that Lithuania is not Rus' (Ruthenia) and that the Lithuanians are not Rus' people. So if you truly respect Gediminas - listen to his words and finally stop slandering him and his sons that they were Orthodox Ruses, based on the late Muscovian sources. It is ironic when you are basing your facts on the Muscovian interpretations and at the same time shout that Russia tries to erase the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I provided you a timely, authentic source from 1338, which Gediminas and his sons themselves approved, so enjoy reading it. I hope you will learn something from Gediminas' words. -- Pofka (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Position of national superiority. The Pahonia is the historical coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its land coats of arms, as well as the ruling dynasty of the Gediminids from the end of the XIV century. On December 14 (25), 1795, the Russian Empress Catherine II issued a manifesto “On the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Russian Empire. On this, the actual existence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ended. Russian emperors began to bear the title "Grand Duke of Lithuania" and the image of Pahonia soon appeared in the coat of arms of the Russian Empire. Thus, the empire had the rights to this coat of arms. The Lithuanian Republic and the Belarusian Republic appeared in 1918 on the fragments of the Russian Empire. There are no documents on the rights of modern Belarus and modern Lithuania to this coat of arms. And this is a pointless conversation based on the position of national superiority of one nation (country) over another. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda war continues. Okey, let's analyze your chauvinistic position as you said that: "On December 14 (25), 1795, the Russian Empress Catherine II issued a manifesto “On the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Russian Empire" and that "Thus, the empire had the rights to this coat of arms". I perfectly know that sometimes Russia calls annexations as a legal act (e.g. Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation), but that is not the case in the international community. I just wonder if the United States issued a manifesto on the annexation of the Russian Federation would you call it as a legal act which grants the United States the rights to the coat of arms of Russia as well? With all due respect, if you fail to adapt to the English Wikipedia, I suggest you to return to the Russian Wikipedia or Belarusian Wikipedia where you will likely be allowed to spread such propaganda. Although, let me remind you that the English Wikipedia has higher standards of the international community and such propaganda will not be tolerated here. -- Pofka (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a request to review the non-admin close of an RfC at Proud Boys ("Is the claim labeling the Proud Boys "White nationalist" verifiable and due?"). I briefly discussed the closure with the closing editor here.
My contention is that the closure violates WP:ONUS. I don't dispute that the RfC resulted in no consensus, I dispute that no consensus here means that the disputed content should be included in the article. The closer's rationale was that there was a status quo ante that the no consensus result implied we should return to, but this was not the case – this was new content under dispute. The content in question [35] was added less than month before the ensuing discussion linked to above, added without any discussion on the talk page. There was then some brief discussion on the matter [36] that didn't come to any consensus, and then the broader discussion/RfC a couple weeks later disputing the addition of the label linked to above. This is new, disputed content for which there was never a consensus to include, the ensuing discussion coming to no consensus on its inclusion means in my understanding that it should not be included, as per WP:ONUS. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, I'm puzzled. First, you send the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE directly to AN without comment rather than try to address it on your talk page first. I've already cautioned you against doing that the last time around (which, granted, was a while ago, but still). Secondly, your closure isn't really a proper closure as far as its statement is concerned. You've simply reiterated the RFC question and announced the result being an impasse. That is not good enough. You're actually expected to at least touch on some of the salient arguments from both sides (if only briefly), even if they are evenly matched (or close to). El_C05:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I apologize for falling short of your expectations in this case. I humbly point out that what I'm supposed to do as a closer is to read what people say and address the issue they raise. This user agreed with my "no consensus" finding, so there was nothing to explain (and indeed, I put it to you that "no consensus" was the only close available). The complainant offered me a simple, binary choice: either I change the outcome to his preferred one at once, or he was bringing the matter directly to AN. To be quite honest I should have been free to bring the matter to AN myself, rather than having to make the complainant jump through the hoops for me.As the complainant correctly identifies above, we need to restore the status quo, and at issue here is the question of whether the status quo is the article with or without the disputed wording. This is not obvious at all, and after I deal with your other points I'll discuss it at more length.I agree that my closing statement made no effort to summarize the arguments, but the arguments were extremely simple. While I do take what you say seriously, I would remind you that RfC is a community function, not an administrative one, and individual sysops have no special authority over RfC. In other words, you are not the RfC manager. It's not your role to "caution" me about RfC closes, El C.What's actually at issue here is a point the community has never decided. When we're dealing with disputed wording, after the disputed wording has been placed in the article, how much time elapses before it becomes the stable version? I feel that if the disputed wording was introduced a week before the RfC, then the stable version is the version without it. I also feel that if the disputed wording was introduced three months before, then the stable version is the version with it. In this case the gap is several weeks. You could make a good case for either outcome. In this case the article history contains edits such as this one, which to me, does strongly imply that the status quo includes the disputed wording.—S MarshallT/C09:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, it is absolutely my role to caution you against sending challenges directly to AN without even at least an attempt to try to respond on your talk page first. In the past, you did this so often, it became a problem. So, yes, I cautioned you then (which you seemed amenable to at the time), and I am doing so again now, so as to prevent backwards sliding. Now, as for the closing statement: it strikes me that a condensed (or even a full) version of what you've written above here would actually serve as a decent closing summary for that DRR (i.e. beyond just stating the outcome was X). El_C11:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I've already cautioned you" is the tone an authority figure takes with an underling. Do not take that tone with me again.—S MarshallT/C11:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, but I did caution you about it in the past, so how else would you like me to express that fact? I'm not sure how you read it as me viewing you as an "underling," which is not the case. In any case, I'll choose the tone and tenor of my comments, to you or to anyone, as I see fit. El_C11:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to expect considerably more respect and consideration from this community than you're displaying, El C, so I'm surprised and upset about the tone you took with me above. It's overreach for individual sysops on their own authority to issue "cautions" about how RfCs are closed: this is a content decision and you're not in charge of it.—S MarshallT/C12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, again, you're sidestepping the point: I cautioned you in the past against sending CLOSECHALLENGEs directly to AN without even trying to address pertinent concerns on your talk page first. How is that a content matter? How is that disrespectful? El_C12:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, it's exactly the opposite way around. I already discussed "trying to address pertinent concerns" above; I said what I'm supposed to do as a closer is to read what people say and address the issue they raise. This user agreed with my "no consensus" finding, so there was nothing to explain (and indeed, I put it to you that "no consensus" was the only close available). The complainant offered me a simple, binary choice: either I change the outcome to his preferred one at once, or he was bringing the matter directly to AN. I think that it is in fact you who are failing to acknowledge my point, which is that you're arrogating to yourself an authority you don't have. You've got the authority to block obvious vandals, and to block other editors with community consensus; you've also got the authority to delete pages that meet CSD criteria, and to delete other pages with community consensus, and to view deleted edits. But that's it, El C. The community has never given you any supervisory powers over RfCs or to issue "cautions" to closers.—S MarshallT/C12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, the caution was about misusing AN for CLOSECHALLENGEs that you could have put a bit of work into on your talk page first. But it was last year, so maybe I should have dropped you a quiet note on your talk page rather than hammer you about it here. Probably would have been better. I don't think I've exceeded my authority, and in any case, nothing you've done here is sanctionable, anyway. Like I said last year, I'm actually a fan of your closes (still am), but that does not mean that there isn't room for improvement. As I've just noted below, there's nothing further that I feel I need to press (probably well over-pressed at this point), so am disengaging and will let other admins handle it. I hope this will make my points resonate further and much more effectively than anything adversarial in nature. El_C13:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with the EL C's assertion that you must touch on certain points in contention in all closes, that simply is not true. If the outcome is very obvious to all observers, there is no need. Often times, an explanation of how you weighed arguments is needed, particularly when closing an somewhat evenly split discussion and you DO find a consensus. The actual question before us is simply whether there is a "status quo" of it being included or not. All this discussion of how much verbiage S Marshall should have included is irrelevant. Dennis Brown - 2¢10:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For a discussion of that nature, simply announcing the outcome without additional comment is not a proper closing summary. Even an extra sentence or two would something. But just saying (basically) the result was X — that's a bad closing practice. I don't like seeing it, and I often give closers a hard time over it as a matter of course. El_C11:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I often give closers a hard time over it as a matter of course" and folks wonder why other editors don't do more closures... if this sort of thing is common, of course folks won't volunteer to be given a hard time for not conforming to some unwritten rule. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I often give closers a hard time over it as a matter of course" is...unnecessarily aggressive to say the least. ——Serial13:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still don't think a minimum summary for contentious RFCs is out of step with expected closing practices. If you wish to put closures' backlog on that approach, well, I suppose that is your prerogative. But I don't think it makes much sense. El_C12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)El C, you know that I have supported your good faith use of Admin discretion even in cases where I've explicitly disagreed with your actions and conlcusions. But here I completely agree with Dennis Brown and others, your conduct is grossly inappropriate and unfortunately not the only example of words and actions that overstep our importatant expectations for Admin conduct. Worse, it feels like your replies sound dug in, empty, and defensive. Again, thanks for your overall volunteer efforts. SPECIFICOtalk12:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, if you can substantiate in what way you deem this to be so, I'm happy to consider your points. But to reiterate: answering a CLOSECHALLENGE on one's talk page first, rather than sending it straight to AN without comment, can either: a. resolve the matter; or, b. in case of an impasse, bring the matter back to AN in a more developed form. As for simply announcing the outcome for contentious RFCs: it's been my view that this is generally a poor closing practice, which is not anything new for me and for which I have never been challenged on before (example from this board). Not sure about why my tone is being questioned, but guessing I'm coming across too firm...? Maybe I'm just being a bit tone deaf today...? (Possible) Anyway, there's plenty of quality admins looking into this right now, so I don't really feel the need to engage this further, but I do feel that my points are valid in their own right, all impressions aside. El_C12:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between saying "here's something that is usually a good idea to do" and implying / speaking as if failure do that idea on this case means that the person is doing something wrong. IMHO the answer to your question might be that you are inadvertently doing a bit of the latter. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EL C, I do think your hard line on all this out of step with the community's perspective. N8K explains it well. All this spanking over the verbosity has served only to distract from the actual reason for the review request, which thankfully, is being handled below. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespectively of the current case, I agree that the best practice is to motivate a close by something more than just ""keep" or "delete". It is indeed not a policy, and in some trivial cases (for example 10 well-motivated supports and 0 opposes) not really needed, but in many cases anything beyond a simple close helps everybody to understand what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems like the correct outcome of a "no consensus" should have been to remove the disputed comment, both because of the OP's point that it was the long-standing status quo until January 2021 not to have that line, and also because of WP:ONUS, as Levivich mentions below. Whether the status quo convention or WP:ONUS takes precedence could be a matter for debate, if a piece of contested text had been in the article for a very long time... but that isn't the case here. I also second El C's assertion that a more thorough summary of the debate would be warranted in a controversial case like this, rather than the banal "The community fails to reach a consensus". At least some indication that you've looked at the main points raised, and concluded that neither viewpoint is more valid in policy than the other. Of course, some AFDs/RFCs/RMs do are in fact open and shut cases that don't need further explanation, but as a closer it's part of your job to determine whether that applies. And following that, if you do opt go for a short close summary, then be prepared to clarify further and engage with someone if they dispute the close, rather than simply batting it straight to WP:AN. That's a sensible and collegiate approach to take. — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Levivich and Amakuru said. Per WP:ONUS a no consensus outcome on content questions should generally default to exclusion. That we're seriously debating what "long-standing" content is suggests there's no compelling reason to go against ONUS. Another RfC would probably be best at this point regardless. — Wug·a·po·des22:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo
I completely fail to see how that diff on the article "strongly implies" the existence of consensus on the talk page. Could you explain to me why you think it does? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk)
OK, so, I do not think it strongly implies the existence of consensus on the talk page. Consensus can emerge via the WP:BRD cycle without any talk page discussion at all. I reviewed the history and I felt that consensus had emerged via that route, but I agree that this an arguable point on which reasonable people could differ. I personally would welcome, and benefit from, more guidance from the community about how long it takes for an edit to become "the status quo" without a talk page discussion. There's a relevant link with some nuanced thought at WP:SILENCE.—S MarshallT/C13:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:SILENCE, there wasn't silence with the implicit understanding that the consensus in favor of its inclusion was obvious – there was an ensuing talk page discussion, and no one ever responded to the challenges to the content brought up on the talk page by TFD and Rectipaedia, they're still just sitting there unanswered in the archive (though to be fair the new discussion did take over somewhat soon afterwards), this is not a case of "consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". I don't think "well, idk, the material was there a couple weeks ago, wasn't it?" is a condition sufficient for establishing consensus for disputed content.
