Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 87: Line 87:
*'''Keep''' [[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) {{color|grey|(including about [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Pietad%C3%A8 130 “politically motivated” articles] on Ukrainian settlements, linked to these timelines[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC))}}
*'''Keep''' [[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) {{color|grey|(including about [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Pietad%C3%A8 130 “politically motivated” articles] on Ukrainian settlements, linked to these timelines[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC))}}
::My account in Wikipedia dates back to 2011, have created 3K+ articles since (mainly «outside this topic»);<br />this is a war, and has casualties, since [[Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)|GRU]]/[[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] sources are not available, one has to stick to the sources available,...[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
::My account in Wikipedia dates back to 2011, have created 3K+ articles since (mainly «outside this topic»);<br />this is a war, and has casualties, since [[Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)|GRU]]/[[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] sources are not available, one has to stick to the sources available,...[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::::I have removed an erroneous assertion. I put it to you that if an editor makes such an accusation without so much as looking at the earliest edits of the person they accuse, then action should be taken against them. I have listed Pietade's early edit history with hidden text (Edit to view). My apologies to Pietade if he was the one who added that tag, although I cannot imagine why he would have. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
<!-- 05:23, 9 January 2013 diff hist +18‎ m Doc Martin ‎ iwi et
⚫
:::The problem is precisely that the sources are so bad that, if kept, almost all content will need to be removed. It is also accurate to note that almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::::Do remember the times where one side counted every single bullet/shell/rocket for a single violation, and, the numbers, violations per day (minute/second) in total were, "vast"...<br />I haven't referenced the sources like the one below (by the way, both parties present weekly updates; perhaps, later, these articles can be reduced to some kind of 52 weekly "compounds" for 2014-2019; right now no one knows what shall the next day bring along (some call it history)):<br />[http://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2019/12/16/weekly-update-on-the-situation-in-the-operation-area-of-the-jfo-from-09-to-15-december-2019/ 3. As the result of the Russian armed aggression, 7 servicemen from the JFO were WIA. They were all transferred to the military medical facilities.<br />4. We want to inform with grief that over the past week, 1 serviceman was KIA.<br />Ministry of Defense expresses sincerest condolences to the families and loved ones of the deceased defender!]<br />And, have to add, that my humble 3,000+ articles and 50,000+ edits in Wikipedia are not entirely circling 'round this war, ''au contraire''... ;-)[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::And yet, the sources are literally unusable, and almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::::::[https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine] counts explosions (they hear) and reports them, with delay;<br />[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/et.wikipedia.org/Pietad%C3%A8 my contributions started in etwi] and are not narrowed down to a single war; just as I can read and understand both Russian and Ukrainian, thought to make use of it.[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Delete all''' per nominator, per [[WP:NOTPROPAGANDA]], per [[WP:NOTNEWS]], and yes, per [[WP:TNT]]. It is absolutely not humanly possible to "clean up" this huge mess. Totally unsalvageable. [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 18:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Delete all''' per nominator. These articles go beyond unencyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not Sputnik. [[User:WMSR|WMSR]] ([[User talk:WMSR|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Keep''' all. Yes, they include too many details, but the content is <s>well</s> sourced, and this is a legitimate content for lists, based on policy. <s>As about the "WP:Kremlin", I am not sure what exactly nominator implies. Edit history of these pages, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_(June_2019)&action=history here], does not show anything special. I think it is precisely the opposite: [[Putin|Kremlin]] would like these pages to be deleted. The less people know about Russian aggression on Ukraine, the better. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)</s>
⚫
::{{u|My very best wishes}}, no it is not "well-sourced". Did you not read the nomination? While they have superficial referenciness, the references are completely spurious. One of the most cited sources, for example, is "News Front", a [https://euvsdisinfo.eu/no-news-on-the-news-front/ Kremlin-backed fake news website] promoting the fiction that the Donbass invasion is a people's rebellion. Of the 650 sources in the headline article, 550 are fake news or disinformation websites, and the balance are as yet unvalidated. I have never seen an article in my entire time on Wikipedia that used so many references to covert propaganda sites. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 10:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::Yeh, I did not check them carefully. Who created this content? It is probably worth investigation. With such sourcing, this indeed can hardly be saved, as some contributors tell. