Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

In the past few days, I have witnessed rather suspicious activity around the edits of

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)[reply]

Whatever did not go through RM should be moved back.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh place names, this is a complicated issue that I've sought administrator input on during several occasions, and I've initiated many move discussions in the past with regard to moving the articles to their likely common names, however these efforts faced heavy opposition, status quo stonewalling and disruption such as canvassing, so I've taken a break with involving myself with the issue until now. I would not say that all of the current versions represent consensus versions - many are names that were taken from GEOnet Names Server as the only source years ago - without regard for the complex history of the region and what the likely common names for the villages are. Regarding the issue between me and Parishan, I explained my position to him pretty thoroghly on my talk page [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)[reply]

• When articles are contentious (which pretty much every Arm/Azer one is) then I would say that
  WP:RM is the best way of discussing their locations. I am also unconvinced that either ZaniGiovanni and KhndzorUtogh are a net positive to editing in the ARBAA area. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Black Kite: All right, so would you then recommend me to move the article back? I believe my rationale was pretty straight forward regarding the justification for the move - but I don't intend to break any policies. While I think that "Kirov" is a pretty problematic article name on many accounts and that the current version is a clear improvement, I would prefer that someone else open a potential RM though, since I think I've done my fair share of attempts to improve the Nagorno-Karabakh articles with regard to the article names for the moment. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I did edit articles with added Az translation by the blocked user as many of them have sources like here 1, 2. I was involved in a similar village to the ones the Sockmaster edited 3, and that village had only one same source named "İ. M. Bayramov. B. Ə. Budaqov; H. İ. Mirzəyev; S. A. Məmmədov [Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan] (PDF) (in Azerbaijani). Baku: Elm. p. 201. ISBN 5-8066-1452-2.". If you are unaware, and I'm quoting a user from the deletion page of that village, "The source Carlossuarez46 added to the article is by an author who has worked extensively on the
  WP:MODERNPLACENAME I believe. In regards to other villages' sources I mentioned earlier, first with political view/propaganda title, and second named "Genocide of Azerbaijanis on the territory of Iravan province in 1918-1920", which is an imagined title itself, I don't know what's the appropriate way to deal with. Probably nomination for deletion like with the Azizkend town that had the same source? More experienced editors would have the necessary suggestions, thanks in advance. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hi Parishan, you claim that "my editing history dates back to 1 April (suspiciously to the very same day when Curious Golden was banned)" however it seems that Curious was banned on the 3rd April, also why would this be suspicious even if my account was made on the same day? You also haven't responded to the reason I moved the names (which I wrote). You claim that Curious edits were in good faith - "Curious Golden's good-faith input", however this user has added Azerbaijani translations to at least 100 villages in Armenia (claiming that every other village had an Azeri majority), which should be grounds for concern, given that in these edits, frequently either: no sources were provided, the source wasn't scholarly or it was biased (written by Azerbaijani), the source wouldn't open, the source was nowhere to be found on the internet, and more. You also are blaming those who undid his problematic edits. However, you called in an earlier comment that me moving around 5 small villages' names was of "mass". You also say that "toponymy-related content is clearly in the spotlight and has been tampered with for the past ten days in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated." but show no proof of it being coordinated, rather a speculation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly a content issue. This is an issue concerning a specific type of articles involving a specific user, dealt with in an inappropriate manner and in what appears to be a collective effort. We could criticise Curious Golden all we want but the fact remains that there were established consensus versions (for most of which the Azeri toponymy had already featured for years); if someone found that problematic, it would be much more constructive to discuss that first instead of removing content without trace or redirecting pages on one's own initiative given how sensitive the topic is (leaving a message on another user's talkpage and then proceeding to rename the articles is not really a discussion). Unfortunately I did not see any of the above-mentioned users try this. Parishan (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again you are accusing me of dealing with articles in a "collective effort" with no proof, however just searching your username online along with some keywords gives results showing that in 2010 you were involved in pro-Azerbaijani collaboration on Russian wikipedia, specifically off wiki large mailing list collaboration . You say that "We could criticise Curious Golden all we want but the fact remains that there were established consensus versions (for most of which the Azeri toponymy had already featured for years);" however before CuriousGolden began to edit over a hundred articles, there were no Azerbaijani translations on these villages. What he did was massive compared to me moving names for around 5 small villages and you are accusing those who remove his problematic edits of acting in a bad faith. I didn't expect the topic to be so sensitive when I moved those pages, so how do you suggest I go around it next time I want to move the name of the villages? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KhndzorUtogh:, the topic is about you. Would you please answer clearly why you think it is ok to move the articles about localities in the conflict area from their Azerbaijani names to their Armenian names without any discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already answered this, I didn't expect it to be the big deal it became. In the last sentence I even asked how I should go around it next time if I want to change the names of these villages. I answered all of Parishan's questions, and I responded to his baseless collaboration accusations, which is very ironic given his past. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