If your contention is instead that editors were choosing to follow WP:BRD by reverting reverts of the disputed material and leaving it up despite ignored challenges on the talk page, that would trivially be exactly the opposite of correct. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The no consensus result means the disputed content stays out, per WP:ONUS. That's global policy. Nobody, not a closer, not an admin, not an editor, can override that global consensus. Personally I think the focus is off here. Does anyone disagree with the "no consensus" result? If not, then ignore the defects in the closing statement. Sure, it should have included a summary, but who cares. (Also who cares about the appeal procedure.) Just go remove the content per the RFC. Anyone reinstating it would be editing against consensus, i.e. violating ONUS. You don't need a closer's permission, or an admin's, to follow global consensus. We editors should police ourselves, not outsource it to closers and admins. Levivichharass/hound15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disputed content here, only disputed wording. The article says in the lede that the Proud Boys are neo-fascist. It then rather tautologically goes on to say that they're far right, as if that were separate from neo-fascism. As of right now it also says they're white nationalist. In fact the whole first sentence whiffs more of a thesaurus than an encyclopaedia. This matter is not about content (whether they're neo-fascist), but about phrasing (how to describe their neo-fascism), so ONUS isn't strongly applicable. I would advise against removing the disputed wording until this AN discussion is closed.—S MarshallT/C15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your take then overturn close because the closing statement says "The community fails to reach a consensus, so by our rules, the status quo ante is restored for the time being.", which is a flat incorrect statement of policy. (There is, in fact, no "status quo ante" rule. The rule is WP:ONUS, and it's the opposite of status quo ante.) "The outcome of this RfC is not to change the article" is also an overreach, as the question was whether there was consensus for inclusion (verifiable and due), not whether there was consensus for a change. There being no consensus that it's verifiable and due means it stays out. The closer shouldn't be putting down rules. Honestly, S Marshall, you and that closing statement is the same exact thing as El C's tone with you here. In both cases, you're both overreaching your respective roles. Levivichharass/hound15:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Actually, what you say here isn't entirely true. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, unless the issue relates to a BLP, the "status quo ante" rule does apply. "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". Which actually seems to be a contradiction of WP:ONUS, so it's not immediately clear which takes precedence. However, as I said above, both rules appear to be in alignment here, as the status quo ante was until recently to omit the disputed line. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken, and I agree in this case the two are in alignment. NOCON says "prior to the proposal or bold edit", and that is a form of status quo ante, but key words being "or bold edit". Here, the close suggests that the status quo ante is just prior to the proposal, but after the bold edit. But bottom line for me is if someone adds something to an article boldly, and someone else challenges that addition with an RFC, and the RFC comes back no consensus, then the content should be removed. We don't keep the content based on an argument that the bold edit enjoyed consensus by silence and that this consensus needs to be affirmatively overturned by RFC or else the bold edit stays. (And boy could our PAGs use some clarity on that.) Levivichharass/hound16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for inclusion of this material means it should be removed. WP:NOCONSENSUS says no consensus "commonly results" in retention. The wording of the policy implies that the results will be based on a case by case basis. For example, in contentious BLP claims, the material will be removed. In this case, there is no consensus among Wikipedia editors that the Proud Boys should be called white nationalist, although there is no opposition to citing sources that call them that. It seems to me that the claim is so significant, that we should not make it unless there is consensus to do so. If we do, we are saying that Wikipedia editors cannot agree whether or not they are white nationalists, but we'll say they are because we cannot agree. TFD (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no community consensus on this perennial question, AFAIK. IMO, there is no duration after which consensus is required to remove rather than include, although that should be applied with some common sense. It's disruptive, for example, for someone to gut an article and demand that every portion be subjected to an RFC. Generally speaking, though, WP:SILENCE is broken as soon as someone complains.
Yes, it shouldn't have been reinstated without consensus. Compare: here the word "terrorist" is removed with the edit summary "No consensus for "terrorist" in the lead sentence" (correct), and here the words "white nationalist" are reinstated after removal with the edit summary "Please gain consensus on the talk page for this change." (incorrect). In both cases, it should be consensus to include, per WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."). In both cases, the removal makes the bold edits disputed, requiring consensus to reinstate. Levivichharass/hound17:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, you're misapplying ONUS. ONUS is about content -- it's about the substance of what we say. You're trying to apply it at the level of individual word choices and that's not correct. Here, the longstanding consensus text, supported by reliable sources, says the Proud Boys is a neo-fascist organisation. When we've decided they're neo-fascists, that necessarily means that they're white nationalists, you see. To contend that they're neo-fascist but not white nationalist isn't logically tenable. If we allow ONUS to apply to individual word choices, then we're creating a whitewasher's charter where anyone can remove a word choice that disfavours their own POV.—S MarshallT/C17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I don't see that. I see everything that you're talking about as being a content issue, and not a conduct issue. I don't perceive a difference between your uses of the word "content" and the words "individual word choices". To me, individual word choices are content (as opposed to conduct; I'm familiar with content vs. conduct; I'm not familiar with content vs. individual word choices). I think the distinction you're drawing is between a fact and how to describe that fact, and you're saying that the fact of white nationalism has consensus because there's consensus for "neo-fascist", and neo-fascist = white nationalist, and so what's in dispute is how to describe the fact, e.g. "neo-fascist" or "white nationalist", and not whether to include the fact. If that is, indeed, the point you're making, that's not a distinction that I see as having the consensus of the participants in the discussion you closed. In other words, that it's "how to include and not whether to include" is, well, not supported by that RFC. The RFC question was whether it was verifiable and due: that's a question about whether to include, not how to include. Levivichharass/hound18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's think it through. Let's try applying content policies to individual words with a real-world example. In January 2015, there was an RfC about who won the Battle of Chawinda, which I closed here. My close was disputed on the Administrator's Noticeboard here, and a key part of the disputer's complaint was that I shouldn't be allowed to say that Pakistan won the battle, because what the sources actually said was that India lost it. Did his complaint have merit? Or do content policies apply to concepts, as opposed to phrases?—S MarshallT/C01:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be on a case by case basis as implied by the wording of the policy, which says that existing text is "commonly" retained. The policy is asking us to use our common sense and consider other policies and guidelines. Common sense tells us we should not present opinions as facts when editors disagree whether they have consensus support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: partially endorse and partially reverse the close
I propose that we partially endorse and partially reverse the close. MOS:LABEL is a guideline, rather than policy, but it still appears to carry the weight of community consensus on these issues in general. The result was definitely close, with editors in opposition arguing that there was not enough coverage to justify closing the gap between being "associated with" white nationalists and being white nationalist. Those who were in favor of including that the Proud Boys are White Nationalist pointed towards coverage they believed to be sufficient. Chillabit, who remained neutral, seems to have given a fairly good summary on some of the relevant sources at or before their comment, with Hobit (who supported keeping "white nationalist") adding a few more sources later down. Looking at top-level comments in the RfC, it looks like 9 editors (10 if you include Ryantheviking) seem to be generally in favor of removing the descriptor in general, while 7 editors were in opposition. One user, Emir of Wikipedia, opposed the use of "White Nationalist" in Wikivoice in the lead, though supported its use in the article (this appears to come from a due weight concern regarding the prominence of the term high up in the lead). These responses in the RfC are !votes, so we should not strictly use a count of these to determine the outcome. I don't think the closer was engaging in WP:SUPERVOTE behavior due to some ulterior motive. However, I do think that there was a consensus in the discussion that was not included in the close if we consider separately the questions of whether we should include the term in the lead and in the remainder of the article.
It looks like there was nearly unanimous consensus to include the Proud Boys as being "associated with" white nationalism, at minimum. Regarding the lead, it the discussion appears to have achieved a rough consensus to omit "white nationalist" from it in Wikivoice. Regarding the remainder of the article, I endorse the closer's finding of no consensus, seeing as the arguments provided by the community are themselves are fairly even in that scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem, in that the "white nationalist" title is at least adequately sourced, even if not heavily, and it has been there at least 2 months prior (from my quick check), which is on the boarder as to whether that is "status quo". What is probably the best solution is another RFC that draws in more participation, as the last one was a bit thin in participation. And yes, I would probably remove "white nationalist" until the end of the RFC. I don't think WP:ONUS applies in any way shape or form, but I also think the name being "status quo" isn't quite convincing enough to be beyond questioning in good faith. Stuck in the middle, we take the course of action that is the least negative, while we seek a larger consensus. I think the finding of "no consensus" was correct, but I won't spank S Marshall for thinking adding it was status quo, as it is on the cusp. I simply disagree with him on that point. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this was to propose a change to the finding of consensus, rather than to contribute to the debate about whether the term should be kept throughout the article in the case that no consensus exists. I see this as separate from the review as it pertains to whether or not the resulting no consensus results in the removal of the term "white nationalist" in the body or if the term should remain. The "there was nearly unanimous consensus to include the Proud Boys as being "associated with" white nationalism, at minimum" part indicates that the association with White Nationalism should be kept regardless, even if the term is removed. I tried to convey through "at minimum" that this does not prohibit keeping additional information, though I understand that this may have caused ambiguity. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does BLP apply to Proud Boys?
In the above discussion, it's been said that the rules would be different if Proud Boys were a WP:BLP. I wanted to raise the question of whether BLP rules should apply to Proud Boys, which I see as a group of living people. For example: suppose John, Joe, and Jim are co-founders of a hypothetical organization called Ashamed Boys. Is it true that one set of rules (WP:BLP policy) applies to the use of "white nationalist" in the biographies of John, Joe, and Jim, but those rules do not apply to the use of "white nationalist" in the article about their organization Ashamed Boys? Can we write "Ashamed Boys are white nationalists" based on sources that would not be sufficient to say, "John, Joe, and Jim are white nationalists"? It seems like a loophole to me. Organizations aren't people, but they are made up of people... Curious as to my colleagues' thoughts on this. Levivichharass/hound17:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can choose to be a Proud Boy (assuming I meet the criteria) or to not be one, it is my choice. I have no option but to be Dennis Brown. The person you are is not a voluntary association. Just as we don't extend BLP coverage to Republicans, Freemasons, or cheerleaders, or other groups you can join. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to raise the question of whether BLP rules should apply, not whether they currently do. The question is whether we should be describing groups of people using sources that we couldn't use for the same descriptions of the individuals in those groups. This is probably only a concern for new, smaller, member organizations (like Proud Boys), as opposed to centuries-old institutions (Freemasons, GOP) or general groups of people (cheerleader). Levivichharass/hound17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, I was explaining why they shouldn't. Kind of like the same reasons corporations shouldn't enjoy the same rights and privileges as humans, although that isn't always the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether we should be describing groups of people using sources that we couldn't use for the same descriptions of the individuals in those groups. Is this just a hypothetical? The sources being used for "white nationalist" are all generally reliable (NYT, NBC News, NPR, and The Independent) and would be perfectly usable in a BLP. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's a hypothetical because of the point you make. But I note, e.g., Amakuru's comment above, "Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, unless the issue relates to a BLP, the 'status quo ante' rule does apply", which raised the question for me of whether this is an issue that "relates to a BLP". I agree with Amakuru's point that the "status quo ante" rules are different for BLPs and non-BLPs (per NOCON), and so the question is, is Proud Boys a BLP? Or is "Proud Boys are white nationalist" a BLP issue?
The principle affects many articles. Is calling Proud Boys white nationalist the same as calling the members or at least the founders white nationalist? (I think so?) But then what about a group like the NRA: the NRA might take a position in its platform but that doesn't mean every NRA member agrees with that particular position. On the other hand, what about Never Again MSD, an organization formed by 20 teenagers: it seems like any descriptions of that organization should comply with BLP (meaning "status quo ante" would not apply to that article), because describing the group is functionally the same as describing its members or at least its founders. For me, there's something about a large, long-standing institution like the NRA, and smaller, newer organizations like Never Again or Proud Boys. Levivichharass/hound18:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Personally I disagree that calling an organization X means that all of its members (or its founders, or its leaders, etc.) are all necessarily [X]. We should follow the sources; if reliable sources call the Proud Boys white nationalist, we should say that, and we can also say things like "John Doe founded the Proud Boys, a white nationalist organization". But to call John Doe himself a white nationalist, we would need sources that do so. Organizations are the sum of their parts, and not every member of a group is a reflection of the whole. I imagine this becomes more the case as time passes; many organizations evolve dramatically from how they were founded.
As a practical example, the article on Enrique Tarrio (PB chairman) says he is the chairman of the Proud Boys, and describes the PB as they are described at the article about the group, but does not describe Tarrio personally as a white nationalist, because sources don't regularly do so. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the problem is that we cannot assume that if John, Joe and Jim belong to a group, and that group is considered a white nationalist group, they themselves are white nationalists, unless separately that implication is made directly by RSes. This is part of the problem when ideological labels are used for characterizing a group because it does not reflect on true membership requirements (in contrast to, say, Girl Scouts being a group for teenaged and young women). We can't make the assumption that a person that has joined PB has a white nationalism streak, though it seems unlikely that you would not join PB without one - but that's still a bad assumption under BLP. So we need to make sure we do not all imply that all members of PBs are white nationalists as a matter of BLP and NPOV. Argubly, if the BLP involved are named individuals but those named individuals fail WP:PUBLICFIGURE, that could be a problem, though a solution, if possible, would be to remove the names of the individuals so that the labels are only being applied to the group and not specific persons. If the individuals are public figures (as the case would be for McInnis and PB) that becomes less of an issue though we still have to be careful of what those individuals have said on their own personal aspects. --Masem (t) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your view, does the current lead sentence of Proud Boys, The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, and exclusively male white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada, imply that all members of PBs are far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, male white nationalists that promote and engage in political violence in the United States and Canada? (In my view, it does, and so that implication should only be made if it can be supported by BLP-satisfying sourcing.) (I am not suggesting that there isn't BLP-satisfying sourcing for this particular lead sentence.) Levivichharass/hound17:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, particularly with the placement of "white nationalist" after "male", as it is propagating that as a characteristic to all members of its group, as well as the other terms. I've spoke well at length elsewhere about lede sections for alt/far right groups being way out of line in terms of neutrality and other facets and that's one example since it is loading up the characterization of the group before talking objectively about the group. "Proud Boys is a exclusively male organization founded by McInnis. It is considered to be far-right, neo-facist, chauvinist, and white nationalist, and promotes and engages in political violence." is far more neutral (could be better though) covers the same information and distances associating those labels to its membership and more as a function of the group as a whole. --Masem (t) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP: BLPGROUPS it would depend on if it's possible to distinguish the group from the members of the group. If that distinction is not possible then BLP applies. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPGROUP covers cases of very small groups, where "it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." If I said for example that a rock band killed someone, it would imply that each and every member was responsible. If I said the CIA killed someone, it would not necessarily reflect on each and every member of the CIA. So I don't think it applies. Also, saying it is a white nationalist group does not necessarily imply that each and every member is a white nationalist. TFD (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually my point. If I re-word it to say it is a group of white nationalists, that would imply that each member is a white nationalist. Which would be a violation per BLP Group. While it is more difficult to differentiate smaller groups from their membership, it doesn't mean differentiation between the group and its membership is automatic for larger groups. So, again, it matters if we can distinguish the group from it's membership. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is partially my point on the tone/language issue (regardless if white nationalism should be added). As it is phrased now per Levivich's green text above, it reads and implies that being a white nationalist is a membership requirement, and thus any person that we would factually identify in the PBs would be implied to be a white nationalist. Flipping a few words around to assign white nationalism as a common characterization of the group would remove that issue. --Masem (t) 19:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: A rock band is a group. The CIA is an organization. A rock band is not an organization. The Ashamed/Proud Boys are an organization. A white nationalist organization. Saying "Philip Morris International is responsible for millions of deaths" is not saying Jane from accounting is responsible for millions of deaths. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge Dictionary defines an organization as "a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose."[37]TFD (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: And still I wouldn't call a rock band an organization. It could be argued that rock bands don't "work together in an organized way" as they may work together more in a chaotic way. Merriam-Webster defines it as "an administrative and functional structure (such as a business or a political party)" which is better. Wiktionary seems to have the best definition: A group of people or other legal entities with an explicit purpose and written rules. The CIA has written rules, Phillip Morris has written rules, a rock band typically does not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot, because BLPGROUP is about groups, not organizations specifically. I said that rock groups can be considered "very small groups," and hence are subject to BLPGROUP. TFD (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close review: Unhelpful Close - While I do not disagree with the no consensus outcome of the RFC, and I also acknowledge that it is not technically against policy, I think that by not including any rationale or reflection on the arguments presented in the RFC, the close is thoroughly unhelpful.
