Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 57 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 50 sockpuppet investigations
- 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 22 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 3 requests for RD1 redaction
- 33 elapsed requested moves
- 1 Pages at move review
- 19 requested closures
- 132 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 23 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Suspicious activity on ARBAA2 articles
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 [1] [2] [3] 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 [4] [5] [6] [7], 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)
- Whatever did not go through RM should be moved back.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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 [8] 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Well it clearly is contentious, so, are you going to move them back and open WP:RMs for them, or is someone else going to need to do that? Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, I moved Ağkənd, Khojavend, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have moved the others, as some will probably trip the title filters for non-admins as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- All are now back to their former title, so if KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs) wants to suggest a move, they will have to do it through WP:RM. It could be interesting ... --T*U (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Thank you very much. Could you please undo this move by AntonSamuel also mentioned above? Parishan (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @AntonSamuel and Parishan: That one's an oddity as it appears to have never been at the Azerbaijani name, and it's so obscure that I'm struggling to find sources about what itds WP:COMMONNAME is. Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Black Kite: When I looked at sources, I found that Reuters [9] Al Jazeera [10] and TASS [11] 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 [12]. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Black Kite: When I looked at sources, I found that Reuters [9] Al Jazeera [10] and TASS [11] 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 [12]. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @AntonSamuel and Parishan: That one's an oddity as it appears to have never been at the Azerbaijani name, and it's so obscure that I'm struggling to find sources about what itds WP:COMMONNAME is. Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Ymblanter: Thank you very much. Could you please undo this move by AntonSamuel also mentioned above? Parishan (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- All are now back to their former title, so if KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs) wants to suggest a move, they will have to do it through WP:RM. It could be interesting ... --T*U (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have moved the others, as some will probably trip the title filters for non-admins as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I moved Ağkənd, Khojavend, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Well it clearly is contentious, so, are you going to move them back and open WP:RMs for them, or is someone else going to need to do that? Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
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: [13]
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 [14] (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)
- 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)
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 [15]:
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.
AntonSamuel (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Is Kirov one of the villages that Saparov names as examples of de-Armeninisation of toponymy? If not, then you cannot use him as a source to justify your move. I fail to see how founding a village in the Soviet time explains that the article dedicated to the village should carry a non-Soviet post-conflict name that is POV from every point of view. If the village was founded after the war, like Knaravan, then I would be one hundred per cent with you on this. This is not the case. Native names cannot prevail over WP:NPOV if they are not established English names, and "Hin Shen" is not an established name. Your analogy with Kobanî is irrelevant: first of all, because Kobanî is an attested historical name for the settlement and not one thought of as part of a political campaign to erase toponymical heritage and second of all, because it came to be a common name in English, as English-language sources did not hesitate to use it outside of quotes from speeches by local Kurdish authorities. You cannot possibly compare the media coverage that these two settlements have received. Parishan (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've previously explained why a local name is preferable if there is no established English-language common name per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. That the village only recieved an Azerbaijani official name during the Azerbaijani renaming campaign after the war, peels off some of the layers of controversy compared to other Karabakh villages that have more complex toponymic histories I would say. As I've also stated previously - the contemporary de facto name is far more relevant and natural than a Soviet-era name created in honor of a Communist figure (Sergei Kirov) scarcely utilized today by the international media compared to Hin Shen. Kobanî serves as a good and relevant example (even though it's larger in size and has been covered more extensively in the media) for the case of Hin Shen. The town being called Kobanî and not "Ayn al-Arab" by the de facto authorities and on English Wikipedia has indeed been controversial.
- Regarding neutrality, previously you've made the case on Nagorno-Karabakh move discussions that when a name was Turkic or non-Armenian in Nagorno-Karabakh during the Soviet period then the Soviet-era name is preferable (such as for Vank, Nagorno-Karabakh/Vangli), if the Turkic name was created/applied as a de jure name after 1988 then the Turkic name is still preferable (such as for Qırmızı Bazar/Karmir Shuka and Çaylaqqala/Khtsaberd), if a name was Armenian during the Soviet period (such as for Haterk/Hasanriz and Kochoghot/Yayiji), then its Turkic name during the Tsarist era is preferable - so the Turkic or non-Armenian names are then preferable to the Armenian names in pretty much any given situation, not a neutral position when it comes to the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and article titles I would say. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Repeating constantly that "you have already explained" something does not really help me better understand your point. If I continue to bring up arguments, it means that I do not yet see how your explanation justifies the point you are making.
- The case of Kobanî is irrelevant for the same reason which I brought up when I voted against your move suggestion for the articles you are referring to: there is no established name for most Karabakh villages because the localities are too insignificant from the point of view of reliable English-language sources. You were referring to WP:COMMONNAME, and that principle clearly did not apply there. The same goes for WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which: (a) does not address the issue of disputed claims and parellel usage; (2) fails to qualify in the absence of English-language references (the news reports you are citing are not an example of that because they only use toponyms in direct quotes from partisan sources, namely from Armenia's Ministry of Defense).
- The compromise I am suggesting has nothing to do with a placename being Armenian or non-Armenian. The idea is to find the lowest common denominator, and it just happens so that the only names that can reconcile all the possible suggestions according to WP:NPOV are the ones that existed in the region before the autonomy was created (and there are sources that identify those places in Armenian by their non-Armenian names); and for the localities founded since the 1920s, the names that were last used before the conflict erupted. Parishan (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- On my part, I repeat arguments because I don't think that much of your line of reasoning when looking at the past conversation, and your previous positions with regard to the previously mentioned move discussions has a rational basis, basing arguments on a variety of concepts that are in conflict with each other - defending the use of names from either the Tsarist, the Soviet or the post-Soviet (Azerbaijani) eras, if it fits the defense of the use of Turkic or non-Armenian names as article titles. The wider naming convention for geographic names does bring up the issue of names for disputed localities and for localities for which there are few English-language sources available that mention them (WP:NCGN#Multiple local names) - proposing search engine tests to determine names, or the names utilized by the linguistic majority of the locality for example - such as for the historically Armenian-majority villages in the present-day de facto Republic of Artsakh - which was the case for the move discussions that I have opened previously, and what I have proposed, basing article titles on common names, or if unclear - local names, while taking into account the historical demographics of a locality. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- My reasoning is not about toponyms being Turkic or non-Turkic (most of what you claim as "Turkic" is not even Turkic, by the way; the very word kənd is of Iranian origin, to start with). My reasoning is based on the use of established toponyms whatever their origin as long as their meet neutrality guidelines and are or were once accepted by all parties. In this case, "Hin Shen" is not in line with WP:NPOV: it is a name introduced as part of a deliberate policy to impose Armenian toponymy where it previously was not attested. Such toponyms may be mentioned in the lede but they may not feature as article names. None of your examples take this sensitive conflict situation into account. This is not about analogies with South Tyrol, which are you citing, where there indeed exist pairs of alternative toponyms. The idea of WP:NPOV is not to be partisan: pushing for a semi-offcial name with no due acknowlodgement in English-language sources to which, on top of everything, one party is strongly opposed is as POV as one can get, especially in a situation where there already exists a toponym that features in all pre-conflict sources and on all modern English-language geoservers and that both parties used not that long ago. Your Wikipedia reference gives an example of Liancourt Rocks, an English name used where editors could not agree on which name - Korean or Japanese - to use. What is wrong with that approach? Parishan (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would not say it's a neutral position to take to depict post-Soviet Armenian/Artsakh names as POV, while not describing the post-Soviet Azerbaijani names and the Azerbaijani government campaign to rid Nagorno-Karabakh of its Armenian toponymy as such as well. That these are historically Armenian-majority localities, and that the local population and the de facto administration have called the villages certain names at least since the 1990s matters and carries weight. I believe I've explained my positions pretty thoroghly at this point with regard to the guidelines and the importance of relevance and contemporary names. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you that political efforts to render local toponymy more "ethnic" or less "ethnc" by introducing new names are not acceptable for either side. At the same time, I cannot consider the early 1990s decisions on bringing back names that were in official use before the 1930s a "campaign" because those names did exist and were probably even stll used or at least heard of by the time they were brought back. On the other hand, I would not support, for instance, renaming Khramort to Pirlar because the village has been known as Khramort throughout its recorded history, while "Pirlar" was definitely introduced to eliminate the non-Azeri name, just like "Hin Shen" was newly introduced to eliminate the non-Armenian name. I do not see how this approach goes against neutrality. Parishan (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would not say it's a neutral position to take to depict post-Soviet Armenian/Artsakh names as POV, while not describing the post-Soviet Azerbaijani names and the Azerbaijani government campaign to rid Nagorno-Karabakh of its Armenian toponymy as such as well. That these are historically Armenian-majority localities, and that the local population and the de facto administration have called the villages certain names at least since the 1990s matters and carries weight. I believe I've explained my positions pretty thoroghly at this point with regard to the guidelines and the importance of relevance and contemporary names. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- My reasoning is not about toponyms being Turkic or non-Turkic (most of what you claim as "Turkic" is not even Turkic, by the way; the very word kənd is of Iranian origin, to start with). My reasoning is based on the use of established toponyms whatever their origin as long as their meet neutrality guidelines and are or were once accepted by all parties. In this case, "Hin Shen" is not in line with WP:NPOV: it is a name introduced as part of a deliberate policy to impose Armenian toponymy where it previously was not attested. Such toponyms may be mentioned in the lede but they may not feature as article names. None of your examples take this sensitive conflict situation into account. This is not about analogies with South Tyrol, which are you citing, where there indeed exist pairs of alternative toponyms. The idea of WP:NPOV is not to be partisan: pushing for a semi-offcial name with no due acknowlodgement in English-language sources to which, on top of everything, one party is strongly opposed is as POV as one can get, especially in a situation where there already exists a toponym that features in all pre-conflict sources and on all modern English-language geoservers and that both parties used not that long ago. Your Wikipedia reference gives an example of Liancourt Rocks, an English name used where editors could not agree on which name - Korean or Japanese - to use. What is wrong with that approach? Parishan (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- On my part, I repeat arguments because I don't think that much of your line of reasoning when looking at the past conversation, and your previous positions with regard to the previously mentioned move discussions has a rational basis, basing arguments on a variety of concepts that are in conflict with each other - defending the use of names from either the Tsarist, the Soviet or the post-Soviet (Azerbaijani) eras, if it fits the defense of the use of Turkic or non-Armenian names as article titles. The wider naming convention for geographic names does bring up the issue of names for disputed localities and for localities for which there are few English-language sources available that mention them (WP:NCGN#Multiple local names) - proposing search engine tests to determine names, or the names utilized by the linguistic majority of the locality for example - such as for the historically Armenian-majority villages in the present-day de facto Republic of Artsakh - which was the case for the move discussions that I have opened previously, and what I have proposed, basing article titles on common names, or if unclear - local names, while taking into account the historical demographics of a locality. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is Kirov one of the villages that Saparov names as examples of de-Armeninisation of toponymy? If not, then you cannot use him as a source to justify your move. I fail to see how founding a village in the Soviet time explains that the article dedicated to the village should carry a non-Soviet post-conflict name that is POV from every point of view. If the village was founded after the war, like Knaravan, then I would be one hundred per cent with you on this. This is not the case. Native names cannot prevail over WP:NPOV if they are not established English names, and "Hin Shen" is not an established name. Your analogy with Kobanî is irrelevant: first of all, because Kobanî is an attested historical name for the settlement and not one thought of as part of a political campaign to erase toponymical heritage and second of all, because it came to be a common name in English, as English-language sources did not hesitate to use it outside of quotes from speeches by local Kurdish authorities. You cannot possibly compare the media coverage that these two settlements have received. Parishan (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
@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: [16] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here's a little bit of history that all participants of AA2 would do well to (re-)read and take to heart. Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
Azerbaijan articles created by Carlossuarrez46
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.
Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
Alexis Jazz's list
These CarlosSuarez ones had clear support for mass deletion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Large batch deletion probably needed (Azerbaijan), but this was archived without action. Can some admin please enact the consensus here? Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fram: A few seem to require a closer look, for example Qazarkı-Qomər and Xanməmməd-Bünaən. Guess I have to make another list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Uncle G, Fram, Hog Farm, and ZaniGiovanni: User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess 2: Azerbaijan edition — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Azerbaijani articles on Alexis' list. Why are you folks on the English Wikipedia so reluctant to delete junks? 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- If we knew the answer to that...it just wouldn't be the English Wikipedia any more! :D ——Serial 12:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Carlos created thousands of Azerbaijan "village" articles based on solely on Geonet data, which is an unreliable source. We could laboriously sort through every one of the thousands of such articles doing WP:BEFORE on every single one but this would be pointless given how few of them will pass. Therefore WP:TNT is a perfectly valid solution. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've looked through that list. I have no issues with section 1. A couple of articles in a sample of about 10 turned out to have non-trivial edit histories, but since the edits were stuff like "there live a muslim Jews", I am confident that we are not losing out with those. So count me in on section 1, too.
The second section had some amusing moments. Agally is only on it, for example, because someone stuck a {{citation needed}} on the single fact in the article. Kushchi-Gasanly got tagged with "verifiability problem" in 2014. Lugnuts tagged Osmanlar with {{cn}} this year. Uchoglan got given a second name and tagged {{fact}} 10 years ago in 2011. I think we can fish several of these out and say that, in effect, they are equivalent to section 1, as the only substantial edits have been to actually challenge the content.
Section 3 has a lot of articles that have had "This village is in an area occupied by the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." (or "Republic of Artsakh") added without a source. It turns out, per Special:Diff/313612775 that that was a variation on replacing the article creator's original {{AZocc}} with inline text. That extra sentence was from that template.
This village is in an area occupied by the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Reliable information about current conditions there is lacking. So I think that you can actually add more to section 1 with a couple of passes, filtering for the aforementioned, leaving a lot fewer to manually process.
Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I guess it's hard to prove a negative of a place that might once have existed under a name that's now changed and no longer recorded! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- And I literally picked two places at random in the same navbox - Ismikhanly and Mincivan, Barda, which have the same text. I guess there's more in there too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Uncle G, section 1 and section 2 are essentially the same in how they should be handled. The reason I made two sections is that at some point it is less work to review remaining differences manually than it is to further refine the filter. Articles in the third section require a closer look, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be mass-deleted after inspection.
I skipped the history check this time because last time this generally just created false positives for reverted vandalism. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- It was the "manual review" in the title of section 2. I read that as you not wanting these mass deleted. I've segregated section 3 by the various cleanups of {{AZocc}} text, and it appears to me (for one) that we really only need to not mass-delete the five articles at Special:Permalink/1019073862#Others, although I suspect that upon manual review several of them will end up being nominated for deletion.
Unless we go through them quickly now and then agree that the whole list can go.