I was able to move one of the few villages, but the other ones didn't work. For example on Spitakashen, it said "The page "Spitakashen, Martuni" cannot be moved to "Ağkənd, Khojavend" because the title "Ağkənd, Khojavend" matches an entry". Could you see if it works for you? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I moved

Ağkənd, Khojavend, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

All are now back to their former title, so if

T*U (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ymblanter: Thank you very much. Could you please undo this move by AntonSamuel also mentioned above? Parishan (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked Black Kite above regarding this, I am perfectly willing to move the article back myself if that is the recommendation given. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COMMONNAME is. Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@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)[reply]

Those sources do not establish a common name since they are merely quoting the Armenian foreign ministry, which naturally refers to that village by its Armenian name. Black Kite is right, there is no common name for that village, which is exactly why I suggest that it should be reverted to its pre-conflict name, which both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources agree on. Parishan (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That reliable sources do re-report the name does in my view at the very least indicate what the common name is.

WP:MODERNPLACENAME (which also recommends using a "local name, if there is no established English name") is also relevant here in my view - as Hin Shen is the name used by the de facto administration and the native population of the village. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If the name were mentioned outside of the quotation, I would agree with that statement. However, I can see clearly that reliable sources are reluctant to refer to that village by whatever name, and there is probably a reason for that. This is why I invited you earlier to start working towards establishing naming conventions for such articles because experience has shown time and again that in the case of conflict-affected regions, most of them barely mentioned in Englsh-language contexts, general rules such as

WP:COMMONNAME yield no consensus. First, the name was obviously selected by the de facto administration as part of a hard-to-ignore policy of ridding the region of its non-Armenian toponymic heritage and thus cannot be considered NPOV. Secondly, we do not know what the native population refers to the village as in a neutral context. Lachin, for instance, was renamed Berdzor back in 1992, but interviews with post-1994 Armenian settlers show that they continued to refer to the town as "Lachin" way into the 2010s even when interviewed in Armenian (see 2:21), (see 1:46, 1:52, 1:58). Bottom line: yes, there are rules in place but one must recognise that we are dealing with a very special case here, which requires a consensus on its own. Parishan (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Both Artsakh/NKR and Azerbaijan have renamed the villages in the former NKAO after the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. In this particular case - both Artsakh/NKR and Azerbaijan have renamed the village from Soviet-era Kirov, as can be seen on the maps featured in Arsène Saparov's study of place names in Karabakh: [13]

Naming the villages of Nagorno-Karabakh according to the Soviet names would for example mean that

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)[reply]

Yes, Azerbaijan also renamed villages but most of those cases (like Kiçik Qarabəy, which you are mentioning) were in fact reverts to the names that were in official use before the 1930s (which was exactly my argument against moving them). These names feature on any contemporary map and are available in official statistical sources like Kavkazsky kalendar and in secondary sources like Bournoutian (2011). They were in fact at some point names that both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources agreed on (earlier versions of the ...kalendar even provide their spelling in Armenian) and not used as a tool to prove a political point. With regard to "Hin Shen", there is no attestation of that name ever being in official use as the village was only founded in the Soviet era, and the renaming in the 1990s was controversial, with a strong political context that places it far from the definition of NPOV. This is also proven by the fact that the main bulk of the sources using that name are either Armenian or direct citations therefrom. Parishan (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the historicity of the place names, the discussion can take us far back and get complex very fast, one of the reasons why names utilized by reliable contemporary sources or modern local place names are preferable. Multiple names have existed for the localities in the region since medieval times, as the Armenian population had their own names for their villages and nomadic Caucasian Tatar tribes which moved into the mountainous region during the summer months had their own place names for the localities. Many place names in Karabakh were renamed during the Persian period, with Armenian names being replaced by Turkic or Persian names. During the period of the Russian Empire, some places names were renamed to their Armenian versions and more radical changes were then made during the Soviet era.