As far as I can see, and the RFC is not that long, there are multiple RS that describe the PB as white nationalist, but the highest quality RS do not make the association routinely, rather making claims of association and ties of the PB with white nationalism and white supremacism (e.g. the SPLC).
This could have been stated in the close, and this would have made the path forward much more straightforward. Since RS do make the connection, but perhaps do not rise to LABEL territory, a reasonable thing to do is to remove the LABEL from the lead sentence, but follow it up (in the lead) with an explanatory sentence, e.g.: Proposal - The Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist and exclusively male organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. The group also has been associated with and members routinely maintain ties to white nationalist and white supremacist extremists.
We can then, in a further step, discuss whether (1) the LABEL does apply after all (re-opening the same RFC), or (2) discuss whether some association sentence is DUE for the lead, (3) tweak the details, positioning, etc. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN is not an appropriate venue for hashing out content disputes and working out content proposals. If the RfC close was procedurally incorrect, as appears to be the case here in view of WP:ONUS arguments made above, then the correct thing to do now is simply to reverse the close and reopen the RfC. Somebody else can re-close it, or the discussion at the talk page can continue for a bit longer, perhaps with some extra input. Nsk92 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The RfC close was procedurally incorrect" is a poor way to summarize the current state of this discussion. Where we're at right now is: The community endorses the finding of "no consensus". There's a widespread feeling that the ideal closing statement would have given a summary of the arguments on both sides, but also, there's a widespread feeling that it's inappropriate to give discussion closers a hard time on this point. The community agrees that a "no consensus" outcome means restoring the status quo. Currently at issue is the question of whether restoring the status quo means the article should, or should not, contain the disputed wording. As of right now, a majority of respondents feel that the status quo is the article without the disputed wording, so if there's no further discussion on this point, then the right close for this review would be to endorse the "no consensus" finding and the decision to restore the status quo, reverse the decision that the status quo is to include the disputed wording, and insert a summary of the arguments into my closing statement. I have asked for more guidance about how long it takes for an edit to become the stable wording, but there has not been any substantive discussion about this. It would be very premature to make any such close right now.—S MarshallT/C13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough question: How long does an edit need to be live to be "status quo"? I don't think there is a simple answer. I think at 3 months, it is easy to argue that it is, although not absolute. Maybe it takes longer? Or less? Each situation is a bit different, so it is difficult to generalize, which is why sometimes you just have to ask the community and get a consensus. I don't think the procedure was wrong, I just disagree with the read of "status quo", which was obviously made in good faith but doesn't hold up to a larger consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is very true. My 3 month comment was for "average" articles with moderate traffic. Not sure that a few days is enough to confidently declare it "status quo" in all cases, even on heavily trafficed articles, but that is the problem. It is impossible to make a rule or formula that can be applied to articles. That's why I didn't bust S Marshall's chops over this. Since it had been 2+ months, I can see why they might have concluded it was the status quo. Dennis Brown - 2¢10:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That we are even discussing this point here also shows that the RfC close was premature and should be reversed. In unclear situations the closer should not supervote the discussion on an important issue like this one but leave it open for more input. My own opinion is that in general controversial content that had not been present in the article for very long (where what "very long" means does depend on the article, although I don't think it can ever mean just a few days) and for which there had not been expressly discussed consensus established for its inclusion earlier at the talk page, should not be considered a part of the status quo. In any case I believe that this RfC would benefit from being reopened and from receiving some extra input (which, I am sure, it would get now, if the close was reversed). Nsk92 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally wrong, please retract it. The close can't possibly have been premature: The discussion had been open for considerably more than the requisite length of time, and it had been listed unclosed at Requests for Closure, by a neutral party. The close can't possibly have been a supervote: It was a finding of "no consensus" in a debate without a consensus.—S MarshallT/C14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The close was premature because an important issue of which version of the wording to use after the close of the RfC remained unsettled, and had not even been substantively discussed. That somebody requested a close and that RfC run longer than the requisite amount of time doesn't change that fact. The closer doesn't get to unilaterally decide on the issue of prior consensus and the status quo without a specific discussion of that issue. The "no consensus" finding was indeed supported by the RfC discussion, but the decision that the article had to retain the disputed wording was a clear supervote by the closer. Moreover, Hobit makes it clear below that the addition of the disputed wording on January 26 was immediately challenged, on the same day, at the article's talk page, and the RfC started about 3 weeks later. Under these circumstances one can't argue that a consensus to include the wording in the article ever existed. Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
endorse no consensus finding, disagree about status quo. I !voted to have the label and I think it's justified. But I believe "white nationalist" was disputed on the talk page in the same day it was added (January 26th I believe). The RFC started about 3 weeks later. I think it fair to say that including the term never made it to status quo--it was boldly added and immediately disputed. Ideally it would have been reverted right away (per WP:BRD) but I think we shouldn't penalize someone for taking it to the talk page rather than just immediately reverting--especially in a contentious area like this. That said, I think we'll be back here again as I expect that label will see even more use in the media over time... Hobit (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly opposed to any attempts to require reversion to establish a change is disputed. While WP:BRD may encourage it, it can also lead to dumb edit wars and we should never penalise an editor for not reverting a disputed change if they make it clear there is a dispute. It also encourages a defeatist mindset IMO i.e. where edits feel they must establish the status quo early on because there may be no consensus. I'd much rather editors concentrate on achieving consensus and then if there really is no consensus it's perfectly fine for argue afterwards what the status quo actually is. So definitely I do not agree we can take any time from once the RfC had started as helping establish a new status quo. So the only question is whether those ~3 weeks from the change until the RfC is enough to establish a new status quo. IMO given the early dispute combined with some limited ongoing discussion, was enough to prevent a new status quo from being established. Obviously there needs to be some genuine attempt to establish consensus, so an editor can't simply say I disagree with this change when it happens, then repeat that every month and then a year later say there isn't a new status quo. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is not 3 weeks, it is same day. See the thread Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 6#White Nationalist?, opened on January 26, the same day that the material in question was added to the article, that challenged the addition of that material and the usage of "white nationalist" term. The editor who opened the talk page thread chose not to revert the addition and instead proceeded to dispute it at the talk page, but indeed that's not a good reason to penalize them now. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this thread, there seems to be broad community agreement with the no consensus element of the close, and broad community disagreement that there is a status quo ante that the article should be retaining. Can we move to close this thread and amend the RfC closure? The thread has gone stale and it is now holding up discussion on Talk:Proud Boys. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can't close this AN discussion, but I can amend my own RfC close, and I'll do so with my next edit. I do think this AN discussion would benefit from a formal close, because there's guidance for future RfC closers here that could very usefully be brought to WT:RFC for possible inclusion in our formal processes.—S MarshallT/C09:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there is no agreement on the correct reading of the consensus in the RfC, there are at least enough reasoned objections to MJL's close that it should be reversed and re-closed by another uninvolved editor. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The closure doesn't seem tp reflect the consensus in the RfC. My rough count gives 43 supports for C (only or first option), with 30 supports for A and B counted together. This despite the fact that the premisse of the RfC (that unhyphenated parameters like "accessdate" were already deprecated) turned out to be incorrect, thereby skewing the votes in the direction of A and B (after all, bots carrying out the removal of formally deprecated parameters is something much more normal than bots carrying out the removal of parameters which were explicitly not deprecated).
This misconception coloured the RfC close badly from the start:
"The first major aspect of this discussion was whether or not non-hyphenated parameters are still deprecated for the CS1/2 family of templates. Consensus can change, and the RFC establishing uniform template parameters happened more than five years ago." (emphasis mine).
The RfC (my third link above) only showed consensus (and a very small one at that) to create unhyphenated versions of hyphenated parameters, and to show these as the "normal" version of the two, but explicitly stated "Establishing this uniform parameter name convention does not preclude the existence of any other alias for a parameter, merely that a lowercase, hyphenated version will exist for each parameter" and "Reworded to make it more clear that this proposal is not to eliminate any current version of a parameter.". So to claim that the current RfC would determine if these parameters were "still deprecated" is factually wrong, the status quo was "not deprecated" and this was supported by a clear majority of the responders.
From this wrong start, the close then continues to allow the wholesale bot-powered replacement of one version of the parameter by another version in millions of articles, but only if coupled with other edits. The end result is the same, perfectly acceptable variants are phased out because a minority of editors don't want them.
Furthermore, the closure is some undiscussed hybrid, introducing concepts and decisions which weren't part of the RfC, making this essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE.
I support this request. Firstly I was surprised to see anything other than option C being determined as consensus given the number and strength of the arguments (although I'm not looking through neutral eyes), but a hybrid of B and C with aspects of A that was literally never discussed is definitely not the correct outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that I always appreciate anyone willing to read, summarize, and close a difficult RfC. I think the closer did a solid job on large parts of this, but anytime you close against numeric consensus you need to provide a strong rationale for the close. That wasn't really done here as well as it should be. And I remain a bit unclear on what the close is. I think what I'm seeing could be summarized as "Basically C, but bots are welcome to change to the hyphen versions but doing so is considered cosmetic (and thus shouldn't be done by a bot unless it is doing something else non-cosmetic, as per our normal rules) and the documentation need only list the hyphen versions. Removing the functionality can only be done via a new RfC". Is that accurate? Hobit (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except going against the numerical consensus requires that it be based on wrong or weak arguments. Clearly not the case here; especially given the RfC statement itself was based on an incorrect premise that the parameters were already deprecated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general to close against numeric consensus it would have to be the case the the minority arguments were stronger. Doesn't always mean that the majority had weak arguments. But yes, that's what the closer would have to argue. Or, potentially show that there was some middle ground that meshed well with most of the !votes. That's trickier, but what I think the closer was shooting for. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am pretty satisfied with my close. If it gets overturned, I'll understand that, but I certainly hope that doesn't happen. I think that enough proponents of Option C had Option B as their second choice, and a good amount of people discussed their specific objections with each of the options that it could be addressed in the close. –MJL‐Talk‐☖14:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you mention that C voters had B as their second choice. Why does that matter? When I vote "C 1st choice, B 2nd choice", that doesn't mean "C is my preference but B is ok, too", it means "C, but if C doesn't have consensus, then B but not A". If my first choice has majority support, my second choice shouldn't factor in. The reason I ask is because if "C 1st choice, B 2nd choice" is weighed as an argument in favor of B against C in any way, or as a weaker C argument than just voting for C, then I will stop voicing second choices and just vote "C" in the future. But I don't think that's the intent here. Levivichharass/hound15:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I mean.. I haven't thought about it like that before. I guess there might be an error in how I factor in second choice opinions if that's the case. In general, I see second choice !votes as basically something the commenter is saying they are fine with as an outcome (kind of like approval voting) just not preferred, but I see your point that it might not be like that. –MJL‐Talk‐☖15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not like that. People were simply expressing the opinion that if their preferred option C was ruled out then they would prefer option B to the even worse option A. The was no implication that any of them would be fine with that as an outcome. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved, but having read it through: yes, an odd close altogether. It's true that on due consideration I probably would also have been a C-optioner; but more to the point, the close does not reflect the discussion, let alone codify an outcome. ——Serial15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this close can stand when the closer was under the misapprehension that non-hyphenated parameters had been deprecated several years ago. I was also initially taken in by the people who said that (you know, WP:AGF and all that) but was later surprised to find that the previous RFC had done nothing of the sort. When it was pointed out that the whole basis of the close was wrong then the close should have been vacated, rather than just a few words being changed. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, *have* some of the non-hyphenated parameters been depreciated? I agree no RfC supports having done so, but I'm seeing claims that it happened anyways. I don't know the area well enough to have a clue what reality is. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of the non-hyphenated parameters have been deprecated and some have been "recently removed". Honestly, I don't know what the difference is between the two, because if you use either one, a deprecated parameter or a removed parameter, it still throws a cite error in both instances and places that article in a tracking category for that parameter to be fixed → (replace with). However, accessdate, archivedate, archiveurl has not been deprecated or removed, but according to that help page, Plan for the future: Editors should expect that support for non-hyphenated parameter names will be withdrawn. Choose the hyphenated form when adding parameters to a citation template. Consider replacing non-hyphenated parameters with the hyphenated equivalents at the same time.Isaidnoway(talk)21:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the place where consensus was reached that these parameters should be deprecated, and where it was agreed that "editors should expect that support for non-hyphenated parameter names will be withdrawn"? And I'm talking about discussions that actually involve people who use these templates, rather than unadvertised discussions on technical pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger:, Sorry, I can't provide a link, because I don't know of any discussion/consensus taking place. I have worked in those tracking categories doing ref clean up, where that help page link is given for the cite error generated when an editor uses a deprecated/removed parameter in a citation. I often have to refer to it to find the new parameter. I'd also note that some of the more popular cite templates, cite web, cite book, cite news, cite journal, show those same tables of deprecated/removed parameters, with a note at the bottom of the tables - all non-hyphenated aliases of parameters with hyphens are discouraged to be used in citation templates and are kept only for legacy support. They are subject to becoming deprecated and unsupported in the future as well To streamline the appearance and improve consistency across the project, these variants should no longer be used when adding parameters to citation templates. Instead, select the hyphenated parameter variants and also consider switching other non-hyphenated parameters, which may be present in a citation already, to their hyphenated equivalents at the same time.Isaidnoway(talk)16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:, regardless of whether that change sticks or not, the fact still remains that those parameters listed in those tables have been deprecated/removed, and if an editor uses them, they create a cite error which places them in a tracking category where a bot or human replaces those deprecated/removed parameters with the new one. If an RfC changes that, and puts all those parameters back into use, I'm fine with that, less work for humans and bots.Isaidnoway(talk)17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But not all unhyphenated parameters have been deprecated, not all of them generate errors or get placed in tracking categories; e.g. "accessdate" does nothing of these, and is very much "in use", but gets removed by bots (e.g. Citation Bot) anyway, because? Removing such an incorrect message is a small step in the right direction, and informing people that these parameters are not deprecated at all and don't generate any errors or issues is another such step. Fram (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been no consensus for deprecation then they are simply not deprecated, and neither the template code nor help pages should be written on the basis that they are. I agree that "less work for humans and bots" is a good thing - that was the basis of many of the opinions given in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you guys are coming from, the three most commonly used non-hyphenated parameters (imo), accessdate, archivedate and archiveurl still work. But the parameters listed in those tables definitely do not work and have to be replaced. And believe me, there are a lot of editors who still use those deprecated/removed parameters listed in those tables. In 2020, I fixed 10,000+ of those cite errors myself, and plus other editors who worked in those tracking categories and the bots, that's a shit ton of cite errors that were generated just from those parameters already listed in those tables.Isaidnoway(talk)18:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been no consensus to deprecate those parameters then they are simply not deprecated, and using them is not an error. You have fixed 10,000+ non-errors instead of recognising that the error was in giving an error message in the first place. That is what needs fixing. All of this is simply make-work that could be avoided with a bit of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus or not, and call them what you want, but those parameters do not work in citations. And no, they were not non-errors, they were cite errors, because those parameters don't work, and some of them haven't worked since September 2019 and October 2020. If you can get them restored, go for it, but meanwhile, until common sense prevails (good luck with that), when those call them what you want parameters are used, they will still create a cite error and be placed in a tracking category.Isaidnoway(talk)23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a minority of editors who voted either way, frankly, and not statistically significant numbers. It would be interesting to discover, for example, that the majority of every access date added is hyphenated. I don't know, but it would be good to know. Then we'll know who the minority and majority are. This can be easily done. Go to [39]. Click the "C" column to sort. Download the latest dumps for each template (note dump dates in "A" column). These are complete dumps of every template on Enwiki updated every 7 days. Then simply grep -Fic "access-date" file.json; grep -Fic "accessdate" file.json . Record the result and do again every week or so. It will show the trend and ratios. I just did