Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 25 18 43
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 2 3 5
FfD 0 0 2 6 8
AfD 0 0 0 105 105

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (19 out of 2583 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
ICICB Group 2021-04-22 15:09 2021-05-06 15:09 edit,move Persistent spamming: Straight to WP:ECP due to promotional content added by confirmed accounts El C
Anushka Sen 2021-04-22 12:14 indefinite create AFC draft pending Primefac
Draft:Let Me Reintroduce Myself (EP) 2021-04-22 09:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Panyd
Kallar (caste) 2021-04-22 02:39 indefinite edit Long term disruptive editing and edit warring, per WP:ARBIPA EdJohnston
Oliver C Beats 2021-04-21 19:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: requires an approved draft for creation due to the repeated creation of promotional article Ponyo
Template:About/doc 2021-04-21 03:44 indefinite edit,move Highly visible template El C
Simran Upadhyay 2021-04-21 00:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated (see Simron Upadhyay), need to go to DRV or prepare a draft clearly showing notability Fences and windows
Simron Upadhyay 2021-04-21 00:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, need to go to DRV or prepare a draft clearly showing notability Fences and windows
Burao 2021-04-20 20:10 2023-04-20 20:10 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 2021-04-20 18:13 2021-04-23 18:13 move disruptive page moves Acroterion
Sasha Banks 2021-04-20 17:43 2024-03-17 10:16 edit,move Persistent spamming: upgrade protection: promotional content and advocacy from multiple confirmed accounts El C
Togdheer 2021-04-19 20:24 2023-04-19 20:24 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Mark Jenkins (The Hotel) 2021-04-19 18:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Moneytrees
Vera Gedroits 2021-04-19 14:19 2021-04-29 14:19 edit,move persistent vandalism Ser Amantio di Nicolao
Ibtisam Mara'ana 2021-04-19 10:02 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page El C
Draft:Azzy the badass 2021-04-19 03:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Graham Scott (referee) 2021-04-18 19:14 2021-04-27 21:32 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: upgrade protection: disruption resuming, now from confirmed accounts, less than a day after the semi was applied El C
Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran 2021-04-18 17:08 2021-10-18 17:08 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: WP:GS/IRANPOL — long-term edit warring by confirmed accounts El C
Davido 2021-04-18 17:03 2021-05-18 17:03 edit,move didnt intend til June TheSandDoctor

Repeated topic ban violation[edit]

Solavirum has violated his topic ban (from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed) a second time by including Armenia-related info on Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan[1] and in his own sandbox[2][3] which also falls under WP:TBAN.

Previously, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 and was given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). Within a week of the block ending, Solavirum violated the topic ban again. --Steverci (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A Seljuk prince in Syria is not related to WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azerbaijan. I don't know how expanding an article about Turkey and Syria is violation of the topic ban. You can ask about it to more experienced editors in the subject like HistoryofIran and Cplakidas. With this rate, I'm not going to be able to edit any article in Wikipedia. Your application is basically WP:WITCHHUNT. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 16:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) I see nothing in the diffs other than a commendable expansion of well-researched, neutral history. The edit does indeed include a tangential passing mention of a historical Armenian prince, but I think the context of the mention is important here. It's neutral, relevant and supported by the source; the subject of the expansion is clearly outside their topic ban, yet relevant enough to Solavirum's interest in regional history that they're willing to dedicate their time to write about it. With an edit this constructive, I'd encourage the reviewing admin to be generous and fair-minded. I can see how a blanket ban on using the word Armenian in all historical contexts, even when the subject is clearly not Armenia and Armenia is only being touched upon in the briefest contextual manner, could be obstructive to their efforts to contribute to other regional topics. Given that the edit is productive and in clear good faith (rather than an attempt to "nibble round the edges", which is what WP:BROADLY is designed to prevent), I'd be inclined to allow Solavirum to mention Armenia in a contextual manner on articles related to medieval history, provided that they strictly avoid directly discussing Armenia or Armenians themselves. BROADLY has a provision for determining "whether or not a particular edit violates a sanction ... on a case-by-case basis" after all. As an aside, I don't think the comparison with Solavirum's previous violation is accurate here, as that incident was a blatant violation in which they directly discussed a source related to the contemporary Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict on my talk page. Jr8825Talk 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
  • Without digging too deeply, and taking the content of this discussion at face value, I would say that a "tangential passing mention of a historical Armenian prince" is indeed a violation, but likely an innocent one so I'm not inclined to slam down the ban hammer. "Broadly construed" means just that, and while sometimes these tangential edits go unnoticed, when they are noticed, we don't have a choice but to remind the editor that this really needs to be avoided. I understand this can be frustrating, but I wouldn't hold this one set of diffs against you in a future request to lift the restriction. As a guide, if there is any question that an edit might breach the topic ban, it is best to avoid it. Dennis Brown - 11:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The user had already been given a warning to not edit anything remotely related to the topic ban area while receiving a topic ban violation block that expired just a week earlier. --Steverci (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Update Here is yet another topic ban violation. He reverted it afterward, but this will be his third warning in a short amount of time. --Steverci (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
One, the first violation isn't comparable to the second example. Second example you've given isn't much of a violation, unrelated things. The third violation was by mistake. The article in question was related to Iran topic, which I've lately involved in. I was reverting disruption, but didn't realised it was related to WikiProject Azerbaijan until few hours later and then reverted. You've, many times, failed WP:AGF, and have continued to do so despite the warnings. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious activity on ARBAA2 articles[edit]

In the past few days, I have witnessed rather suspicious activity around the edits of Curious Golden, a user who has been banned recently for an unrelated case of sockpuppetry. The user was previously involved in discussions and editing related to historical and contemporary place names in articles falling under WP:ARBAA2. A few days following their ban, there was an attempt to undo their place name-related edits en masse, which only stopped after the issue was brought to the attention of the community and was subsequently found to be in violation of WP:GRAVEDANCE (the user who engaged in reverting apologised and expressed their readiness to cooperate).

Since then, there have been other similar attempts, albeit on a limited scale, such as these ones [4] [5] [6] 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 [7] [8] [9] [10], to list a few. It is noteworthy that the articles have carried those titles since the day they were created in 2008, and those titles thus reflected consensus versions. In addition, these articles are covered by the aforementioned ArbCom case, and I find moving them under potentially POV titles (without at least launching an RfC) suspicious considering that for some of them, renaming proposals were made as recently as a couple of months ago, and the result was "no consensus to rename". Every one of those discussions involved Curious Golden, who was an active editor of said articles and argued against renaming them most of the time. It is important to underline that Curious Golden's sockpuppets (confirmed or suspected) have never been involved in these discussions, which is why it would not be right to assume that this particular input was made by them in bad faith.

Before engaging in this activity, KhndzorUtogh contacted an established user, AntonSamuel, the author of over a dozen renaming proposals for ARBAA2 place names (including the one cited above), asking for advice on how to go about the renaming, and apparently was led to believe that blind renaming of ArbCom-covered content was the right path to take. What is disturbing is that AntonSamuel, whose renaming proposals were not upheld back in February, took that as a green light to pursue further such moves on different articles as well as took advantage of KhndzorUtogh's controversial page moves to alter place names in the body of the very articles that AntonSamuel themselves had failed to have renamed in February following a formal proposal, thus evading possible accusations of violating the administrator's decisions. When I tried to address the issue with AntonSamuel personally, I was told that there was, according to them, nothing problematic with the moves and that it was AntonSamuel's personal conviction that this was the right thing to do ("I have already explained", "I personally don't consider", etc.). Upon my suggestion that the articles should be reverted to their consensus versions and that a discussion should be launched with the aim of establishing a common practice for naming such articles, the user made it clear that they were not interested in any further discussion and advised that I seek administrator help.