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::: {{u|My very best wishes}}, I think it was good faith - the sites are carefully designed to look legitimate. There's one [[WP:SPA]] but {{u|DagosNavy}} looks like a diligent editor who was misled in a way that was deliberately intended by the sites. Honestly it's a surprise we don't have more trouble with this, you have to put quite a bit of effort in to find out that these are bogus. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::OK, I looked even more carefully. Yes, I agree it was good faith (and significant!) work, which makes me hesitant to vote "delete" when the content I think is fixable. I agree that a part of the sourcing is poor (probably ~30% of refs by my account on a couple of these pages I checked), and some statements do not properly reflect what sources say. However, knowing this subject a little, I think these pages are not disinformation, but rather insufficently reliable information, just as on many other WP pages. On a balance, I am inclined to keep. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::: {{u|My very best wishes}}, it's not fixable, these are day by day, almost hour by hour "news" reports based on hundreds of sources, the vast majority of which are fake. I tried to fix it, it was not achievable. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 01:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Delete''' series as unencyclopedic. The articles are in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources/secondary sources and on what Wikipedia is not (not a diary, not a newspaper, not an indiscriminate collection of information). Most of the sources (and all of the pro-Russian sources) appear to fall into the category of original research, i.e., repeating content of announcements by the military and self-proclaimed local officials/authorities, sometimes up to four times because ''pro-Russian '''officials''' recorded'', ''local officials confirmed'', and ''pro-Russian '''authorities''' recorded''. It's the same pattern day after day, year after year. Here's an example, chosen at random ([[Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2019–present)]], 1 November):
⚫
::Pro-Russian officials at Donetsk city recorded 16 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire in 14 locations using [[small arms]], [[AK-74|small arms]], [[DShK|heavy machine guns]], [[AGS-17|automatic grenade launchers]], [[SPG-9|73&nbsp;mm anti-tank recoilless rifles]], 82&nbsp;mm [[Mortar (weapon)|mortar]]s, [[9M113 Konkurs|anti-tank guided missiles]], [[BTR-80|armoured personnel carriers]] and [[BMP-1|armoured fighting vehicles]]. ''(Source: [https://dnronline.su/2019/11/01/v-zone-obstrela-vfu-okazalis-gorlovka-dolomitnoe-zajtsevo-vasilevka-krutaya-balka-yasinovataya-donetsk-spartak-lozovoe-belaya-kamenka-leninskoe-vasilevka-zaichenko-predstavitelstvo-dnr-v-stskk/ dnronline.su], i.e., the "official site" of the Donetsk People's Republic.)''
⚫
::In the same briefing, the authorities reported that Ukrainian forces opened fire on their positions 127 times over the past week using '''one anti-tank guided missile, a single tank round, 120 shells from 82 mm and 120 mm mortars and other 362 explosive rounds'''. The Ukrainian military attacked 32 settlements, where 17 civilian buildings and facilities were damaged. Two pro-Russian soldiers were killed in action and two civilians wounded on the same period. ''(Source: [https://dan-news.info/defence/armiya-kieva-za-nedelyu-127-raz-narushila-rezhim-prekrashheniya-ognya-pogibli-i-raneny-tri-cheloveka-unm.html dan-news.info], i.e., Donetsk News Agency)''
⚫
::'''Local officials confirmed''' that Ukrainian forces broke the ceasefire three times within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic. The Ukrainian military employed '''heavy machine guns, 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles, 82 mm mortars, 120 mm mortars and BMP-1 armoured vehicles''' to engage pro-Russian forces at Sentianivka and Lohvynove. ''(Source: [https://mil-lnr.info/press-sluzhba/svodka/4724-operativnaya-svodka-za-sutki-s-31-oktyabrya-na-1-noyabrya.html mil-lnr.info], i.e., Military Police of the [[Luhansk People's Republic]])''
⚫
::A number of Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire were recorded by pro-Russian authorities at Donetsk city. Ukrainian forces fired upon Staromykhailivka, Mineralne, Spartak and Trudivske, around Donetsk city, Mykhailivka, Dolomitne, Gagarin, and 6/7 mining complexes, in the area of Horlivka, and, in the region of Mariupol, Novolaspa, Pikuzy, Zaichenko and Uzhivka. Most incidents involved the use of '''infantry weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles. Spartak was hit by a 120 mm mortar barrage, while Mykhailivka and 6/7 mining complex were shelled with 82 mm mortars'''. ''(Source: https://t.me/s/online_dnr_sckk/5542, i.e., the [[Donetsk People's Republic]] (Donezkaja narodnaja respublika))''

⚫
:Those are four variations of the same info from the Russian-supported side, each from one source (none of them a reliable secondary source), driving home a point which appears to be "BUT they attacked us, we're the victims." On the same day, the Ukrainian state news agency reported that their forces returned fire. Their forces were monitored by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) which probably keeps the news agency from straying from the truth. Their report also contains military hardware detail but we don't get three versions of it. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 10:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 10:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::The ceasefire violation reports from both sides came from the "Joint Center on Control and Coordination" (сцкк) established in 2014 to control the demarcation line. Even if the withdrawal of Russian officials by the end of 2017 made the term "Joint" somewhat farcical, they were established by the Minsk agreements and still work close to the OSCE mission. So, although nominally, both the Ukrainian military and the rebel forces attribute their press releases to a "third part". In that sense, both sides can be considered "secondary sources", at least technically.