it for {{cite book}} and there are 297,045 |access-date= and 152,822 |accessdate=. This works out to 66% for |access-date=. Note this is legacy, the current trend going forward may be different and is in some ways more significant ie. what we are doing now. -- GreenC19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proportion of uses is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether editors are required to know whether parameters are hyphenated, or whether they can just use whichever they personally prefer at that moment without needing to care about matters unrelated to improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't want to ignore what people are actually doing as irrelevant, traditionally considered a form of consensus; and it helps to mitigate the problem of a loud minority in these relatively small discussions vs. how many editors create templates (most of them). -- GreenC22:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is not the venue to rehash the discussion, secondly it doesn't matter here whether the editors with a strong opinion are a minority or a majority of all editors using the templates. What matters is whether the very significant disruption caused by removing an option that people use is justifiable and for that the only thing you need to know is the absolute number of people using those options, the proportion doesn't matter a jot. In terms of absolute numbers, there are sufficient voices in the discussion to know that it's a non-negligable number and I would be astounded if every person who uses unhyphenated parameters commented in that discussion (or was even aware of it). I can't fathom a reason why the number (or even proportion) of editors who create templates could possibly be relevant to this discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you can't get away with saying that everyone who didn't comment supported one position. The discussion was widely advertised, and a clear majority of editors who commented supported option C. Every decision made on Wikipedia only gets made by a very few people in proportion to our many millions of readers, but we can't assume anything about their opinions if they don't comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What people do in practice is a form of consensus, this is established tradition, they don't need to show up at VP and express it where a minority of vocal users can dominate. Add to that the number of votes on either side and a compromise close was a good call. I'd point out that non-Hyphenated is still allowed, and the idea that AWB is going to make more than a dent in the existing corpus of millions of cases shows a misunderstanding of the scale of the problem. To me this ANI review looks like one side attempting to force a total win and unwilling to accept any compromise, a battleground. -- GreenC14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise close can work in certain cases, principally when such the positions compromised between are not direct opposites, comments indicate that the intent behind differing choices is similar, compromise has been discussed and gained some support and there isn't a clear consensus for one of the options. However not a single one of these are true of this discussion - option C is in direct contrast to the different shades of A and B, the comments from those in favour of option C mainly showed a very different rationale for supporting than those supporting the other options, compromise solutions in general (let alone the specific compromise implemented as a closure) were never discussed and there is (in the view of many people here) a clear consensus in favour of option C. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I commented above. I think other than clarity issues the closer got to more-or-less the right place. Basically option "C" with granting permission for a bot to change to the hyphen versions as a cosmetic fix (with all the restrictions associated with doing so), and not requiring that more than one option be officially documented. The problem is that their wording wasn't great, their justification was lacking from what is needed, and they got at least one relevant fact wrong (I think). Also, it would have been best if they had said option C with a note about the bot/documentation rather than option B with changes.
Would people be okay with the following: "Option "C" with granting permission for a bot to change to the hyphen versions as a cosmetic fix (with all the restrictions associated with doing so), and not requiring that more than one option be officially documented.? My sense is the option C people wanted to be able to proceed as they have and folks want to avoid massive watchlist disruption but very few "C" people expressed concerns about documentation or even someone changing the style as long as it didn't disrupt watchlists. I think that's what MJL was trying for (based on their feedback to my question to them above) and I think it's reasonable. @Phil Bridger:, @Fram:, @MJL:Hobit (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"very few "C" people expressed concerns about documentation or even someone changing the style as long as it didn't disrupt watchlist" Well I don't think it was that few - I for one certainly didn't say anything about watchlists, at least in the short !vote I left (and I'm not the only one, see Thryduulf and "without needing to care about matters unrelated to improving the encyclopedia" above). Even if there were "mostly" objections to watchlist disruption I don't see how allowing the bot to do exactly that would be acceptable; given that option C included explicitly "revoke the bot approval for this task". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there were few, if any, reasons given to not allow a bot to make those changes as long as it wasn't disruptive. To be clear, cosmetic changes like that are allowed to be done by a bot only if the bot was fixing something non-cosmetic at the same time. I get what C says, but I'm asking if you can articulate a reason to not allow a bot to make that change under the same restrictions as any other cosmedic edit. I didn't really see any reasons given in that discussion why such a thing would be objectionable, but it was a long and detailed discussion I could easily have missed something. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was a direct objection to that. The crux of the objection to the bot change was that there's just so many articles which have |accessdate= that it's needless clutter; and that both parameters are ok (for ease of use by editors, WP:KISS, "if it ain't broken don't fix it", ...). Of course if there are other more substantial edits that might be ok (though the "quasi-cosmetic" ones, such as removing |ref=harv, aren't really that substantial); though I didn't really write about that in the RfC given I wanted to stick to the point (the RfC was already long enough as is, imagine if everyone wrote 200 word !votes...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was against C, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I read the close similarly to Hobit: our existing project-wide consensus is that anyone (human, bot, or semi-automated human) can make "general fixes" as long as they're doing something actually useful at the same time. While there's a clear consensus against Monkbot's task 18, there is certainly no consensus in this discussion to change the policy on "general fixes" that govern things like AWB and syntax cleanup. Discussion are not a vote, and most of the "Option C" !votes used their dislike of Monkbot to argue against a tangentially related point: should we prefer hyphenated parameters over smashedtogetherwords? A significant portion of C !voters were "per Phil" but that comment was subject to serious debate and criticism. Almost every sentence of that rational was about the bot, and Scott pointed out that Phil's reasoning was fallacious. Scott clearly states where Phil misunderstood the proposal: Deprecation is not synonymous with disabling. You're confusing replacement of the parameters as written in a template transcluded in a page, with removal of the runtogether parameter variant's ability to function in the template. Following this was some discussion on how "deprecation" means potentially removing the functionality eventually but nothing in the proposal required that, and John and Scott discuss a modification to option B to make that explicitly clear. The close largely substantiates that view, so the argument that this is a "supervote" because it was not discussed is simply false if you had read the discussion. It gives a clear and specific prohibition on doing what C !voters don't want (removing the parameters) until a clear consensus arises to do so. What seems to be at issue is that some C !voters don't want to be told that a segment of the community thinks we should prefer hyphens over smashingwordstogether. I and others argued that using hyphens was better than smashingwordstogether for various reasons you can read in the discussion. By contrast, many option C !voters were not saying smashingwordstogether is better, rather they were saying that they don't want the option removed and especially not by bot. This is exactly what the close gave: prefer hyphens, follow existing policy on cosmetic changes, and don't remove the template parameters without a definitive RfC. Leaving aside the misunderstanding about previous consensus (which is largely a red herring and can simply be fixed by editing it), the challenge relies largely on vote tallies to argue against giving voice to a significant minority of the editing community. That's not how consensus works, and we should not ignore a solid 40% of the community just because a bot left a bad taste in some peoples' mouths. — Wug·a·po·des00:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But these replacements aren't "general fixes", they are imposing one accepted, working variant over another accepted, working one. There is no reason at all to make this change, not on its own but not as part of another edit either (just like we don't accept mass edits that impose spacing preferences in headers or in lists, or that change one variant spelling or reference system, or...). There never was any agreement that these need replacement, that this "is" an actual fix, so your reading of the discussion is flawed from the start. Fram (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are reasons, and those 30 people you note in the OP give them. Just because you choose to ignore them or don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist. Your point cuts both ways. There was no agreement that someone may not add a hyphen as long as they follow our existing policies on cosmetic edits while doing so. — Wug·a·po·des22:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't true. When two versions are acceptable, people are not allowed to make "cosmetic" edits to change one version to another. MOS:STYLEVAR. All you provide is a recipe for edit warring, as there is equally nothing stopping anyone from removing a hyphen as part of a larger batch of substantial edits. Just leaving things alone which work and which many people use is by far the simplest solution. And no, there are no valid reason otherwise; if the intention is not to fully deprecate things like "accessdate" and make this an unacceptable parameter, then bots and templates will need to continue to support this. Making life easier for a few bot operators was the main reason given for these replacements, but as long as both versions are supported (whether one is discouraged or not), this will not make a change for bots and so on. There are only two positions; these parameters need to be removed and then disallowed completely, or they will continue to be supported. You seem to argue for an untenable hybrid, accepting the reasons to remove the parameters as valid, while caiming that they wont be disallowed. Fram (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved but having watched the conversation: I was very surprised to first hear the closer had apparently found consensus for B, which didn't look to me to have consensus in either a numerical or strength-of-arguments sense. The fact the closer was apparently working on false principles explains the odd position, but only makes reviews more important. Vaticidalprophet00:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the close statement still, even after I pointed out the error, contains the sentence, "the first major aspect of this discussion was whether or not non-hyphenated parameters are still deprecated for the CS1/2 family of templates." That is simply a factual error which undermines the whole close. Non-hyphenated parameters have never been deprecated, and that is one reason why most people went for option C. Surely it would be better for the closer of such a contentious discussion to be an admin, and for them not to be a template editor? It is in fact very simple to write a close that reflects the consensus of the discussion - it would simply say, "option C".Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the closer needs to be someone without template editor privileges, or necessarily an administrator. Someone experienced with weighing discussions with a wide variety of comments would be good. isaacl (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as someone reverts the current close and adds one that actually reflects the consensus in that discussion and the correct facts surrounding it, then all is fine. Fram (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can some admin please take action here? This flawed closed is already being used to change what is accepted or not[40], which in turn allows bots to replace the parameters: basically, the end result of this is the exact opposite of what the majority of people at the RfC wanted, due to a poor close which started with an incorrect understanding of the pre-RFC facts. Fram (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And 300,000+ articles are now being added to Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter because they use these parameters, even though they shouldn't be discouraged and are accepted by most people. It's not as if we don't have enough maintenance which actually needs to be done; creating new unnecessary maintenance and hidden categories based on a very flawed reading of an RfC is something we should avoid, but as long as the wrong closure is left to stand, it will be used to push this agenda. Fram (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed nobody should be taking any action based on that RFC, regardless of what that action is, until the closure is either formally endorsed or revised in the same way that nobody should be taking any action based on any RFC closure that has been formally challenged until that challenge is resolved one way or the other. I'm not neutral but I'm seeing a very clear consensus in this discussion that the closure be overturned, although MJL seems not to have acknowledged there are any significant issues with their attempted compromise closure. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I commend Wugapodes' careful analysis above. The closer did a good job on a difficult RfC, and there is no need for the result to be overturned. --NSH001 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You've read the RFC and the resulting discussion and come to the conclusion that a close based on an undiscussed compromise that matches literally none of the opinions expressed in the RfC and incorporating elements from options there was a very clear consensus against was a good close? Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New close for "Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention" RfC
In your closure comments, you seem to agree that the replacement of non-hyphenated parameters is a "cosmetic" issue. This characterization is almost absent from the discussion. There were many other arguments, pro and con, relative to the RfC and the reverted close that formed the bulk. Viewing this as a choice between (presumably unnecessary) cosmetic changes vs arguments of consistency may be prejudicial. Implicit in the losing argument is the position that this is not a cosmetic change. 66.65.114.61 (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an indication of agreement either way; just a very brief summary of the two poles of discussion. I wrote "cosmetic" because that's how the changes were described in the introduction to the RfC. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt attention. This was by necessity a decision that could not be based on merit as the two sides disagreed on what constituted merit to begin with. That is why I made the somewhat pedantic observation about the language used. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to this edit, users were told that they would be paid for voting "delete" (it looks like "salt", too). However they weren't actually paid. I however don't want to talk about paid editing or scam but wanted to say that the discussion seems to be manipulated. I'm not sure if anything should be done now. FF-11 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was some disruption during the AfD from canvassed delete votes, but (in my potentially biased opinion as a participant) there was nonetheless a clear consensus for delete among editors in good standing. I think that the outcome can be as is. signed, Rosguilltalk20:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the outcome was correct based on the participation of experienced editors. Furthermore, I am skeptical of the claim that delete votes were paid for. This could just as easily be a tactic to try to overturn the outcome by creating a false narrative of shenanigans purported to invalidate it. BD2412T20:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if that were the case I would have expected the article's initial editor to be relitigating it by now. My guess is that Rt Rana probably posted about this on social media and some troll picked up on it, either by telling people that they would pay for delete votes or by showing up themselves and claiming that this was the case. signed, Rosguilltalk20:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
iam also received small amount of money for deleting content form this article but they did not give full amount money for delete votes so that i wrote afd , and they told me, Rosguill and Dan arndt are helping for deltion and you want write like this author Rajuiu , they think Rajuiu want block by Wikipedia administrator soory iam Paviraj5623 this is my endorse 112.135.47.217 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing G11's , G12's & G10's
I was under the impression that if any of the aforementioned is violated, they are almost always instantaneously deleted but I have tagged a blatant copyvio on Busola Dakolo for almost an hour and it still appears that no admin wants to review that. What’s seems to be problem here? Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" deletion is not about the time, but about the need (or lack thereof) for discussion. An hour for a copyvio is actually quite low. I also don't think that meets the G12 criteria, as there's enough content there to save. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the pages in CSD are inappropriately tagged or are edge cases at best. Reviewing & untagging these takes time, and there is also a high probability that the nominator will throw a tantrum, which unsurprisingly results in fewer administrators taking on this backlog. -FASTILY22:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The general impression of "nominator will make an annoying complaint if declined per policy" is confirmed by the creation of an AN thread when deletion doesn't happen fast enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Fastily; I also think that since the desysopping of RHaworth, admins have begun to err on the side of caution a lot more. That said, correct G3 G10 and G12 CSDs in particular should be got rid of ASAP, but the rest of them are not so urgent. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's someone replacing the image on Commons with the infamous goatse, and edit warring to keep the replacement. The image has been temporarily removed from the article. If I was more Commons-savvy, I'd suggest protect that image. I imagine it is in much-viewed articles on many language wiki's. As a wrok around, we could make a local copy and protect that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Duke of Edinburgh 33 Allan Warren.jpg has been locked now, and I think it was a compromised account that was doing it, glocked. I think this is the image that was being toggled. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well the one I spoke of is full protected (admin only), but the image you are referring to hasn't isn't protected. They do things differently over there, I suppose. I didn't check the date of protection, it may have been locked some time ago. Seems under control for now at least. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should add a further clarification for future reference. There's been several compromised accounts, and these are relatively abundant for this vandal, who has been doing this same performance for years. These compromised accounts are the reason that Prince Philip is EC protected. Blocking is great, global locks are better, but protection can be of equal importance (on Commons or not). Understatement of the week - compromised accounts never come alone. -- zzuuzz(talk)08:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They've been glocked, but they'll soon be back, and in greater numbers Nosebagbear (talk)
Am I the only one that inadvertently associate "glocked" with the firearm? (As opposed to, say, g-locked?) El_C14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have realised why I was partially blocked. I had edited disruptively on Aikatsu Planet!, did not respond to others and expressed my racist opinions. However, I am changed significantly since then and am proving that I will perform good edits through my 2nd chance editings above this section. Harimua Thailand (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you appeal this block at the Administrators' Noticeboard instead of your talk page as previously explicitly advised, after your first request on this noticeboard has been removed and moved to your talk page? The noticeboard is useful for controversial cases, but it is usually not the right place to appeal simple blocks, especially not from one single article and after an appeal has been declined with a reasonable explanation on your talk page. This seems to be a case of forum shopping: You didn't like the answer on your talk page, so you want another one. Probably until anyone says something you can agree with.