- It was the "manual review" in the title of section 2. I read that as you not wanting these mass deleted. I've segregated section 3 by the various cleanups of {{AZocc}} text, and it appears to me (for one) that we really only need to not mass-delete the five articles at Special:Permalink/1019073862#Others, although I suspect that upon manual review several of them will end up being nominated for deletion.
- I guess it's hard to prove a negative of a place that might once have existed under a name that's now changed and no longer recorded! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support deletion - Sort out the ones with significant contributions and manually go through them, but the rest ought to be dealt with as a single lot. My experience with these of Carlos's is that they generally all fail verifiability, and often contain false or misleading content. So many of their California stubs have been completely incorrect. Anything actually notable can be rewritten with significant RS, but as it is, these just need TNT'd. Hog Farm Talk 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete And similar articles outside of Az created by Carlossuarrez46, e.g. supposed villages with either no sources or dubious political view/concept source(s) 1, 2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, what criteria are there for that? What boilerplate text is there that can be used to mechanically find this subset of the mass-created articles? Please explain clearly why these sources are dubious, too. GEOnet supported by only more GEOnet was. But GEOnet supported by something else needs a clear explanation of why that something else is also problematic as a source. Let's not worry about notability, if you are thinking of that. But if the second source cannot affirmatively support the assertion that something is a village, then yes we should probably discount it. On the other hand, if it confirms at least that, let's get the problem of thousands of articles that we don't even know to be villages as claimed out of the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I already explained why the sources are dubious to say the least. The first village's source Carlossuarez46 added to the article, named "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan. Author: I. M. Bayramov", 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 is autor's Az Wikipedia page. So a propaganda book claiming that all/most of Armenia's lands are just "Western Azerbaijan" is listed as a source for a supposed abandoned village(s) in Armenia (and btw, the title doesn't even say it's a village in Armenia, rather "Western Azerbaijan"). How is this kind of extremely biased political nonsense a WP:VERIFY source and why doesn't that bother you? Second village's source is literally named "The genocide of Azerbaijanis in the territory of Iravan province in 1918-1920". What genocide? What are these ridiculous propaganda "sources" with titles like that? How did these sources qualify to be included as some sort of proof of the past existence of these supposed villages? I think Carlossuarrez46 just created articles for the sake of creating them, no regard for the reliableness of his sources, or the actual existence of these villages. And as evident by my examples, they aren't just limited to Azerbaijan related topics. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Carlossuarrez46 did not cite any of those other sources, only the initial GEOnet. Please be more careful.
So the non-GEOnet source does confirm that these are villages? And the problem is that it asserts the wrong country for nationalistic reasons? I'd be inclined to say that it's not safe to use such a thing as solution to the fundamental is-it-even-a-village-in-country-X-as-pretty-much-the-only-content-in-the-article-claims? problem that we have. But we do need a clear statement of the problem with the sourcing such that it does not fix that problem.
Because the converse works, too. If we can confirm from a good source that these things are villages, then the problem becomes one of whether there is more to say, which is a notability issue, and not an imediate problem, given that articles are for now at least saying correct things even if they do not say very much.
Then we need a mechanical way for Alexis Jazz or whoever to pull out the set of such articles. If we cannot, then ordinary Wikipedia processes, as opposed to an abnormal process that we are doing carefully, will have to suffice.
Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- These villages don't show up anywhere outside of wiki. I can't find any existence or past existence of these villages other then biased political propaganda source(s) with matching titles. I wouldn't consider these kind of sources as reliable to say the least, and I really struggle to assume WP:GOODFAITH in whoever added them. As for how to delete other dubious articles created by Carlossuarrez46 like the ones I mentioned above, I don't know, and I'm not the person to ask to be honest. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- A conflict arose between me and ZaniGiovanni at a recent AfD regarding the reliability of Azeri government sources as WP:V for articles about former villages in Armenia which were populated by Azeris, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azizkend - see Ymblanter's comment specifically, and where ZaniGiovanni decided that the Azeri source (the country's national encyclopaedia) was a "hoax." It's clear there's a couple differing "truths" here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I mention in the discussion, I was the one who initially removed hoax tag from the already deleted article. Seeing the same bogus political source however I added it back. I was referring to same political source included in the first village I mentioned, which was also in the already deleted article. I wasn't referring to your "official source". You could've asked me before making baseless assumptions. Later, you removed the hoax tag. I added hoax tag back as there was a disclaimer to "not remove the hoax until discussion for deletion is over". The encyclopedia that you talk about has nothing to do with the villages I mentioned here (it's not even in the articles) and I didn't call it a "hoax". Your attempts to somehow belittle my arguments by bringing an already deleted article seems rather confusing SportingFlyer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Both of the villages you mentioned above, while being problematic Carlossuarez46 articles, that you claim have bogus political sources, have articles on the Azeri Wikipedia, and one even has four different sources there. I believe the Azeri/Armenia conflict is one where discretionary sanctions are applied. You have shown that some of the sources may be problematic, but given your contribution history (removing Azeri names from villages, adding Armenian names, getting in one of the weirdest edit wars I've ever been in with me), simply adding villages with these sources onto the "delete" list, which I believe is what you're suggesting, is not something I'd do lightly. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The deleted article you mentioned had the same problematic source, which still is problematic and included in other articles as well. What exact name changes are you talking about? I removed non common names, following wiki rules. And in my most edits, the translations were already mentioned in the lead of the articles. I didn't "edit-war" with you lol, what are you talking about? I simply reverted the changes to the deleted article before the deletion discussion was over (as editors were told to in the disclaimer). You are free to mention other sources from "Azeri wikipedia", and editors can take a look and see whether they are reliable or not. If you have anything to say regarding the issue we're discussing then do it, don't jump into discussions with strange accusations out of nowhere. Also my most edits are done to Armenian villages, I don't "add Armenian names" they are already included most of the time. And if they're not, then logically I would add them. Again, same weird accusations from you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Both of the villages you mentioned above, while being problematic Carlossuarez46 articles, that you claim have bogus political sources, have articles on the Azeri Wikipedia, and one even has four different sources there. I believe the Azeri/Armenia conflict is one where discretionary sanctions are applied. You have shown that some of the sources may be problematic, but given your contribution history (removing Azeri names from villages, adding Armenian names, getting in one of the weirdest edit wars I've ever been in with me), simply adding villages with these sources onto the "delete" list, which I believe is what you're suggesting, is not something I'd do lightly. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I mention in the discussion, I was the one who initially removed hoax tag from the already deleted article. Seeing the same bogus political source however I added it back. I was referring to same political source included in the first village I mentioned, which was also in the already deleted article. I wasn't referring to your "official source". You could've asked me before making baseless assumptions. Later, you removed the hoax tag. I added hoax tag back as there was a disclaimer to "not remove the hoax until discussion for deletion is over". The encyclopedia that you talk about has nothing to do with the villages I mentioned here (it's not even in the articles) and I didn't call it a "hoax". Your attempts to somehow belittle my arguments by bringing an already deleted article seems rather confusing SportingFlyer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- A conflict arose between me and ZaniGiovanni at a recent AfD regarding the reliability of Azeri government sources as WP:V for articles about former villages in Armenia which were populated by Azeris, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azizkend - see Ymblanter's comment specifically, and where ZaniGiovanni decided that the Azeri source (the country's national encyclopaedia) was a "hoax." It's clear there's a couple differing "truths" here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- These villages don't show up anywhere outside of wiki. I can't find any existence or past existence of these villages other then biased political propaganda source(s) with matching titles. I wouldn't consider these kind of sources as reliable to say the least, and I really struggle to assume WP:GOODFAITH in whoever added them. As for how to delete other dubious articles created by Carlossuarrez46 like the ones I mentioned above, I don't know, and I'm not the person to ask to be honest. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Carlossuarrez46 did not cite any of those other sources, only the initial GEOnet. Please be more careful.
- I already explained why the sources are dubious to say the least. The first village's source Carlossuarez46 added to the article, named "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan. Author: I. M. Bayramov", 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 is autor's Az Wikipedia page. So a propaganda book claiming that all/most of Armenia's lands are just "Western Azerbaijan" is listed as a source for a supposed abandoned village(s) in Armenia (and btw, the title doesn't even say it's a village in Armenia, rather "Western Azerbaijan"). How is this kind of extremely biased political nonsense a WP:VERIFY source and why doesn't that bother you? Second village's source is literally named "The genocide of Azerbaijanis in the territory of Iravan province in 1918-1920". What genocide? What are these ridiculous propaganda "sources" with titles like that? How did these sources qualify to be included as some sort of proof of the past existence of these supposed villages? I think Carlossuarrez46 just created articles for the sake of creating them, no regard for the reliableness of his sources, or the actual existence of these villages. And as evident by my examples, they aren't just limited to Azerbaijan related topics. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, what criteria are there for that? What boilerplate text is there that can be used to mechanically find this subset of the mass-created articles? Please explain clearly why these sources are dubious, too. GEOnet supported by only more GEOnet was. But GEOnet supported by something else needs a clear explanation of why that something else is also problematic as a source. Let's not worry about notability, if you are thinking of that. But if the second source cannot affirmatively support the assertion that something is a village, then yes we should probably discount it. On the other hand, if it confirms at least that, let's get the problem of thousands of articles that we don't even know to be villages as claimed out of the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've gone through the 5 articles that were significantly altered, mentioned above. Only Gyulyambir and Ləmbəran were meaningfully altered from the mass-creation template in my view, and I suggest giving those two real human attention. The rest are all effectively just the boilerplate. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at your changes to User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess 2: Azerbaijan edition and I agree. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Closure and enactment
I've announced this at the Village Pump and at the relevant WikiProject. We core discussion participants all seem to agree, as long as the rest outwith Alexis Jazz and I are also happy with putting human eyes on exactly two of the articles on Alexis Jazz's list: Gyulyambir and Ləmbəran. If anyone else other than us objects, please speak up. Otherwise, let's look towards Xeno or someone else processing this list (sans those two). Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Uncle G, I'm going to do some work to unlink these articles to prevent clogging of maintenance categories. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Armenian articles created by Carlossuarez46
- On a related note, when I was editing the articles for the Tavush Province in Armenia, I came across the article Bardidzor - another article using only GEOnet Names Server as a single source. I asked RaffiKojian about the article on Talk:Bardidzor and from a closer look, it seemed that the existence of the village was in doubt. I haven't gotten around to looking into the matter a bit more and to nominate it for deletion, but I thought I'd let you guys know that there may be at least some more articles for localities in Armenia that would qualify for deletion as well on similar grounds as mentioned here, at the very least those not featured in the templates for the provinces (which feature abandoned villages - except for the templates for the Syunik and Vayots Dzor provinces, where the abandoned villages Category:Former_populated_places_in_Syunik_Province Category:Former_populated_places_in_Vayots_Dzor_Province have been removed) AntonSamuel (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- You could always cross-check against this and make a list of suspect articles. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, and going through the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Armenia by province is also useful. Through a quick look I found these articles for villages in the Tavush Province only using GeoNet as a source and beginning with the letter A: Akhkikhli, Akhsu, Armenia, Akhum, Alatala and Ankadzor - some may need to be looked at more in-depth though, I haven't checked on Wikipedia in other langauges or any satellite images for these villages. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The GEOnet approved names for Akhkikhli, Akhsu, Akhum and Ankadzor are Hovk’, Spitakajur, Varagavan and Hank’adzor. This means that Akhkikhli and Akhum are probably duplicates of Hovk and Varagavan. Alatala is "unverified" with a termination date of 2016-10-17. Peter James (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alatala is a name of Turkic origin. There are no names of Turkic origin in Armenia, everything was renamed in the 20th century. This can not be a valid article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The article originally described it as a town, which was changed to "abandoned village" by another editor. There is also an Armenian article, with a reference that is not in the English article. Peter James (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- How did you find out which were the approved names, by the way? Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Alatala is a name of Turkic origin. There are no names of Turkic origin in Armenia, everything was renamed in the 20th century. This can not be a valid article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The GEOnet approved names for Akhkikhli, Akhsu, Akhum and Ankadzor are Hovk’, Spitakajur, Varagavan and Hank’adzor. This means that Akhkikhli and Akhum are probably duplicates of Hovk and Varagavan. Alatala is "unverified" with a termination date of 2016-10-17. Peter James (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, and going through the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Armenia by province is also useful. Through a quick look I found these articles for villages in the Tavush Province only using GeoNet as a source and beginning with the letter A: Akhkikhli, Akhsu, Armenia, Akhum, Alatala and Ankadzor - some may need to be looked at more in-depth though, I haven't checked on Wikipedia in other langauges or any satellite images for these villages. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- So it looks like we might have a way of attacking large chunks of the Carlossuarrez46 articles for Armenia? Find the ones that aren't on this list and filter out any that have been significantly edited? Here is the full set of documents. Hog Farm has some lists of the Carlossuarrez64 articles, I believe.