This paragraph from Arsène Saparov's "Contested spaces: the use of place-names and symbolic landscape in the politics of identity and legitimacy in Azerbaijan" summarizes it pretty well [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)[reply]

As far as I know, there are no non-primary sources that would attest that such-and-such village in Karabakh had such-and-such name before the non-Armenian toponymy was replaced by the Turkic one, and since Saparov does not give exact examples, making those assumptions would be OR (Turkic being the lingua franca of the region for many centuries, it is in fact quite possible that some of these villages had been founded already under Turkic names, like for instance, some of the villages established in Georgia and Armenia by Ottoman Armenian and Ottoman Greek migrants in the mid-19th century). I am not suggesting that we dig into history to determine which toponym appeared first. I agree with you that this would be counter-productive. I am saying that if there is an official toponym that at some point was used by both communities and that features in reliable sources like Kavkazsky kalendar, this conforms to NPOV and that toponym should probably be the one to be given priority to; and if the toponym is of Russian or Azeri origin, so be it. Why is that a problem? "Hin Shen" is a no-go by default: the article suggests that the village is de jure located in Azerbaijan, except that in Azerbaijan, there is officially no village called Hin Shen, whereas in Nagorno-Karabakh, the same village officially went by the Russian name "Kirov" not that long ago. Parishan (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant that "Armenian toponymy" and not "non-Armenian toponymy" "was replaced by the Turkic one"? Saparov gives several examples of historical names in Karabakh and their origin and context. The

official name/pre-conflict name. Hin Shen is by far more natural and relevant when it comes to usage. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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 they 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with you that political efforts to render local toponymy more "ethnic" or less "ethnic" 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 still 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)[reply]

@KhndzorUtogh:, I did not accuse you (this is not an enforcement board), I am merely stating that this looks like a collective effort. The fact that you are randomly googling my name "with some keywords", besides sounding creepy and disturbing, has no effect here. First of all, because the case you are referring to is from almost 12 years ago and second of all, because English Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia are two different projets with no continuity as to the decisions made by admins. Given that you are a new user, I would like to inform you, as well as @ZaniGiovanni: [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)[reply]

• Am I reading same thing as you do? "in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated" oh so you were not accusing of anything, not even a hint. What does "looks like a collective effort" mean then? You are literally pulling mental gymnastics and backtracking your words. If it's not an accusation, at the very least it's a passive aggressive remark which was justified to be answered. I earlier left a message to a user involved with you and another Az editor, Grandmaster, merely familiarizing him with the people he is disputing against. Didn't know that it "brakes wiki rules". I wasn't "countering" or "besmirching" you by stating the past, neither was KhndzorUtogh it seems. The only conclusion I came to reading KhndzorUtogh bringing that case, was to show the almost laughable irony in your baseless remarks, nothing more. @
  WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors from now on or threaten with unfounded reports. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not to anyone in particular, but a general remark based on several entries in this thread: Could you please all stop commenting on person and concentrate on content. Just a thought ... --

T*U (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• I noticed that when I was going through
  WP:VERIFY their existence with extremely biased and unreliable source(s). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  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)[reply
  ]
  • @
    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)[reply
    ]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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:TNT is a perfectly valid solution. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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.

  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)[reply

  ]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    • 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.

      Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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
      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)[reply
      ]
      • 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)[reply]

        • 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)[reply
          ]
          • 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)[reply
            ]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• You could always cross-check against this and make a list of suspect articles. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • How did you find out which were the approved names, by the way? Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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
  Cryptic 01:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • My thoughts are that when
        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)[reply
        ]
        • @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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply
            ]
          • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • The problem is how to extract the names. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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
        .
      • The Atlantic
        .
    • Relevant policy:
      • Project:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment
  • Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So where do we go from here?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  The fundamental problem here is an editor accusing another editor of sexist editing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like

  WP:Dramaboard syndrome to me? Complaints about complaints all using poor language choices. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Is this going to be archived without being closed?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope not, because these accusations continue to be made, e.g. Lugnuts's accusation of "racist and sexist posts made time and time again" by JPL from a few days ago [18]. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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?