I may be mistaken but I see this activity as problematic and potentially dangerous on many levels. First of all, it is rather obvious to me that despite the recent AN case, Curious Golden's good-faith input keeps being deliberately targeted by a group of users contributing more-or-less to the same thematic area, including by those who were directly involved in discussions with the banned user. They are now making dubious edits to consensus versions that Curious Golden helped establish and which they were reluctant to make when Curious Golden was still active. Second of all, toponymy-related content is clearly in the spotlight and has been tampered with for the past ten days in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated. Third of all, it is unfortunate to see active users like AntonSamuel, who are well aware of the formal renaming procedure, being part of this trend, abandoning the constructive approach they had assumed earlier in favour of single-handed undiscussed page moves and, what is worse, being dismissive towards users willing to discuss them beforehand. Parishan (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever did not go through RM should be moved back.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh place names, this is a complicated issue that I've sought administrator input on during several occasions, and I've initiated many move discussions in the past with regard to moving the articles to their likely common names, however these efforts faced heavy opposition, status quo stonewalling and disruption such as canvassing, so I've taken a break with involving myself with the issue until now. I would not say that all of the current versions represent consensus versions - many are names that were taken from GEOnet Names Server as the only source years ago - without regard for the complex history of the region and what the likely common names for the villages are. Regarding the issue between me and Parishan, I explained my position to him pretty thoroghly on my talk page [11] and since the argumentation was getting messy and bit unconstructive I told him that he is welcome to ping an admin for input if he thought I made a mistake with my move. Is this really considered to be dismissive? I do try to be careful when it comes to Nagorno-Karabakh articles and their place names. In this case I moved Russian-name "Kirov" to "Hin Shen" which I thought was justified since the Nagorno-Karabakh naming controversy on English Wikipedia is mainly with regard to Armenian vs. Azerbaijani names and this was an odd Soviet-era Russian-language name that left the name format on the page pretty messy. I also checked quite a bit before moving it that "Hin Shen" was indeed the name that is far more in usage. If this was a careless move on my part, then I apologize. However, I believe that Parishan's depiction here of the turn of events is a bit incorrect and not really made in good faith - I explained my position on my talk page to KhndzorUtogh that move discussions are the best way to go for most Nagorno-Karabakh articles since they are potentially controversial. Regarding my edits on the articles KhndzorUtogh then moved, I explained to Parishan that my edits on the articles moved were to clean up the format after the moves, since I thought the format on the articles was left a bit messy, with names being repeated in the infobox, while I personally didn't want to interfere if other users raised concerns about the moves for these particular villages, since I've already involved myself quite a bit in the past with this issue and I think it's good that other editors engage in these issues as well - for better or for worse, not just me or other "veterans" with regard to the topic. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • When articles are contentious (which pretty much every Arm/Azer one is) then I would say that WP:RM is the best way of discussing their locations. I am also unconvinced that either ZaniGiovanni and KhndzorUtogh are a net positive to editing in the ARBAA area. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: All right, so would you then recommend me to move the article back? I believe my rationale was pretty straight forward regarding the justification for the move - but I don't intend to break any policies. While I think that "Kirov" is a pretty problematic article name on many accounts and that the current version is a clear improvement, I would prefer that someone else open a potential RM though, since I think I've done my fair share of attempts to improve the Nagorno-Karabakh articles with regard to the article names for the moment. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I did edit articles with added Az translation by the blocked user as many of them have sources like here 1, 2. I was involved in a similar village to the ones the Sockmaster edited 3, and that village had only one same source named "İ. M. Bayramov. B. Ə. Budaqov; H. İ. Mirzəyev; S. A. Məmmədov [Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan] (PDF) (in Azerbaijani). Baku: Elm. p. 201. ISBN 5-8066-1452-2.". If you are unaware, and I'm quoting a user from the deletion page of that village, "The source Carlossuarez46 added to the article is by an author who has worked extensively on the Western Azerbaijan political concept, i.e. the belief that all of Armenia is lost Turkic lands that rightfully belong to Azerbaijan, Here's his AZ Wikipedia page. That book is naturally going to be biased, and I wouldn't consider it to be a reliable source for the names of places.". Regarding the exact examples Parishan gave. The first village Chapkut I removed the non common name and moved history information from the lead to newly created history section. Second village, same thing and the third one as well. I don't know the exact policy and I apologize I am new to wikipedia, but I was following WP:MODERNPLACENAME I believe. In regards to other villages' sources I mentioned earlier, first with political view/propaganda title, and second named "Genocide of Azerbaijanis on the territory of Iravan province in 1918-1920", which is an imagined title itself, I don't know what's the appropriate way to deal with. Probably nomination for deletion like with the Azizkend town that had the same source? More experienced editors would have the necessary suggestions, thanks in advance. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Parishan, you claim that "my editing history dates back to 1 April (suspiciously to the very same day when Curious Golden was banned)" however it seems that Curious was banned on the 3rd April, also why would this be suspicious even if my account was made on the same day? You also haven't responded to the reason I moved the names (which I wrote). You claim that Curious edits were in good faith - "Curious Golden's good-faith input", however this user has added Azerbaijani translations to at least 100 villages in Armenia (claiming that every other village had an Azeri majority), which should be grounds for concern, given that in these edits, frequently either: no sources were provided, the source wasn't scholarly or it was biased (written by Azerbaijani), the source wouldn't open, the source was nowhere to be found on the internet, and more. You also are blaming those who undid his problematic edits. However, you called in an earlier comment that me moving around 5 small villages' names was of "mass". You also say that "toponymy-related content is clearly in the spotlight and has been tampered with for the past ten days in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated." but show no proof of it being coordinated, rather a speculation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not exactly a content issue. This is an issue concerning a specific type of articles involving a specific user, dealt with in an inappropriate manner and in what appears to be a collective effort. We could criticise Curious Golden all we want but the fact remains that there were established consensus versions (for most of which the Azeri toponymy had already featured for years); if someone found that problematic, it would be much more constructive to discuss that first instead of removing content without trace or redirecting pages on one's own initiative given how sensitive the topic is (leaving a message on another user's talkpage and then proceeding to rename the articles is not really a discussion). Unfortunately I did not see any of the above-mentioned users try this. Parishan (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, again you are accusing me of dealing with articles in a "collective effort" with no proof, however just searching your username online along with some keywords gives results showing that in 2010 you were involved in pro-Azerbaijani collaboration on Russian wikipedia, specifically off wiki large mailing list collaboration . You say that "We could criticise Curious Golden all we want but the fact remains that there were established consensus versions (for most of which the Azeri toponymy had already featured for years);" however before CuriousGolden began to edit over a hundred articles, there were no Azerbaijani translations on these villages. What he did was massive compared to me moving names for around 5 small villages and you are accusing those who remove his problematic edits of acting in a bad faith. I didn't expect the topic to be so sensitive when I moved those pages, so how do you suggest I go around it next time I want to move the name of the villages? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@KhndzorUtogh:, the topic is about you. Would you please answer clearly why you think it is ok to move the articles about localities in the conflict area from their Azerbaijani names to their Armenian names without any discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I already answered this, I didn't expect it to be the big deal it became. In the last sentence I even asked how I should go around it next time if I want to change the names of these villages. I answered all of Parishan's questions, and I responded to his baseless collaboration accusations, which is very ironic given his past. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Well it clearly is contentious, so, are you going to move them back and open WP:RMs for them, or is someone else going to need to do that? Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I was able to move one of the few villages, but the other ones didn't work. For example on Spitakashen, it said "The page "Spitakashen, Martuni" cannot be moved to "Ağkənd, Khojavend" because the title "Ağkənd, Khojavend" matches an entry". Could you see if it works for you? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I moved Ağkənd, Khojavend, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the others, as some will probably trip the title filters for non-admins as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
All are now back to their former title, so if KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs) wants to suggest a move, they will have to do it through WP:RM. It could be interesting ... --T*U (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thank you very much. Could you please undo this move by AntonSamuel also mentioned above? Parishan (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I've already asked Black Kite above regarding this, I am perfectly willing to move the article back myself if that is the recommendation given. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel and Parishan: That one's an oddity as it appears to have never been at the Azerbaijani name, and it's so obscure that I'm struggling to find sources about what itds WP:COMMONNAME is. Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: When I looked at sources, I found that Reuters [12] Al Jazeera [13] and TASS [14] 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 [15]. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Those sources do not establish a common name since they are merely quoting the Armenian foreign ministry, which naturally refers to that village by its Armenian name. Black Kite is right, there is no common name for that village, which is exactly why I suggest that it should be reverted to its pre-conflict name, which both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources agree on. Parishan (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
That reliable sources do re-report the name does in my view at the very least indicate what the common name is. WP:MODERNPLACENAME (which also recommends using a "local name, if there is no established English name") is also relevant here in my view - as Hin Shen is the name used by the de facto administration and the native population of the village. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If the name were mentioned outside of the quotation, I would agree with that statement. However, I can see clearly that reliable sources are reluctant to refer to that village by whatever name, and there is probably a reason for that. This is why I invited you earlier to start working towards establishing naming conventions for such articles because experience has shown time and again that in the case of conflict-affected regions, most of them barely mentioned in Englsh-language contexts, general rules such as WP:COMMONNAME yield no consensus. First, the name was obviously selected by the de facto administration as part of a hard-to-ignore policy of ridding the region of its non-Armenian toponymic heritage and thus cannot be considered NPOV. Secondly, we do not know what the native population refers to the village as in a neutral context. Lachin, for instance, was renamed Berdzor back in 1992, but interviews with post-1994 Armenian settlers show that they continued to refer to the town as "Lachin" way into the 2010s even when interviewed in Armenian (see 2:21), (see 1:46, 1:52, 1:58). Bottom line: yes, there are rules in place but one must recognise that we are dealing with a very special case here, which requires a consensus on its own. Parishan (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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: [16]

Naming the villages of Nagorno-Karabakh according to the Soviet names would for example mean that Shikharkh, Azerbaijan (Maragha) would be renamed Leninavan (Unless the argument would be that this only concerns Armenian-controlled villages and not Azerbaijani-controlled villages in Nagorno-Karabakh) and Kiçik Qarabəy would be renamed Mokhratagh, which you recently argued against on the RM on Talk:Kiçik Qarabəy. The Soviet names were a complicated mix of some historical names, some new names to honor Communist figures and some amalgamations of Armenian and Azerbaijani names such as "Metskaladeresi" for Mets Shen, Shusha. While they are relevant for historical context - I don't think that they are a suitable basis for determining article titles in and of themselves, as modern names used by the de facto administrations and local populations are more relevant and natural when it comes to usage.

Regarding examples of the usage of Hin Shen by locals, after a quick look for some clips, the name Hin Shen is for example used by a local in this short documentary about the village [17] (8:25), I'm sure there are more examples even if there would be potential double local usage of the Armenian name and the Soviet-era name such as for Lachin/Berdzor.

An RfC for a naming convention would probably be a good idea in the end to make the process of RM:s easier and less vulnerable to disruption. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

This paragraph from Arsène Saparov's "Contested spaces: the use of place-names and symbolic landscape in the politics of identity and legitimacy in Azerbaijan" summarizes it pretty well [18]:

The establishment of the Soviet Union, with its emphasis on radical revolutionary change and a break with the past, affected practices of place-naming across the entire country. Monarchist and religious place-names were removed, and new ones reflecting the new social order were introduced. In Karabakh this resulted in a partial reversal of the toponymic landscape inherited from Tsarist times, as Armenian place-names reappeared on the official Soviet maps. This was primarily connected with the removal of Turkic place-names that designated ideologically unacceptable practices, such as settlements named after lords, landowners or religious names. This mirrored the previous period, when only one toponymic landscape had been recorded in the official documents. This time it was the Armenian toponymic landscape that replaced the Turkic one. Thus, in the early 1920s the Armenian leadership of the newly established Karabakh Autonomous Region succeeded in partially restoring the Armenian toponymic landscape, and elevating it to the status of a legitimate landscape, replacing in the process the previously dominant Turkic one. This situation remained in place largely unaffected until the end of the Soviet era.