Please describe, in detail, your "racist opinions", and how exactly they have changed.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Any suggestions about what to do with this IP range?
User:103.73.183.38 spammed a number of people and boards today. I saw an old proxy block although I don't know that this is a proxy. In any case I blocked for 3 months.
Looking at 103.73.183.0/17 (talk·contribs) I see a large number of reverted edits and one similar to todays' for User:Cullen328 - this does look like either a proxy or a school. Is action wise or necessary here? Doug Wellertalk14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the past few days, I have witnessed rather suspicious activity around the edits of Curious Golden, a user who has been banned recently for an unrelated case of sockpuppetry. The user was previously involved in discussions and editing related to historical and contemporary place names in articles falling under WP:ARBAA2. A few days following their ban, there was an attempt to undo their place name-related edits en masse, which only stopped after the issue was brought to the attention of the community and was subsequently found to be in violation of WP:GRAVEDANCE (the user who engaged in reverting apologised and expressed their readiness to cooperate).
Since then, there have been other similar attempts, albeit on a limited scale, such as these ones [44][45][46] made by a user, ZaniGiovanni, who has been editing Wikipedia for barely a month but went on to bash Curious Golden's for "having an agenda" with regard to articles that were not part of their sockpuppetry case. Note that the user was aware of the AN case and its closure.
Today, this activity took a strange turn. Yet another user, KhndzorUtogh, whose editing history dates back to 1 April (suspiciously to the very same day when Curious Golden was banned), has made a series of controversial page moves on ARBAA2 articles containing place names in their titles [47][48][49][50], to list a few. It is noteworthy that the articles have carried those titles since the day they were created in 2008, and those titles thus reflected consensus versions. In addition, these articles are covered by the aforementioned ArbCom case, and I find moving them under potentially POV titles (without at least launching an RfC) suspicious considering that for some of them, renaming proposals were made as recently as a couple of months ago, and the result was "no consensus to rename". Every one of those discussions involved Curious Golden, who was an active editor of said articles and argued against renaming them most of the time. It is important to underline that Curious Golden's sockpuppets (confirmed or suspected) have never been involved in these discussions, which is why it would not be right to assume that this particular input was made by them in bad faith.
Before engaging in this activity, KhndzorUtogh contacted an established user, AntonSamuel, the author of over a dozen renaming proposals for ARBAA2 place names (including the one cited above), asking for advice on how to go about the renaming, and apparently was led to believe that blind renaming of ArbCom-covered content was the right path to take. What is disturbing is that AntonSamuel, whose renaming proposals were not upheld back in February, took that as a green light to pursue further such moves on different articles as well as took advantage of KhndzorUtogh's controversial page moves to alter place names in the body of the very articles that AntonSamuel themselves had failed to have renamed in February following a formal proposal, thus evading possible accusations of violating the administrator's decisions. When I tried to address the issue with AntonSamuel personally, I was told that there was, according to them, nothing problematic with the moves and that it was AntonSamuel's personal conviction that this was the right thing to do ("I have already explained", "I personally don't consider", etc.). Upon my suggestion that the articles should be reverted to their consensus versions and that a discussion should be launched with the aim of establishing a common practice for naming such articles, the user made it clear that they were not interested in any further discussion and advised that I seek administrator help.
I may be mistaken but I see this activity as problematic and potentially dangerous on many levels. First of all, it is rather obvious to me that despite the recent AN case, Curious Golden's good-faith input keeps being deliberately targeted by a group of users contributing more-or-less to the same thematic area, including by those who were directly involved in discussions with the banned user. They are now making dubious edits to consensus versions that Curious Golden helped establish and which they were reluctant to make when Curious Golden was still active. Second of all, toponymy-related content is clearly in the spotlight and has been tampered with for the past ten days in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated. Third of all, it is unfortunate to see active users like AntonSamuel, who are well aware of the formal renaming procedure, being part of this trend, abandoning the constructive approach they had assumed earlier in favour of single-handed undiscussed page moves and, what is worse, being dismissive towards users willing to discuss them beforehand. Parishan (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh place names, this is a complicated issue that I've sought administrator input on during several occasions, and I've initiated many move discussions in the past with regard to moving the articles to their likely common names, however these efforts faced heavy opposition, status quo stonewalling and disruption such as canvassing, so I've taken a break with involving myself with the issue until now. I would not say that all of the current versions represent consensus versions - many are names that were taken from GEOnet Names Server as the only source years ago - without regard for the complex history of the region and what the likely common names for the villages are. Regarding the issue between me and Parishan, I explained my position to him pretty thoroghly on my talk page [51] and since the argumentation was getting messy and bit unconstructive I told him that he is welcome to ping an admin for input if he thought I made a mistake with my move. Is this really considered to be dismissive? I do try to be careful when it comes to Nagorno-Karabakh articles and their place names. In this case I moved Russian-name "Kirov" to "Hin Shen" which I thought was justified since the Nagorno-Karabakh naming controversy on English Wikipedia is mainly with regard to Armenian vs. Azerbaijani names and this was an odd Soviet-era Russian-language name that left the name format on the page pretty messy. I also checked quite a bit before moving it that "Hin Shen" was indeed the name that is far more in usage. If this was a careless move on my part, then I apologize. However, I believe that Parishan's depiction here of the turn of events is a bit incorrect and not really made in good faith - I explained my position on my talk page to KhndzorUtogh that move discussions are the best way to go for most Nagorno-Karabakh articles since they are potentially controversial. Regarding my edits on the articles KhndzorUtogh then moved, I explained to Parishan that my edits on the articles moved were to clean up the format after the moves, since I thought the format on the articles was left a bit messy, with names being repeated in the infobox, while I personally didn't want to interfere if other users raised concerns about the moves for these particular villages, since I've already involved myself quite a bit in the past with this issue and I think it's good that other editors engage in these issues as well - for better or for worse, not just me or other "veterans" with regard to the topic. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When articles are contentious (which pretty much every Arm/Azer one is) then I would say that WP:RM is the best way of discussing their locations. I am also unconvinced that either ZaniGiovanni and KhndzorUtogh are a net positive to editing in the ARBAA area. Black Kite (talk)22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: All right, so would you then recommend me to move the article back? I believe my rationale was pretty straight forward regarding the justification for the move - but I don't intend to break any policies. While I think that "Kirov" is a pretty problematic article name on many accounts and that the current version is a clear improvement, I would prefer that someone else open a potential RM though, since I think I've done my fair share of attempts to improve the Nagorno-Karabakh articles with regard to the article names for the moment. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did edit articles with added Az translation by the blocked user as many of them have sources like here 1, 2. I was involved in a similar village to the ones the Sockmaster edited 3, and that village had only one same source named "İ. M. Bayramov. B. Ə. Budaqov; H. İ. Mirzəyev; S. A. Məmmədov [Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan] (PDF) (in Azerbaijani). Baku: Elm. p. 201. ISBN 5-8066-1452-2.". If you are unaware, and I'm quoting a user from the deletion page of that village, "The source Carlossuarez46 added to the article is by an author who has worked extensively on the Western Azerbaijan political concept, i.e. the belief that all of Armenia is lost Turkic lands that rightfully belong to Azerbaijan, Here's his AZ Wikipedia page. That book is naturally going to be biased, and I wouldn't consider it to be a reliable source for the names of places.". Regarding the exact examples Parishan gave. The first village Chapkut I removed the non common name and moved history information from the lead to newly created history section. Second village, same thing and the third one as well. I don't know the exact policy and I apologize I am new to wikipedia, but I was following WP:MODERNPLACENAME I believe. In regards to other villages' sources I mentioned earlier, first with political view/propaganda title, and second named "Genocide of Azerbaijanis on the territory of Iravan province in 1918-1920", which is an imagined title itself, I don't know what's the appropriate way to deal with. Probably nomination for deletion like with the Azizkend town that had the same source? More experienced editors would have the necessary suggestions, thanks in advance. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Parishan, you claim that "my editing history dates back to 1 April (suspiciously to the very same day when Curious Golden was banned)" however it seems that Curious was banned on the 3rd April, also why would this be suspicious even if my account was made on the same day? You also haven't responded to the reason I moved the names (which I wrote). You claim that Curious edits were in good faith - "Curious Golden's good-faith input", however this user has added Azerbaijani translations to at least 100 villages in Armenia (claiming that every other village had an Azeri majority), which should be grounds for concern, given that in these edits, frequently either: no sources were provided, the source wasn't scholarly or it was biased (written by Azerbaijani), the source wouldn't open, the source was nowhere to be found on the internet, and more. You also are blaming those who undid his problematic edits. However, you called in an earlier comment that me moving around 5 small villages' names was of "mass". You also say that "toponymy-related content is clearly in the spotlight and has been tampered with for the past ten days in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated." but show no proof of it being coordinated, rather a speculation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not exactly a content issue. This is an issue concerning a specific type of articles involving a specific user, dealt with in an inappropriate manner and in what appears to be a collective effort. We could criticise Curious Golden all we want but the fact remains that there were established consensus versions (for most of which the Azeri toponymy had already featured for years); if someone found that problematic, it would be much more constructive to discuss that first instead of removing content without trace or redirecting pages on one's own initiative given how sensitive the topic is (leaving a message on another user's talkpage and then proceeding to rename the articles is not really a discussion). Unfortunately I did not see any of the above-mentioned users try this. Parishan (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again you are accusing me of dealing with articles in a "collective effort" with no proof, however just searching your username online along with some keywords gives results showing that in 2010 you were involved in pro-Azerbaijani collaboration on Russian wikipedia, specifically off wiki large mailing list collaboration. You say that "We could criticise Curious Golden all we want but the fact remains that there were established consensus versions (for most of which the Azeri toponymy had already featured for years);" however before CuriousGolden began to edit over a hundred articles, there were no Azerbaijani translations on these villages. What he did was massive compared to me moving names for around 5 small villages and you are accusing those who remove his problematic edits of acting in a bad faith. I didn't expect the topic to be so sensitive when I moved those pages, so how do you suggest I go around it next time I want to move the name of the villages? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh:, the topic is about you. Would you please answer clearly why you think it is ok to move the articles about localities in the conflict area from their Azerbaijani names to their Armenian names without any discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already answered this, I didn't expect it to be the big deal it became. In the last sentence I even asked how I should go around it next time if I want to change the names of these villages. I answered all of Parishan's questions, and I responded to his baseless collaboration accusations, which is very ironic given his past. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to move one of the few villages, but the other ones didn't work. For example on Spitakashen, it said "The page "Spitakashen, Martuni" cannot be moved to "Ağkənd, Khojavend" because the title "Ağkənd, Khojavend" matches an entry". Could you see if it works for you? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked Black Kite above regarding this, I am perfectly willing to move the article back myself if that is the recommendation given. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: When I looked at sources, I found that Reuters [52] Al Jazeera [53] and TASS [54] among others have utilized or re-reported the name of the village as Hin Shen. The name "Hin Shen" in Russian "Хин шен" has also been used by Caucasian Knot [55]. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do not establish a common name since they are merely quoting the Armenian foreign ministry, which naturally refers to that village by its Armenian name. Black Kite is right, there is no common name for that village, which is exactly why I suggest that it should be reverted to its pre-conflict name, which both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources agree on. Parishan (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That reliable sources do re-report the name does in my view at the very least indicate what the common name is. WP:MODERNPLACENAME (which also recommends using a "local name, if there is no established English name") is also relevant here in my view - as Hin Shen is the name used by the de facto administration and the native population of the village. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the name were mentioned outside of the quotation, I would agree with that statement. However, I can see clearly that reliable sources are reluctant to refer to that village by whatever name, and there is probably a reason for that. This is why I invited you earlier to start working towards establishing naming conventions for such articles because experience has shown time and again that in the case of conflict-affected regions, most of them barely mentioned in Englsh-language contexts, general rules such as WP:COMMONNAME yield no consensus. First, the name was obviously selected by the de facto administration as part of a hard-to-ignore policy of ridding the region of its non-Armenian toponymic heritage and thus cannot be considered NPOV. Secondly, we do not know what the native population refers to the village as in a neutral context. Lachin, for instance, was renamed Berdzor back in 1992, but interviews with post-1994 Armenian settlers show that they continued to refer to the town as "Lachin" way into the 2010s even when interviewed in Armenian (see 2:21), (see 1:46, 1:52, 1:58). Bottom line: yes, there are rules in place but one must recognise that we are dealing with a very special case here, which requires a consensus on its own. Parishan (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Artsakh/NKR and Azerbaijan have renamed the villages in the former NKAO after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. In this particular case - both Artsakh/NKR and Azerbaijan have renamed the village from Soviet-era Kirov, as can be seen on the maps featured in Arsène Saparov's study of place names in Karabakh: [56]
Naming the villages of Nagorno-Karabakh according to the Soviet names would for example mean that Shikharkh, Azerbaijan (Maragha) would be renamed Leninavan (Unless the argument would be that this only concerns Armenian-controlled villages and not Azerbaijani-controlled villages in Nagorno-Karabakh) and Kiçik Qarabəy would be renamed Mokhratagh, which you recently argued against on the RM on Talk:Kiçik Qarabəy. The Soviet names were a complicated mix of some historical names, some new names to honor Communist figures and some amalgamations of Armenian and Azerbaijani names such as "Metskaladeresi" for Mets Shen, Shusha. While they are relevant for historical context - I don't think that they are a suitable basis for determining article titles in and of themselves, as modern names used by the de facto administrations and local populations are more relevant and natural when it comes to usage.