• 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.
• 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)[reply]

• quack. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]
  • There appear to be links at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Please put me down as a vote for the obsolete Scots "namyt". Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, with a plea that "intituled" be taken into consideration. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping Bishonen as banning admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (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)[reply]

* 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)[reply]

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 and my good faith attempts at resolving the issues). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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 to disruptive 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

On the pages relating to UFOs, it is even rather more stringent than that sometimes. No less illustrious sources as

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

• 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:
  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)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:MEDRS but not in this topic area. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• Support with an understanding that
  WP:ROPE exists. Don't make me regret this, please. jps (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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? –xeno^talk 23:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither
    WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xeno^talk 02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • While going through things at
      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)[reply
      ]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Hmm
    Cryptic has mentioned some limitations of the queries at Wikipedia:Request a query#Indefinite move-protections placed long ago on articles. –xeno^talk 02:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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
  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)[reply
  ]

  (#discussion re: fully-protected articles moved below)

• 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)[reply]

  Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xeno^talk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I've done a quick spot-check of these pages and many do fall into the category of protection remnants left behind after a page move (effectively doubling our protected pages count). Perhaps it's time to revive the proposal to remove that feature? Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A set with the words "moved to" in the log summary is here: Special:PermanentLink/1020692908 (note newer entries). –xeno^talk 14:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

  As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xeno^talk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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. –xeno^talk 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2005-2008; 2009-2010; 2010; 2010-2011; 2012-2013; 2013-2015; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019 2019-2020; 2020; 2020-now, unmarked. –xeno^talk 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve unprotected all the unmarked oddities: where the protection was so old it was lost to the log, except for two (without prejudice). –xeno^talk 01:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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). –xeno^talk 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should never permanently full protect articles. There are 0 non-redirect articles permanently sysop protected.[20] 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

          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)[reply]

          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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply
            ]
            • 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)[reply]

              • 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

              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))[reply

              ]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Resolved

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)[reply]

• 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"[24]. 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)[reply
  ]

@Dennis Brown:, Not just "shithole" things, it is about "unsourced allegation of child sexual abuse" in bad Bengali slang! [25] (also [26]) — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 05:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Bengali, and the only translations available to me come out as "As if to kill small children" and the like. I'm not sure what to do unless there is an admin that speaks Bengali and sees the translation as a violation. Google doesn't, and that is the best tool I have. Perhaps another admin can look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...or you folks could just

assume people aren't lying about the translation instead.

Anyway, "kill" is probably an overly literal translation on Google's part; I read it as "they beat small children". There is a caveat here, however: I don't know what "putki" means, and if "putki marun" is indeed slang for some sort of molestation rather than physical abuse that "marte" alone would suggest, then I'd have to agree with Meghmollar2017. Either way, though, I don't think unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, whether physical or sexual, belong in the article history. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

No need to be smarmy. One of the things I can't do is "assume" anything, not and use the admin tools. No one called anyone a liar, but that doesn't change the fact that RevDel is actually a very restricted tool and requires clear, objective evidence. Anyway, I will pass. Perhaps another admin will look at it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got "so that small children can be kicked" trying to translate it online. Is anyone aware of an active user who speaks Bengali? Hog Farm _Talk 22:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, Petscan finds five who were recently active https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?&since_rev0=&max_age=168&language=en&search_max_results=500&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&active_tab=tab_pageprops&categories=User%20bn-N&ns%5B2%5D=1&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&cb_labels_any_l=1&cb_labels_yes_l=1&cb_labels_no_l=1&project=wikipedia&edits%5Banons%5D=both&interface_language=en&&doit= Vexations (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha: - Would you be willing to try to translate the above? Hog Farm _Talk 23:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, Hog Farm. Did I not just translate it above? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M Imtiaz: - I'm trying to get a more precise translation of "putki", which looks like the key word here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Would you like to comment here? Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for ping. Yes, i think we should revdel this & subsequent one. The line roughly translate as: "Scholastica was set up in 1997, to have sex with small children/so they have sex with small children". See wikt:পুটকি. Here putki doesn't mean to have sex but if you add "mara/marte" with it, then it uses that sense. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revdeled the one contained "putki". Shouldn't be necessary to hide the one after it, as since the change is hidden by the revision, then the offensive text can no longer be seen. Hog Farm _Talk 03:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

seems like the issue has been solved...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information