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_25.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_26.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_27.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_28.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_29.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_30.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_31.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_32.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_33.pdf
- https://www.armstat.am/file/article/marz_2017_34.pdf
- Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- It might also be worth checking out https://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=130 . I found the above from fa:باردیدزور. Uncle G (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Before I put any effort into seeing whether it can be made to run over all articles instead of just ones starting with "Bar", would something like quarry:query/54268 be useful? —Cryptic 01:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Compare User:Hog Farm/C46 and see User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2021#Iranian place names and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 188#Is it possible to pull a list of all articles created by a user when the xtools search limit is exceeded? for background. It might be worth having an up-to-date list now that over 5000 have been mass-deleted for Iran. Out of some 81,000 when JJMC89 did it. Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I guess the question is what we're targeting. I know the last batch-deletion targeted ones with zero/no population, while this is gonna pull up stuff like Barazin, Varzaqan that has over 260 inhabitants and may be notable. So I guess are we wanting to do a target-deletion of the ones, which would not really be workable on that query as the SQL code is currently written, or is this an overall nuke, in which the query would be useful? Or do we want to use the query to create a list of "needs attention" articles that are then sorted by hand? If we're just going for a "needs attention" list, the SQL query above would do the trick with the proper coding tweaks to look for all articles (never worked with SQL, but I've got a bit of computer-language experience so I can generally puzzle out what reasonably simple code does). Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that when AntonSamuel did the cross-checking above, it immediately highlighted articles that appeared to need further investigation. Ironically, Carlossuarez46 created both Akhkikhli and Hovk, with different coördinates notice. Bing Maps' here.com background map puts both names at the same place, in contrast. There might be a significant list of articles that we can deal with in bulk, here, and further eat into that original 81,000. Either they are duplicates to be redirected, or something else. It depends from what we can do with those armstat data. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Uncle G: This document [17] for the general 2011 census lists all localities for all the provinces of Armenia covered by the census, including some abandoned villages. However, both this document and the documents for the individual provinces have some incorrect transliterations (such as transliterating Եղվարդ as "Eghvard" instead of "Yeghvard" and using "q" for some names, which standard simplified Armenian romanization and Wikipedia articles generally doesn't) and so they're not always identical with the names used in the Wikipedia articles for the localities. If possible to do it utilizing a bot, I suppose the easiest way to go about creating a list of all the articles that need to be looked at would be to go through all the articles featured in the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Armenia by province and exclude the ones that are featured on the lists of localities in the templates for the provinces or that have additional sources apart from GEOnet - most legit articles for Armenian villages, including those without any recent cleanup, usually have at least one additional source such as the 2001 Armenian census from what I've seen so far when editing Armenian geographic articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- That document's still quite helpful, because it would allow us to generate an "approved list" of any Armenian villages confirmed to pass WP:GEOLAND and then match what we have categorised with what's in the list. Incorrect transliterations may have to be sorted manually but at least it provides a clear inclusion/exclusion guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a follow up, that would make the work-flow: 1. Is it on the approved list? 2. If no, should it be on the approved list (transliteration error)? 3. If no, has it been significantly edited? 4. If no, are there any other circumstances which might suggest it's notable (such as a linked non-stub article in another language)? If we're still at no, then deletion should easily follow. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Uncle G: This document [17] for the general 2011 census lists all localities for all the provinces of Armenia covered by the census, including some abandoned villages. However, both this document and the documents for the individual provinces have some incorrect transliterations (such as transliterating Եղվարդ as "Eghvard" instead of "Yeghvard" and using "q" for some names, which standard simplified Armenian romanization and Wikipedia articles generally doesn't) and so they're not always identical with the names used in the Wikipedia articles for the localities. If possible to do it utilizing a bot, I suppose the easiest way to go about creating a list of all the articles that need to be looked at would be to go through all the articles featured in the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Armenia by province and exclude the ones that are featured on the lists of localities in the templates for the provinces or that have additional sources apart from GEOnet - most legit articles for Armenian villages, including those without any recent cleanup, usually have at least one additional source such as the 2001 Armenian census from what I've seen so far when editing Armenian geographic articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that when AntonSamuel did the cross-checking above, it immediately highlighted articles that appeared to need further investigation. Ironically, Carlossuarez46 created both Akhkikhli and Hovk, with different coördinates notice. Bing Maps' here.com background map puts both names at the same place, in contrast. There might be a significant list of articles that we can deal with in bulk, here, and further eat into that original 81,000. Either they are duplicates to be redirected, or something else. It depends from what we can do with those armstat data. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I guess the question is what we're targeting. I know the last batch-deletion targeted ones with zero/no population, while this is gonna pull up stuff like Barazin, Varzaqan that has over 260 inhabitants and may be notable. So I guess are we wanting to do a target-deletion of the ones, which would not really be workable on that query as the SQL code is currently written, or is this an overall nuke, in which the query would be useful? Or do we want to use the query to create a list of "needs attention" articles that are then sorted by hand? If we're just going for a "needs attention" list, the SQL query above would do the trick with the proper coding tweaks to look for all articles (never worked with SQL, but I've got a bit of computer-language experience so I can generally puzzle out what reasonably simple code does). Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Compare User:Hog Farm/C46 and see User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2021#Iranian place names and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 188#Is it possible to pull a list of all articles created by a user when the xtools search limit is exceeded? for background. It might be worth having an up-to-date list now that over 5000 have been mass-deleted for Iran. Out of some 81,000 when JJMC89 did it. Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to add my 2 cents, in my opinion the census list is the best resource to base these articles and lists from, both in terms of being up-to-date as well as using the correct name in Armenian spelling. The transliterations can be off as has been pointed out. If something is not in the most recent census, that should be a big red flag. Also although someone above said there are none left, a few Azeri placenames do remain, such as Alaverdi and Nizami. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is how to extract the names. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive and uncivil IP user, including vandalism
- Admin: This ANI discussion was automatically archived, so I’ve moved it back here instead.—TrottieTrue (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- The known IP user accounts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:D435:A5A9:3725:34EA
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:83f:be8:1cfb:39be
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:318b:2630:294:1df2
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:5138:3B45:CB01:5B99
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:54C2:B625:37B3:FA9A
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:c7f:b416:3000:cd4c:9d2e:9149:ddd4
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- Some editors are entitled to be
- 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)
- As I was mentioned... If an editor is
- 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)
- The list of IP addresses can be shortened to Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000::/64.
- 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)
- The list of IP addresses can be shortened to Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000::/64.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 groupsand 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)- @TrottieTrue and BlackcurrantTea: yeah, that's Theopolisme's admin highlighter script, which does exactly what it says on the tin. ——Serial 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Admins aren't staff - they're volunteers like the rest of us, just with some extra buttons. P-K3 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I assumed they were one and the same - as many surely would.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Admins aren't staff - they're volunteers like the rest of us, just with some extra buttons. P-K3 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @TrottieTrue and BlackcurrantTea: yeah, that's Theopolisme's admin highlighter script, which does exactly what it says on the tin. ——Serial 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- It's funny that the IP editor has been adding an incorrect and unsourced death date for a recently deceased former MP. They reverted two edits for Frank Judd with an unsourced death date, which has since been proved incorrect - see here and here. The IP editor also added the wrong date (basically assuming that the day the death was reported was the day the person died) to the List of United Kingdom MPs who died in the 2020s, which has been amended here. In the words of User:Jkaharper, it's "spreading misinformation". This is fairly low level stuff for now, but again shows that the user isn't as "helpful" as some like to think.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- The IP in question is rude, arrogant and has an awful tone. I see he/she is currently raising a rather odd case against Politics.co.uk on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There is a strange mixture of petty vandalism, pointless revisions and reverts, and constructive edits in this person's edit history. I would suggest we keep a close eye on their contributions, and then refer back to here if need be. We can't make a case against a bad attitude/rudeness sadly, but if the person is caught vandalising/edit warring again then they should be banned. The person in question keeps changing their IP, though the stem of it remains constant. I'm not sure how/if blocks work in such situations? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I’m glad someone else has noticed that this user is being a bit of a nuisance. I’ve purposely avoided their latest attack on Politics.co.uk as a source. At least they have added the tag “better source needed”, rather than removing the references to that website next to MPs’ DOBs. It’s a real pain that there isn’t a readily accessible source for this info, but that’s not really the issue here. I think you’ve accurately summed up their character. Last time I politely questioned what was wrong with Politics.co.uk as a source, they descended into ad hominem attacks on me, and the editor who asked them to sign their messages. Hence my reluctance to wade in this time. It does appear that many of the user’s edits might be constructive, although when it comes to them adjusting dates and figures, I wouldn’t know if the edits are correct. Their questioning of Politics.co.uk is an unwarranted attempt to traduce the reputation of what is a fairly decent website, as far as I can tell - mainly because they are fixated on the DOBs being from a valid source. I agree with you that it’s worth keeping an eye on them, since there are clear instances of vandalism, as well as questionable behaviour.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
False attacks on me as engaging 8n "systemic sexism"
The editor "Only in death does duty end" has engaged in a false attack on me claiming I engaged in "systemic sexism" and urged other editors to try to use the most broad medium to recruit attacks on me. This is a lie through and through. First off this is a malicious rehashing of events from 8 years ago. Second the whole framing is false. Contrary to what is claimed Category:American women novelists was created to highlight the achievement of women in respected careers because at the time Wikipedia too much highlighted careers of women that involved debasement. Secondly, the issue really came about because of the complexity of having both diffusing and non-diffusing categories. The while thing could have been solved by reaching out to people and directly discussing that issue. Instead people wanted to speak against Wikipedia with rye out trying to understand and I was maliciously attacked because in the name of some slight you have to think deeply about it is best to attack and slight and maliciously malign a real person to protect things at three levels deep of symbolic thinking. That was bad enough in April 2013, but to have it brought up in April 2021 despite the fact that in the interim I have on multiple occasions and in many ways fought to make sure that ERGS non-difusing rules are actually abided by is truly galling and not to be tolerated. ERGS rules are complex enough, and there are strong enough differences on how to apply them without tolerating such blatant attacks related to them, especially gratuitous attacks that are on discussions that have nothing to do with them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please provide evidence for the claims that the user in question attacked you and tried to recruit others to do so as well?--67.70.101.238 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I do not profess to know it all, but here is some of the background that I've seen:
- just recently:
- "JPL's obsession with categories and sexist editing […] engaging in systematic sexism […] Do we need someone to write up some more news pieces naming him publically?" by Only in death (talk · contribs)
- "If there was any justice on Wikipedia the person who brought up the events from 8 years ago and proposed publishing articles attacking me would be the only one facing sanctions. There is no justice in Wikipedia unless you withdraw your attacks on me. Right now there is a double standard which says we will punish John is he apoligizes 10 times and rescinds his offending edits, but another person can engage in just as uncil actions and go unpunished."
- "The above accusation of "systemic sexism" is a clear sign of people thinking it is fair to accuse me in the most nasty ways, and I am sick and tired of it. Especially when people accuse me of such 8 years after the fact. This dregging up the past is getting very annoying. It is an unfair accusation, much of it is based on total and complete lies about the matter at hand, and it ignores the goals and motivations of those involved in the process. …"
- 8 years ago:
- Special:Permalink/555162706#Ban requested for User:Johnpacklambert
- Special:Permalink/555587005#Category:American women novelists
- Special:Permalink/553062924#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
- Filipacchi, Amanda (2013-04-24). "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Female Novelists". New York Times.
- Leonard, Andrew (2013-04-29). "Wikipedia's shame". Salon.
- Filipacchi, Amanda (2013-04-30). "Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor': It's a widespread problem". The Atlantic.
- Relevant policy:
- just recently:
- Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- So where do we go from here?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I do not profess to know it all, but here is some of the background that I've seen:
- The fundamental problem here seems to be that the category system is broken. Attributes such as nationality, sex and occupation are independent. Categories which combine these in some arbitrary combination or permutation are bound to be frustrating and unsatisfactory. People should stop trying to make this broken system work and lobby the WMF to create a more logical data structure and/or better integration with WikiData. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- The problem has nothing to do with the categorization system, and everything to do with the injustices in the World beyond Wikipedia. That people who belong to these arbitrary categories were directly, intentionally, and repeatedly excluded from full participation in humanity is an undeniable fact; thus the participation of those people in certain activities, jobs, or whatnot is something that bears noting; the very bigotry that kept them out of participation is the thing that makes the cases of participation, especially early or ones that in context were unusual, worth noting. Not every intersection of attribute and job is noteworthy but the fact that people with a certain attribute were prevented from holding that job makes the cases where they did hold that job something worth noting in some cases. Your attention should be spent not on fixing the problems with Wikipedia's category system, spend that energy on actively fighting against the bigotry in the world that created the problem in the first place. --Jayron32 14:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem here is an editor accusing another editor of sexist editing. Levivich harass/hound 15:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like WP:Dramaboard syndrome to me? Complaints about complaints all using poor language choices. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- If he's not doing sexist things, that would amount to a personal attack. I'm not saying he is, and I'm not saying he's not, I'm just saying that such an accusation needs clear evidence to back it up, and should not be used merely to cast aspersions. I'll leave it up to others to arrive at a conclusion with that one, just noting that such a statement could easily be read as a personal attack if there isn't a clear antecedant cause. --Jayron32 16:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- We're at wikipedia, and our job here is not primarily to fix the world, but to make an encyclopedia. Our part here in fixing the world is to provide NPOV information for everyone, including those who wish to engage in more direct action. Arguing over categories is less valuable for everyone than adding content, and the simplest way to end such arguments is to abandon the present system, so that users can create whatever selected grouping they may want, not what we think they ought to want. Aiming our content at a direct political end is not NPOV, but misusing the encyclopedia for direct activism, and will generally provoke unnecessary and destructive antagonism. Even those who may not share my view that NPOV information is a desirable end in itself, should realize that maintaining NPOV is the most effective way to work constructively. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is this going to be archived without being closed?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps this is a late comment (since the AN/I thread is closed and archived), but I think it needs to be said anyway. I think the amount of aggression displayed towards JPL there was both inappropriate and unconstructive. I am certainly not a "JPL did nothing wrong" type of guy; I detailed at great length my objections to JPL's rapid-fire AfD !voting (i.e. making a dozen !votes thirty seconds apart, up to as many as 80 in one day), and supported a limit on his rate of participation in the process. That said, the thread itself became a total clusterfuck, to the tune of nearly two hundred kilobytes, containing all manner of nonsense, tenuous accusations of prejudice, and unwarranted insinuations about his character. If it had just been one person, it'd be whatever, but when a dozen people have cussed somebody out, it's probably best to limit your invective to what can be uncontroversially proven. And frankly, I think that even if you hate someone's guts, it's important to show a little restraint, lest the entire conversation turn into a struggle session. jp×g 22:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Lugnuts' Turkey village stubs
I'm looking for advice on how to handle Turkey village/neighborhood stubs which were mass-created by Lugnuts. Prior discussions at ANI, AfD and Wikiproject Turkey seem to indicate that these stubs were inappropriately created and should be redirected, however Lugnuts reverted my edits when I redirected all neighborhoods in Horasan to the district article (examples: [19][20][21][22][23]). They do not seem willing to accept consensus and have asked me not to post on their talk page [24].