⚫
::I was forced to introduce pro-Russian sources in the articles when some users expressed their concern on the alleged "Ukrainian PoV" of the timeline(s). My insistence in highlighting the proper attribution ("pro-Russian officials", "Local authorities") is what [[WP:PARTISAN]] demands in order to allow the use of biased sources in the proper context.--[[User:DagosNavy|Darius]] ([[User talk:DagosNavy|talk]]) 02:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
⚫
*'''Speedy close''' Malformed nomination. "This series of articles", "these articles": not one of the voters mentions the fact that [[Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine]] is a completely different type of article from the others; I wouldn't exactly say they had good reason, but inasmuch as it is hidden by being part of a giant list, they had cause to overlook it. There is one good rationale to not include it as the titular example for the nomination, which is also a good reason to not include it at all and make a separate nomination: that it bears little resemblance to the others, in coverage or in quality. This is a COATRACK of an AfD. It is always a risk to nominate a large group of articles, so I am sure administrators are ready and capable to work with the nominator to separate the list from its outlier, or let the nomination stand or fall as a whole, whatever the standard practice is. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
**I knew I had forgotten something. Another reason the AfD is improperly formed is that the AfD tag was not added to [[Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine]] and who knows how many other of the articles. That article, as it is superior to the others in the performance of its purview, may have attracted Keep votes and rationales that are now denied consideration. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
** Also, heheh, contrary to nominator's assertion: [[War in Donbass]] is a valid article topic and Category title while [[Russian invasion of Donbass]] is no such thing. Yeh, it's like that. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::: "Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" wasn't part of the nomination. I added it yesterday because it seemed to fit the pattern, and I have removed it now. Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted. I had no intention of "hiding it" right at the top, and I didn't know that it was improperly formed. Keep up the good work, lose the attitude. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::Upon reflection, my earlier answer seems quite irrelevant, given the gravity of your misconduct. It is quite clearly not your AfD nomination to alter. It would behoove you to not only acknowledge that you have erred, but to demonstrate that you comprehend the nature of your error. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::::Quite sure I don't know what you could possibly mean about attitude that would make any sense for an editor assuming good faith to say. No need to explain, though, I am really not interested, just work harder on learning from your mistakes. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::Another editor who was not the nominator [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTimeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_%28January%E2%80%93March_2016%29&type=revision&diff=931008964&oldid=931007423 added a Ballot tag], which was not necessary and poisons the well. Another editor who was not the nominator [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_(January%E2%80%93March_2016)&diff=next&oldid=930992292 added an article to the nomination]. They gave no notice to that effect. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTimeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_%28January%E2%80%93March_2016%29&type=revision&diff=931153980&oldid=931122485 deleted same article from the nomination] as though it were itself a tag they can just slap on and take off again, let alone an open forum where anyone can change what everyone is voting on halfway through. Or is SpaceTime a sockpuppet of JzG? SpaceTime's comment, "Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted." is revealing. It is the opposite of a justification. Anyone who has voted would be understandably upset if someone changes their vote by changing what they were voting on. Likewise, I shall be very sad indeed if changing the target of a discussion after people have made up their mind is now considered standard practice. I have changed my vote to STRONG SPEEDY CLOSE.
:::::The nominator tells us the opposite of the truth about the title of the article. The nominator has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTimeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_%28January%E2%80%93March_2016%29&type=revision&diff=930923300&oldid=930922529 accused an editor of being SPA] without even checking their edits. A brief list of Pietade's early edits follows, in hidden text (Edit to view): <!-- 05:23, 9 January 2013 diff hist +18‎ m Doc Martin ‎ iwi et
20:58, 5 January 2013 diff hist +1‎ m Bloemenwerf ‎
20:58, 5 January 2013 diff hist +1‎ m Bloemenwerf ‎
07:41, 23 December 2012 diff hist 0‎ m Ooidonk Castle ‎ typo
07:41, 23 December 2012 diff hist 0‎ m Ooidonk Castle ‎ typo
Line 131: Line 161:
13:22, 9 January 2012 diff hist 0‎ Kunsthalle Hamburg ‎
13:22, 9 January 2012 diff hist 0‎ Kunsthalle Hamburg ‎
21:27, 1 January 2012 diff hist 0‎ m List of paintings by Caravaggio ‎
21:27, 1 January 2012 diff hist 0‎ m List of paintings by Caravaggio ‎
09:04, 28 December 2011 diff hist -1‎ m Hugo of Moncada ‎ -->