AntonSamuel (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no non-primary sources that would attest that such-and-such village in Karabakh had such-and-such name before the non-Armenian toponymy was replaced by the Turkic one, and since Saparov does not give exact examples, making those assumptions would be OR (Turkic being the lingua franca of the region for many centuries, it is in fact quite possible that some of these villages had been founded already under Turkic names, like for instance, some of the villages established in Georgia and Armenia by Ottoman Armenian and Ottoman Greek migrants in the mid-19th century). I am not suggesting that we dig into history to determine which toponym appeared first. I agree with you that this would be counter-productive. I am saying that if there is an official toponym that at some point was used by both communities and that features in reliable sources like Kavkazsky kalendar, this conforms to NPOV and that toponym should probably be the one to be given priority to; and if the toponym is of Russian or Azeri origin, so be it. Why is that a problem? "Hin Shen" is a no-go by default: the article suggests that the village is de jure located in Azerbaijan, except that in Azerbaijan, there is officially no village called Hin Shen, whereas in Nagorno-Karabakh, the same village officially went by the Russian name "Kirov" not that long ago. Parishan (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I assume you meant that "Armenian toponymy" and not "non-Armenian toponymy" "was replaced by the Turkic one"? Saparov gives several examples of historical names in Karabakh and their origin and context. The article presents both the Armenian and Azerbaijani names as well as alternative names and presents the status of the village clearly, if the village was indeed founded during the Soviet period as a part of the NKAO as you stated, I would say that is even more reason for the Armenian name to be appropriate with regard to neutrality as historical demographics is a factor that should be taken into consideration - if the village had an Armenian-majority population during the Soviet era up and until today (similar to Hovsepavan for example). Regarding the de jure status, a relevant example regarding article titles on Wikipedia is the article for the town of Kobanî, for which the name utilized/re-reported in international media and used by the de facto administration and local population has been the choice for the article title rather than the de jure official name/pre-conflict name. Hin Shen is by far more natural and relevant when it comes to usage. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Is Kirov one of the villages that Saparov names as examples of de-Armeninisation of toponymy? If not, then you cannot use him as a source to justify your move. I fail to see how founding a village in the Soviet time explains that the article dedicated to the village should carry a non-Soviet post-conflict name that is POV from every point of view. If the village was founded after the war, like Knaravan, then I would be one hundred per cent with you on this. This is not the case. Native names cannot prevail over WP:NPOV if they are not established English names, and "Hin Shen" is not an established name. Your analogy with Kobanî is irrelevant: first of all, because Kobanî is an attested historical name for the settlement and not one thought of as part of a political campaign to erase toponymical heritage and second of all, because it came to be a common name in English, as English-language sources did not hesitate to use it outside of quotes from speeches by local Kurdish authorities. You cannot possibly compare the media coverage that these two settlements have received. Parishan (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've previously explained why a local name is preferable if there is no established English-language common name per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. That the village only recieved an Azerbaijani official name during the Azerbaijani renaming campaign after the war, peels off some of the layers of controversy compared to other Karabakh villages that have more complex toponymic histories I would say. As I've also stated previously - the contemporary de facto name is far more relevant and natural than a Soviet-era name created in honor of a Communist figure (Sergei Kirov) scarcely utilized today by the international media compared to Hin Shen. Kobanî serves as a good and relevant example (even though it's larger in size and has been covered more extensively in the media) for the case of Hin Shen. The town being called Kobanî and not "Ayn al-Arab" by the de facto authorities and on English Wikipedia has indeed been controversial.
Regarding neutrality, previously you've made the case on Nagorno-Karabakh move discussions that when a name was Turkic or non-Armenian in Nagorno-Karabakh during the Soviet period then the Soviet-era name is preferable (such as for Vank, Nagorno-Karabakh/Vangli), if the Turkic name was created/applied as a de jure name after 1988 then the Turkic name is still preferable (such as for Qırmızı Bazar/Karmir Shuka and Çaylaqqala/Khtsaberd), if a name was Armenian during the Soviet period (such as for Haterk/Hasanriz and Kochoghot/Yayiji), then its Turkic name during the Tsarist era is preferable - so the Turkic or non-Armenian names are then preferable to the Armenian names in pretty much any given situation, not a neutral position when it comes to the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and article titles I would say. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Repeating constantly that "you have already explained" something does not really help me better understand your point. If I continue to bring up arguments, it means that I do not yet see how your explanation justifies the point you are making.
The case of Kobanî is irrelevant for the same reason which I brought up when I voted against your move suggestion for the articles you are referring to: there is no established name for most Karabakh villages because the localities are too insignificant from the point of view of reliable English-language sources. You were referring to WP:COMMONNAME, and that principle clearly did not apply there. The same goes for WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which: (a) does not address the issue of disputed claims and parellel usage; (2) fails to qualify in the absence of English-language references (the news reports you are citing are not an example of that because they only use toponyms in direct quotes from partisan sources, namely from Armenia's Ministry of Defense).
The compromise I am suggesting has nothing to do with a placename being Armenian or non-Armenian. The idea is to find the lowest common denominator, and it just happens so that the only names that can reconcile all the possible suggestions according to WP:NPOV are the ones that existed in the region before the autonomy was created (and there are sources that identify those places in Armenian by their non-Armenian names); and for the localities founded since the 1920s, the names that were last used before the conflict erupted. Parishan (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
On my part, I repeat arguments because I don't think that much of your line of reasoning when looking at the past conversation, and your previous positions with regard to the previously mentioned move discussions has a rational basis, basing arguments on a variety of concepts that are in conflict with each other - defending the use of names from either the Tsarist, the Soviet or the post-Soviet (Azerbaijani) eras, if it fits the defense of the use of Turkic or non-Armenian names as article titles. The wider naming convention for geographic names does bring up the issue of names for disputed localities and for localities for which there are few English-language sources available that mention them (WP:NCGN#Multiple local names) - proposing search engine tests to determine names, or the names utilized by the linguistic majority of the locality for example - such as for the historically Armenian-majority villages in the present-day de facto Republic of Artsakh - which was the case for the move discussions that I have opened previously, and what I have proposed, basing article titles on common names, or if unclear - local names, while taking into account the historical demographics of a locality. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@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: [19] and anyone else who has recently been tempted to bring up that age-old case from a different project to counter inquiries made here that the incident was reviewed by English Wikipedia administrators back in 2012, and a consensus was reached to disregard any further references to that incident for the reason of them being disruptive and aimed at besmirching other users. In other words, if you bring that case up again, you will be reported. Parishan (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Am I reading same thing as you do? "in a massive effort that almost seems coordinated" oh so you were not accusing of anything, not even a hint. What does "looks like a collective effort" mean then? You are literally pulling mental gymnastics and backtracking your words. If it's not an accusation, at the very least it's a passive aggressive remark which was justified to be answered. I earlier left a message to a user involved with you and another Az editor, Grandmaster, merely familiarizing him with the people he is disputing against. Didn't know that it "brakes wiki rules". I wasn't "countering" or "besmirching" you by stating the past, neither was KhndzorUtogh it seems. The only conclusion I came to reading KhndzorUtogh bringing that case, was to show the almost laughable irony in your baseless remarks, nothing more. @Parishan: I would strongly suggest that you avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors from now on or threaten with unfounded reports. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not to anyone in particular, but a general remark based on several entries in this thread: Could you please all stop commenting on person and concentrate on content. Just a thought ... --T*U (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's a little bit of history that all participants of AA2 would do well to (re-)read and take to heart. Jr8825Talk 00:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijan articles created by Carlossuarrez46[edit]

In the spirit of discussion and whatnot, I encourage all editors here in this section to look up just a little way on this very noticeboard to #Large batch deletion probably needed (Azerbaijan). There's a fundamental accuracy problem with the way that several thousands of articles were mass-created on the English Wikipedia, and then mirrored all over the place, including by robots to Wikipedias in other languages. Some of the articles that you are arguing about with diffs here were originally created from GEOnet too. Be aware that we've already found, and deleted, thousands of articles in Iran that turned out to be fundamentally misleading two-sentence stubs, telling readers for years that wells, farms, industrial estates, motorized water pumps, et al. were "villages". And we know that articles have had names poorly translated (e.g. "Locust Water" rather than "ab Malakh waterfalls" at Ab Malakh (AfD discussion)).

We're trying to deal with this by coming up with ways that we can fix or delete en masse lists of articles, that are things like "villages" with population zero; or "villages" that the article creator labelled as being in a disputed area, and that someone else came along later to label as not even locatable in other sources. If you can help to whittle away at this huge inaccuracy problem, by helping to make, review, expand, shrink, cross-check lists of Azerbaijan articles created this way, it would be appreciated.

And, honestly, no you shouldn't be arguing about what some holiday trip WWW site says about common names. Part of the problem is that those WWW sites are algorithmically generated, sometimes from the English Wikipedia, sometimes from GEOnet. A case in point is Mozaffarabad, Bardsir (AfD discussion) where the algorithmically-generated WWW site is telling us that this "city" is over a megametre away from the nearest hotel. We desperately need a lot better from everyone all around than Special:Diff/1017060807 et al. with only a source to a WWW site that explicitly tells us that it uses Wikipedia.

Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I noticed that when I was going through CuriousGolden's contributions, there were Armenian villages (not sure how many) with only single bogus/political source, like the ones mentioned above 1, 2, also created by Carlossuarrez64. And I believe these supposed villages and similar villages with the same one source should be removed as well, because we can't WP:VERIFY their existence with extremely biased and unreliable source(s). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

These CarlosSuarez ones had clear support for mass deletion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Large batch deletion probably needed (Azerbaijan), but this was archived without action. Can some admin please enact the consensus here? Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Fram: A few seem to require a closer look, for example Qazarkı-Qomər and Xanməmməd-Bünaən. Guess I have to make another list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Azerbaijani articles on Alexis' list. Why are you folks on the English Wikipedia so reluctant to delete junks? 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • If we knew the answer to just wouldn't be the English Wikipedia any more! :D ——Serial 12:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Carlos created thousands of Azerbaijan "village" articles based on solely on Geonet data, which is an unreliable source. We could laboriously sort through every one of the thousands of such articles doing WP:BEFORE on every single one but this would be pointless given how few of them will pass. Therefore WP:TNT is a perfectly valid solution. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've looked through that list. I have no issues with section 1. A couple of articles in a sample of about 10 turned out to have non-trivial edit histories, but since the edits were stuff like "there live a muslim Jews", I am confident that we are not losing out with those. So count me in on section 1, too.