I'm wondering whether there's sufficient consensus to redirect all of these stubs and how to proceed without causing further drama or edit warring. Should I continue redirecting? Would it be best to seek consensus at Village Pump first? Is it time for another ANI? –dlthewave ☎ 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye resulted in a mass-redirection of a number of these. Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Bigger questions include only targetting the articles I started. What about the thousands of other Turkish villages starting with List of populated places in Adana Province which are exactly the same? Or indeed, ANY village stub from any other country, which is also one line? Does that then extend to other stubs, such as countless taxonomy articles too? A wider WP:RFC on existing populated places and the need to redirect, if any, is the way to go. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
So, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye which ended in redirect; we have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Mass creation of village articles which has Lugnuts claiming "A discussion between two people, MEATBOT-FOARP and one other user now becomes a consensus? " (with the personal attack against FOARP thrown in for good measure), despite right above this we have Bermicourt, SnowFire and FOARP all agreeing on these redirections, and Dlthewave implementing them. Between the previous ANI discussion, the AfD, and the Wikiproject discussion, it seems fairly disruptive for Lugnuts to continue to revert the redirection of his articles. If the same treatment is needed for other village articles, then the solution is not to revert these redirections but to redirect comparable other ones as well. Fram (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- So what happens with all the other Turkey articles, such as Dölekli? And other village articles in the world to the same standard, such as Zadní Kopanina? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The same, hopefully (if the article is comparable). I have, together with a few others, tried to start the same effort for the thousands of Russian micro-villages, but it is rather tiring work. See e.g. the history[25] here to get an idea. This redirecting this is not novel or anti-Lugnuts. Heck, I was doing it for Belgian villages in 2010 already[26]. Fram (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good. Well, in that case, I have no intention of bothering to update any of the so-called unreliable sources now. Go, go, go! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The same, hopefully (if the article is comparable). I have, together with a few others, tried to start the same effort for the thousands of Russian micro-villages, but it is rather tiring work. See e.g. the history[25] here to get an idea. This redirecting this is not novel or anti-Lugnuts. Heck, I was doing it for Belgian villages in 2010 already[26]. Fram (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why does the name Dr Blofeld and his Indian village stubs come to mind here? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blofeld also mass-created Turkish village stubs based on GEONET and these are equally concerning. But one case at a time. EDIT: Also worth noting that Blofeld (now Encyclopædius) agrees that the best thing for stub village articles is to redirect to a higher level. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect all single-sentence, single-source, zero-content Turkish "village" stubs to district - The logic of the ANI, WP:TURKEY, and AFD discussion is very clear about this one - these are substantially the same articles with the same sourcing and the same problems. The option to expand them is *always* there. No-one is saying that a stub with more content than just "X is a village in Y district, Z-province of Turkey" can't be an article if sourced properly. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think redirection is the best option, should that be reasonably feasible and not excessively taxing on volunteers doing the cleanup, given the number of pages. If it is too taxing, then indiscriminate deletion, because (generally speaking, not just to this case) nobody else should have to spend hours of their own volunteer time to clean up after someone else's WP:MASSCREATE violations. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 11:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. Though I am concerned that viable places under WP:GEOLAND may be swept up in this, many/most/all of these won't (or at least arguably don't), and they can always be re-created with reliable sourcing if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect Why do we have so many issues with poorly sourced non-notable place stubs? It's ridiculous.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The issue is some editors treating the absolutely-most-expansive interpretation of the absolute-lowest-bar subject-specific notability guides as a gold-standard and mass-creating articles based on that. These village articles are being made on the contention that:
- 1) Wiki is a gazeteer (it has "features of" a gazeteer).
- 2) Proof that a populated place may have ever existed is the same as proof that it was ever a legally-recognised populated place ("legally recognised" reasonably ought to be proved as well, and the proof should extend beyond a simple statement that a national government has talked about it at some point).
- 3) Maps/tables alone are sufficient to show a WP:GEOLAND pass even if gives nothing more than the name of the place (WP:NGEO excludes these from proving notability so it is at the very least disputed that a simple WP:V pass for existence meets WP:GEOLAND's notability requirement).
- 4) The best way of representing populated places is as hundreds of thousands of single-sentence stubs (very obviously there are other ways of representing the same amount of information, even if you agree with points 1-3). FOARP (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Maps, tables, lists and databases are usually the best evidence of legal recognition for a WP:GEOLAND pass. Peter James (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NGEO explicitly states "This guideline specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Other sources should be used. 173.251.14.132 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's for defining "sources" as used in the guideline. WP:GEOLAND criterion 1 is based on verifiability, not sources. Similarly the first part of WP:GEOFEAT has the additional requirement of "verifiable information beyond simple statistics" because that is also a verifiability-based criterion. Peter James (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Peter, this is your own interpretation, and far from endorsed by other editors. The presumption of notability for legally-recognised populated-places under WP:GEOLAND is an assumption that the sources exist to pass WP:GNG but we simply don't have them yet - that is, it is an presumption that they are notable, and as such is still a notability test, not just an automatic pass on notability simply by dint of being verifiable. As such, as WP:GEOLAND is a notability test, and as maps/tables are excluded from proving notability, you cannot just use a map/table to show an article passes WP:GEOLAND. This is far from simply being a legalistic trick - as WP:NGEO states, these sources show only that the place exists, they say nothing about notability which is the real thing required here, and particularly nothing about about legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- They are evidence of legal recognition. It would be absurd to require verification of legal recognition through unofficial sources. And even if it is a presumption, is it reasonable for it to be reversed for places in Turkey (but not for North America and most of Europe)? Peter James (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Peter, this is your own interpretation, and far from endorsed by other editors. The presumption of notability for legally-recognised populated-places under WP:GEOLAND is an assumption that the sources exist to pass WP:GNG but we simply don't have them yet - that is, it is an presumption that they are notable, and as such is still a notability test, not just an automatic pass on notability simply by dint of being verifiable. As such, as WP:GEOLAND is a notability test, and as maps/tables are excluded from proving notability, you cannot just use a map/table to show an article passes WP:GEOLAND. This is far from simply being a legalistic trick - as WP:NGEO states, these sources show only that the place exists, they say nothing about notability which is the real thing required here, and particularly nothing about about legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's for defining "sources" as used in the guideline. WP:GEOLAND criterion 1 is based on verifiability, not sources. Similarly the first part of WP:GEOFEAT has the additional requirement of "verifiable information beyond simple statistics" because that is also a verifiability-based criterion. Peter James (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NGEO explicitly states "This guideline specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Other sources should be used. 173.251.14.132 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- How can a typical map, unannotated except for place-names, show legal recognition? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- A typical map doesn't. Tables (for example census data) are more likely to, but maps can also show names or boundaries of administrative districts. Peter James (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- How can a typical map, unannotated except for place-names, show legal recognition? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- The issue is some editors treating the absolutely-most-expansive interpretation of the absolute-lowest-bar subject-specific notability guides as a gold-standard and mass-creating articles based on that. These village articles are being made on the contention that:
- Redirect all per WP:NOTGAZETEER and WP:MEATBOT. ——Serial 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as WP:NOTGAZETEER, infact quite the opposite - WP:5P1 Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Features of a gazetteer", not a gazetteer per se. Hence, unlike, say, GNIS, we do not simply include an article on every single named location. FOARP (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Though we can still create redirects to lists so that as a feature of a gazetteer we have a means of documenting, to some degree, every legally-recognized location. "Documenting" just doesn't have to be a standalong article, that's all. --Masem (t) 17:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Features of a gazetteer", not a gazetteer per se. Hence, unlike, say, GNIS, we do not simply include an article on every single named location. FOARP (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as WP:NOTGAZETEER, infact quite the opposite - WP:5P1 Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect all If more info is later sourced reliably, its trivial to unredirect and expand. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are two likely long-term outcomes: these will be articles, or Wikipedia will be much smaller and most of its content will have to be moved to another site if it is to avoid deletion. Redirecting just creates unnecessary work. For example when an article becomes a redirect with a template saying it's a separate topic {{R avoided double redirect}} should be used when "fixing" the double redirects. Peter James (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- For an example of how the "let's create loads of stubs based on dubious sourcing" thing works out, at peak in 2016 there 3.8 million articles on Swedish Wikipedia. The majority of these were Geostubs/Species-stubs. 1 million of those 3.8 million articles were Geostubs created by a single bot (Lsjbot). These articles were single-sentence, single-reference Geostubs of exactly the same kind we're discussing here. The people at Swedish Wiki realised that this had made their encyclopaedia virtually useless and so Lsjbot was shut down and they've since engaged in an extensive clean-up. In any given day anywhere between a few hundred and a few thousand Lsjbot articles are being deleted, and instead the focus has been on article quality. By any measure Swedish Wiki has greatly improved since then (users, article-quality indicators etc.) even as the number of articles has dropped (the number of articles has dropped from 3.8 million to 3.2 million).
- Wikis success is counted in accessibly-presented useful and accurate information, not the number of articles. FOARP (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: If village articles are to be made into redirects and lists of villages created in district articles, it would be helpful if the geographic coordinates of the villages (where present) could be included in the district-article lists. There's no reason for the work (or bot time) it took to add those coordinates to the village articles to be utterly in vain. Deor (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Deor, I think that can be done without too much extra work. Is something like Karaçoban what you had in mind? I don't usually work with coordinates so any tips are welcome. –dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: Yes, that's fine. I just see no reason to lose the coordinates. Deor (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Deor, Regarding the location data in the source Lugnuts used to create these articles, it is worth reading this exchange from Lugnut's recent ANI in which the deficiencies of the source are discussed (e.g., many of the locations listed are shown as being off the coast of West Africa). Probably for this reason the location is not listed in most (all?) of these Turkish village articles. Lugnuts also said they "saw the point" that the source they were using appeared unreliable and said they would stop making them. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @FOARP: The coordinates that have been added to the articles don't come from any source that Lugnuts used. They were added by The Anomebot2, using a source and procedure discussed by The Anome on my talk page here; and since the source gave them only to a precision of degrees and minutes and these are pretty small places, in some cases I refined them to a precision of degrees, minutes and seconds. (Doing this by hand, I wasn't able to handle many of the articles, because I couldn't keep up with the rate at which they were being created.) Deor (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Deor. Incredible that the grave-dancing shit-stiring from FOARP continues to go on without anyone batting an eyelid. I've never added any coordinates to any article ever. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll keep the coordinates for now so we don't lose them. Deor, would you be willing to follow behind and check for errors? If I understand correctly the GNS source usually fails in obvious ways that should be easy to root out (same name/different country, middle of the ocean) rather in a subtle way that could go unnoticed (mislabeled as a neighboring cluster of buildings) if that makes sense. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: I'll try to take a look at them; it would help if you could list on my talk page what district articles you've already transferred village coordinates to. For what it's worth, of all the GNS-sourced Turkish-village coordinates I've checked—several hundred, at least—I recall only two outright errors (different villages of the same name elsewhere in Turkey). I've certainly not seen coordinates in the middle of the ocean, coordinates of non-Turkish locations, or anything like that. Deor (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Deor: Thanks! I have a list going at User:Dlthewave/Turkey cleanup with completed districts at the bottom. Feel free to put a note or something after the ones you've checked. You'll see any changes if you watchlist that page, but I can also give you a heads up when I do a batch if that would help. –dlthewave ☎ 00:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: I'll try to take a look at them; it would help if you could list on my talk page what district articles you've already transferred village coordinates to. For what it's worth, of all the GNS-sourced Turkish-village coordinates I've checked—several hundred, at least—I recall only two outright errors (different villages of the same name elsewhere in Turkey). I've certainly not seen coordinates in the middle of the ocean, coordinates of non-Turkish locations, or anything like that. Deor (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @FOARP: The coordinates that have been added to the articles don't come from any source that Lugnuts used. They were added by The Anomebot2, using a source and procedure discussed by The Anome on my talk page here; and since the source gave them only to a precision of degrees and minutes and these are pretty small places, in some cases I refined them to a precision of degrees, minutes and seconds. (Doing this by hand, I wasn't able to handle many of the articles, because I couldn't keep up with the rate at which they were being created.) Deor (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Deor, I think that can be done without too much extra work. Is something like Karaçoban what you had in mind? I don't usually work with coordinates so any tips are welcome. –dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do not redirect. Without spot-checking them, I can't say whether I think they ought to remain as articles, but redirecting is simply a bad idea. If they're good enough to keep, redirecting is harmful. If they're bad enough to be gotten rid of, redirecting is worse than deleting:
- If a page indeed qualifies for an article, deleting it is better than redirecting, because deletion produces a redlink that highlights the non-existence of the article.
- If a page may not qualify for an article, why mention it on the district page? Someone looking for the subject will see that there's a place by this name in such-and-such a district, but a bare mention won't demonstrate that the place is the same one that the person's searching for. And if the district page has significant content about the place (more than name and coordinates), the content ought to be split out as a separate article. And if we indeed don't mention these places on district articles (or anywhere else), they're pointless because the searcher won't find any information about the subject at the destination article.
- Bare mentions of placenames in wider-area articles, or mentions with coordinates, simply aren't enough to deserve a redirect. When a placename is a bluelink, we owe the readers at least some significant content about the place, and redirecting little towns to wider areas doesn't do that. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because redirects helps with searching even if there's minimal information to give about the place. On the case "a bare mention won't demonstrate that the place is the same one that the person's searching for", that's where we can also add the redirected term to appropriate disambiguation pages as well. Obviously if we have a case where we have documented a place "Zyxxy" in Turkey but have failed to document two other "Zyxxy"s in Iran and in Indonesia (hypothetical examples), we might create that confusion, but WP is a work in progress and we'd known at completion that "Zyxxy" would lead to some page - whether one of these three or a disambiguation page - that will direct the user to the appropriate correct page after that that they were searching for. Of course, if they don't any other context beyond the name, that's something we can't help with since we can't predict intent. --Masem (t) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the articles all had suitably specific disambiguated titles, so I don't see any potential for confusion with other places. The main reason I support redirecting over outright deletion is that these articles have already been incorporated into the navigational structure of dab pages and hatnotes. If they got deleted, then those navigational props will go as well, and I don't think that's of any benefit. As for deleting in order to create redlink incentives for proper re-creation, I don't think this will work here as the articles are all de facto orphans and there tends to be no article content anywhere that links to them. – Uanfala (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because redirects helps with searching even if there's minimal information to give about the place. On the case "a bare mention won't demonstrate that the place is the same one that the person's searching for", that's where we can also add the redirected term to appropriate disambiguation pages as well. Obviously if we have a case where we have documented a place "Zyxxy" in Turkey but have failed to document two other "Zyxxy"s in Iran and in Indonesia (hypothetical examples), we might create that confusion, but WP is a work in progress and we'd known at completion that "Zyxxy" would lead to some page - whether one of these three or a disambiguation page - that will direct the user to the appropriate correct page after that that they were searching for. Of course, if they don't any other context beyond the name, that's something we can't help with since we can't predict intent. --Masem (t) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Boharo (AfD discussion) is an example of the farcical situation we find ourselves in now. We actually ended up preferring old bogus information from 1987 to far more up-to-date information from 2013, and the article is quite wrong. Not a Lugnuts creation, by the way. This is a general problem. Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect all - Unless the neighbourhoods are notable in some way than one-lined articles should not be created. –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect all, preserving the coordinate datain the district list. . As Masem and other have also said, probably the best way of dealing with subjects like these will be combination articles. It's a technique we should be using more frequently. Those few that will be usefully exanded can be found and expanded just as well from a list as from these articles. And is is useful redirecting, because knowing what district a village is in , along with the coordinates, is useful information. When I see an unfamiliar place name in a large country, that sort of information is usually all I need--to know about where it is located. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect some. As far as I can see, redirecting will be worth it for the following two sets of Turkish village articles created by Lugnuts:
- "Neighbourhoods". The use of "neighbourhood" for Turkish mahalle doesn't appear to be based on any sources and so is OR. Instead of attempting to fix that across the hundreds of microstubs that use the term, it's better to have that information only on the handful of lists, where the terms used could be clarified and further explanation easily added.
- Unreliably sourced ones. For much of their creations, Lugnuts used Koyumuz.net or one other unreliable webiste, which they have subsequently replaced, for some articles, with a better source. The articles that still use the unreliable source will need attention and in those cases I believe it will be acceptable to redirect the villages and then use a good source once to generate the list at the target, instead of updating several thousand individual stubs.