Regarding examples of the usage of Hin Shen by locals, after a quick look for some clips, the name Hin Shen is for example used by a local in this short documentary about the village [57] (8:25), I'm sure there are more examples even if there would be potential double local usage of the Armenian name and the Soviet-era name such as for Lachin/Berdzor.
An RfC for a naming convention would probably be a good idea in the end to make the process of RM:s easier and less vulnerable to disruption. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Azerbaijan also renamed villages but most of those cases (like Kiçik Qarabəy, which you are mentioning) were in fact reverts to the names that were in official use before the 1930s (which was exactly my argument against moving them). These names feature on any contemporary map and are available in official statistical sources like Kavkazsky kalendar and in secondary sources like Bournoutian (2011). They were in fact at some point names that both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources agreed on (earlier versions of the ...kalendar even provide their spelling in Armenian) and not used as a tool to prove a political point. With regard to "Hin Shen", there is no attestation of that name ever being in official use as the village was only founded in the Soviet era, and the renaming in the 1990s was controversial, with a strong political context that places it far from the definition of NPOV. This is also proven by the fact that the main bulk of the sources using that name are either Armenian or direct citations therefrom. Parishan (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing the historicity of the place names, the discussion can take us far back and get complex very fast, one of the reasons why names utilized by reliable contemporary sources or modern local place names are preferable. Multiple names have existed for the localities in the region since medieval times, as the Armenian population had their own names for their villages and nomadic Caucasian Tatar tribes which moved into the mountainous region during the summer months had their own place names for the localities. Many place names in Karabakh were renamed during the Persian period, with Armenian names being replaced by Turkic or Persian names. During the period of the Russian Empire, some places names were renamed to their Armenian versions and more radical changes were then made during the Soviet era.
This paragraph from Arsène Saparov's "Contested spaces: the use of place-names and symbolic landscape in the politics of identity and legitimacy in Azerbaijan" summarizes it pretty well [58]:
The establishment of the Soviet Union, with its emphasis on radical revolutionary change and a break with the past, affected practices of place-naming across the entire country. Monarchist and religious place-names were removed, and new ones reflecting the new social order were introduced. In Karabakh this resulted in a partial reversal of the toponymic landscape inherited from Tsarist times, as Armenian place-names reappeared on the official Soviet maps. This was primarily connected with the removal of Turkic place-names that designated ideologically unacceptable practices, such as settlements named after lords, landowners or religious names. This mirrored the previous period, when only one toponymic landscape had been recorded in the official documents. This time it was the Armenian toponymic landscape that replaced the Turkic one. Thus, in the early 1920s the Armenian leadership of the newly established Karabakh Autonomous Region succeeded in partially restoring the Armenian toponymic landscape, and elevating it to the status of a legitimate landscape, replacing in the process the previously dominant Turkic one. This situation remained in place largely unaffected until the end of the Soviet era.
As far as I know, there are no non-primary sources that would attest that such-and-such village in Karabakh had such-and-such name before the non-Armenian toponymy was replaced by the Turkic one, and since Saparov does not give exact examples, making those assumptions would be OR (Turkic being the lingua franca of the region for many centuries, it is in fact quite possible that some of these villages had been founded already under Turkic names, like for instance, some of the villages established in Georgia and Armenia by Ottoman Armenian and Ottoman Greek migrants in the mid-19th century). I am not suggesting that we dig into history to determine which toponym appeared first. I agree with you that this would be counter-productive. I am saying that if there is an official toponym that at some point was used by both communities and that features in reliable sources like Kavkazsky kalendar, this conforms to NPOV and that toponym should probably be the one to be given priority to; and if the toponym is of Russian or Azeri origin, so be it. Why is that a problem? "Hin Shen" is a no-go by default: the article suggests that the village is de jure located in Azerbaijan, except that in Azerbaijan, there is officially no village called Hin Shen, whereas in Nagorno-Karabakh, the same village officially went by the Russian name "Kirov" not that long ago. Parishan (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant that "Armenian toponymy" and not "non-Armenian toponymy" "was replaced by the Turkic one"? Saparov gives several examples of historical names in Karabakh and their origin and context. The article presents both the Armenian and Azerbaijani names as well as alternative names and presents the status of the village clearly, if the village was indeed founded during the Soviet period as a part of the NKAO as you stated, I would say that is even more reason for the Armenian name to be appropriate with regard to neutrality as historical demographics is a factor that should be taken into consideration - if the village had an Armenian-majority population during the Soviet era up and until today (similar to Hovsepavan for example). Regarding the de jure status, a relevant example regarding article titles on Wikipedia is the article for the town of Kobanî, for which the name utilized/re-reported in international media and used by the de facto administration and local population has been the choice for the article title rather than the de jure official name/pre-conflict name. Hin Shen is by far more natural and relevant when it comes to usage. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh:, I did not accuse you (this is not an enforcement board), I am merely stating that this looks like a collective effort. The fact that you are randomly googling my name "with some keywords", besides sounding creepy and disturbing, has no effect here. First of all, because the case you are referring to is from almost 12 years ago and second of all, because English Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia are two different projets with no continuity as to the decisions made by admins. Given that you are a new user, I would like to inform you, as well as @ZaniGiovanni:[59] and anyone else who has recently been tempted to bring up that age-old case from a different project to counter inquiries made here that the incident was reviewed by English Wikipedia administrators back in 2012, and a consensus was reached to disregard any further references to that incident for the reason of them being disruptive and aimed at besmirching other users. In other words, if you bring that case up again, you will be reported. Parishan (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading same thing as you do? "in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated" oh so you were not accusing of anything, not even a hint. What does "looks like a collective effort" mean then? You are literally pulling mental gymnastics and backtracking your words. If it's not an accusation, at the very least it's a passive aggressive remark which was justified to be answered. I earlier left a message to a user involved with you and another Az editor, Grandmaster, merely familiarizing him with the people he is disputing against. Didn't know that it "brakes wiki rules". I wasn't "countering" or "besmirching" you by stating the past, neither was KhndzorUtogh it seems. The only conclusion I came to reading KhndzorUtogh bringing that case, was to show the almost laughable irony in your baseless remarks, nothing more. @Parishan: I would strongly suggest that you avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors from now on or threaten with unfounded reports. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to anyone in particular, but a general remark based on several entries in this thread: Could you please all stop commenting on person and concentrate on content. Just a thought ... --T*U (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of discussion and whatnot, I encourage all editors here in this section to look up just a little way on this very noticeboard to #Large batch deletion probably needed (Azerbaijan).
There's a fundamental accuracy problem with the way that several thousands of articles were mass-created on the English Wikipedia, and then mirrored all over the place, including by robots to Wikipedias in other languages.
Some of the articles that you are arguing about with diffs here were originally created from GEOnet too.
Be aware that we've already found, and deleted, thousands of articles in Iran that turned out to be fundamentally misleading two-sentence stubs, telling readers for years that wells, farms, industrial estates, motorized water pumps, et al. were "villages".
And we know that articles have had names poorly translated (e.g. "Locust Water" rather than "ab Malakh waterfalls" at Ab Malakh (AfD discussion)).
We're trying to deal with this by coming up with ways that we can fix or delete en masse lists of articles, that are things like "villages" with population zero; or "villages" that the article creator labelled as being in a disputed area, and that someone else came along later to label as not even locatable in other sources.
If you can help to whittle away at this huge inaccuracy problem, by helping to make, review, expand, shrink, cross-check lists of Azerbaijan articles created this way, it would be appreciated.
And, honestly, no you shouldn't be arguing about what some holiday trip WWW site says about common names.
Part of the problem is that those WWW sites are algorithmically generated, sometimes from the English Wikipedia, sometimes from GEOnet.
A case in point is Mozaffarabad, Bardsir (AfD discussion) where the algorithmically-generated WWW site is telling us that this "city" is over a megametre away from the nearest hotel.
We desperately need a lot better from everyone all around than Special:Diff/1017060807 et al. with only a source to a trip-suggest.com WWW site that explicitly tells us that it uses Wikipedia.
I noticed that when I was going through CuriousGolden's contributions, there were Armenian villages (not sure how many) with only single bogus/political source, like the ones mentioned above 1, 2, also created by Carlossuarrez64. And I believe these supposed villages and similar villages with the same one source should be removed as well, because we can't WP:VERIFY their existence with extremely biased and unreliable source(s). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
deletion of external link
Hello,
I am contacting you regarding the deletion of external link placed on the rover800series page. The link was put there to help people find support for the vehicle type model and was not an advertisement just a link to a members site where people can join, ask questions about the vehicles and to provide technical information on maintaining and restoring their vehicles.
Can someone please edit the page and include the rover800.club link please. I am one of the administrators of this site and parts secretary for this club. it is not profit making but just there for its members.
I see you're blocked now for the user name, but I will answer you hoping you see it anyway. All of those links (not just yours) have been deleted now with the rationale of it violating WP:EL, which I tend to agree with. Wikipedia isn't a depository of links to external sites, and having a long list of fan sites is a bit much for an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All but one has been blocked. Somewhat relatedly, I blocked Expertwikiguy for similar behavior. All the AFDs they participated in need decontaminating - there are quite a few where the sockfarm has altered the outcome, and there are likely to be many similar accounts that haven't been blocked. They shouldn't be blindly closed because spammers sometimes pick on other spammers and the nominations may actually have merit. MER-C19:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot the password of my bot account User:RheniumBot. I can not use "Forgot password" feature because no email address was attached with the account. Is there any other way to recover that account? — Tahmid02016 (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This all started when Dragovit added coats of arms to some well-watched articles under WP:MILHIST (although this apparently started well before that, if I look at their contributions). They were (if, I may say so, bluntly at first) warned about it and edit warring on some of the affected pages on their talk page, (User talk:Dragovit#MOS:INFOBOXFLAG; User talk:Dragovit#MOS:INFOBOXFLAG_2) back in March. A long but ultimately fruitless discussion occurred on WT:MILHIST, (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms ininfoboxes), where signs of the section title behaviour (along with lack of good faith, etc...) are already apparent. Once the discussion was closed, I took the opportunity to give a {{Ds/alert}} under WP:ARBINFOBOX2.
Because of the lack of results of the initial discussion, and per a suggestion of a user there, an RfC about coats of arms was specifically opened at the relevant MOS page, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole. That discussion shows two things: that Dragovit happens to be in the minority (in fact, he is the sole objector) regarding this specific issue; and that he is continuing to engage in bludgeoning[a]
I put forth, that this kind of refusal to listen and accept that the consensus is against them is nothing short of disruptive, and that some sanctions under the discretionary sanctions (I would favour a topic ban of some, but not indefinite, duration; but others might be more appropriate) would be appropriate. Am I going out on a limb here or does anybody agree?
^Now I took a look at this from not only the visual aspect but from statistics too. The RfC as a whole is about 21 kb of wikitext - Dragovit, despite being the sole objector - has contributed more than 11 kb (just over 50%) of it.