    The second section had some amusing moments. Agally is only on it, for example, because someone stuck a {{citation needed}} on the single fact in the article. Kushchi-Gasanly got tagged with "verifiability problem" in 2014. Lugnuts tagged Osmanlar with {{cn}} this year. Uchoglan got given a second name and tagged {{fact}} 10 years ago in 2011. I think we can fish several of these out and say that, in effect, they are equivalent to section 1, as the only substantial edits have been to actually challenge the content.

    Section 3 has a lot of articles that have had "This village is in an area occupied by the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." (or "Republic of Artsakh") added without a source. It turns out, per Special:Diff/313612775 that that was a variation on replacing the article creator's original {{AZocc}} with inline text. That extra sentence was from that template.

    So I think that you can actually add more to section 1 with a couple of passes, filtering for the aforementioned, leaving a lot fewer to manually process.

    Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I guess it's hard to prove a negative of a place that might once have existed under a name that's now changed and no longer recorded! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, section 1 and section 2 are essentially the same in how they should be handled. The reason I made two sections is that at some point it is less work to review remaining differences manually than it is to further refine the filter. Articles in the third section require a closer look, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be mass-deleted after inspection.

      I skipped the history check this time because last time this generally just created false positives for reverted vandalism. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

      • It was the "manual review" in the title of section 2. I read that as you not wanting these mass deleted. I've segregated section 3 by the various cleanups of {{AZocc}} text, and it appears to me (for one) that we really only need to not mass-delete the five articles at Special:Permalink/1019073862#Others, although I suspect that upon manual review several of them will end up being nominated for deletion.

        Unless we go through them quickly now and then agree that the whole list can go.

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

  • Support deletion - Sort out the ones with significant contributions and manually go through them, but the rest ought to be dealt with as a single lot. My experience with these of Carlos's is that they generally all fail verifiability, and often contain false or misleading content. So many of their California stubs have been completely incorrect. Anything actually notable can be rewritten with significant RS, but as it is, these just need TNT'd. Hog Farm Talk 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete And similar articles outside of Az created by Carlossuarrez46, e.g. supposed villages with either no sources or dubious political view/concept source(s) 1, 2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Alright, what criteria are there for that? What boilerplate text is there that can be used to mechanically find this subset of the mass-created articles? Please explain clearly why these sources are dubious, too. GEOnet supported by only more GEOnet was. But GEOnet supported by something else needs a clear explanation of why that something else is also problematic as a source. Let's not worry about notability, if you are thinking of that. But if the second source cannot affirmatively support the assertion that something is a village, then yes we should probably discount it. On the other hand, if it confirms at least that, let's get the problem of thousands of articles that we don't even know to be villages as claimed out of the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I already explained why the sources are dubious to say the least. The first village's source Carlossuarez46 added to the article, named "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan. Author: I. M. Bayramov", is by an author who has worked extensively on the Western Azerbaijan political concept, i.e. the belief that all of Armenia is lost Turkic lands that rightfully belong to Azerbaijan, Here is autor's Az Wikipedia page. So a propaganda book claiming that all/most of Armenia's lands are just "Western Azerbaijan" is listed as a source for a supposed abandoned village(s) in Armenia (and btw, the title doesn't even say it's a village in Armenia, rather "Western Azerbaijan"). How is this kind of extremely biased political nonsense a WP:VERIFY source and why doesn't that bother you? Second village's source is literally named "The genocide of Azerbaijanis in the territory of Iravan province in 1918-1920". What genocide? What are these ridiculous propaganda "sources" with titles like that? How did these sources qualify to be included as some sort of proof of the past existence of these supposed villages? I think Carlossuarrez46 just created articles for the sake of creating them, no regard for the reliableness of his sources, or the actual existence of these villages. And as evident by my examples, they aren't just limited to Azerbaijan related topics. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Carlossuarrez46 did not cite any of those other sources, only the initial GEOnet. Please be more careful.

          So the non-GEOnet source does confirm that these are villages? And the problem is that it asserts the wrong country for nationalistic reasons? I'd be inclined to say that it's not safe to use such a thing as solution to the fundamental is-it-even-a-village-in-country-X-as-pretty-much-the-only-content-in-the-article-claims? problem that we have. But we do need a clear statement of the problem with the sourcing such that it does not fix that problem.

          Because the converse works, too. If we can confirm from a good source that these things are villages, then the problem becomes one of whether there is more to say, which is a notability issue, and not an imediate problem, given that articles are for now at least saying correct things even if they do not say very much.

          Then we need a mechanical way for Alexis Jazz or whoever to pull out the set of such articles. If we cannot, then ordinary Wikipedia processes, as opposed to an abnormal process that we are doing carefully, will have to suffice.

          Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

          • These villages don't show up anywhere outside of wiki. I can't find any existence or past existence of these villages other then biased political propaganda source(s) with matching titles. I wouldn't consider these kind of sources as reliable to say the least, and I really struggle to assume WP:GOODFAITH in whoever added them. As for how to delete other dubious articles created by Carlossuarrez46 like the ones I mentioned above, I don't know, and I'm not the person to ask to be honest. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
            • A conflict arose between me and ZaniGiovanni at a recent AfD regarding the reliability of Azeri government sources as WP:V for articles about former villages in Armenia which were populated by Azeris, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azizkend - see Ymblanter's comment specifically, and where ZaniGiovanni decided that the Azeri source (the country's national encyclopaedia) was a "hoax." It's clear there's a couple differing "truths" here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
              • As I mention in the discussion, I was the one who initially removed hoax tag from the already deleted article. Seeing the same bogus political source however I added it back. I was referring to same political source included in the first village I mentioned, which was also in the already deleted article. I wasn't referring to your "official source". You could've asked me before making baseless assumptions. Later, you removed the hoax tag. I added hoax tag back as there was a disclaimer to "not remove the hoax until discussion for deletion is over". The encyclopedia that you talk about has nothing to do with the villages I mentioned here (it's not even in the articles) and I didn't call it a "hoax". Your attempts to somehow belittle my arguments by bringing an already deleted article seems rather confusing SportingFlyer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Both of the villages you mentioned above, while being problematic Carlossuarez46 articles, that you claim have bogus political sources, have articles on the Azeri Wikipedia, and one even has four different sources there. I believe the Azeri/Armenia conflict is one where discretionary sanctions are applied. You have shown that some of the sources may be problematic, but given your contribution history (removing Azeri names from villages, adding Armenian names, getting in one of the weirdest edit wars I've ever been in with me), simply adding villages with these sources onto the "delete" list, which I believe is what you're suggesting, is not something I'd do lightly. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • The deleted article you mentioned had the same problematic source, which still is problematic and included in other articles as well. What exact name changes are you talking about? I removed non common names, following wiki rules. And in my most edits, the translations were already mentioned in the lead of the articles. I didn't "edit-war" with you lol, what are you talking about? I simply reverted the changes to the deleted article before the deletion discussion was over (as editors were told to in the disclaimer). You are free to mention other sources from "Azeri wikipedia", and editors can take a look and see whether they are reliable or not. If you have anything to say regarding the issue we're discussing then do it, don't jump into discussions with strange accusations out of nowhere. Also my most edits are done to Armenian villages, I don't "add Armenian names" they are already included most of the time. And if they're not, then logically I would add them. Again, same weird accusations from you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the 5 articles that were significantly altered, mentioned above. Only Gyulyambir and Ləmbəran were meaningfully altered from the mass-creation template in my view, and I suggest giving those two real human attention. The rest are all effectively just the boilerplate. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've taken a look at your changes to User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess 2: Azerbaijan edition and I agree. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Armenian articles created by Carlossuarez46[edit]