- For those articles that are reliably sourced and that don't contain apparent OR, then I don't think redirecting is necessary. Sure, as discussed previously, it was a bad idea to create them in the first place. But now that they exist, having them separate is marginally better. For example, they have interlanguage links to the corresponding articles on the Turkish Wikipedia, which are clearly useful, and replicating those links inside the list entries after redirecting will be quite laborious. – Uanfala (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- If, by some miracle, they are not redirected, I will replace the Koyumuz source. I did about 1,000 of them early in the month, but obviously it's a waste of my time if they're just going to be redirected anyway. <insert witty comment about pipes and smoking it here> Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- There was also quite a few updated with info about the Kurdish population within said location too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- If, by some miracle, they are not redirected, I will replace the Koyumuz source. I did about 1,000 of them early in the month, but obviously it's a waste of my time if they're just going to be redirected anyway. <insert witty comment about pipes and smoking it here> Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Unban request from Lavalizard101
Lavalizard101 has requested (UTRS appeal #42527) that I place the following request so they can be unbanned, as per WP:UNBAN. They were checkuser-blocked by Bbb23 on 2018-07-08 and their extensive block evasion is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator/Archive.
I am requesting an unban of my account. I was banned for repeated sockpuppetry under 3X in October 2020 after being blocked for sockpuppetry back in 2018. All accounts I have ever used in order of usage are: Lavalizard101 (this one); prior to block and the cause of the block: 323van (was used back in January 2017 and blocked for vandalism and never connected with me owned up about it when originally requesting unblock); van323dal (was used back in February 2017 and blocked for vandalism and never connected with me owned up about it when originally requesting unblock); aarlai (used back in September 2017 for POV pushing agian never connected and I owned up to it when originally requesting unblock); Waterwhale12 (used from February to April 2018 then abandoned a month prior to its block); TruthINJC and TruthINJC2 (both used for vandalism in May 2018); Iceiguana (used in July 2018 for gaming autoconfirmed then creating a one-off hoax article-this was the account that drew attention for being a possible sock of Lapitavenator and where I was found out); after the orginal block for block evasion: TKnifton (used from September 2019 an arbcom request was denied to May 2020 as an attempted quiet return before being blocked); Tjklj11 (used as a second quiet return attemp in October 2020 after a second arbcom request went [at the time] unanswered for a month [note i recieved a respond in december-3 months after i was told it was being considered]) I have shown that I can be a productive member of the Wikipedia editing community via my editing history of Lavalizard101 prior to the sockpuppetry and to an extent, the editing history of TKnifton (only rule broken being Block Evasion). Since the ban was placed I have been sporadically editing Wikispecies in a similar vein to how my main editing focus here is. If unbanned I would: create and expand articles in palaeontology, replace taxboxes with automatic taxoboxes to make it easier for updating higher classification, expand and update categories on palaeontology articles, etc. and would also go back to recent change patrolling for antivandalism work, commenting on unblock requests if acceptable.
I noted there was a high likelihood their appeal would be rejected, possibly under WP:SNOW, and were they sure they wished this specific request copied over. The response was:
yes but with the added comment that apart from the block evasion the edits were productive with the sockpuppet account
Follow-up comments:
I'd like to respond to the comment about the Sockpuppet number: I am not Lapitavenator, My account Iceiguana13 was originally thought to be a sock of Lapitavenator's but was correctly identified as not being them but being me instead. The tags weren't corrected until I appealed in January 2019 which caused and will possibly continue to cause confusion. Also the User talk:Tknifton is not littered with warnings I got a few warnings and a couple of comments but most of it is from the antivandalism work and recent changes patrolling that I was doing. Also When I say I was editing productively as TKnifton I meant based purely on the edits themselves I agree that behaviourly I was disruptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose unblocking, add a prohibition on further requests for at least one year from today or from the most recent instance of block evasion, whichever comes later. I count 38 sockpuppet accounts strewn between Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lapitavenator, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lapitavenator, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lavalizard101, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lavalizard101, I see multiple years of disruptive editing, and the clincher is the claim that they were contributing productively with Tjklj11 and Tknifton while evading their block; User talk:Tknifton in particular is littered with warnings, not to mention their attempt to mislead us about being a blocked editor. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional Support The last edits by were 6 months ago? If they have managed to stay away for 6 months then I'm OK with giving them another chance. Presumably with a one account restriction. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional Support per WSC. ROPE is a thing, as perhaps is maturity. ——Serial 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional support per WSC and Serial. I don't generally picture myself casting unban support !votes for someone who literally used the username "vandal", but the Wikispecies contribs are productive (see species:Special:Contributions/Lavalizard101 if you don't feel like going and checking yourself) and the vandalism/hoaxing occurred during the then-LTA's adolescence. The hoax attempt does give me serious qualms, and I'd want a close eye kept, but I'm willing to extend some rope to a productive contributor on another project. Vaticidalprophet 13:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- As an addendum, I would strongly suggest that if Lavalizard101 is unblocked, he not focus on RCP and instead focus on content. We very much do not need another overzealous false-positive-shooting RCP patroller, which he seems to have a history of being, while his Wikispecies contributions make it clear his content edits can be good. Vaticidalprophet 13:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I find a few things in this appeal concerning. Lavalizard101 appears to be blaming Arbcom for their repeated block evasion, which they incorrectly label as "quiet returns". The also seem to be nonchalant about their repeated flaunting of Wikipedia policy when they state "...the editing history of TKnifton (only rule broken being Block Evasion)". I don't see any real understanding of the extent of their breach of community trust as a result of such extensive socking (and subsequent denials and appeals). This appeal, to my eyes, admits some of the socking but also essentially downplays it as necessary due to Arbcom not responding in the time frame that was acceptable to Lavalizard101. I'm also not keen with their stated intent to return to vandalism fighting, especially the "commenting on unblock requests" bit. If the appeal is granted, I certainly hope that's not a direction they take. I see potential for a future successful appeal, but I don't believe we're there quite yet. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- CheckUser blocks already take so long to be reviewed that they are often declined just because they are waiting so long. Peter James (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SO and WP:ROPE. If there is any behavioral issues, their record will follow them around anyways, and I expect a quick block will follow. It's clear they understand that further shenanigans won't be tolerated. I'm unworried about the lack of proper deference the opposes above note. We don't need people to be deferent, we need people to stop breaking rules and become productive editors. I think this user has the potential to do so. If I'm wrong, blocks are cheap. --Jayron32 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up comments from Lavalizard101 on his talk that he requested be copied here, and my own response given there:
(copy this for others to see) @Vaticidalprophet and Ponyo: re: LTA and admits to some of the socking (made respectively). I am not an LTA and I have admitted to all of the socking that I did. Again I am not Lapitavenator the SPI found me (rightfully) unrelated to them as can be seen in its archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I used the term "then-LTA" neutrally to refer to the fact you had a prior history of vandalism and hoaxing across multiple accounts. You are to the best of my ability to tell not currently an LTA, and there is history of once-LTAs reforming. Vaticidalprophet 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet 18:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The connection between the accounts was confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator/Archive#08 July 2018 but was found to be unrelated to Lapitavenator. Also the talk page for Tknifton is not "littered with warnings", at first there is a complaint about bad reverts, the first speedy deletion is about copyright (citing a source but not attributing it as a source of text) but the other deletion notifications are a redirect left by a page move from the main namespace and two empty categories - these are not indications of disruptive editing. Peter James (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum: Lavalizard has also agreed to focus on content rather than RCP. Vaticidalprophet 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support We should give Lava some rope and AGF. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- We should give all editors rope and AGF. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support - an indefinite block is not a permanent block. Editors who show commitment to change behaviour should be given the chance to show that they mean it. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support - As others have said, give him some rope. Ultimately if he ends up being disruptive again, he'll be blocked again. Just looking back at his userpage history and blocks on other accounts, he was a teenager when a lot of the disruption happened. Something I'd strongly suggest is that if he intends to work on anti-vandalism, he should go through the WP:CVUA. – Frood (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: The discussion seems to have reached a natural conclusion, and consensus is to unblock. We need the checkuser in question to at least give their blessing before doing so. I note that Bbb23 is semi-retired, but has been active at least as recently as yesterday. Hopefully we can get some feedback from them on this. --Jayron32 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Bbb23 is no longer a checkuser. WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural comment - rules require a checkuser to evaluate it, that's on the socking side. Bbb23 can't do that, but does still need to be done (normally it's done fairly early in an AN discussion). In a regular unblock, the blocking admin's POV has to be sought, however that is not a necessary obligation in an AN discussion (it's to stop wheelwarring). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, can someone ping a checkuser to follow up and unblock as needed? I'm not being dragged to ArbCom for doing this wrong, but community consensus seems to be that an unblock is in order. --Jayron32 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- You need a CU to give permission to unblock, which is normally done by checking to make sure there is no recent socking. I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't already been done, but I no longer have the ability to check whether anyone has checked. This might help: Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a checkuser, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. @Jpgordon: and @ST47: in case they see something I don't (I haven't had the tools all that long), but I'm pretty confident in my statement here. I also concur the consensus is to unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I concur, there is no evidence of block evasion within the 90 day timeframe of checkuser. I personally would not unblock this user, but I'm prejudiced, I suppose, by their past behavior, and see no particular reason for our volunteers to waste more time monitoring them. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a checkuser, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. @Jpgordon: and @ST47: in case they see something I don't (I haven't had the tools all that long), but I'm pretty confident in my statement here. I also concur the consensus is to unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- You need a CU to give permission to unblock, which is normally done by checking to make sure there is no recent socking. I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't already been done, but I no longer have the ability to check whether anyone has checked. This might help: Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, can someone ping a checkuser to follow up and unblock as needed? I'm not being dragged to ArbCom for doing this wrong, but community consensus seems to be that an unblock is in order. --Jayron32 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure. My respected cohorts Yamla, Ponyo, and Jpgordon make a strong case against unblocking. I have not looked at the technical evidence, and trust their analysis (which seems to indicate that there has not been any obvious socking within the last 90 days) entirely. A lot of the argument supporting an unblock here leans heavily on AGF / ROPE - and is made by editors that I strongly respect. Is this worth the time that the community may have to invest here? Are there solid examples of the type of edit that the blocked editor intends to make, if unblocked, available? SQLQuery me! 05:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Are there solid examples of the type of edit that the blocked editor intends to make, if unblocked, available?
I posted his Wikispecies contribs, which aren't directly translatable to Wikipedia ones, but do seem to demonstrate a willingness to work productively in his fields of interest. Vaticidalprophet 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support as others said above, per SO and ROPE. Levivich harass/hound 13:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If any admins have time, there are several pending requests for non-controvercial moves. Thanks in advance for those willing to assist.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, there are two requests, neither of them more than five hours old. Please be patient, nothing is that vital that you need to forum-shop. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- PrimefacThat's a rather uncivil and inflammatory response. I hardly would consider drawing attention to a request for assistance of uncontroversial moves in keeping with the spirit and intent of policy at WP:FORUMSHOP; which is about subverting consensus and not seeking assistance. This post was neutral and not forking an ongoing request by any means. As an admin you should show more wisdom in avoiding the use of escalating comments, and could benefit from re-reading WP:Civil.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The only thing I was commenting on was your impatience: unless there is a {{backlog}} indicated (at any administrative page) it does not really need to be cross-posted here. As a minor note, had I meant to link to FORUMSHOP I would have done so, but I intentionally left it lower-case and un-linked because it is a request at a secondary noticeboard (i.e. "a forum") for something that has already been requested, despite it not being a "Wikipedia FORUMSHOP" issue. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- I object to the use of the word forum shop because of it’s implied meaning among Wikipedia’s community. It’s an intentionally insulting and inflammatory comment which attacks my character as an editor, and frankly it wasn’t appropriate or kind. Regardless, this conversation is a waist of both of our times. The request was made, and I probably could have waited. Considering I’ve never made a move request before, I wasn’t aware that I was being objectionable or impatient by asking for help on what I thought might be a space that is neglected. I’ll know for future to just let it sit.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The only thing I was commenting on was your impatience: unless there is a {{backlog}} indicated (at any administrative page) it does not really need to be cross-posted here. As a minor note, had I meant to link to FORUMSHOP I would have done so, but I intentionally left it lower-case and un-linked because it is a request at a secondary noticeboard (i.e. "a forum") for something that has already been requested, despite it not being a "Wikipedia FORUMSHOP" issue. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- PrimefacThat's a rather uncivil and inflammatory response. I hardly would consider drawing attention to a request for assistance of uncontroversial moves in keeping with the spirit and intent of policy at WP:FORUMSHOP; which is about subverting consensus and not seeking assistance. This post was neutral and not forking an ongoing request by any means. As an admin you should show more wisdom in avoiding the use of escalating comments, and could benefit from re-reading WP:Civil.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request block of disruptive IP address
Moved to WP:AN3Promo-only account User:Pure3kkk
Pure3kkk (talk · contribs) is a WP:PROMO-only account, pushing links to their blog maxslot69 either directly (1018738680, 1018731472) or indirectly (1019656977, 1019658409) and is WP:NOTHERE to improve the project. Mathglot (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blocked by SuperMarioMan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Request block of disruptive sockpupet User:Mr,p balçi
- I have already blocked two socks in the last several minutes, watch out for more socks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
My deleted edits
Hello, can an admin view Special:DeletedContributions/54nd60x so I can know which edit I made that got deleted? I know this may not be very important, but I am still curious and I found out today that I had 1 deleted edit and just curious which one it is. 54nd60x (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- II (RFD). —Cryptic 04:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Cryptic: But the page is still there, so did the original II page get deleted so that II (disambiguation) was moved to II? 54nd60x (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Never mind, I already found the answer to my question by checking the deletion log for II. 54nd60x (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Cryptic: But the page is still there, so did the original II page get deleted so that II (disambiguation) was moved to II? 54nd60x (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Required notifications
I've just PBLOCKed two editors from editing each others user and talk pages. This means that they are now unable to leave required notifications should they raise issues at AN, ANI etc in the future. Do we need to tweak the edit notice to cover this situation, or will the advice I've given each to state that they are unable to leave required notifications be sufficient? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I would assume that the users would just be able to state this fact at any reports they file with a request for an uninvolved editor to issue the notification? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 10:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Or use the blocking admin's talkpage to post the notice, so they can inform the other party. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- That seems like a worse idea to me, since it means A) bothering the admin and B) means that the notification will only be delivered once the admin notices it. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Why doesn't a bot deliver talk page notifications if a reporting user forgets the notification or otherwise can't leave a notification? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Admins are there to be bothered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: I've no objection per se, but doing it that way runs the risk of a delay in notification. Far quicker and more effective to post straight to the editors talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was more thinking out loud on my part to cover all bases. Mind you, what are the chances of these two logging an AN/ANI against each other in any case.... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Probably quite high. We have a situation where two editors just don't get on with each other. Next step is either going to be a full IBAN, or both getting indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was more thinking out loud on my part to cover all bases. Mind you, what are the chances of these two logging an AN/ANI against each other in any case.... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- That seems like a worse idea to me, since it means A) bothering the admin and B) means that the notification will only be delivered once the admin notices it. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Or use the blocking admin's talkpage to post the notice, so they can inform the other party. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Having read the talk page advice you left - I don't think anything further needs to be done. If they "forget" to mention it when filing a complaint on one of the drama boards, I'm sure someone will say something to remind them. At which time they can mention the PBlock. (appreciate the thoroughness however) — Ched (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Mass deletion of Iranian abadis
Is there any admin here who is willing to enforce the consensus to delete section 3 of User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess now and without any hesitation or discussion. After about 2 weeks of inaction, I eventually PRODed them to get rid of them, but I hear complaints on my talk page that the PROD queue is getting clogged. Seriously guys, after all those discussions and one admin being de-sysoped, should I beg you to delete these nonsense? 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can do it no problem. What exactly needs to be deleted from that list?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ymblanter. The following are eligible for mass deletion (i.e. no need to further evaluation by the admin)
- Section 3 (User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess#Manually checked articles (vandalism, non-substantial contributions, errors, locations that were misidentified by Semsûrî) (intial count 164, current count 242)
- Section 5 (User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess#New search results (1372 items))
- Section 5.2 (User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess#Manually checked articles from new search results, vandalism, misidentifications, etc (56))
- 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ymblanter. The following are eligible for mass deletion (i.e. no need to further evaluation by the admin)
- I've agreed to doing this after the articles with hatnotes are redirected to real articles (e.g. Bizin) and removed from the list. If someone (Ymblanter?) else takes it up (which would be fine), I’d suggest they look into these first. I'm still working on restoring the hats from the original batch. –xenotalk 11:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, good. We need a clean list of articles to detele anyway, so that one then runs Extension:DeleteBatch. Let us build up this list first. Who then runs an extension is immaterial.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ymblanter/Abadis Todelete is the list where some articles need to be removed from.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, I just went over User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess/hatnotes#For new search results, I'll update your list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ymblanter/Abadis Todelete is the list where some articles need to be removed from.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Xeno, Ymblanter, it is unclear to me (and 4nn1l2) which articles (or based on what criteria) should be redirected. I made {{subst:ABADI}} if that helps. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Any instance where the target is a real possibility and not from an already disambiguated location. (so redirect Bizin to the other Bizin, or give it the primary location, but not Bizin, SomeOtherProvince to Bizin, YetAnotherProvince). Check my recent restorations and redirects. –xenotalk 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Xeno, I'll take a look. Also, if you'd like DelReqHandler here, just ask. Shouldn't be too hard. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Any instance where the target is a real possibility and not from an already disambiguated location. (so redirect Bizin to the other Bizin, or give it the primary location, but not Bizin, SomeOtherProvince to Bizin, YetAnotherProvince). Check my recent restorations and redirects. –xenotalk 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, good. We need a clean list of articles to detele anyway, so that one then runs Extension:DeleteBatch. Let us build up this list first. Who then runs an extension is immaterial.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of these. When I looked at the PROD list for April 24th, I was shocked. There are typically 20-60 PRODs coming due to be evaluated each day and on that day there were over 330 articles PROD'd and so I posted a note to 4nn1l2 asking him to slow down the PROD tagging since there are just a couple of admins who regularly check them. Some of those pages that were PROD'd have since been deleted by Ymblanter so that has helped get the number to under 200 articles. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Liz: I will finish this part in a few days, do not worry. We will still have a middle part with more than thousand stubs, but these have not been PRODded.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of these. When I looked at the PROD list for April 24th, I was shocked. There are typically 20-60 PRODs coming due to be evaluated each day and on that day there were over 330 articles PROD'd and so I posted a note to 4nn1l2 asking him to slow down the PROD tagging since there are just a couple of admins who regularly check them. Some of those pages that were PROD'd have since been deleted by Ymblanter so that has helped get the number to under 200 articles. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Also note that while that has been happening, there's another list likely soon coming up at #Alexis Jazz's list. I have been enjoying Abadi (settlement) (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Old editing restrictions affecting IP users
These users are no longer active and it is likely that another person could edit from these IP's or that they will be reassigned. Should the corresponding editing restrictions be repealed on principle?