It's evident that I happen to be in the minority as the sole objector, but it's also evident, that articles using flag icons (templates or reduced symbols such as coats of arms) are the majority, which are not only English but all language wikis, because it's common practice to use flag icons and symbols and it's not against the rules of the Manual of Style/Icons#Flags. As I go through the articles, I see that they are almost everywhere with obvious effort to maintain the same style and sizes, except for a several articles where the icons have been removed and their return is persistently blocked by few users who take icon removal as their own specialization / hobby, but in truth these articles without flag icons are minority and I see no reason why several English articles should be an exception then majority, plus articles with or without flag icons mean a dual style, even though they relate to the same historical period and are included in the same category, which is very contradictory and illogical, because when I move between the articles I see these contradictions and it's also disturbing. Nowhere is it explained why this is the case or why the articles look different. The articles should stick to some uniform arrangement, moreover, when I see that someone is trying to prevent it, it doesn't make sense. The discussion (Wikipedia_talk: WikiProject_Military_history # Coats_of_arms_in_infoboxes) was long and "fruitless" because there was an attempt by the opponents of the icons to trivialize the issue and relied on argument about their size and disracting feature of icons that seems debatable and impossible to prove; for example if a reader suffers from eye disease and therefore has difficulty recognizing the icons, then probably also has difficulty reading the text itself and this seems to me like an excuse than a credible argument. If I use the text enlargement function in the internet browser, then icons also enlarge. In addition to the fact that articles using icons are the majority, my another conclusion is, that I have been successful in the discussion with more credible arguments that have not been refuted by opponents, even though they had the space and opportunity to do so. I have pointed to states that have existed for thousands of years (Kingdom of France) that it is better to use them with flag icons to identify the states instead of without them, which is just vague text that says nothing more. In cases such as the Kingdom of France, there are too many options and without a recognizable symbol such as an icon it is confusing. So far, no one has convinced me that removing icons is correct / according to the rules, their systematic removal is not ordered or recommended anywhere. The Manual of Style/Icons#Flags doesn't prohibit them completely, so their removal is based on some opinion, probably aesthetic, but that's not enough. I therefore demand their return in the certain articles and stop blocking edits, in which they are contained. I consider these actions to be indecent vandalism against hard work to suitable images, inserting them, creating Templates country datas and against creating images on Wikimedia Commons, which are the activities that I all do. Their systematic removal means limiting my activity and my work, which took a lot of time and energy. I ask the administrators to solve this issue which are propably caused by inconsistent rules, I can't make any further edits to the flag icons if they can be thwarted at any time. Dragovit (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you withdraw your accusation of sinister motives, i.e. "their return is persistently blocked by few users who take icon removal as their own specialization / hobby"; per WP:ASPERSIONS. Dismissing a consensus you don't like by calling it "contradictory and illogical"; saying the editors who disagree with you "trivialise the issue" and, finally, considering such actions as "indecent vandalism" (bonus link: WP:NOTVAND) - in addition to the continued urge to post walls of texts isn't particularly enlightening nor does it shine a positive light... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that what I have described here are only facts about what actually happens in several articles and what Wikipedia looks like when I move around the articles, this facts are essential, not some three phrases that seem like "accusations of sinister motives" which would not affect the solution of this matter, so make accusations isn't my intention. I used such phrases to avoid long formulations, when it's more brief to use that someone has some "specialization" than "few users have been watching several articles for years if the flag icon have not returned, then they will revert them immediately..." the comment is already too long, but it's clear to me that explaining this to you is now irrelevant as it's obvious that you are not interested to solving this issue from the beginning. No one takes my arguments into account and consensus cannot be reached, so there is no point in continuing the discussion, but anyone can read my comments and make sure there are several essential arguments and facts. You have started several discussions about this, but in none of them have you commented on the topic, no consensus was reached in any of them (although you are referring to some others that I did not attend) and then you added here new one and called it bludgeoning and focused on the correct expressions than to discuss the topic matter-of-factly. You still accuses me of not respecting consensus, but you do everything you can to avoid it, and you rely on an old one. This together with avoiding and not solving arguments is apparently your tactic how to thwart the solution of this issue. Dragovit (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the initial discussion. I did not participate in the RfC (it seemed wikilawyery in the first place to even find that loophole), but would agree with the supporters. There is a bit of bludgeoning, but not so much that it has disrupted the overall RfC to the point it cannot be assessed. I would suggest the best immediate action to take is that the RfC be formally closed by someone uninvolved. On further measures, my inclination would be to hope that the RfC close provides a clear indication of community consensus, and that this provides a resolution on the issue. If it does not, we may end up back here. CMD (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a limited amount of sympathy for the amount of fruitless work @Dragovit: put into adding images, however, had he looked at the talk page of the Third Crusade article before embarking, he would have seen a previous debate which showed that a number of editors, including me, had challenged and removed heraldic images before. It might have induced him to enquire before adding all the images in the first place. I cannot help but feel that Dragovit has signally failed to either engage meaningfully with arguments against the inclusion of slews of heraldic images in infoboxes, or to show any willingness to accede to a consensus of fellow editors. Whatever the merits of the contributions Dragovit has made to Wikipedia, this editor has shown no inclination to abide by the norms of decision making. Urselius (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is much broader than just the Third Crusade. However, it acted as a template for one of the users to remove flag icons and coat of arms in other articles, I believe. The problem is that former consensus was reached only in the Third Crusade under certain conditions, which cannot apply to different articles from other historical periods. The other articles in which the icons were removed relate to the 13th and 14th centuries, which is a completely different periods than the Third Crusade. In addition, I questioned the non-use of icons in the Third Crusade. When I refuted the argument about the "infancy of European heraldry". In the late 12th century, heraldry was used normally in Europe, with a few exceptions. The Third Crusade is also an exception to many articles that flag icons or coa use and are about the same historical period. Therefore a new consensus is needed. Dragovit (talk) 8:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't really take part in the discussion. I only made one technical comment dealing with the use of the template. If you must have my opinion on this, I think requesting administrator sanctions against this user is a bit of an overreaction and I feel sanction aren't really warranted. The RFC should be sufficient to deal with the subject matter.Tvx1 16:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dragovit has a very strong opinion on this matter, and they are extremely verbose in expressing it. While they've posted some walls of text, I wouldn't say their style has risen to the level of disruptiveness in discussion boards. I don't think IDHT is really coming into play unless they are editing content against consensus (and I'm not seeing evidence of that). Let's have the RfC finished and go from there. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Лобачев Владимир, I don't understand what's with some editors that they decide to take exaggerate measures like this one rather than actually starting a discussion if the other person does not. This report is obviously excessive for a dispute as simple as this one and will most likely get ignored and closed. By the way, you did not notify Rgvis on their talk page about this, which is required. I've pinged Rgvis on Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia. No need for a report. SuperΨDro15:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These symbols have been used without interruption in this article for almost 13 years (since 2008)! In these circumstances, it is normal for any change to be based on reasoned discussions and appropriate references (in accordance with WP:PG). Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hello El_C, isn't the version before the edit war the one supposed to be restored/kept after a page protection of this type? This was the version before the edit war [60]. SuperΨDro20:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to the wrong one because I though they were added along with a larger diff. But then again whichever version is right needs to be worked out ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE via the D part of WP:BRD... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons
For past one week, I am not able view the Wikimedia commons pages. Is this happening to me only?
Good morning. In October 2020, I was blocked from editing Wikipedia because a couple of my pages were written in a promotional tone. At the same time, I found out that one page Draft:Dave Kaplan (music executive) had some nefarious person work on its back end and posting a professional relationship on some outside sites seeking information. Some administrators assumed that was me. I know Dave Kaplan, and many other artists, managers and companies from a 30-year career in the entertainment business but niavely thought that since I was not receiving money it was cool to contact their publicists for bios and press. I'd say I did this less than a handful of times, for the hundreds of pages I created. The rest were my own personal knowledge. Last year, I created Dave's page based on knowledge of his record company. No money was exchanged, but I did contact their publicist. I know now I should have put the article through AFC and revealed a COI. However, after a long discussion with some administrators it was clear that it was Dave's page that was the biggest problem. I contacted Dave Kaplan's publicist and found out about this guy they had hired to work on the page to get it on google. It was not me. The page itself did seem promotional and I was going to rework it to acceptable for Wikipedia but I got accused of what this guy did, and was blocked. One administrator decided to unblock me to edit on deceased individuals and defunct businesses and organizations. I have worked on them since October, even though I find it hard to find subjects. At this point, I would like to ask for a full unblock. At the same time, I need some guidance as to how to work on any subject I may have had a relationship with over 10 years ago (I retired from entertainment biz in 2009). I'm thinking AFC. So far, I have not been in a situation where anyone has offered to pay me, but perhaps something like that may come up in the future, and I would reveal the COI and keep the page neutral. I don't need the money as I work full time as a travel agent in Costa Rica. My only goal is to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia, and to follow all the guidelines in doing so. Can you please assist me? Thank you so much.EllenZoe (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see you probably meant the condition in your unblock log entry: "Editor has agreed to stay away from editing topics that can be used for promotion: no BLPs, no companies, products, bands, TV shows, non-profits, etc unless defunct". I think that the blocker, Rosguill, should comment on that. Sandstein 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think EllenZoe is on the right track, but I think that more contributions and time are necessary before lifting the conditions would be appropriate. Given the off-site evidence of paid editing overlapping with EllenZoe's edits, I don't know that I believe their disavowals, and offered this conditional unblock because it would allow them to continue editing while preventing them from editing anything that could be of interest to paid editing. I don't think we've seen enough work since the unblock to justify lifting the conditions, and frankly there's no shortage of content that they could edit within the parameters of their unblock condition. signed, Rosguilltalk17:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal seems to lack specific examples for helpful contributions that are currently prevented by the unblock conditions. It explicitly mentions paid editing as a possible task for the future, yet promises to "follow all the guidelines in doing so". As the COI guideline strongly discourages such editing, this promise seems to be contradictory. "I would reveal the COI and keep the page neutral" is a suboptimal approach to paid editing offers, as the existence of a COI impairs the neutral point of view. That's the main point of the COI guideline, and I'm afraid it has not been understood yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange case with an unclear connection to Moodle5774(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). I think it's a failed attempt to game the autoconfirmation system by making 10 pointless edits and forgetting about the account age requirement, resulting in Draft:Royal Marines Vanguard Strike Company being created in draftspace instead of mainspace. As Bunnyteam5989 has repeatedly ignored the concern voiced on their talk page, I have blocked Bunnyteam5989 for a week. Both accounts are now notified with {{uw-agf-sock}} as well. If the overlinking behavior continues after the block, please notify me directly on my talk page. This is, however, unlikely to happen. More likely is a page move or article submission. To allow AfC submission, I have added {{subst:AfC draft}} to the page.
I don't know of any other tools, but if nobody suggests an alternative, let me know and I can put together a replacement. -FASTILY01:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speeking in generalities—but something that might stop this happening again—it does seem rather odd that we are using tools maintained (theoretically) by "long banned"" users. ——Serial12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned about the user's behaviour in articles; over the last few weeks (and generally speaking) over their preferred topic area of British-related railway articles, they have been adding content that is either not sourced or sourced by blogs etc; which in some regard is reverted by others. User has been blocked once already for using multiple accounts, and their talk page is full of notices (albeit most deleted by said user and in the page history) about adding unsourced or poorly sourced content (and a few more). IMO a competency ban may be required; or if they are willing to improve, maybe a topic ban? Admins Sphillbrick and Redrose64 will be have been made aware of this as both are INVOLVED as had interactions with said user over the past few days. Nightfury09:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance they are related to this chap? I see similar usernames, fixation with Redrose64 (although they would be hard to avoid in this topic, so a pinch of salt required on that). ——Serial10:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth also noting that they were previously partially blocked from article space (in an attempt to get them to discuss others' concerns) but logged out to continue editing, including deprodding Meon Valley Passing loop (since deleted at AfD). Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to diagnose from my armchair, so to speak, but with the capitalisation and phrasing of the user name, the clear blinkered obsession with railway ephemera, the obsession with very niche and specific elements of railways, I wonder if we're dealing with someone who is on the autistic spectrum, and for whom such specific details about train classes, junctions, passing loops etc are all part of a logical extension to their hobby. It does look as though we don't have a troll, as such, just a very tunnel-vision editor who can't, or won't, fully co-operate with Wikipedia policies for reasons of personal ability rather than anything malicious. doktorbwordsdeeds10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I add talk pages of all users I block to my watchlist for at least a week, so I have indeed seen the message. I do not think it requires my reaction at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I share the concerns. My interaction has been admittedly limited. The editor made an edit appeared to be a copyright problem although it's possible it was copying within Wikipedia, which is permissible if properly attributed. However, the editor's interaction with me talk page discussion was barely comprehensible English. I explained the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia guideline as well as noting the exact wording they should use. The claim to have done it, but they did not, and asked again how to do it. They continue to edit without showing any sign of taking on the requirement.--S Philbrick(Talk)12:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an IP editor whose main focus seems to be obsessively making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, which has been an ongoing source of contention amongst some users who edit articles relating to British politics. Some of the user's edits in discussions, notably the one on the RS noticeboard, display a degree of unnecessary bad attitude. That discussion is a case in point. Their tone is quite snappy and curt, and was highlighted by another editor as "Trolling, abusive language."
I am assuming the multiple IP users are the same person, because they seem to edit similar articles and the IP address usually belongs to a Sky Broadband account in the North East of England or East London. The tone is usually similar, too. The editor recently left another snarky message at my Talk page.
I've raised their behaviour at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom page, with regard to the DOB issue. I don't agree with User:Bondegezou there, but at least their input has been somewhat polite; the latest comment by the IP editor seems to be challenging me as if trying to goad me into an argument. I am ignoring it. Their general attitude seems to be "I am right, you are wrong" ("trolling" perhaps being an accurate description).
If you see their edits to the article on Conservative MP Nigel Evans at the account below, they reverted two of my edits, simply writing that one was "not necessary" - when I added the Post-Nominals template to the intro of the article. They also reverted the edit in which I moved the arrest and trial of Evans to a new section, from his "Personal life" - I assume they objected to that, but in the process, also reverted a load of grammatical and formatting related edits I had made. I undid the reversions, noting "Only revert when necessary". That ended that dispute. See here.
The editor also reverted my edit to the article on Conservative MP Christian Wakeford - in this instance, I would assume they objected to me adding the DOB, although it was referenced (I've added a number of DOBs for MPs citing Politics.co.uk, which is presumably why they decided to raise the reliability of the source elsewhere: they are fiercely guarding the insertion of DOBs which don't meet their verifiability requirements, which I don't believe are as black-and-white as they insist). But again, the edit I made to this article also included a number of improvements to the formatting, grammar, structure of the text, so reverting it completely was unnecessary. I undid the reversion, and again that seemed to leave it. See here.
Their recent edit at the WikiProject page, however, highlighted to me an incident of vandalism. See this DIFF for Mike Hill, a former British Labour MP who has recently resigned, and will be facing legal proceedings, as the article notes: "He is due to face an employment tribunal later in the year relating to allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation."
This reversion appears to be replacing the word "politician" with "pervert" - it's tagged "reverted", but as well as a reversion, they also replaced that word. This vandalism was speedily reverted by a registered user. This kind of thing is clearly not on. Editors should not defame subjects or articles prior to legal proceedings - even if the accusations against Hill were upheld though, the language the IP editor used would be completely inappropriate.
Now, I know that interacting with other editors in a hostile manner may not be a serious violation of policies, but the IP user clearly has a pattern of being argumentative for the sake of it. They reverted my edits despite the edits in question including improvements so the articles conformed to the WP MOS.
I notice that one of their accounts has previously been blocked, although the decision was reversed.