09:04, 28 December 2011 diff hist -1‎ m Hugo of Moncada ‎ --> [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::::I have removed an erroneous assertion. I put it to you that if an editor makes such an accusation without so much as looking at the earliest edits of the person they accuse, then action should be taken against them. I have listed Pietade's early edit history with hidden text (Edit to view). My apologies to Pietade if he was the one who added that tag, although I cannot imagine why he would have. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::The problem is precisely that the sources are so bad that, if kept, almost all content will need to be removed. It is also accurate to note that almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::::Do remember the times where one side counted every single bullet/shell/rocket for a single violation, and, the numbers, violations per day (minute/second) in total were, "vast"...<br />I haven't referenced the sources like the one below (by the way, both parties present weekly updates; perhaps, later, these articles can be reduced to some kind of 52 weekly "compounds" for 2014-2019; right now no one knows what shall the next day bring along (some call it history)):<br />[http://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2019/12/16/weekly-update-on-the-situation-in-the-operation-area-of-the-jfo-from-09-to-15-december-2019/ 3. As the result of the Russian armed aggression, 7 servicemen from the JFO were WIA. They were all transferred to the military medical facilities.<br />4. We want to inform with grief that over the past week, 1 serviceman was KIA.<br />Ministry of Defense expresses sincerest condolences to the families and loved ones of the deceased defender!]<br />And, have to add, that my humble 3,000+ articles and 50,000+ edits in Wikipedia are not entirely circling 'round this war, ''au contraire''... ;-)[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::And yet, the sources are literally unusable, and almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::::::[https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine] counts explosions (they hear) and reports them, with delay;<br />[https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/et.wikipedia.org/Pietad%C3%A8 my contributions started in etwi] and are not narrowed down to a single war; just as I can read and understand both Russian and Ukrainian, thought to make use of it.[[User:Pietadè|—Pietadè]] ([[User talk:Pietadè|talk]]) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Delete all''' per nominator, per [[WP:NOTPROPAGANDA]], per [[WP:NOTNEWS]], and yes, per [[WP:TNT]]. It is absolutely not humanly possible to "clean up" this huge mess. Totally unsalvageable. [[User:Crossroads|'''''-Crossroads-''''']] ([[User talk:Crossroads|talk]]) 18:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Delete all''' per nominator. These articles go beyond unencyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not Sputnik. [[User:WMSR|WMSR]] ([[User talk:WMSR|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Keep''' all. Yes, they include too many details, but the content is <s>well</s> sourced, and this is a legitimate content for lists, based on policy. <s>As about the "WP:Kremlin", I am not sure what exactly nominator implies. Edit history of these pages, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_(June_2019)&action=history here], does not show anything special. I think it is precisely the opposite: [[Putin|Kremlin]] would like these pages to be deleted. The less people know about Russian aggression on Ukraine, the better. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)</s>
⚫
::{{u|My very best wishes}}, no it is not "well-sourced". Did you not read the nomination? While they have superficial referenciness, the references are completely spurious. One of the most cited sources, for example, is "News Front", a [https://euvsdisinfo.eu/no-news-on-the-news-front/ Kremlin-backed fake news website] promoting the fiction that the Donbass invasion is a people's rebellion. Of the 650 sources in the headline article, 550 are fake news or disinformation websites, and the balance are as yet unvalidated. I have never seen an article in my entire time on Wikipedia that used so many references to covert propaganda sites. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 10:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::Yeh, I did not check them carefully. Who created this content? It is probably worth investigation. With such sourcing, this indeed can hardly be saved, as some contributors tell. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::: {{u|My very best wishes}}, I think it was good faith - the sites are carefully designed to look legitimate. There's one [[WP:SPA]] but {{u|DagosNavy}} looks like a diligent editor who was misled in a way that was deliberately intended by the sites. Honestly it's a surprise we don't have more trouble with this, you have to put quite a bit of effort in to find out that these are bogus. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::OK, I looked even more carefully. Yes, I agree it was good faith (and significant!) work, which makes me hesitant to vote "delete" when the content I think is fixable. I agree that a part of the sourcing is poor (probably ~30% of refs by my account on a couple of these pages I checked), and some statements do not properly reflect what sources say. However, knowing this subject a little, I think these pages are not disinformation, but rather insufficently reliable information, just as on many other WP pages. On a balance, I am inclined to keep. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
:::::: {{u|My very best wishes}}, it's not fixable, these are day by day, almost hour by hour "news" reports based on hundreds of sources, the vast majority of which are fake. I tried to fix it, it was not achievable. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 01:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
*'''Delete''' series as unencyclopedic. The articles are in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources/secondary sources and on what Wikipedia is not (not a diary, not a newspaper, not an indiscriminate collection of information). Most of the sources (and all of the pro-Russian sources) appear to fall into the category of original research, i.e., repeating content of announcements by the military and self-proclaimed local officials/authorities, sometimes up to four times because ''pro-Russian '''officials''' recorded'', ''local officials confirmed'', and ''pro-Russian '''authorities''' recorded''. It's the same pattern day after day, year after year. Here's an example, chosen at random ([[Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2019–present)]], 1 November):
⚫
::Pro-Russian officials at Donetsk city recorded 16 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire in 14 locations using [[small arms]], [[AK-74|small arms]], [[DShK|heavy machine guns]], [[AGS-17|automatic grenade launchers]], [[SPG-9|73&nbsp;mm anti-tank recoilless rifles]], 82&nbsp;mm [[Mortar (weapon)|mortar]]s, [[9M113 Konkurs|anti-tank guided missiles]], [[BTR-80|armoured personnel carriers]] and [[BMP-1|armoured fighting vehicles]]. ''(Source: [https://dnronline.su/2019/11/01/v-zone-obstrela-vfu-okazalis-gorlovka-dolomitnoe-zajtsevo-vasilevka-krutaya-balka-yasinovataya-donetsk-spartak-lozovoe-belaya-kamenka-leninskoe-vasilevka-zaichenko-predstavitelstvo-dnr-v-stskk/ dnronline.su], i.e., the "official site" of the Donetsk People's Republic.)''