- 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Novaseminary and IP editor 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (et alia) must refrain from editing Douglas Tait (stuntman). Last edited in 2012.
- 92.24.3.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): 92.24.3.41 is topic banned from articles as well as talk pages related to Scott Oake and may not add any material regarding Scott Oake to other articles. Last edited in 2010.
- 213.66.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Consensus is that 213.66.81.80 is topic-banned from topics related to cement, broadly construed. Last edited in 2014.
There is one additional Arbcom-imposed restriction on user 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who last edited in 2007, but that is outside the scope of this AN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- LaundryPizza03, I see no active blocks or WP:Editing restrictions besides the edit restriction for 2602:304/Novaseminary. Restrictions to an IP should never be indef. The restrictions are for the user that was using that IP. If the IP became active again, you'd have to assume it's someone else unless they quack. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Couple of problems: Without links, it is impossible to verify the sanctions are active and in scope for this board. ie: if it was an Arb restriction, we have no authority to change the sanction here. Second, sanctions can only be appealed by the person who has the sanctions, not 3rd parties, with few exceptions that don't apply here. If they aren't editing, there is no valid reason to lift the sanctions anyway. Next, admin already know that IPs change, and when a restriction is given to an IP, it isn't given to that address, it is given to the person using that address. If someone does come back using that IP address, and they are the same person, then yes, the sanction should hold. If it is someone else, then it wouldn't apply to them anyway. WP:IPs are not human. Honestly, if a different person started using the IP addresses, it is likely it wouldn't get noticed, or would be dealt with at the time. Finally, why would you even bring this to the board? Is there a problem this would solve? It seems rather academic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- There appear to be links at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, that answers one question, but the rest are still outstanding. It still seems a solution looking for a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- We have removed other indef blocks on IPs as 3rd parties repeatedly, because otherwise we have to wait for someone who is almost certain collateral damage to run into it, but also have enough stubbornness to figure out how to appeal it anyway. OTRS/ACC generally leads collateral damage victims around the block, rather than actually removing it, so that circumstance set is very rare. Judging by the consensus on 3rd party blocks in the current discussion, I'm not sure
sanctions can only be appealed by the person who has the sanctions, not 3rd parties, with few exceptions that don't apply her
holds up anyway. Obviously the ARBCOM sanction is outside our remit, though I would be surprised if they didn't overturn it by motion if requested. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- We have removed other indef blocks on IPs as 3rd parties repeatedly, because otherwise we have to wait for someone who is almost certain collateral damage to run into it, but also have enough stubbornness to figure out how to appeal it anyway. OTRS/ACC generally leads collateral damage victims around the block, rather than actually removing it, so that circumstance set is very rare. Judging by the consensus on 3rd party blocks in the current discussion, I'm not sure
- Ok, that answers one question, but the rest are still outstanding. It still seems a solution looking for a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- There appear to be links at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sanctions are applied to the user and not the IP address. Is the problem that there are blocked IP addresses that need to be freed up? If we're sure the sanctioned person is unlikely to use the IP address again, we can unblock them, but if the sanctions have never been rescinded, they still technically apply to the persons in question. --Jayron32 14:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- That is my point, you are just more concise. We generally don't just lift sanctions on anyone "just because" anyway, we require they request it, with very few exceptions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Entitled or Titled - Which for British English on wording convention for item name
Is there any admin who can help explain which is best for British English articles, concerning names given to objects, figures, programmes, and so forth. For example, if a spin-off game is made from a mainstream title, what should the sentence be in that respect within the article (both Lead and Section), if in British English:
- "... and so the spin-off was entitled..."
- "... and so the spin-off was titled..."
GUtt01 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure which is best, but "entitled" does seem to be more favoured in British English than in American. Evenso, it may be be a little archaic? I'm always put in mind of some Edwardian music hall turn saying, "And now for a little song entitled "She was only the pilot's daughter but she certainly had a fur lined cockpit." etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I ask, because when I look up the meaning around the internet, I tend to find its definition, its meaning put out as the following:
"The adjective entitled means you have a legal right to something. If you are entitled to your mother's house when she passes away, that means it's written in her will that she gave it to you.
"Entitled is often used in a more casual way, to mean "allowed." For example, volunteers at the park clean-up are entitled to the water and snacks at the pavilion. Sometimes, though, people feel they are entitled to special treatment because they think they are more worthy than others. This usage of entitled came from the mid 15th century, when it referred to giving someone the title of an estate or property.
- GUtt01 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Either. Both have the meaning "to give a name" but as entitled also means "to have a right" some may see titled as the better option. As a Brit I have no problem with titled in this case. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- GUtt01 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but this question is about content and I'm British, so I feel entitled (definitely not titled in this sense) to answer. I would say that "titled" is probably now preferred in the meaning you are looking for, with "entitled" being, as Martin says, a little archaic. In a different meaning, titled people certainly tend to consider themselves to be entitled. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I concur. If I'm making other edits I tend to remove the en to avoid any confusion. nagualdesign 17:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I can't find anything to support "entitled" as a synonym for "named" or "called" in British or American usage. I think it's an artifact of individual writers thinking "entitled" is a more formal way of saying "titled". Schazjmd (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- A quick look at Google Books search results for "entitled" (certainly not a conclusive scientific survey) actually seems to find many more American uses of the word in this meaning than British, and usually about the titles of acts of legislative bodies in various states, and confirmation that it is archaic. I think "titled" is your best bet. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Titled for both BrEng and AmEng, if only to avoid any potential ambiguity regarding "entitled" meaning (roughly) "allowed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Please put me down as a vote for the obsolete Scots "namyt". Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll second that, with a plea that "intituled" be taken into consideration. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Titled" in this sense looks plain wrong to my eyes. Have any of you ever encountered the word "called"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Called" feels wrong in my idiolect. Called is sort of a descriptive thing; it is decided by popular acclaim. "Titled" is more prescriptive, it is a top-down decision. So there is a movie called "Star Wars" that is, at least retroactively, titled "Episode IV: A New Hope." Clumsy analogy, but hopefully you see what I mean. As ever, might be just me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I do, but it seems wrong, or at least American. Surely "titled" runs the risk of being confused with "having a noble title", at least by people stupid enough to confuse the meanings of "entitled"? DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Dumuzid. Of course, that could be because I am American. As for your suggestion of possible confusion with "having a noble title", that confusion is especially UNlikely in American English. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I do, but it seems wrong, or at least American. Surely "titled" runs the risk of being confused with "having a noble title", at least by people stupid enough to confuse the meanings of "entitled"? DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Called" feels wrong in my idiolect. Called is sort of a descriptive thing; it is decided by popular acclaim. "Titled" is more prescriptive, it is a top-down decision. So there is a movie called "Star Wars" that is, at least retroactively, titled "Episode IV: A New Hope." Clumsy analogy, but hopefully you see what I mean. As ever, might be just me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why an administrator should be expected to have special expertise in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC).
- The administrators' noticeboard is not a general-purpose area. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia:Teahouse is for. See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 January 16#"Entitled". And then observe Wikipedia:Peer review/Jessica Simpson discography/archive1 going one way and Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonic Adventure 2/archive1 another for how inconsistent Wikipedia editors are on this in general. Uncle G (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Topic Ban Appeal
More than a year ago I've been banned from UFO related topics after a heated discussion with other editors.
This was my first ban or block of any kind and as one can see form the ensuing discussion and block log my attempts at "remedying" the situation got me into even more trouble.
My inexperience with Wikipedia's administrative processes and with highly contentious editing areas definitely played a part in the mess that ensued despite my good faith attempts at resolving the issues.
Some time has passed and I would like to be able to remove this limit on my account. I think I have learned a lot and thanks to my increased experience believe it won’t happen again in the future.
This "incident" and the following "squabble" has been my one and only in over 10 years on Wikipedia.
Thanks
P.S. I'm following WP:UNBAN and I think I am right in posting here but I found conflicting information and multiple different guides giving contradictory guidance on how and where to post an appeal. If this is the wrong place for this I would appreciate some guidance!