  • On a related note, when I was editing the articles for the Tavush Province in Armenia, I came across the article Bardidzor - another article using only GEOnet Names Server as a single source. I asked RaffiKojian about the article on Talk:Bardidzor and from a closer look, it seemed that the existence of the village was in doubt. I haven't gotten around to looking into the matter a bit more and to nominate it for deletion, but I thought I'd let you guys know that there may be at least some more articles for localities in Armenia that would qualify for deletion as well on similar grounds as mentioned here, at the very least those not featured in the templates for the provinces (which feature abandoned villages - except for the templates for the Syunik and Vayots Dzor provinces, where the abandoned villages Category:Former_populated_places_in_Syunik_Province Category:Former_populated_places_in_Vayots_Dzor_Province have been removed) AntonSamuel (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You could always cross-check against this and make a list of suspect articles. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, and going through the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Armenia by province is also useful. Through a quick look I found these articles for villages in the Tavush Province only using GeoNet as a source and beginning with the letter A: Akhkikhli, Akhsu, Armenia, Akhum, Alatala and Ankadzor - some may need to be looked at more in-depth though, I haven't checked on Wikipedia in other langauges or any satellite images for these villages. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The GEOnet approved names for Akhkikhli, Akhsu, Akhum and Ankadzor are Hovk’, Spitakajur, Varagavan and Hank’adzor. This means that Akhkikhli and Akhum are probably duplicates of Hovk and Varagavan. Alatala is "unverified" with a termination date of 2016-10-17. Peter James (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Alatala is a name of Turkic origin. There are no names of Turkic origin in Armenia, everything was renamed in the 20th century. This can not be a valid article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
          • The article originally described it as a town, which was changed to "abandoned village" by another editor. There is also an Armenian article, with a reference that is not in the English article. Peter James (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
        • How did you find out which were the approved names, by the way? Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Before I put any effort into seeing whether it can be made to run over all articles instead of just ones starting with "Bar", would something like quarry:query/54268 be useful? —Cryptic 01:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Compare User:Hog Farm/C46 and see User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2021#Iranian place names and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 188#Is it possible to pull a list of all articles created by a user when the xtools search limit is exceeded? for background. It might be worth having an up-to-date list now that over 5000 have been mass-deleted for Iran. Out of some 81,000 when JJMC89 did it. Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I guess the question is what we're targeting. I know the last batch-deletion targeted ones with zero/no population, while this is gonna pull up stuff like Barazin, Varzaqan that has over 260 inhabitants and may be notable. So I guess are we wanting to do a target-deletion of the ones, which would not really be workable on that query as the SQL code is currently written, or is this an overall nuke, in which the query would be useful? Or do we want to use the query to create a list of "needs attention" articles that are then sorted by hand? If we're just going for a "needs attention" list, the SQL query above would do the trick with the proper coding tweaks to look for all articles (never worked with SQL, but I've got a bit of computer-language experience so I can generally puzzle out what reasonably simple code does). Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • My thoughts are that when AntonSamuel did the cross-checking above, it immediately highlighted articles that appeared to need further investigation. Ironically, Carlossuarez46 created both Akhkikhli and Hovk, with different coördinates notice. Bing Maps' background map puts both names at the same place, in contrast. There might be a significant list of articles that we can deal with in bulk, here, and further eat into that original 81,000. Either they are duplicates to be redirected, or something else. It depends from what we can do with those armstat data. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @Uncle G: This document [20] for the general 2011 census lists all localities for all the provinces of Armenia covered by the census, including some abandoned villages. However, both this document and the documents for the individual provinces have some incorrect transliterations (such as transliterating Եղվարդ as "Eghvard" instead of "Yeghvard" and using "q" for some names, which standard simplified Armenian romanization and Wikipedia articles generally doesn't) and so they're not always identical with the names used in the Wikipedia articles for the localities. If possible to do it utilizing a bot, I suppose the easiest way to go about creating a list of all the articles that need to be looked at would be to go through all the articles featured in the subcategories of Category:Populated places in Armenia by province and exclude the ones that are featured on the lists of localities in the templates for the provinces or that have additional sources apart from GEOnet - most legit articles for Armenian villages, including those without any recent cleanup, usually have at least one additional source such as the 2001 Armenian census from what I've seen so far when editing Armenian geographic articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
            • That document's still quite helpful, because it would allow us to generate an "approved list" of any Armenian villages confirmed to pass WP:GEOLAND and then match what we have categorised with what's in the list. Incorrect transliterations may have to be sorted manually but at least it provides a clear inclusion/exclusion guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
            • As a follow up, that would make the work-flow: 1. Is it on the approved list? 2. If no, should it be on the approved list (transliteration error)? 3. If no, has it been significantly edited? 4. If no, are there any other circumstances which might suggest it's notable (such as a linked non-stub article in another language)? If we're still at no, then deletion should easily follow. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning and refusal to listen on a WP:DSTOPICS subject[edit]

This all started when Dragovit added coats of arms to some well-watched articles under WP:MILHIST (although this apparently started well before that, if I look at their contributions). They were (if, I may say so, bluntly at first) warned about it and edit warring on some of the affected pages on their talk page, (User talk:Dragovit#MOS:INFOBOXFLAG; User talk:Dragovit#MOS:INFOBOXFLAG_2) back in March. A long but ultimately fruitless discussion occurred on WT:MILHIST, (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms ininfoboxes), where signs of the section title behaviour (along with lack of good faith, etc...) are already apparent. Once the discussion was closed, I took the opportunity to give a {{Ds/alert}} under WP:ARBINFOBOX2.

Because of the lack of results of the initial discussion, and per a suggestion of a user there, an RfC about coats of arms was specifically opened at the relevant MOS page, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole. That discussion shows two things: that Dragovit happens to be in the minority (in fact, he is the sole objector) regarding this specific issue; and that he is continuing to engage in bludgeoning[a]

I put forth, that this kind of refusal to listen and accept that the consensus is against them is nothing short of disruptive, and that some sanctions under the discretionary sanctions (I would favour a topic ban of some, but not indefinite, duration; but others might be more appropriate) would be appropriate. Am I going out on a limb here or does anybody agree?

Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Now I took a look at this from not only the visual aspect but from statistics too. The RfC as a whole is about 21 kb of wikitext - Dragovit, despite being the sole objector - has contributed more than 11 kb (just over 50%) of it.
Participants notified (but not individually, except for the named editor). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
It's evident that I happen to be in the minority as the sole objector, but it's also evident, that articles using flag icons (templates or reduced symbols such as coats of arms) are the majority, which are not only English but all language wikis, because it's common practice to use flag icons and symbols and it's not against the rules of the Manual of Style/Icons#Flags. As I go through the articles, I see that they are almost everywhere with obvious effort to maintain the same style and sizes, except for a several articles where the icons have been removed and their return is persistently blocked by few users who take icon removal as their own specialization / hobby, but in truth these articles without flag icons are minority and I see no reason why several English articles should be an exception then majority, plus articles with or without flag icons mean a dual style, even though they relate to the same historical period and are included in the same category, which is very contradictory and illogical, because when I move between the articles I see these contradictions and it's also disturbing. Nowhere is it explained why this is the case or why the articles look different. The articles should stick to some uniform arrangement, moreover, when I see that someone is trying to prevent it, it doesn't make sense. The discussion (Wikipedia_talk: WikiProject_Military_history # Coats_of_arms_in_infoboxes) was long and "fruitless" because there was an attempt by the opponents of the icons to trivialize the issue and relied on argument about their size and disracting feature of icons that seems debatable and impossible to prove; for example if a reader suffers from eye disease and therefore has difficulty recognizing the icons, then probably also has difficulty reading the text itself and this seems to me like an excuse than a credible argument. If I use the text enlargement function in the internet browser, then icons also enlarge. In addition to the fact that articles using icons are the majority, my another conclusion is, that I have been successful in the discussion with more credible arguments that have not been refuted by opponents, even though they had the space and opportunity to do so. I have pointed to states that have existed for thousands of years (Kingdom of France) that it is better to use them with flag icons to identify the states instead of without them, which is just vague text that says nothing more. In cases such as the Kingdom of France, there are too many options and without a recognizable symbol such as an icon it is confusing. So far, no one has convinced me that removing icons is correct / according to the rules, their systematic removal is not ordered or recommended anywhere. The Manual of Style/Icons#Flags doesn't prohibit them completely, so their removal is based on some opinion, probably aesthetic, but that's not enough. I therefore demand their return in the certain articles and stop blocking edits, in which they are contained. I consider these actions to be indecent vandalism against hard work to suitable images, inserting them, creating Templates country datas and against creating images on Wikimedia Commons, which are the activities that I all do. Their systematic removal means limiting my activity and my work, which took a lot of time and energy. I ask the administrators to solve this issue which are propably caused by inconsistent rules, I can't make any further edits to the flag icons if they can be thwarted at any time. Dragovit (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I ask that you withdraw your accusation of sinister motives, i.e. "their return is persistently blocked by few users who take icon removal as their own specialization / hobby"; per WP:ASPERSIONS. Dismissing a consensus you don't like by calling it "contradictory and illogical"; saying the editors who disagree with you "trivialise the issue" and, finally, considering such actions as "indecent vandalism" (bonus link: WP:NOTVAND) - in addition to the continued urge to post walls of texts isn't particularly enlightening nor does it shine a positive light... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I presume that what I have described here are only facts about what actually happens in several articles and what Wikipedia looks like when I move around the articles, this facts are essential, not some three phrases that seem like "accusations of sinister motives" which would not affect the solution of this matter, so make accusations isn't my intention. I used such phrases to avoid long formulations, when it's more brief to use that someone has some "specialization" than "few users have been watching several articles for years if the flag icon have not returned, then they will revert them immediately..." the comment is already too long, but it's clear to me that explaining this to you is now irrelevant as it's obvious that you are not interested to solving this issue from the beginning. No one takes my arguments into account and consensus cannot be reached, so there is no point in continuing the discussion, but anyone can read my comments and make sure there are several essential arguments and facts. You have started several discussions about this, but in none of them have you commented on the topic, no consensus was reached in any of them (although you are referring to some others that I did not attend) and then you added here new one and called it bludgeoning and focused on the correct expressions than to discuss the topic matter-of-factly. You still accuses me of not respecting consensus, but you do everything you can to avoid it, and you rely on an old one. This together with avoiding and not solving arguments is apparently your tactic how to thwart the solution of this issue. Dragovit (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Since apparently this has not attracted the attention of either an uninvolved admin or any of the previous editors; @Srnec, Thewolfchild, GraemeLeggett, Urselius, Indy beetle, Tvx1, Parsecboy, Chipmunkdavis, Nigel Ish, Kirill Lokshin, Buidhe, and The ed17: [that should be everyone from the original Milhist discussion, sorry if you are not interested or if I missed anybody] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I participated in the initial discussion. I did not participate in the RfC (it seemed wikilawyery in the first place to even find that loophole), but would agree with the supporters. There is a bit of bludgeoning, but not so much that it has disrupted the overall RfC to the point it cannot be assessed. I would suggest the best immediate action to take is that the RfC be formally closed by someone uninvolved. On further measures, my inclination would be to hope that the RfC close provides a clear indication of community consensus, and that this provides a resolution on the issue. If it does not, we may end up back here. CMD (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel a limited amount of sympathy for the amount of fruitless work @Dragovit: put into adding images, however, had he looked at the talk page of the Third Crusade article before embarking, he would have seen a previous debate which showed that a number of editors, including me, had challenged and removed heraldic images before. It might have induced him to enquire before adding all the images in the first place. I cannot help but feel that Dragovit has signally failed to either engage meaningfully with arguments against the inclusion of slews of heraldic images in infoboxes, or to show any willingness to accede to a consensus of fellow editors. Whatever the merits of the contributions Dragovit has made to Wikipedia, this editor has shown no inclination to abide by the norms of decision making. Urselius (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This topic is much broader than just the Third Crusade. However, it acted as a template for one of the users to remove flag icons and coat of arms in other articles, I believe. The problem is that former consensus was reached only in the Third Crusade under certain conditions, which cannot apply to different articles from other historical periods. The other articles in which the icons were removed relate to the 13th and 14th centuries, which is a completely different periods than the Third Crusade. In addition, I questioned the non-use of icons in the Third Crusade. When I refuted the argument about the "infancy of European heraldry". In the late 12th century, heraldry was used normally in Europe, with a few exceptions. The Third Crusade is also an exception to many articles that flag icons or coa use and are about the same historical period. Therefore a new consensus is needed. Dragovit (talk) 8:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Icons in infoboxes must perform a function for the majority of readers. While a modern flag is useful to show what nationality a general in the Napoleonic wars or WWII was, personal heraldic arms do not perform the same function for the Hundred Years War. They are unrecognised by the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. They do not, therefore, perform a useful function. National flags did not begin to appear in Europe much before 1350 and many states never developed one at all (Byzantium for example), or did so many hundreds of years later. The concept of a 'nation state' did not uniformly develop in Europe, a number of states appeared as late as the 20th century. National flags for Medieval period military articles are therefore anachronistic and serve no purpose. No! heraldry in the 12th century in Western Europe was in its infancy, there were no colleges of heralds and no codification or regulation of arms. Blazons remained fluid and remained essentially personal devices changeable at the whim of their possessor. That many blazons that were later regularised and became hereditary appeared in the late 12th century does not mean that when they appeared they were not still essentially mutable. Urselius (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I consider your comment to be the most valuable of all, because it's the only one related to the topic. Other users do not want to focus on this topic. Therefore, their answers are evasive and so I called them "trivializing", though that may not be the exact word (paying attention to the meaning of words is delaying). Nevertheless, I think that the old dynastic banners and coats of arms of the dynasties (I realize that these are not national symbols) do nothing and can be useful. Several times I noticed that a user inserted symbolism from the 18th or 19th century into the article, where there were no icons. He thus made a more serious historical error. This is also the reason why I advocate icons and coats of arms even in the Middle Ages, even if you say that their use is questionable, their presence can prevent such historical errors. The reason why I want coats of arms and flag icons in articles is to clearly see the evolution of symbols, then readers can also be educated on this page. For example, I discovered the Bourbon flag in articles about the Kingdom of France, when it was still ruled by the Valois dynasty, which was also a historical mistake. That's why I spent a lot of time fixing these mistakes and I don't agree that the flag icons and symbols should be removed now. As has been said, the opponents of coats of arms and icons are the majority, but they achieved their ideas in only a few articles. Dragovit (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't really take part in the discussion. I only made one technical comment dealing with the use of the template. If you must have my opinion on this, I think requesting administrator sanctions against this user is a bit of an overreaction and I feel sanction aren't really warranted. The RFC should be sufficient to deal with the subject matter.Tvx1 16:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Dragovit has a very strong opinion on this matter, and they are extremely verbose in expressing it. While they've posted some walls of text, I wouldn't say their style has risen to the level of disruptiveness in discussion boards. I don't think IDHT is really coming into play unless they are editing content against consensus (and I'm not seeing evidence of that). Let's have the RfC finished and go from there. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