⚫
::In the same briefing, the authorities reported that Ukrainian forces opened fire on their positions 127 times over the past week using '''one anti-tank guided missile, a single tank round, 120 shells from 82 mm and 120 mm mortars and other 362 explosive rounds'''. The Ukrainian military attacked 32 settlements, where 17 civilian buildings and facilities were damaged. Two pro-Russian soldiers were killed in action and two civilians wounded on the same period. ''(Source: [https://dan-news.info/defence/armiya-kieva-za-nedelyu-127-raz-narushila-rezhim-prekrashheniya-ognya-pogibli-i-raneny-tri-cheloveka-unm.html dan-news.info], i.e., Donetsk News Agency)''
⚫
::'''Local officials confirmed''' that Ukrainian forces broke the ceasefire three times within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic. The Ukrainian military employed '''heavy machine guns, 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles, 82 mm mortars, 120 mm mortars and BMP-1 armoured vehicles''' to engage pro-Russian forces at Sentianivka and Lohvynove. ''(Source: [https://mil-lnr.info/press-sluzhba/svodka/4724-operativnaya-svodka-za-sutki-s-31-oktyabrya-na-1-noyabrya.html mil-lnr.info], i.e., Military Police of the [[Luhansk People's Republic]])''
⚫
::A number of Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire were recorded by pro-Russian authorities at Donetsk city. Ukrainian forces fired upon Staromykhailivka, Mineralne, Spartak and Trudivske, around Donetsk city, Mykhailivka, Dolomitne, Gagarin, and 6/7 mining complexes, in the area of Horlivka, and, in the region of Mariupol, Novolaspa, Pikuzy, Zaichenko and Uzhivka. Most incidents involved the use of '''infantry weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles. Spartak was hit by a 120 mm mortar barrage, while Mykhailivka and 6/7 mining complex were shelled with 82 mm mortars'''. ''(Source: https://t.me/s/online_dnr_sckk/5542, i.e., the [[Donetsk People's Republic]] (Donezkaja narodnaja respublika))''

⚫
:Those are four variations of the same info from the Russian-supported side, each from one source (none of them a reliable secondary source), driving home a point which appears to be "BUT they attacked us, we're the victims." On the same day, the Ukrainian state news agency reported that their forces returned fire. Their forces were monitored by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) which probably keeps the news agency from straying from the truth. Their report also contains military hardware detail but we don't get three versions of it. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 10:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC) [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 10:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::The ceasefire violation reports from both sides came from the "Joint Center on Control and Coordination" (сцкк) established in 2014 to control the demarcation line. Even if the withdrawal of Russian officials by the end of 2017 made the term "Joint" somewhat farcical, they were established by the Minsk agreements and still work close to the OSCE mission. So, although nominally, both the Ukrainian military and the rebel forces attribute their press releases to a "third part". In that sense, both sides can be considered "secondary sources", at least technically.
⚫
::I was forced to introduce pro-Russian sources in the articles when some users expressed their concern on the alleged "Ukrainian PoV" of the timeline(s). My insistence in highlighting the proper attribution ("pro-Russian officials", "Local authorities") is what [[WP:PARTISAN]] demands in order to allow the use of biased sources in the proper context.--[[User:DagosNavy|Darius]] ([[User talk:DagosNavy|talk]]) 02:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
⚫
*'''Speedy close''' Malformed nomination. "This series of articles", "these articles": not one of the voters mentions the fact that [[Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine]] is a completely different type of article from the others; I wouldn't exactly say they had good reason, but inasmuch as it is hidden by being part of a giant list, they had cause to overlook it. There is one good rationale to not include it as the titular example for the nomination, which is also a good reason to not include it at all and make a separate nomination: that it bears little resemblance to the others, in coverage or in quality. This is a COATRACK of an AfD. It is always a risk to nominate a large group of articles, so I am sure administrators are ready and capable to work with the nominator to separate the list from its outlier, or let the nomination stand or fall as a whole, whatever the standard practice is. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
**I knew I had forgotten something. Another reason the AfD is improperly formed is that the AfD tag was not added to [[Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine]] and who knows how many other of the articles. That article, as it is superior to the others in the performance of its purview, may have attracted Keep votes and rationales that are now denied consideration. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
** Also, heheh, contrary to nominator's assertion: [[War in Donbass]] is a valid article topic and Category title while [[Russian invasion of Donbass]] is no such thing. Yeh, it's like that. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::: "Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" wasn't part of the nomination. I added it yesterday because it seemed to fit the pattern, and I have removed it now. Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted. I had no intention of "hiding it" right at the top, and I didn't know that it was improperly formed. Keep up the good work, lose the attitude. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫
::::Quite sure I don't know what you could possibly mean about attitude that would make any sense for an editor assuming good faith to say. No need to explain, though, I am really not interested, just work harder on learning from your mistakes. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:24, 18 December 2019

Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

Also:

This series of articles is unsalvageable. Start with the titles: it's not the "war in Donbass",. it's the Russian invasion of Donbass. The articles contain hundreds of references, almost all of which are to Russian-operated disinformation websites (e.g. news-front.info, topwar.ru, 112 (.ua/.international). It is effectively impossible to fix this as the sheer number of sources makes it virtually impossible to clean them up: I spent over an hour trying to remove the crap sources from one of these and only got about 15% of the way through before losing the will to live - I did not even save it because it left so much unsourced. Few statements have more than one source, most of the sources are garbage, and the garbage sources are often cited multiple times. If we do decide to have a timeline article on the Donbass invasion, this would not be it. It would not even be a valid starting point. WP:TNT, WP:COATRACK and it seems quite likely also WP:KREMLIN.