-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ping Bishonen as banning admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Inclined to support per WP:SO, and on the understanding that there have been no further instances of the same behavior. (Have there?) To clarify a couple of things: Yes, Gtofoletto, you have been here since 2008; but the ~200 edits you made between then and last February (Lockdown, eh?) are not realy relevant. However, it does mean you were to all intents and purposes a new editor.* WP:ROPE should certainly apply, especially after a year.As for
This "incident"...has been my one and only in over 10 years on Wikipedia
, well, you do seem to have been blocked 3 times in six months, but again, that was long enough ago that it could be considered water the bridge. ——Serial 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- * Suggested by your expression of surprise when you found
conflicting information and multiple different guides giving contradictory guidance
on this Wikipedia :) ——Serial 12:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- * Suggested by your expression of surprise when you found
- Oppose User:Gtoffoletto: Your inability to acknowledge the actual reasons for your topic ban is troublesome, as is your apparent attempt to downplay those unspoken reasons (
This "incident" and the following "squabble"
). I am, however, willing to strike this oppose !vote if you would explicitly admit here, without any qualifications whatsoever, that the sole reason for your topic ban was your own highly disruptive behavior (which included POV-pushing, assuming bad faith, making aspersions and attacks against other users, and endlessly bludgeoning discussions - all of which can be easily supported by many diffs) and not neutral circumstances (e.g.,My inexperience with Wikipedia's administrative processes
) or innocent faux pas (my attempts at "remedying" the situation
andmy good faith attempts at resolving the issues
). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)- @JoJo Anthrax: A lot of discussion has followed my ban. The admin that imposed the sanction changed the reason for the block after 14 days from
pro-fringe POV-pushing
todisruptive editing in the subject area
following those discussions. I will absolutely admit I had a strong disagreement with other users and lost my cool: I assumed their bad faith, I made aspersions and attacks against them, and I endlessly bludgeoned discussions. I think I deserved to be topic banned. I will not admit to POV pushing and I challenge you to provide the many diffs you claim to have of this. I strive to stick to the sources with every edit I make. This is my utmost goal on Wikipedia: to stick to the sources. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)- Gtoffoletto I believe it is accurate to say that the basis for your topic ban was expanded, and not simply "changed." POV-pushing is, after all, a form of disruptive editing. Reading the post-ban discussion leads me to conclude that your POV-pushing was most definitely an element of your disruptive editing. Regarding those elements, your responses below to PaleoNeonate indicate a return to your bludgeoning behavior, and the claim that PaleoNeonate is
questioning my integrity
is an assumption of bad faith. Not a good look in a request for removing a topic ban that is, in part, based upon bludgeoning behavior and assumptions of bad faith. - I claimed above to have diffs of your POV-pushing in the broad category of UFOs. You "challenged" me to produce them. I have done so on my Talk page here. Readers can judge for themselves whether or not those represent you pushing a pro-fringe POV - perhaps they will agree with you? - but I will note here that most of those edits were reverted by experienced editors in good standing (including jps, LuckyLouie, and Roxy the dog) who you targeted for personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Please be extremely careful if you choose to respond to that post on my Talk page, as although the spotlight on your editing is much more intense here than there (which is why I posted the diffs there), I do not wish for any response you make to be interpreted by an administrator as a violation of your topic ban. You have made it perfectly clear, in this thread and previously, that you do not believe that any of your edits represent POV-pushing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax: Thank you for taking the time to research this. I will let others judge the diffs you have provided. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Gtoffoletto I believe it is accurate to say that the basis for your topic ban was expanded, and not simply "changed." POV-pushing is, after all, a form of disruptive editing. Reading the post-ban discussion leads me to conclude that your POV-pushing was most definitely an element of your disruptive editing. Regarding those elements, your responses below to PaleoNeonate indicate a return to your bludgeoning behavior, and the claim that PaleoNeonate is
- @JoJo Anthrax: A lot of discussion has followed my ban. The admin that imposed the sanction changed the reason for the block after 14 days from
- Support - Everyone deserves a second chance. They obviously know if they screw up, they will probably never get a third chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about Gtoffoletto's digging-in above. "Sources" are too vague; to be acceptable here, sources need to be reliable: secondary sources preferably, with editorial oversight, which are independent of the subject. Miniapolis 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- On the pages relating to UFOs, it is even rather more stringent than that sometimes. No less illustrious sources as The New York Times and The Washington Post have fallen victim to WP:SENSATIONal reporting without so much as a consideration for the normal editorial control they exercise. This is perhaps because UFO stories tend to be under the editorial control of rather more lax divisions like the "society pages", but in any case it's pretty tiresome to have accounts come through and say, "but.... but.... THE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS IT COULD BE ALIENS!" as though this is proof positive of something strange afoot. I lament the Ancient-Aliens-ification of respectable media, but this is where we are finding ourselves these days. Sigh. jps (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I find the problem with WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of these UFO videos by nominally reliable sources is that they tend to play up pilot comments that UFOs behaved in ways that "defy the laws of physics" and have capabilities "not of this earth". Which doesn't explicitly say ALIENS but effectively shuts the door on any other interpretation except ALIENS. Another thing this type of coverage does is play up the "secret government program" angle, which suggests there are some kind of top secret records being kept from the public regarding UFOs. Again, they don't explicitly say ALIENS, but most people can't help think ALIENS. It's no surprise WP articles on these topics tend to attract POV warriors armed with NYT and WaPo citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- On the pages relating to UFOs, it is even rather more stringent than that sometimes. No less illustrious sources as The New York Times and The Washington Post have fallen victim to WP:SENSATIONal reporting without so much as a consideration for the normal editorial control they exercise. This is perhaps because UFO stories tend to be under the editorial control of rather more lax divisions like the "society pages", but in any case it's pretty tiresome to have accounts come through and say, "but.... but.... THE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS IT COULD BE ALIENS!" as though this is proof positive of something strange afoot. I lament the Ancient-Aliens-ification of respectable media, but this is where we are finding ourselves these days. Sigh. jps (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about Gtoffoletto's digging-in above. "Sources" are too vague; to be acceptable here, sources need to be reliable: secondary sources preferably, with editorial oversight, which are independent of the subject. Miniapolis 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Since more than 6 months have passed the appeal is worth considering. I tend to oppose for the same reasons as Jojo Anthrax, although there then was a partial acknowledgement as a response to their concerns. I looked back a bit for context and am not convinced that Gtoffoletto should edit in the area: 1, 2, 3, 4 (interested editors can look at the edit/talk history at mentioned articles there as well). Then there was this WP:POINTy campaign to "fix" Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Wikipedia's handling of user disputes must be overhauled and User:Gtoffoletto/WIKILegal (and its talk page). This is the previous ANI thread that lead to the topic ban. I'm not sure if there's a COI involved but there also was clear promotion of To The Stars company. After the topic ban, they refused to accept it and kept arguing about the topic and WP almost to the point of an indefinite block. The latter was fortunately avoided and I admit that there's been some constructive editing on other topics since, notably COVID-19. —PaleoNeonate – 05:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate: there was absolutely no
clear promotion of To The Stars company
and no COI whatsoever. I was NOT topic banned for any of those reasons. Please provide diffs if that is your accusation. I was topic banned because I was involved in an edit war and acted disruptively. I totally accept that punishment and agree with it. It has never happened before or after in over 12 years of editing en.wiki and it.wiki on various subjects. I lost my cool, but I think I have learned a lot from that (painful) experience. Also: I am working on trying to propose improvements to Wikipedia's administrative processes here User:Gtoffoletto/WIKILegal (I work in Legal Tech so it is related to my job and I consider it useful research. It's progressing slowly but I have WP:NODEADLINE.). As the data on that page demonstrates most users agree that area needs reform. What does that have to do with the specific topic of Ufology? Thank you for you comments on my editing in the area of COVID-19. I find it curious that you believe I can contribute constructively in such a delicate and critical area (I'm one of the top maintainers of the COVID-19 main article [27] for example) where very stringent reliability standards apply WP:MEDRS but not in this topic area. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 09:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this is very similar to what happened after the topic ban (permalink to talk page). But I can also be wrong, other editors might support and I don't decide for them. I stand by my previous response and will not spend more time to build a diff history. —PaleoNeonate – 14:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate:
this is very similar to what happened after the topic ban
I totally agree. That is exactly why the admin changed the reason for the block after discussion. The accusations turned out to be unfounded. So I don't think it is fair that you state them as fact (clear promotion
) and would ask you to please retract statements questioning my integrity (I'm not sure if there's a COI involved
) unless you can provide any proof of what you state. Thank you for understanding. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate:
- @PaleoNeonate: there was absolutely no
- Support with an understanding that WP:ROPE exists. Don't make me regret this, please. jps (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's very generous and I respect that. You're one of the editors I was thinking of when voicing my concerns above and remembering about the spent community time back then. —PaleoNeonate – 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am assuming good faith here. We might suspect that Gtoffoletto has become excited by the new leaks of the UFO videos from the Pentagon and will cause further headaches by returning to old habits, but my hope is that this is not the case. I have been burned by similar kinds of hope in the past, but it still springs eternal. jps (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's very generous and I respect that. You're one of the editors I was thinking of when voicing my concerns above and remembering about the spent community time back then. —PaleoNeonate – 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. This editor has more serious problems than is covered by their topic ban. Their civil POV pushing, wikilawyering (literally) and refusal catch clues when arriving from multiple directions are much more concerning. I'm working on the assumption that their COVID-19 edits have been acceptable or they would've been called to answer long ago. They seem to stay out of trouble as long as they stay in article space. We need capable editors so I'm hoping that the present trend is maintained. Tiderolls 20:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The ANI report that preceded your topic ban expressed a clear consensus that your approach to the topic consisted of pro-WP:FRINGE promotion, from campaigning to soften or remove criticism of Bob Lazar’s alien spacecraft claims to contending that the SKEPTIC angle should be considered fringe in UFO-related articles. This pro-fringe/anti-skeptic stance resulted in very widespread disruption and edit warring across many articles. You obviously have a lot of energy and commitment for things you believe in, and enjoy sinking your teeth into a Big Issue. I believe your editing on COVID-19 over the last year has brought out the best in you. But you may have a blind spot with regard to UFOs, as evidenced by your past behavior. Maybe you can tell us why you want to return to that subject and what you want to accomplish in the UFO-related articles, e.g. what you envision adding or removing in terms of content, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment on my work on COVID-19. We disagree like many times before on the rest. Which is fine! I think what matters are sources on Wikipedia. And all of my edits strive to always be sourced reliably and report what others have said. To answer your question: I don't intend editing the area very actively. I'm just an occasional editor currently focusing on COVID-19 to make sure we get out of it fast. I just want to be able to follow along freely and to clear my name from this Sword of Damocles. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 09:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The edit about Bob Lazar identified by LuckyLouie just above is gravely concerning. Gtoffoletto says "I strive to stick to the sources with every edit I make" but that claim is incompatible with their efforts to whitewash a discredited pseudoscientist and convicted felon. The endlessly lengthy conversations about this topic ban show that Gtoffoletto is very adroit at wikilawyering, and they have actually written a treatise on that very subject. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- If am to be judged for every single edit I made on Wikipedia in my life this is going to be a long discussion. I can't discuss the content of that edit directly. Let me just say I would please ask everyone to consider any single edit within the context of the rest of the page at the time and to check the sources included and also the sources (or the lack thereof) of any text removed. Also: sometimes I do make mistakes :) Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 08:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Caesar DePaço - legal threats
- Caesar DePaço (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Summit Nutritionals International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ruimbarreira1411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I wanted to make other admins aware of this as it involves a credible legal threat. Since January, there have been concerns about editing on the article Caesar DePaço, about a Portuguese businessman. I previously warned several IP editors and Ruimbarreira1411, who self-identified as the subject's lawyer, about making legal threats.
I've now indef blocked Ruimbarreira1411 due to this edit in which he noted that DePaço "reported that he has already made a criminal complaint against Wikipedia editors who insist on maneuver its pages in order to denigrate its image, with criminal intentions." This block is in light of my previous warnings and a blog post this month by Wikimedia Portugal that describes Rui Barreira and DePaço taking legal action against them: https://blog.wikimedia.pt/2021/04/16/wikimedia-portugal-foi-ilibada-em-tribunal/
I have also extended confirmed protected (for three months) the article and Summit Nutritionals International, a company DePaço is CEO of, due to concern about disruption related to these legal threats. I had earlier semi-protected it.
There is also a content dispute at Talk:Caesar DePaço that could do with more input.
There are two previous BLP noticeboard discussions:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive322#Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive324#Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o
Two threads on my talk page:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fences_and_windows/Archive_20#User_Ruimbarreira1411_is_an_edit_warrior_and_should_potentially_be_censured
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fences_and_windows#Page_Caesar_DePaco_victim_again_of_edit_warring,_vandalism,_and_sanitization
There also was an AfD on Portuguese Wikipedia: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o
Please check if ECP and the block is appropriate, whether edits are needed for BLP reasons, and if any other actions are needed, e.g. making the WMF or ArbCom aware. Fences&Windows 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Review of indefinitely move-protected articles
It used to be somewhat routine to add indefinite move=sysop to vandalized articles, especially prior to the edit filter. This has caused issues with some workflows.
There are around 2500 over 9000! articles like this (quarry:query/54423; quarry:query/54424), however some have been subject to BLP violations and others are typical vandalism targets.
For those where removing move protection entirely is not indicated, is it acceptable to use extended confirmed move-protection here, as an interim step to allowing experienced non-administrators to move these pages as needed? –xenotalk 23:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Xeno, seems like an acceptable solution. Just noting that is too bad there is no protection level for human-vetted experienced editors other than template editor and sysop. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would bet most could be moved to EC without issue, and an experienced admin could likely sift through it pretty fast, as most of the ones that need to stay "Sysop move only" are BLPs. I'm guessing is a quazi poll, so I would support doing so as long as a little filtering took place. Btw, I don't remember ever doing indef move protection, I'm surprised we have that many. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither WP:MOVP nor WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xenotalk 02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- While going through things at WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FAR, I've noticed a lot of old featured articles (some now former featured articles) were pre-emptively move protected years ago. For instance, Chew Valley was sysop move-protected in 2008, despite having nothing in the move log. I thought about bringing something up about this awhile back, but never did. While I don't see any reason for some of these, like Chew Valley, to be moved w/o discussion, I don't see any value in sticking around old preemptive protection. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pre-emptive move protection was largely aimed at prolific move vandals of the time. See also Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 5#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? et al.. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- While going through things at WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FAR, I've noticed a lot of old featured articles (some now former featured articles) were pre-emptively move protected years ago. For instance, Chew Valley was sysop move-protected in 2008, despite having nothing in the move log. I thought about bringing something up about this awhile back, but never did. While I don't see any reason for some of these, like Chew Valley, to be moved w/o discussion, I don't see any value in sticking around old preemptive protection. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither WP:MOVP nor WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xenotalk 02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is that list complete? Consider 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, indef sysop protected for
Move-protecting all featured articles. Requests for (re)-semi-protection should be brought to WP:RFPP. using TW
but doesn't seem to appear on either Quarry (unless I'm missing something)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)- Hmm Cryptic has mentioned some limitations of the queries at Wikipedia:Request a query#Indefinite move-protections placed long ago on articles. –xenotalk 02:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is now. I was accidentally excluding pages that weren't edit-protected at all along with ones that were edit-protected sysop. Thank you for the sanity check. —Cryptic 02:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! The numbers sound about right now. I imagine many of those edit-protected sysop are also a problem (many are probably overprotected redirects), but one step at a time I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is better to review indefinite sysop-only edit protected pages too. I spend a lot of time cleaning up Special:LintErrors and regularly come across overprotected ancient pages. Last month I had posted a request in this noticeboard that led to unprotection of about 1,400 full protected pages in the project namespace. I have not looked much into full protected pages in other namespaces, but a cursory check of user namespace shows many wrong and obsolete protections. For example User:Kingboyk/monobook.js being under full protection is useless since it can be edited only by Interface Admins. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd not be opposed to a procedural review of every single indefinite protection site-wide (especially those from before ~2013). I recognise that it'd take quite some time, but I'd hazard a guess that at least half of our indefinitely protected articles (whether it be semi or higher) don't actually need it. I've been randomly checking in on indefinitely semi-protected redirects and at a cursory glance, only a few truly need any form of protection (Homosexual, Fart, Guns, GNAA etc). Further, most of these indefinitely protected redirects are there because MediaWiki duplicates protection when a page is moved. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a wikipage with all of these? If not I can download the quarry as wikitext and paste it in userspace. I've found having a table useful for keeping track of the hist-merge backlog so it might be a useful asynchronous coordination tool. I'll probably poke around later today (UTC) and modify some protections if need be. — Wug·a·po·des 07:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xenotalk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I changed User:Xeno/sandbox to a table so that it's sortable and added a field for whether the link has been checked. In the edit summary at Special:Permalink/1020589579 I included the regular expressions for converting the list entries to wikitable entries if that's useful. — Wug·a·po·des 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xenotalk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- (#discussion re: fully-protected articles moved below)
(continued) lifting full move-protections on articles that were placed long ago
- There is currently a discussion/proposal at the village pump regarding significant changes to the protection scheme for page moves. Shouldn't this review wait until that discussion concludes? Changing the role of protection could make this review moot, or change its focus completely. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xenotalk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be very clear as proposer, it is only partially so, i.e. there are many cases where more recent protections are problematic. I also think there may be a lack of understanding amongst parties in the conversation that the majority of RMs are closed by non-admins. Vaticidalprophet 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xenotalk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- In general, for pages that are only move protected, where the move protection is sysop only, where the protection is over 10 years old - I'm all for reducing these to semi page protection. Over the last 10 years we've had a lot of antivandalism improvements, including with the edit filter. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xenotalk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I was suggesting doing it explicitly, but indeed that is superfluous as (move) permission is not currently present below autoconfirmed, so yes: just resetting the move-protection level back to '(all users)' (i.e. removing the protection entirely). Perhaps publish the list for a week or so, let any admin that wants to remove a page (either because they downgraded the production, or because they feel it should stand on a specific page) do so first. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've unprotected some of the rather old pre-emptive protections; in looking at large aged sets, here are another 1000 candidates for unprotection: Special:PermanentLink/1020342479. –xenotalk 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I was suggesting doing it explicitly, but indeed that is superfluous as (move) permission is not currently present below autoconfirmed, so yes: just resetting the move-protection level back to '(all users)' (i.e. removing the protection entirely). Perhaps publish the list for a week or so, let any admin that wants to remove a page (either because they downgraded the production, or because they feel it should stand on a specific page) do so first. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xenotalk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
discussion re: fully-protected articles
- (split from #Review of indefinitely move-protected articles)
- Given that this check of "ancient" and "obsolete" and "before ~2013" page protections has included a protection made to get users talking on talk pages a mere three weeks ago at Project:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih, with the likelihood that the sockpuppeteer will just start up again unless people (e.g. Aleksandr Grigoryev:) actually use talk pages to discuss or at least explain this, I think that the criteria for "ancient" needs revision before you go too much further, otherwise people are going to ask whether human thought is being put into this review or whether it is as robotic as the SQL query. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- My mention of the three-week-old indef full protection on your talk page was not because of this discussion. In my opinion we have no reason to keep an article fully protected in mainspace because one editor (that is currently globally locked) might come back. Full should only be used sparingly. Indeed, unprotecting it could lure them out and make new accounts easier to block (and semi is usually used for sock puppetry regardless). Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It was the edit that you did a mere 9 minutes before commenting here about having been randomly checking page protections. And you demonstrate my point about the need for putting human thought in. A look the edit history would have shown that there were three editors, in a six month long edit war, including one who has (it later transpires) 111 confirmed sockpuppets. It seems very silly to be wanting to re-enable a long-term edit war so that administrators in general get to play whack-a-mole better. Personally, I'd like to see the two non-sockpuppeteers in the edit war discuss things, which is of course the point of protection in a long-term edit war. If anything, the presence of the sockpuppeteer only strengthens the case for encouraging the (good faith) parties to explain things on talk pages and reach agreement.