CATCSD down[edit]

Is there an alternative to It shows CSD by date order but it hasn't updated for two days. The user is long banned from English Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any other tools, but if nobody suggests an alternative, let me know and I can put together a replacement. -FASTILY 01:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There was by R'n'B, but that's not working either. Fences&Windows 12:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Betacommand might be contactable at, but you need a Wikimedia Developer account to edit that talk page. Fences&Windows 12:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Speeking in generalities—but something that might stop this happening again—it does seem rather odd that we are using tools maintained (theoretically) by "long banned"" users. ——Serial 12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Sent him an email through Wikitech. Probably just to wait and see if he responds or finding an alternative. --Trialpears (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed now. Just a stuck grid job apparently. --Trialpears (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Trialpears! Fences&Windows 01:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncivil IP user, including vandalism[edit]

  • Admin: This ANI discussion was automatically archived, so I’ve moved it back here instead.—TrottieTrue (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There is an IP editor whose main focus seems to be obsessively making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, which has been an ongoing source of contention amongst some users who edit articles relating to British politics. Some of the user's edits in discussions, notably the one on the RS noticeboard, display a degree of unnecessary bad attitude. That discussion is a case in point. Their tone is quite snappy and curt, and was highlighted by another editor as "Trolling, abusive language."

I am assuming the multiple IP users are the same person, because they seem to edit similar articles and the IP address usually belongs to a Sky Broadband account in the North East of England or East London. The tone is usually similar, too. The editor recently left another snarky message at my Talk page.

I've raised their behaviour at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom page, with regard to the DOB issue. I don't agree with User:Bondegezou there, but at least their input has been somewhat polite; the latest comment by the IP editor seems to be challenging me as if trying to goad me into an argument. I am ignoring it. Their general attitude seems to be "I am right, you are wrong" ("trolling" perhaps being an accurate description).

If you see their edits to the article on Conservative MP Nigel Evans at the account below, they reverted two of my edits, simply writing that one was "not necessary" - when I added the Post-Nominals template to the intro of the article. They also reverted the edit in which I moved the arrest and trial of Evans to a new section, from his "Personal life" - I assume they objected to that, but in the process, also reverted a load of grammatical and formatting related edits I had made. I undid the reversions, noting "Only revert when necessary". That ended that dispute. See here.

The editor also reverted my edit to the article on Conservative MP Christian Wakeford - in this instance, I would assume they objected to me adding the DOB, although it was referenced (I've added a number of DOBs for MPs citing, which is presumably why they decided to raise the reliability of the source elsewhere: they are fiercely guarding the insertion of DOBs which don't meet their verifiability requirements, which I don't believe are as black-and-white as they insist). But again, the edit I made to this article also included a number of improvements to the formatting, grammar, structure of the text, so reverting it completely was unnecessary. I undid the reversion, and again that seemed to leave it. See here.

Their recent edit at the WikiProject page, however, highlighted to me an incident of vandalism. See this DIFF for Mike Hill, a former British Labour MP who has recently resigned, and will be facing legal proceedings, as the article notes: "He is due to face an employment tribunal later in the year relating to allegations of sexual harassment and victimisation."
This reversion appears to be replacing the word "politician" with "pervert" - it's tagged "reverted", but as well as a reversion, they also replaced that word. This vandalism was speedily reverted by a registered user. This kind of thing is clearly not on. Editors should not defame subjects or articles prior to legal proceedings - even if the accusations against Hill were upheld though, the language the IP editor used would be completely inappropriate.

Now, I know that interacting with other editors in a hostile manner may not be a serious violation of policies, but the IP user clearly has a pattern of being argumentative for the sake of it. They reverted my edits despite the edits in question including improvements so the articles conformed to the WP MOS.
I notice that one of their accounts has previously been blocked, although the decision was reversed.
I personally am inclined to agree with Alex, who suggested not removing the DOBs, but adding a "Better source needed or Citation needed template". In any case, the way the IP user has obsessively carried out the task of removing unsourced DOBs strikes me as overly fastidious; not only doing that, but then questioning the validity of the source. The user also seems somewhat partisan: protecting articles about Conservative MPs from being reorganised, and vandalising an article on a Labour MP. I think articles about currently serving politicians need a level of automatic protection, but that's another subject I guess.

The known IP user accounts:
There are some common features of the IP accounts - chiefly, that it's a Sky Broadband account, and often located in Washington, Sunderland, United Kingdom. Some of the accounts have been located in East London, but I am sure they all relate to the same person.