The articles I call out are the worst offenders, but all this timeline series are plagued by similar issues of terrible sourcing, excessive detail, news-like coverage and the rest. Guy (help!) 22:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – This series of articles is a total disaster. Even putting aside the source issue, they are filled with direct extracts of daily news reports (see WP:NOTNEWS), with no obvious encyclopaedic value. No attempt is made to provide a narrative of any kind, nor is there any indication of significance or context for the 'information' displayed. The actual sources themselves are horrible...we're basically presented with a mess of unreliable Russian propaganda and unreliable Ukrainian propaganda, none of which is picked up by reputable western outlets. Destroy this mess...it is unsalvageable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy, RGloucester and WP:TNT. Miniapolis 02:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that these are stand-alone lists, not conventonal articles; thus "a narrative of any kind" is not neccessary, according to MOS:LIST.
  • I had been editing WP since 2006 and I 've never heard of that "reputable western outlets" are mandotary when you write something about an eastern Europe topic. WP:PARTISAN doesn´t prevent the use of biased sources: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Counterbalance is the best way to achieve neutrality in this case. Note also that editors of the timelines use to present only the bare facts (number of ceasefire violations, weaponry, casualties, etc.), and try to ignore blatant propaganda (blame games, especulation about future bad-faith moves of the other side).
  • Even if you regard these lists as a "mess", this is not a reason to have the bulk of information deleted; no matter how hard the work, WP:PRESERVE establishes that valuable content should be retained : Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. One solution I could embrace (as one of the main editors of these chronologies) is a weekly timeline with the basic facts in a table format, as proposed some month ago by users @Onetwothreeip: and @Reidgreg: at this debate. We could set a reasonable deadline (possible months) to perform the changes. --Darius (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the nomination. These timelines can't be cleaned up, because virtually all the content is drawn from propaganda sites. Even if the level of detail were appropriate (spoiler: it's not), the articles need to be completely restarted to comply with our policies around neutrality and sourcing. The first article listed has around 650 references of which 550 are definitely unacceptable, and the rest I haven't yet checked. That's not fixable by cleanup. Sources don't have to be Western to be reputable, but they do have to be, well, reputable. "News-front", for example, is a Russian sponsored fake news and disinformation site. That's nothing to do with whether it's Western or not, it's to do with the fact that the invading country has created it and funds it as part of their information warfare. State-controlled media outlets like RT are similarly not considered reliable. Guy (help!) 16:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the nomination is based upon mere essays, not established WP policies or guidelines. Obviously you didn't read WP:PARTISAN, nor the explanations I made about it. Even propaganda sites are suitable if proper attribution is provided and it is counterbalanced with opposite propaganda. There is nothing in WP that prevents us from using sources other than "western outlets", I repeat, and some info from the websites you mention as "unreliable" is replicated by western media. These lists could be a "mess" in the view of some users, but since there is a counterbalance, WP:NOP is not an issue. And if the chronologies are to be deleted (spoiler ahead) the editors will restore a wikified version of them, with the proper clean up, trimming and table format.--Darius (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a balance between propaganda views is exactly what WP:NPOV is not. That's called WP:FALSEBALANCE. The fact you don't understand this is very worrying. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's you that got it wrong, WP:FALSEBALANCE deals with science, when somebody wants to give the same weight to fringe theories and mainstream science. In any case you can propose (or outright perform per WP:BOLD) the deletion of all pro-Russian sources and left the Ukrainian ones, since the Ukrainian press are less suspected of "propaganda". But there is some hurry to get these timelines erased...--Darius (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DagosNavy, no, it also deals with news, especially in politics. If I show you ten mainstream articles identifying that Donald Trump lied about a thing - say Sharpiegate - and ten conservative sources that swear blind he did not, we'd go with the mainstream sources. The truth is not halfway between facts and propaganda, or at any point between competing forms of propaganda. Guy (help!) 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JzG Remember that the treshold for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth, that is why partisan sources (marginal or mainstream) are allowed, with the proper attribution and in a certain context.--Darius (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DagosNavy, verifiability requires a reliable source. These sources are fake. Guy (help!) 22:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't apply when the sources are not merely partisan, but literally fake news propaganda sites. I appreciate you've worked on these, but the articles are literally catalogues of propaganda that we literally can't trust - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DagosNavy, no, the nomination is based on the fact that these articles have hundreds of sources, most of which are unusable fake news and propaganda sites. An article which is a collection of propaganda from fake "news" websites is a clear problem per WP:NPOV and WP:V/WP:RS. Guy (help!) 18:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weird...but if you read it carefully, most of the time the "fake news" coincided on both sides, may be they agree at least on that...--Darius (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DagosNavy, We do not decide what is true by comparing the propaganda of both sides. We use reliable independent sources. These articles cite few to none of those. Entire articles drawn from hundreds of propaganda links are a pressing problem. I do understand that yuo've put a lot of work into this, it's a pity nobody noticed earlier because if the sourcing problems had been corrceted at the outset there may be less of an issue, but this stuff really can't stay. I don't mind userfying them for you and helping you to identify the unusable sources (WP:RSN is a good place to ask). Guy (help!) 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JzG Don't worry, I can use my work elsewhere, or rewrite a summary version of the chronologies (with third-party citations) here in WP even if these timelines are eventually deleted. I still think that in the context of WP:PARTISAN, pro-Russian military daily reports are quite reliable, as long as they only involve claims about themselves.