This has to be more than just not looking at cases at all and following an SQL query result blindly.
Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that it's a six-month long content dispute simply furthers my point even more. Just give it x-months of semi/ECP if the dispute is going on for this long (and if there's socking). We should almost never "indefinitely" fully protect an article for longer than a week or two because we're losing out on possible edits from well-meaning editors. As for the statement that it's three accounts edit warring, Aleksandr Grigoryev reverted twice over the span of five months. It's a case of BRD, and the fact that neither the IP or Aleksandr Grigoryev started a discussion over five months arguably makes the whole point moot for that point in time; the edit war ended. It then took two months for a sockpuppet to come along and restart the reverts. The account was globally blocked a week later and yet the protection persisted for 18 more days. Further, ECP would have blocked the edits from the IP and the sockpuppeting account. But yes, you're right. I did check the list of indefinitely fully protected articles after reading this, but it was not a mere blind following of an SQL query; I checked the history of the article as well as the talk page to see if there was a reason why a random football article had seen 24 days of full protection. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, people who globally lock sockpuppets from the Persian Wikipedia don't think to tell random editors on the English Wikipedia like me about it. The fact that in a discussion of "ancient" and "obsolete" and "before ~2013" protections the first protection that you considered was a mere three weeks old and on this very noticeboard for one of those weeks shows how badly you will actually go about this. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Uncle G: I agree there's more to it than a full unprotect of every result (meanwhile I don't think the mentioned article was listed in the query). –xenotalk 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- We should never permanently full protect articles. There are 0 non-redirect articles permanently sysop protected.[28] So the unprotection was correct and ECP is more than sufficient for such cases. Currently only Hanna Jaff is protected indef sysop, and based on the recent protection reason it appears to be 'indefinite' (ie, until the admin's investigation is complete), not 'permanent', which is totally appropriate. But some admins seem to define 'indefinite' as 'permanent' (or just forget to unprotect?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Indefinite means simply indefinite, not permanent; this is a common confusion, but also a well-known one. Three weeks is not permanent by any stretch of the imagination, and by putting three weeks into the same class as "ancient" and "obsolete" and "before ~2013" as you are here, you exemplify the problem of lack of thought about cases. Like Anarchyte you are actually demonstrating how you will go about this wrong. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware what the dictionary definition is, all I said is that in the mind of some it's defined as such. Also, curious, why didn't you ECP FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih instead? I mean it was an IP and a locked LTA edit warring. Are there ECP accounts held by this LTA (which?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmanAfifeh, yikes. Still, the account didn't seem to be ECP, and surely every page they touch can't be indef'd for a month? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Indefinite means simply indefinite, not permanent; this is a common confusion, but also a well-known one. Three weeks is not permanent by any stretch of the imagination, and by putting three weeks into the same class as "ancient" and "obsolete" and "before ~2013" as you are here, you exemplify the problem of lack of thought about cases. Like Anarchyte you are actually demonstrating how you will go about this wrong. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Uncle G you need to dial back the idea of indefinite full protection of articles. That got removed but it shouldn't have happened. I've fully protected articles but for the most was a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, indefinite is perfectly fine as indefinite, and full protection is there for when it is the autoconfirmed accounts introducing the BLP violations. This is explicitly laid out in policy. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your quotations of policy are accurate, but it completely fails to recognise this: Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic (see WP:ECP). The fundamentals of protection revolve around procedurally increasing it as to keep our mantra of "anyone can edit" accurate. A couple of days or weeks of semi, a few weeks of ECP, then full to force a discussion. We only jump past semi or ECP when they won't do anything (i.e. when the disruption is done by a 3/10 account or a 30/500 account respectively). FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih and indeed Seth Andrew were being disrupted by accounts that failed to meet these thresholds; FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih was edit warred by an IP (blocked by semi) and an account made on 16 March (blocked by ECP), and Seth Andrew was disrupted (unexplained removal of content) by an account made 22 hours ago (blocked by semi). Also, the edits here and here were against the policy you so quoted earlier: Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Despite your claim that we "exemplify the problem of lack of thought about cases", I make sure to consider every single protection I enact and modify; maybe you should also familiarise yourself with the policy. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, that is revisionism. Extended-confirmed protection started out as a very limited tool and has progressively become less limited, that people who lived through these things are still cautious about today. And now go and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced as well as the pointer to that policy at Talk:Seth Andrew#Bad sourcing.
You really need to familiarize yourself with policy and not lecture people about it. And your complete failure to even read the complaint about Seth Andrew, again right here on the administrator's noticeboard (before being moved to /Incidents) noting that "over the past year, there have been numerous edits", and then look at the past year's edit history to see more than just that one edit and some quite clear contention, is again belying your words and indicating that you will not go about these things well. You didn't even know about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Lives Matter#Seth Andrew and that a rewrite was in the works, did you? I knew, because I in contrast actually did check things out.
Uncle G (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I did "live through" the introduction of ECP. I may have not voted at WP:ECP2016, but I remember its closure and the introduction of ECP as an intermediary protection level. Of course it didn't mean much to me because I wasn't an admin at the time and I met the 30/500 requirements, but I've since protected or modified the protection of over 1500 pages. I'm quite aware that throwing numbers around isn't very useful, but it's almost certainly demonstrates that I've had to refer to the protection policy quite often, perhaps more than the 79 you've done in the 16 years you've been an administrator (23 in the last decade). Of these 23, five have been indef full protections with three being contested by other admins (two of which were within two days of your protection). Indeed, you were effectively inactive from 2014-2018, the time when BLUELOCK was introduced.
- As for Seth Andrew, the last time there was an edit war that lasted more than one revert was in June 2020. We don't jump to full protection immediately, especially over whether or not to include this sentence (which can also be sourced by [29] [30] [31] (not set on the reliability of the last two)). Protection isn't done preemptively, and there were no BLP-related incidents going on in the article at the time that would have required immediate full protection. Sure, the sourcing for the entire racism section is incredibly underwhelming, but as per the discussion you so joyously linked, people are working on fixing it. You can remove it right now if you think it fails WP:BLPRS but it only becomes a matter that requires protection (by a different admin) if other editors disagree with good reasoning (and it seems that discussion indicates that people do); Editors who find themselves in edit wars [...] should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption (emphasis added). Again, I agree with that the article needed protection. I only disagree with your interpretation of our protection policy and the use of full protection, as do various other editors on this page. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC) (slightly modified 12:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC))
- No, that is revisionism. Extended-confirmed protection started out as a very limited tool and has progressively become less limited, that people who lived through these things are still cautious about today. And now go and read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced as well as the pointer to that policy at Talk:Seth Andrew#Bad sourcing.
- Your quotations of policy are accurate, but it completely fails to recognise this: Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic (see WP:ECP). The fundamentals of protection revolve around procedurally increasing it as to keep our mantra of "anyone can edit" accurate. A couple of days or weeks of semi, a few weeks of ECP, then full to force a discussion. We only jump past semi or ECP when they won't do anything (i.e. when the disruption is done by a 3/10 account or a 30/500 account respectively). FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih and indeed Seth Andrew were being disrupted by accounts that failed to meet these thresholds; FC Hirnyk Kryvyi Rih was edit warred by an IP (blocked by semi) and an account made on 16 March (blocked by ECP), and Seth Andrew was disrupted (unexplained removal of content) by an account made 22 hours ago (blocked by semi). Also, the edits here and here were against the policy you so quoted earlier: Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Despite your claim that we "exemplify the problem of lack of thought about cases", I make sure to consider every single protection I enact and modify; maybe you should also familiarise yourself with the policy. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, indefinite is perfectly fine as indefinite, and full protection is there for when it is the autoconfirmed accounts introducing the BLP violations. This is explicitly laid out in policy. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that it's a six-month long content dispute simply furthers my point even more. Just give it x-months of semi/ECP if the dispute is going on for this long (and if there's socking). We should almost never "indefinitely" fully protect an article for longer than a week or two because we're losing out on possible edits from well-meaning editors. As for the statement that it's three accounts edit warring, Aleksandr Grigoryev reverted twice over the span of five months. It's a case of BRD, and the fact that neither the IP or Aleksandr Grigoryev started a discussion over five months arguably makes the whole point moot for that point in time; the edit war ended. It then took two months for a sockpuppet to come along and restart the reverts. The account was globally blocked a week later and yet the protection persisted for 18 more days. Further, ECP would have blocked the edits from the IP and the sockpuppeting account. But yes, you're right. I did check the list of indefinitely fully protected articles after reading this, but it was not a mere blind following of an SQL query; I checked the history of the article as well as the talk page to see if there was a reason why a random football article had seen 24 days of full protection. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It was the edit that you did a mere 9 minutes before commenting here about having been randomly checking page protections. And you demonstrate my point about the need for putting human thought in. A look the edit history would have shown that there were three editors, in a six month long edit war, including one who has (it later transpires) 111 confirmed sockpuppets. It seems very silly to be wanting to re-enable a long-term edit war so that administrators in general get to play whack-a-mole better. Personally, I'd like to see the two non-sockpuppeteers in the edit war discuss things, which is of course the point of protection in a long-term edit war. If anything, the presence of the sockpuppeteer only strengthens the case for encouraging the (good faith) parties to explain things on talk pages and reach agreement.
- My mention of the three-week-old indef full protection on your talk page was not because of this discussion. In my opinion we have no reason to keep an article fully protected in mainspace because one editor (that is currently globally locked) might come back. Full should only be used sparingly. Indeed, unprotecting it could lure them out and make new accounts easier to block (and semi is usually used for sock puppetry regardless). Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Anarchyte, the editor who revived FC Hirnyk article justified that the article is worth to be recovered because in his or her opinion Hirnyk and Kryvbas two different clubs because they have two different websites. It was the only reason. However, the editor chose to completely ignore explanation that I placed in the article for Kryvbas on how it was reorganized and it looks that the editor chose also ignore what those websites for both clubs are. The Kryvbas club has website https://fckryvbas.com/, Hirnyk has http://fcgornyak.dp.ua/. Previously, during reorganization and renaming of the club from Hirnyk to Kryvbas, the owner stated that he will keep for its academy the original name of Hirnyk, so the newly renamed Kryvbas fields two teams in national competitions, while its academy Hirnyk participates in competitions for under-19 teams. When one would select academy link on the Kryvbas site https://fckryvbas.com/ it connects directly to Hirnyk website http://fcgornyak.dp.ua/. So, the statement that Hirnyk and Kryvbas two unrelated entities is completely wrong. Both websites state that their presidents one and the same person Konstantin Karamanits. The same websites claim that their clubs play at the same sports facilities. The statement that both clubs are unrelated does not correspond with reality. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- For the love of all that is good, could you please put that on a talk page, so that there's actually an explanation to point to. I haven't been waiting since "ancient" and "obsolete" and "before ~2013", but I have been waiting three weeks for any one of you to use a talk page. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
ResolvedThis user is not intending to troll Wikipedia, ass the "ogre" part in their name suggests.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Kepler-1229b, if you notice other over-strict bot-reports of users editing in good faith at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, please feel free to remove the report yourself with a descriptive edit summary. –xenotalk 13:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Remove recent history of Scholastica (school)
Please remove recent history on Scholastica (school) edited by an unknown IP and a registered user. They have Bengali slangs and offensive words. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 04:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you mean revision deletion, which is hiding the contents of an edit. We normally don't hide an edit just because someone says "shithole"[32]. We do if the article is a biography and someone makes a false negative statement or the comment is grossly disruptive but not over simply cursing/swearing. Policy limits what we can and can't hide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information
The Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Information disclosed to the Arbitration Committee should be retained no longer than necessary. In order to further this goal, the committee will, beginning in April of each year, examine the information stored on the Arbitration Committee wiki. In general, information is considered no longer necessary if the user has not edited under any account for a significant number of years or if the reason for the private information to be held has passed. In these cases, the information should be removed from the relevant page, or the page deleted. It is noted that some information is retained for the purposes of stopping sockpuppetry and, where possible, this should be stored at the checkuser wiki and that technical limitations of wiki software would potentially allow information to be accessed again in the future.
For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)