I personally am inclined to agree with Alex, who suggested not removing the DOBs, but adding a "Better source needed or Citation needed template". In any case, the way the IP user has obsessively carried out the task of removing unsourced DOBs strikes me as overly fastidious; not only doing that, but then questioning the validity of the source. The user also seems somewhat partisan: protecting articles about Conservative MPs from being reorganised, and vandalising an article on a Labour MP. I think articles about currently serving politicians need a level of automatic protection, but that's another subject I guess.
There are some common features of the IP accounts - chiefly, that it's a Sky Broadband account, and often located in Washington, Sunderland, United Kingdom. Some of the accounts have been located in East London, but I am sure they all relate to the same person.
I would appreciate some assistance from Administrators with this user. Their behaviour isn't helpful to Wikipedia overall, I feel.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I was mentioned... If an editor is making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, they should be thanked for their work as per WP:BLP, rather than being sanctioned. A lot of the above appears to be a content dispute that has been discussed at length elsewhere. The Mike Hill edit is vandalism, but it's not clear to me that that is the work of the same editor. There are some further examples of impoliteness: I'm not an admin, but they don't look like severe cases to me. If I see more of the same, I'll try to encourage more constructive engagement. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, hastily removing all DOBs - assuming they come from a particular source - is unhelpful, and there seems to be a rather strict interpretation of the guidelines on BLP by many editors. From what I've seen, some editors are quite open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. In any case, the way the IP user has gone about it, and reverted other edits for little or no reason, is what concerns me. And IMO, they shouldn't be "thanked" for policing the publication of information which has been made available (albeit in a roundabout way) by the UK Parliament website. I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue, and responds to myself and others in a rude, abrupt tone, as if they are in a position of authority. If you don't think the Mike Hill edit is the same editor, I suspect you're being overly generous. It isn't "clear", but hiding behind an IP address means such users can evade footprints of their activities being readily obvious. No, these aren't severe cases, but it isn't helpful for them to focus on one small part of WP Policy and resort to ad hominem attacks on me or others, either when discussing RS, or when another editor has merely pointed out that they aren't signing their posts. It points to the wider issues with unregistered users making edits.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors are entitled to be open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. However until they change the policy at WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically prohibiting them, they don't have a leg to stand on. I've had plenty of experience with this IP editor. They initially starting out reverting any attempt to remove a dubious reference for the dates of birth of UK politicians. However when they realised that the reference was indeed dubious, and on multiple cases demonstrably incorrect, they stopped being disruptive and followed policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, from what I've read, the IP editor's stance was originally the opposite - but in both cases, it sounds like they've been over-zealous. Once they have a position, they seem to stick religiously to it. WP policy isn't law, or permanently set in stone - the spirit of the project should be evolving discussion as things change. So questioning a policy shouldn't be dismissed with "they don't have a leg to stand on". But again, my complaints about this IP editor are being answered by an editor who, like the IP editor, has a strong position on removing the DOBs. I recall FDW777 reverting my inclusion of a DOB from Companies House on an MP's article. Both this user and Bondegezou miss the point, which is A) the IP editor's way of going about it is heavy-handed and counter-productive; B) they are uncivil; and C) their activity is often disruptive. It's as if once they learn a policy, they are then determined to police it. Not the most worthwhile contribution, IMO.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please have a comment from an administrator on this issue? I notice that the IP editor who vandalised Mike Hill's article also added a Wikilink to John Prescott at 2021 Hartlepool by-election - it has since been removed, as it isn't the same John Prescott. I suspect this is another case of vandalism, rather than ignorance of the facts. The user appears to have been quiet lately, but they need keeping an eye out for.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the BLP violations: Special:Diff/1016125153 is very concerning; the identical IPv6 address and the timing of Special:Diff/1016123853 also make clear that yes, this was the same person. If that edit had happened within the last, say, 48 hours, I'd block them for a while to prevent further disruption. As no similar edits have reoccurred, blocking them now would be punitive.
Regarding strict, incivil application of the BLP policy: This may be one of the very few policies that, even if incivilly and insistently enforced, are extremely unlikely to cause the enforcing editor to be blocked from editing. It won't happen; you'll need to accept their harsh criticism and move on.
If there is new BLP vandalism from this IP address range, please notify me and I'll place a long block to prevent it from happening a third time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I assume you’re an administrator, since it isn’t explicitly stated on your user page. Yes, indeed, I understand that it’s too late to sanction the user for their vandalism, but if it happens in future, and I see it in time, I’ll let you know (and I hope others do too).
I accept that the IP editor wouldn’t be blocked for their insistent interpretation of the DOB policy and the way they apply it. What’s more concerning is that they’ve been abusive in their interactions with registered users, and reverted my edits for seemingly no good reason (one of them already had a DOB, so that can’t be why). The reversion edits by themselves aren’t a big deal, but taken with all their other behaviour, it adds up to a pattern of being disruptive. They resorted to personal attacks simply for being asked to sign their posts.—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the link showing the IP user’s continued contributions. Presumably there’s a way to keep track of the changing IP addresses. Most of their recent edits seem fine at a glance, although the DOB for Adam Afriyie seems to have been removed by them somewhat arbitrarily. They’ve also revealed their partisan bias in an edit summary. Editors have political views, of course, but I think taking potshots at political opponents in edit summaries is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Not sure it invalidates the edit, but still. Their recent edit on James Daly is also pure opinion, but thankfully it has been removed. The user’s behaviour makes me think that only registered users should be able to edit.—TrottieTrue (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrottieTrue, if you're looking at someone's user page or talk page and want to see if they're an administrator, click View user groups and that will tell you. I think there's a bit of script you can install to display admin's names in a distinctive way; you might ask at WP:VPT. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BlackcurrantTea Thanks, but it seems logical to me that admin staff should have their status as admin clearly displayed on their user page. it shouldn't be something that one has to look for.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP attacking subjects via vandalism is concerning. But I've been watching the BLP mess that seems to have happened with UK MPs for a while. Since it's been 3.5 months now and seems clear no one can find acceptable sourcing, I would suggest all editors interested in UK MP article just help the IP in their correct mission. That way it will be over and don't with an we won't have to worry about alleged incivility while they do it. It's unfortunate that this happened, but from my experience it's quite common since a lot of people seem to be unaware of our strict BLP DOB requirements and use poor sourcing, it's quite common for a DOB issue to come up at BLPN and to find out the sourcing is terrible. I don't know an easy way to fix this but probably more strict enforcement will help so the IP has a point no matter how poorly they may have made it. Frankly the WikiProject discussion linked above which seems to suggest we intentionally ignore BLP policy is far more concerning that any incivility from the IP IMO. (To be clear, I'm referring to incivility about enforcement of BLPs. The IP's attacking subjects via vandalism in is also very concerning.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Since it's been 3.5 months now and seems clear no one can find acceptable sourcing" - the only mainstream publication carrying DOBs for (most) MPs is The Times Guide to the House of Commons, which costs £60. I've asked for it at the Resource Request page, and at my local library. Politics.co.uk has many of the dates, but the IP editor has queried this as a source.
"I would suggest all editors interested in UK MP article just help the IP in their correct mission" - it's far from clear that this is a "correct mission", and, in any case, they're carrying out this mission very selectively. They only seem interested in the 2019 intake, or some from 2017. The vast majority of DOBs for serving UK MPs have been left alone. They don't have inline citations for the DOB, but if no-one is questioning the dates, it seems common sense to just leave them alone, rather than creating more work for other editors by insisting that hundreds of MPs need an inline citation for their DOB. Their IP editor's "mission" only really extends to a certain proportion of articles. I don't think it's a productive use of editors' time to "help" by removing every unreferenced DOB for UK MPs. And it's not as if the IP editor is only concerned with DOBs. Their general conduct is often uncivil. I personally don't think we need "strict enforcement" of this policy: if someone questions a DOB, fine. But many of these dates are just common knowledge. Wikipedia policies should be open to debate, rather than set in stone, so I don't see it as at all "concerning" that someone suggests we ignore BLP policy. The editor you refer to, I think, is just saying we should use common sense, and ignore all rules where necessary. The IP editor removed the DOB for Adam Afriyie, but I found it quite easily at Who's Who, available for free via my library. Alas, WW is missing many DOBs, but I think it would be more helpful if the IP editor was making some effort to find a RS for the DOBs they removed. They could also add a "citation needed" tag to the DOB. Instead, they nitpick about a source they don't like. Although at least Who's Who and The Times Guide to the HoC are deemed unquestionable.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through and registering opinions on low-trafficked AfDs and closing some of them for the next few hours; however given that I've participated in discussions about the mass-created cricketing stuff, I'm going to leave that for someone else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me and a couple of others have taken good slogs at the old AfDs list, and yes, they have a distinct NCRIC vs GNG flavour about them. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Ymblanter (More Power to him) recuses from Russian articles ([61][62]), so could an admin apply some semi please: disruptive editing is the nominal reason, more specifically the mass removal of sourced material and replacing it with non-attributed stuff lifted directly from the main Russia article. Cheers, ——Serial11:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, I've semi-protected it for a couple of days. I'd like to believe that IP editor is trying to edit constructively, but it's hard to take someone seriously when they type out an edit summary of "oops sorry tried to edit lead and somehow blanked entire page" and then hit 'publish'. GirthSummit (blether)11:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting of revision logs was unnecessary and suspicious
I made edits to an article in a way that I believe was very productive. I worked hard in giving relevant and sorely needed context for that article. The info was needed. But I received a complaint that I violated copyright rules excessively. Hence I was going to revise the wording in case I did break copyright rules to some degree. But I noticed that the editor had also even deleted all of my revisions from the log. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Sherman_incident&direction=prev&oldid=1018006047
My issue is that it's unnecessary to even go delete the revision logs and the information completely. Could have just revised it herself. But it seems the editor really doesn't want me to repeat certain information that shows that western Imperialism in the 19th century was one of the reasons why the Koreans were reasonably wary of America in that early era. I think deleting of the revision logs, shouldn't be abused..the information I added was indeed sorely needed and for argument sakee, even if I did break copyright rules. I am not going to go continue to break it but will revise to ensure the information is still there but acceptable. I am concerned the info was entirely deleted not primarily because of copyright but because it shows America was no Saint in the 19th century and some editors will go to extremes to make sure such info cannot be found on Wikipedia.Casualfoodie (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
even if I did break copyright rules... this is the sole reason why those revisions were hidden. Not because any editor has an agenda or wants to restrict information. I'm not even sure any of us who frequently do copyright cleanup really care about any topic too strongly to POV edit at the same time we remove copyvio. The deletion isn't abuse; the admins who normally do copyright revision deletions (including Diannaa!) are extremely cautious and only revdelete what is absolutely necessary. It's well within what an admin should do in this kind of situation actually. As for revising it ourselves... it's not the job of other editors to rewrite your copyvio, it's your job to never include it in the first place. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies..Regardless if I "arguably" broken copyright rules to the degree that Dianna has claimed..the information was still sorely needed to give context and she could have given me the option or heads up of 1 day duration to go fix it before deleting the whole thing. Maybe you administrators should rethink and adopt smarter rules. I understand you don't wish to rewrite our edits. But please keep in mind that editors like us, put in our own time and efforts to go research and input the information. It's not pleasant for us either to realise we have to start over. Also I would figure nobody will seriously go claim copyright violation if the current article does not even have the copyrighted material at all. An edit revertion seems all that was needed. Not an edit revertion and an additional "hiding" the revision in logs. I guess it's hard for me to comprehend the logic of such rules but I will however accept it and take note of it. Thanks again. Casualfoodie (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you violated copyright then it had to be removed for legal reasons. The idea of leaving it for 24 hours because a claim is unlikely is pretty naive. You're basically suggesting that it would have been acceptable to break the law 'just for a little while'. nagualdesign05:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casualfoodie The content was hidden immediately because it violated copyright - that is standard practice, it is what our policy calls for. The copyvio cleanup team has far too much work to do, and not enough people to do it. The idea that, when they discover a violation, they should give the author a bit of time to fix it rather than removing it on sight, is a non-starter - you'd double their workload by making them come back the next day to re-review. Copyright violations are always dealt with like this: your solution is to avoid breaching the policy in the first place.
In other words: you messed up, and Diannaa cleared up your mess - you should be apologising to her, and thanking her. Instead, you have come here to complain that she has some sort of sinister ulterior motive? That is perilously close to a personal attack, which you should retract immediately. GirthSummit (blether)06:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of those rules and obviously would not have raised the issue like this if I genuinely thought that such a rule existed. It seems completely arbitrary to me to not only revert the edit but hide the edits from the log history. So it's harder for me to fix the errors.Summarising articles isn't outright copyright but I suppose that I should have been even more careful to make sure that not even a single phrases is too similar..But I will take your word that such a rule does exist and this was just a complete misunderstanding on my part and hence, I do apologize to Diannaa and acknowledge that it was my bad. Casualfoodie (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits get hidden from the log history because if it's deemed to be a copyright violation, it's probably breaking copyright law and is hidden for legal reasons. Hog FarmTalk06:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will read up on the wiki rules tonight and try not to misinterpret it again and make the same error. Again I sincerely apologize and acknowledge that it was my wrong to not be aware of such protocols. it's not exactly an overly obvious rule to hide edits in log history. You have so many rules and I am still learning the ropes but I apologize to Diannaa and the admimstrators board for not knowing this before. 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualfoodie (talk • contribs)
Don't worry too much about breaking a rule you're unfamiliar with - everyone makes mistakes, and there are a lot of rules. What's important is that you listen when someone tells you that there's a problem with what you're doing, and that you don't assume they're trying to stop you for nefarious purposes. GirthSummit (blether)07:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
let's just side with whoever has more social capital Levivich harass/hound 14:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
Note: Carlossuarez67 seems to give permission to delete qualifying articles per WP:CSD#G7 
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § (Un)paid votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rt Rana
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A little while ago, by way of WP:RFPP. El_C 15:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Done for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
._%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%96%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%B0_(%D0%A1%D1%8F%D0%BC%D1%91%D0%BD_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0)_(1709).jpg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACorfu_Mon_Repos_R01.jpg&type=revision&diff=551538936&oldid=551535769){kind=link}
![[42]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AG_House_from_the_South_Lawn_on_an_Autumn_Afternoon.jpg&type=revision&diff=551539038&oldid=551535104){kind=link}