I would appreciate some assistance from Administrators with this user. Their behaviour isn't helpful to Wikipedia overall, I feel.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
As I was mentioned... If an editor is making sure that current UK MPs do not have unsourced DOBs, they should be thanked for their work as per WP:BLP, rather than being sanctioned. A lot of the above appears to be a content dispute that has been discussed at length elsewhere. The Mike Hill edit is vandalism, but it's not clear to me that that is the work of the same editor. There are some further examples of impoliteness: I'm not an admin, but they don't look like severe cases to me. If I see more of the same, I'll try to encourage more constructive engagement. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
In my view, hastily removing all DOBs - assuming they come from a particular source - is unhelpful, and there seems to be a rather strict interpretation of the guidelines on BLP by many editors. From what I've seen, some editors are quite open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. In any case, the way the IP user has gone about it, and reverted other edits for little or no reason, is what concerns me. And IMO, they shouldn't be "thanked" for policing the publication of information which has been made available (albeit in a roundabout way) by the UK Parliament website. I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue, and responds to myself and others in a rude, abrupt tone, as if they are in a position of authority. If you don't think the Mike Hill edit is the same editor, I suspect you're being overly generous. It isn't "clear", but hiding behind an IP address means such users can evade footprints of their activities being readily obvious. No, these aren't severe cases, but it isn't helpful for them to focus on one small part of WP Policy and resort to ad hominem attacks on me or others, either when discussing RS, or when another editor has merely pointed out that they aren't signing their posts. It points to the wider issues with unregistered users making edits.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Some editors are entitled to be open to the idea of using so-called "primary sources" for a DOB. However until they change the policy at WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically prohibiting them, they don't have a leg to stand on. I've had plenty of experience with this IP editor. They initially starting out reverting any attempt to remove a dubious reference for the dates of birth of UK politicians. However when they realised that the reference was indeed dubious, and on multiple cases demonstrably incorrect, they stopped being disruptive and followed policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, yes, from what I've read, the IP editor's stance was originally the opposite - but in both cases, it sounds like they've been over-zealous. Once they have a position, they seem to stick religiously to it. WP policy isn't law, or permanently set in stone - the spirit of the project should be evolving discussion as things change. So questioning a policy shouldn't be dismissed with "they don't have a leg to stand on". But again, my complaints about this IP editor are being answered by an editor who, like the IP editor, has a strong position on removing the DOBs. I recall FDW777 reverting my inclusion of a DOB from Companies House on an MP's article. Both this user and Bondegezou miss the point, which is A) the IP editor's way of going about it is heavy-handed and counter-productive; B) they are uncivil; and C) their activity is often disruptive. It's as if once they learn a policy, they are then determined to police it. Not the most worthwhile contribution, IMO.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we please have a comment from an administrator on this issue? I notice that the IP editor who vandalised Mike Hill's article also added a Wikilink to John Prescott at 2021 Hartlepool by-election - it has since been removed, as it isn't the same John Prescott. I suspect this is another case of vandalism, rather than ignorance of the facts. The user appears to have been quiet lately, but they need keeping an eye out for.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    The list of IP addresses can be shortened to Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:B416:3000::/64.
    • Regarding the BLP violations: Special:Diff/1016125153 is very concerning; the identical IPv6 address and the timing of Special:Diff/1016123853 also make clear that yes, this was the same person. If that edit had happened within the last, say, 48 hours, I'd block them for a while to prevent further disruption. As no similar edits have reoccurred, blocking them now would be punitive.
    • Regarding strict, incivil application of the BLP policy: This may be one of the very few policies that, even if incivilly and insistently enforced, are extremely unlikely to cause the enforcing editor to be blocked from editing. It won't happen; you'll need to accept their harsh criticism and move on.
    If there is new BLP vandalism from this IP address range, please notify me and I'll place a long block to prevent it from happening a third time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I assume you’re an administrator, since it isn’t explicitly stated on your user page. Yes, indeed, I understand that it’s too late to sanction the user for their vandalism, but if it happens in future, and I see it in time, I’ll let you know (and I hope others do too).
I accept that the IP editor wouldn’t be blocked for their insistent interpretation of the DOB policy and the way they apply it. What’s more concerning is that they’ve been abusive in their interactions with registered users, and reverted my edits for seemingly no good reason (one of them already had a DOB, so that can’t be why). The reversion edits by themselves aren’t a big deal, but taken with all their other behaviour, it adds up to a pattern of being disruptive. They resorted to personal attacks simply for being asked to sign their posts.—TrottieTrue (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
And thank you for the link showing the IP user’s continued contributions. Presumably there’s a way to keep track of the changing IP addresses. Most of their recent edits seem fine at a glance, although the DOB for Adam Afriyie seems to have been removed by them somewhat arbitrarily. They’ve also revealed their partisan bias in an edit summary. Editors have political views, of course, but I think taking potshots at political opponents in edit summaries is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Not sure it invalidates the edit, but still. Their recent edit on James Daly is also pure opinion, but thankfully it has been removed. The user’s behaviour makes me think that only registered users should be able to edit.—TrottieTrue (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue, if you're looking at someone's user page or talk page and want to see if they're an administrator, click View user groups and that will tell you. I think there's a bit of script you can install to display admin's names in a distinctive way; you might ask at WP:VPT. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@TrottieTrue and BlackcurrantTea: yeah, that's Theopolisme's admin highlighter script, which does exactly what it says on the tin. ——Serial 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea Thanks, but it seems logical to me that admin staff should have their status as admin clearly displayed on their user page. it shouldn't be something that one has to look for.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Admins aren't staff - they're volunteers like the rest of us, just with some extra buttons. P-K3 (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The IP attacking subjects via vandalism is concerning. But I've been watching the BLP mess that seems to have happened with UK MPs for a while. Since it's been 3.5 months now and seems clear no one can find acceptable sourcing, I would suggest all editors interested in UK MP article just help the IP in their correct mission. That way it will be over and don't with an we won't have to worry about alleged incivility while they do it. It's unfortunate that this happened, but from my experience it's quite common since a lot of people seem to be unaware of our strict BLP DOB requirements and use poor sourcing, it's quite common for a DOB issue to come up at BLPN and to find out the sourcing is terrible. I don't know an easy way to fix this but probably more strict enforcement will help so the IP has a point no matter how poorly they may have made it. Frankly the WikiProject discussion linked above which seems to suggest we intentionally ignore BLP policy is far more concerning that any incivility from the IP IMO. (To be clear, I'm referring to incivility about enforcement of BLPs. The IP's attacking subjects via vandalism in is also very concerning.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"Since it's been 3.5 months now and seems clear no one can find acceptable sourcing" - the only mainstream publication carrying DOBs for (most) MPs is The Times Guide to the House of Commons, which costs £60. I've asked for it at the Resource Request page, and at my local library. has many of the dates, but the IP editor has queried this as a source.
"I would suggest all editors interested in UK MP article just help the IP in their correct mission" - it's far from clear that this is a "correct mission", and, in any case, they're carrying out this mission very selectively. They only seem interested in the 2019 intake, or some from 2017. The vast majority of DOBs for serving UK MPs have been left alone. They don't have inline citations for the DOB, but if no-one is questioning the dates, it seems common sense to just leave them alone, rather than creating more work for other editors by insisting that hundreds of MPs need an inline citation for their DOB. Their IP editor's "mission" only really extends to a certain proportion of articles. I don't think it's a productive use of editors' time to "help" by removing every unreferenced DOB for UK MPs. And it's not as if the IP editor is only concerned with DOBs. Their general conduct is often uncivil. I personally don't think we need "strict enforcement" of this policy: if someone questions a DOB, fine. But many of these dates are just common knowledge. Wikipedia policies should be open to debate, rather than set in stone, so I don't see it as at all "concerning" that someone suggests we ignore BLP policy. The editor you refer to, I think, is just saying we should use common sense, and ignore all rules where necessary. The IP editor removed the DOB for Adam Afriyie, but I found it quite easily at Who's Who, available for free via my library. Alas, WW is missing many DOBs, but I think it would be more helpful if the IP editor was making some effort to find a RS for the DOBs they removed. They could also add a "citation needed" tag to the DOB. Instead, they nitpick about a source they don't like. Although at least Who's Who and The Times Guide to the HoC are deemed unquestionable.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's funny that the IP editor has been adding an incorrect and unsourced death date for a recently deceased former MP. They reverted two edits for Frank Judd with an unsourced death date, which has since been proved incorrect - see here and here. The IP editor also added the wrong date (basically assuming that the day the death was reported was the day the person died) to the List of United Kingdom MPs who died in the 2020s, which has been amended here. In the words of User:Jkaharper, it's "spreading misinformation". This is fairly low level stuff for now, but again shows that the user isn't as "helpful" as some like to think.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleting of revision logs was unnecessary and suspicious[edit]

I made edits to an article in a way that I believe was very productive. I worked hard in giving relevant and sorely needed context for that article. The info was needed. But I received a complaint that I violated copyright rules excessively. Hence I was going to revise the wording in case I did break copyright rules to some degree. But I noticed that the editor had also even deleted all of my revisions from the log.

My issue is that it's unnecessary to even go delete the revision logs and the information completely. Could have just revised it herself. But it seems the editor really doesn't want me to repeat certain information that shows that western Imperialism in the 19th century was one of the reasons why the Koreans were reasonably wary of America in that early era. I think deleting of the revision logs, shouldn't be abused..the information I added was indeed sorely needed and for argument sakee, even if I did break copyright rules. I am not going to go continue to break it but will revise to ensure the information is still there but acceptable. I am concerned the info was entirely deleted not primarily because of copyright but because it shows America was no Saint in the 19th century and some editors will go to extremes to make sure such info cannot be found on Wikipedia.Casualfoodie (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The revision logs were not deleted. The versions of the article that contained the copyright violation were hidden from view by user:Diannaa, as is normal for copyright violations. See Meters (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
even if I did break copyright rules... this is the sole reason why those revisions were hidden. Not because any editor has an agenda or wants to restrict information. I'm not even sure any of us who frequently do copyright cleanup really care about any topic too strongly to POV edit at the same time we remove copyvio. The deletion isn't abuse; the admins who normally do copyright revision deletions (including Diannaa!) are extremely cautious and only revdelete what is absolutely necessary. It's well within what an admin should do in this kind of situation actually. As for revising it ourselves... it's not the job of other editors to rewrite your copyvio, it's your job to never include it in the first place. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies..Regardless if I "arguably" broken copyright rules to the degree that Dianna has claimed..the information was still sorely needed to give context and she could have given me the option or heads up of 1 day duration to go fix it before deleting the whole thing. Maybe you administrators should rethink and adopt smarter rules. I understand you don't wish to rewrite our edits. But please keep in mind that editors like us, put in our own time and efforts to go research and input the information. It's not pleasant for us either to realise we have to start over. Also I would figure nobody will seriously go claim copyright violation if the current article does not even have the copyrighted material at all. An edit revertion seems all that was needed. Not an edit revertion and an additional "hiding" the revision in logs. I guess it's hard for me to comprehend the logic of such rules but I will however accept it and take note of it. Thanks again. Casualfoodie (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If you violated copyright then it had to be removed for legal reasons. The idea of leaving it for 24 hours because a claim is unlikely is pretty naive. You're basically suggesting that it would have been acceptable to break the law 'just for a little while'. nagualdesign 05:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Casualfoodie The content was hidden immediately because it violated copyright - that is standard practice, it is what our policy calls for. The copyvio cleanup team has far too much work to do, and not enough people to do it. The idea that, when they discover a violation, they should give the author a bit of time to fix it rather than removing it on sight, is a non-starter - you'd double their workload by making them come back the next day to re-review. Copyright violations are always dealt with like this: your solution is to avoid breaching the policy in the first place.
In other words: you messed up, and Diannaa cleared up your mess - you should be apologising to her, and thanking her. Instead, you have come here to complain that she has some sort of sinister ulterior motive? That is perilously close to a personal attack, which you should retract immediately. GirthSummit (blether) 06:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of those rules and obviously would not have raised the issue like this if I genuinely thought that such a rule existed. It seems completely arbitrary to me to not only revert the edit but hide the edits from the log history. So it's harder for me to fix the errors.Summarising articles isn't outright copyright but I suppose that I should have been even more careful to make sure that not even a single phrases is too similar..But I will take your word that such a rule does exist and this was just a complete misunderstanding on my part and hence, I do apologize to Diannaa and acknowledge that it was my bad. Casualfoodie (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The edits get hidden from the log history because if it's deemed to be a copyright violation, it's probably breaking copyright law and is hidden for legal reasons. Hog Farm Talk 06:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Casualfoodie: You don't need to take anyone's word for such a rule existing. It is plainly spelled out at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction, which lists Blatant violations of the copyright policy as the first basis for redaction. BD2412 T 06:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will read up on the wiki rules tonight and try not to misinterpret it again and make the same error. Again I sincerely apologize and acknowledge that it was my wrong to not be aware of such protocols. it's not exactly an overly obvious rule to hide edits in log history. You have so many rules and I am still learning the ropes but I apologize to Diannaa and the admimstrators board for not knowing this before. 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualfoodie (talkcontribs)
Don't worry too much about breaking a rule you're unfamiliar with - everyone makes mistakes, and there are a lot of rules. What's important is that you listen when someone tells you that there's a problem with what you're doing, and that you don't assume they're trying to stop you for nefarious purposes. GirthSummit (blether) 07:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
👍 Like. Sage advise. El_C 15:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio that persisted for 13 years[edit]