--Darius (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DagosNavy, you might be able to make that argument fly for TASS but not something like News Front, see [1]. That is a fake news website in the classical definition. Guy (help!) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Guy, the fact that the issue of fake news was not raised until recent times made us somewhat careless in our choice of sources...TASS or RIA Novosti would be entirely another matter, IMHO.--Darius (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia were replaced by Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today) in 2013 and are now broadcasting as Sputnik News. Sputnik and TASS are both rated as questionable sources because of extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or ... fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not clean-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pigsonthewing, very much the point of the deletion rationale. These articles are sourced from fake news and propaganda, and cannot be cleaned up because of 650 sources in one article, 550 are definite disinformation and the others have not yet been fully assessed. And the existence of 48 separate articles with daily blow by blow news-style coverage is also a problem. Guy (help!) 18:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the "cleanup" would involve removing almost all of the content. You're correct on the general principle, but this is the sort of case WP:TNT is talking about: "extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up." - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Pietadè (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC) (including about 130 “politically motivated” articles on Ukrainian settlements, linked to these timelines—Pietadè (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
My account in Wikipedia dates back to 2011, have created 3K+ articles since (mainly «outside this topic»);
this is a war, and has casualties, since GRU/CIA sources are not available, one has to stick to the sources available,...—Pietadè (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed an erroneous assertion. I put it to you that if an editor makes such an accusation without so much as looking at the earliest edits of the person they accuse, then action should be taken against them. I have listed Pietade's early edit history with hidden text (Edit to view). My apologies to Pietade if he was the one who added that tag, although I cannot imagine why he would have. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is precisely that the sources are so bad that, if kept, almost all content will need to be removed. It is also accurate to note that almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do remember the times where one side counted every single bullet/shell/rocket for a single violation, and, the numbers, violations per day (minute/second) in total were, "vast"...
I haven't referenced the sources like the one below (by the way, both parties present weekly updates; perhaps, later, these articles can be reduced to some kind of 52 weekly "compounds" for 2014-2019; right now no one knows what shall the next day bring along (some call it history)):
3. As the result of the Russian armed aggression, 7 servicemen from the JFO were WIA. They were all transferred to the military medical facilities.
4. We want to inform with grief that over the past week, 1 serviceman was KIA.
Ministry of Defense expresses sincerest condolences to the families and loved ones of the deceased defender!
And, have to add, that my humble 3,000+ articles and 50,000+ edits in Wikipedia are not entirely circling 'round this war, au contraire... ;-)—Pietadè (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the sources are literally unusable, and almost every edit you have made in at least the past three years (I didn't go back further) has been on this topic - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine counts explosions (they hear) and reports them, with delay;
my contributions started in etwi and are not narrowed down to a single war; just as I can read and understand both Russian and Ukrainian, thought to make use of it.—Pietadè (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, no it is not "well-sourced". Did you not read the nomination? While they have superficial referenciness, the references are completely spurious. One of the most cited sources, for example, is "News Front", a Kremlin-backed fake news website promoting the fiction that the Donbass invasion is a people's rebellion. Of the 650 sources in the headline article, 550 are fake news or disinformation websites, and the balance are as yet unvalidated. I have never seen an article in my entire time on Wikipedia that used so many references to covert propaganda sites. Guy (help!) 10:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I did not check them carefully. Who created this content? It is probably worth investigation. With such sourcing, this indeed can hardly be saved, as some contributors tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, I think it was good faith - the sites are carefully designed to look legitimate. There's one WP:SPA but DagosNavy looks like a diligent editor who was misled in a way that was deliberately intended by the sites. Honestly it's a surprise we don't have more trouble with this, you have to put quite a bit of effort in to find out that these are bogus. Guy (help!) 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked even more carefully. Yes, I agree it was good faith (and significant!) work, which makes me hesitant to vote "delete" when the content I think is fixable. I agree that a part of the sourcing is poor (probably ~30% of refs by my account on a couple of these pages I checked), and some statements do not properly reflect what sources say. However, knowing this subject a little, I think these pages are not disinformation, but rather insufficently reliable information, just as on many other WP pages. On a balance, I am inclined to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, it's not fixable, these are day by day, almost hour by hour "news" reports based on hundreds of sources, the vast majority of which are fake. I tried to fix it, it was not achievable. Guy (help!) 01:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete series as unencyclopedic. The articles are in violation of Wikipedia policies on reliable sources/secondary sources and on what Wikipedia is not (not a diary, not a newspaper, not an indiscriminate collection of information). Most of the sources (and all of the pro-Russian sources) appear to fall into the category of original research, i.e., repeating content of announcements by the military and self-proclaimed local officials/authorities, sometimes up to four times because pro-Russian officials recorded, local officials confirmed, and pro-Russian authorities recorded. It's the same pattern day after day, year after year. Here's an example, chosen at random (Timeline of the war in Donbass (November 2019–present), 1 November):
Pro-Russian officials at Donetsk city recorded 16 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire in 14 locations using small arms, small arms, heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles, 82 mm mortars, anti-tank guided missiles, armoured personnel carriers and armoured fighting vehicles. (Source: dnronline.su, i.e., the "official site" of the Donetsk People's Republic.)