14.231.163.204 warned more than 3 times. It's rose gold! (T?) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I did make explanation but received no reply. See talk page 14.231.163.204 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @RoseGold1250: A lot of bad edits occur that need to be reverted, but please take more care with a revert like diff which restored "with the advantage belongs to China" in the first change. That's obviously bad text which is typical of a recent change by someone without much knowledge of English and possibly a similar disregard of sources. 14.231.163.204 (talk · contribs) should have used more edit summaries but they did start with a strong claim, namely "bad citations, info not found within sources" (diff). Particulary if you are going to report someone at a noticeboard you should investigate the details. Did you notice 14.231.163.204's two replies to your first warning at their talk (diff + diff)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user have been created account Hellofriend202 it's was vandalism User_talk:2405:204:858b:395d::2299:b0. It's rose gold! (T?) 06:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is
  WP:ANI as it's an "incident". However, even if the user's edits are inappropriate, it is premature to report a user with four article edits and whose account is less than an hour old. Ask them to seek assistance at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Pallerti is a corrupt administrator on the hungarian wikipedia who undoes a TRUE edit on Lando Norris' page. I would like to have them be demoted. --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: they also undid adding Another Round to Thomas Vinterberg's page before it won an oscar.

So corrupt, even Trump would raise his hat in front of them. User: Pallerti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot help you with issues on the Hungarian Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. You will need to use whatever process they have to address your grievance. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They also blocked me for "insulting a block"? --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we cannot help you with issues there. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To be at WP:AE, it needs to be related to an Arbitration case and decision authorizing discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan is the closest thing but it isn't a perfect fit. You can always file and see, but the reality is, there are way more eyes at ANI than at AE (or even AN). The eyes at AE tend to be more experienced at Arbitration cases, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If the report languishes for longer, I would encourage moving to AE, and requesting discretionary sanctions under ARBIPA. ANI isn't well-suited to long-term tendentious editing. I will leave a comment at ANI in any case, as I cannot take admin action with respect to this user. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings administrators,

Is there any way a page could be created for film critic Caillou Pettis? He is a multi-media writer covering film, music, television and video games and his work spans across multiple high-profile publications such as Exclaim!, Gigwise, Beats Per Minute, Film Threat, and Flickering Myth. He is also a critic on Rotten Tomatoes.

There's a couple of news articles talking about his directorial efforts as well. I noticed the page was on lock for creation, hence the request. The last time the page was attempted to be created was in 2018. In three years, his work has spanned across plenty more well-known websites and his music reviews are also featured on Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. If people such as Bilge Ebiri and Alonso Duralde can have articles made with less references, then he should be able to have a page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The story starts with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caillou Pettis in 2016, and there have been repeated attempts to create a new article since then. If the person is now truly notable, then I suggest writing a policy compliant draft article and then asking one of the administrators involved with this matter to accept the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy reply, Cullen. I have attempted to write up a draft article and later, to submit it for approval, but even a Draft article for Pettis is locked to administrators only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage on the web looks underwhelming. If I were the reviewing admin, I would deny such a request. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, DrKay. What kind of articles/coverage on the web would clarify for a film critic having an article? As stated above, for example, Alonso Duralde only has three references and none of them seem to meet the guidelines. Just curious what articles meet guidelines. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is guidance at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Essentially, there should be multiple secondary and third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd encourage any CU who happens upon this to take a look at the history of his hundreds of socks (which are also globally locked.) TAXIDICAE💰 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Check declined by a checkuser. All of the SPIs related to Caillou Pettis are stale by at least three years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector There's a ton of IP data in the SPI itself, which was more my point. There's also been some more recent ones that were locked without enwiki blocks but I'll have to dig for them. TAXIDICAE💰 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of IP data there that's useless for CU, because we can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. We have no choice but to treat the IPs that others have listed in the various SPIs as purely speculative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I feel that a YouTuber with less than 5,000 subscribers who hasn't posted anything in two years is very unlikely to meet the
  WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ivanvector - If the general consensus is that the subject does not yet meet the guidelines, I won't bother creating a draft page. Also, I am not being paid to edit any pages here, everything I do is just for fun and to provide the general public with information on various subjects. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]