In the same briefing, the authorities reported that Ukrainian forces opened fire on their positions 127 times over the past week using one anti-tank guided missile, a single tank round, 120 shells from 82 mm and 120 mm mortars and other 362 explosive rounds. The Ukrainian military attacked 32 settlements, where 17 civilian buildings and facilities were damaged. Two pro-Russian soldiers were killed in action and two civilians wounded on the same period. (Source: dan-news.info, i.e., Donetsk News Agency)
Local officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces broke the ceasefire three times within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic. The Ukrainian military employed heavy machine guns, 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles, 82 mm mortars, 120 mm mortars and BMP-1 armoured vehicles to engage pro-Russian forces at Sentianivka and Lohvynove. (Source: mil-lnr.info, i.e., Military Police of the Luhansk People's Republic)
A number of Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire were recorded by pro-Russian authorities at Donetsk city. Ukrainian forces fired upon Staromykhailivka, Mineralne, Spartak and Trudivske, around Donetsk city, Mykhailivka, Dolomitne, Gagarin, and 6/7 mining complexes, in the area of Horlivka, and, in the region of Mariupol, Novolaspa, Pikuzy, Zaichenko and Uzhivka. Most incidents involved the use of infantry weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and 73 mm anti-tank recoilless rifles. Spartak was hit by a 120 mm mortar barrage, while Mykhailivka and 6/7 mining complex were shelled with 82 mm mortars. (Source: https://t.me/s/online_dnr_sckk/5542, i.e., the Donetsk People's Republic (Donezkaja narodnaja respublika))
Those are four variations of the same info from the Russian-supported side, each from one source (none of them a reliable secondary source), driving home a point which appears to be "BUT they attacked us, we're the victims." On the same day, the Ukrainian state news agency reported that their forces returned fire. Their forces were monitored by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) which probably keeps the news agency from straying from the truth. Their report also contains military hardware detail but we don't get three versions of it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ceasefire violation reports from both sides came from the "Joint Center on Control and Coordination" (сцкк) established in 2014 to control the demarcation line. Even if the withdrawal of Russian officials by the end of 2017 made the term "Joint" somewhat farcical, they were established by the Minsk agreements and still work close to the OSCE mission. So, although nominally, both the Ukrainian military and the rebel forces attribute their press releases to a "third part". In that sense, both sides can be considered "secondary sources", at least technically.
I was forced to introduce pro-Russian sources in the articles when some users expressed their concern on the alleged "Ukrainian PoV" of the timeline(s). My insistence in highlighting the proper attribution ("pro-Russian officials", "Local authorities") is what WP:PARTISAN demands in order to allow the use of biased sources in the proper context.--Darius (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Malformed nomination. "This series of articles", "these articles": not one of the voters mentions the fact that Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is a completely different type of article from the others; I wouldn't exactly say they had good reason, but inasmuch as it is hidden by being part of a giant list, they had cause to overlook it. There is one good rationale to not include it as the titular example for the nomination, which is also a good reason to not include it at all and make a separate nomination: that it bears little resemblance to the others, in coverage or in quality. This is a COATRACK of an AfD. It is always a risk to nominate a large group of articles, so I am sure administrators are ready and capable to work with the nominator to separate the list from its outlier, or let the nomination stand or fall as a whole, whatever the standard practice is. Anarchangel (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" wasn't part of the nomination. I added it yesterday because it seemed to fit the pattern, and I have removed it now. Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted. I had no intention of "hiding it" right at the top, and I didn't know that it was improperly formed. Keep up the good work, lose the attitude. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, my earlier answer seems quite irrelevant, given the gravity of your misconduct. It is quite clearly not your AfD nomination to alter. It would behoove you to not only acknowledge that you have erred, but to demonstrate that you comprehend the nature of your error. Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sure I don't know what you could possibly mean about attitude that would make any sense for an editor assuming good faith to say. No need to explain, though, I am really not interested, just work harder on learning from your mistakes. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor who was not the nominator added a Ballot tag, which was not necessary and poisons the well. Another editor who was not the nominator added an article to the nomination. They gave no notice to that effect. They deleted same article from the nomination as though it were itself a tag they can just slap on and take off again, let alone an open forum where anyone can change what everyone is voting on halfway through. Or is SpaceTime a sockpuppet of JzG? SpaceTime's comment, "Except for you, none of the other editors had seen it when they voted." is revealing. It is the opposite of a justification. Anyone who has voted would be understandably upset if someone changes their vote by changing what they were voting on. Likewise, I shall be very sad indeed if changing the target of a discussion after people have made up their mind is now considered standard practice. I have changed my vote to STRONG SPEEDY CLOSE.
The nominator tells us the opposite of the truth about the title of the article. The nominator has accused an editor of being SPA without even checking their edits. A brief list of Pietade's early edits follows, in hidden text (Edit to view): Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbass_(January–March_2016)&oldid=931288218"