Hi, British Chinese had copied and pasted content from this BBC article for thirteen years, from this edit to this edit. What should we do? There are probably ~1000 affected revision. I've already RevDel'd the batch of edits that introduced the violation. Regards, Anarchyte (talkwork) 10:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we need to revision-delete all of them. I will do this now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: My concern is that we're going to remove attribution for years of proper work if we RevDel everything. WP:RD1 says we can't use it when it would "remove any contributor's attribution". Anarchyte (talkwork) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
But the contributir's names are still visible, only revision text is hidden. Otherwise this reading would prohibit any revision-deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The revdel policy does say that revdel is mainly intended for recent use, that text which exists in numerous revisions may not be practical to redact, and that revdel in cases with lots of revisions should take into consideration how disruptive it will be. There isn't any requirement revdel always has to be used in cases like these. Hut 8.5 16:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. My reading of this part is that it is primarily got BLP violations and such, not so much for copyright violations, but I will be more considerate next time.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Can you please undo this? WP:CPI says that revdel is only mandatory if the copyright owner requests it, and the small risk of the BBC complaining about an old revision is far outweighed by the huge disruption caused by wiping out 13 years of the page history. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, this one even suggests not to revision-delete anything. Ok, I will remove revision deletions and will stay clear of revision deletions in the future. Apparently it is not a safe area to work in for an administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Why does the edit history need deleting if its a copyvio and the owner hasn't requested it? The point of revision history is that problems like this are revised to remove them and the edit history isn't seen by most readers and it says "Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" at the bottom anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a general consensus against "owner needs to request deletion" on Wikimedia projects; copyright violations are removed even if no complaint is to be expected (commons:COM:PCP, WP:COPYVIO). The issue here is maintaining a balance: Removing the BBC content from Wikipedia's history also removes proper attribution from hundreds of contributions and thus creates a new copyright problem. The usernames are preserved, but the individual contributions can no longer be seen. It is not longer possible to determine who exactly has actually contributed anything to the current revision. I guess this may be fine license-wise, but we try to avoid it if anyhow possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "Otherwise this reading would prohibit any revision-deletion", that's not true. If a revision had no effect on any visible revision, removing its entry from the history is fine copyright-wise. When we revert copyright violations and all edits that have happened since, and then revision-delete all of the reverted revisions, the result is fine. This is commonly done and does not cause attribution issues. It becomes problematic only if a revision-deleted contribution is part of a non-deleted revision. This would clearly be the case here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Example for proper deletion:
  1. "Lorem Ipsum"
  2. "Lorem Copyright Vloation Ipsum"
  3. "Lorem Copyright Violation Ispum"
  4. "Lorem Ipsum"
Example for improper deletion:
  1. "Lorem Ipsum"
  2. "Lorem Copyright Violation Cool Ipsum"
  3. "Lorem Copyright Violation Very Cool Ipsum"
  4. "Lorem Very Cool Ipsum"
The highlighted content now lacks attribution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a rather strict interpretation of RD1 and does not quite match my understanding of it nor how I often see it applied. There's no legal requirement in CC-BY-* that we be able to attribute specific parts of the text to specific editors; a list of contributors is sufficient attribution. (Otherwise the methods we use to fix CWW problems would be inadequate.) To be clear, I'm not saying RD1 should be applied carelessly (see here for my recent thoughts on this). The ability to attribute specific text to specific contributors is extremely valuable from an editorial and administrative perspective and, while diffs, edit summaries, and byte counts can help indicate who wrote what even if individual revisions are deleted, they are often insufficient. As you say, it's about balance. Removing infringing content is important and preserving history is important, and these must be weighed when deciding whether something should be redacted.
A common situation where RD1 is often applied is when an editor adds an extensive copyvio in addition to some non-infringing content and the next edit is an editor removing the copyvio but preserving the rest of the edit. I don't see any issue, legally or practically, with redaction in this case. If we are deciding that this is improper use of RD1, then we must clarify the text of the policy and make sure admins are aware. Just looking at the log of recent redactions, there are many examples of RD1 that go against what you are saying: [21] [22] [23] [24] to highlight a few. Is this all improper? If so, we need to undo probably thousands of redactions. — The Earwig alt (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If we are deciding that this is improper use of RD1, then we must clarify the text of the policy and make sure admins are aware -- this is my exact concern. We take a very strict policy against copyright violations but the administrative method of purging them isn't clear-cut. The way I've seen RevDel be used for years, as The Earwig has provided, is technically against policy. Going forward we need to make a clarification to RD1 such that it notes that we either never do mass RevDels if it removes attribution from good contributions (unless legally requested), or that we should always remove every single revision that contains the infringing content. Any other option would be just as ambiguous as it currently is. Anarchyte (talkwork) 08:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The current wording is the result of Special:Diff/320367026, which is part of Special:Diff/316645273/320368673, a series of diffs that made WP:RD an official policy per the community discussion at Special:Permalink/320362096. The original wording during the discussion was "Blatant copyright violations. This does not include revisions on the same page that contain non-violating content that were posted in good faith by users not associated with the copyright violator". Searching for "attribution" on that discussion page also seems to show that the current wording is the result of concerns about attribution issues. Courtesy ping SoWhy, by the way. 🙂
That all said, I do recognize that this strict interpretation is not longer adhered to in practice, and it's been over 10 years since the criterion was introduced. I'm pretty sure I have also done RD1 deletions that have removed some attribution in the way highlighted above, because at least the list of usernames is still visible and the copyright violation was more concerning than attribution issues that go beyond copyright considerations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: putting aside my point below, as I'm a BLPN regular and also probably active on these boards way too much than I should be, my experience is it's very common that revdeletion isn't clean i.e. all the content that is added must be removed. I see a lot of edits where revdeletion is is use only to hide something that shouldn't be there, but for which there are often quite a few intervening edits because no one noticed it or those that did, didn't know how to handle it. If you look at the edit history for either of the noticeboards but especially ANI, you'll find a lot of revdeletions, quite a few of these are multiple. From what I've seen this isn't because one editor decided to mess around in several edits, instead it's because someone makes a BLP-vio or violates outing or posts too much personal information or whatever and it took a while for anyone to notice which isn't particularly surprising especially when it's an existing thread. Of course most board content is signed so you are fairly sure who added it, but the fact remains you cannot see from the attribution history precisely what text was added in those edits. Likewise when it comes to BLP I'd say a lot, maybe even most, of the time there's a BLP-violation that is rev-deleted or even suppressed with several intervening edits. In fact, even when there's no intervening edits, some well meaning editor may e.g. post a full name without sufficient sourcing along with other sourced info you often still have a problem. Even if the very next editor removes the inappropriate addition of a full name they should hopefully still keep the other sourced appropriate additions. But once those edits are rev-deleted or suppressed, with experience you can potentially guess by the edit summaries and bytes added etc that the info was added in the rev-deleted edit/s of that editor and not by the editor who removed the inappropriate addition but it's technically still a guess. There may be good reasons we need to rev-delete here, but if there were copyright (licence compliance) issues, we would still have a problem. The good news is, well my point below. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to take this too far off-topic so in case it comes up I'll just quickly acknowledge that I could imagine you might have more chance defending a case in court if you could demonstrate a better reason for your actions. But I'd also imagine that lawyers would prefer not to need that, probably one of the many reasons out ToU is as it is. (As mentioned below, it also means things can be simpler when copying stuff around sometimes.) And while I used BLPvios etc above, some admins are more generous with RD2 and RD3 than others and while we're generally not talking about a lot of edits, per my point even 5 intervening edits with enough content to be eligible for copyright still creates attribution issues. (And okay yes a lot of the time this is on talk pages but still while IANAL etc, arguing that the attribution is gone but it was signed so it doesn't matter sounds messy to me although in an actual case, I suspect every plausible argument why it's not a violation will be included, but it still seems to be the ToU will be the primary line of defence.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
All I said was about RD1, and RD1 only – I completely agree about removing RD2/RD3/RD4 content without maintaining exact content attribution for the non-removed content. RD1 is the only criterion that contains the condition "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used"; I was referring to that condition when providing an example of what it could mean, and when discussing balance between copyright(s) and attribution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If revision deletion removes attribution, deleting a merged article and replacing it with a list of contributors also removes attribution [25] particularly unnecessary when it could have been moved to another title or a subpage of the target article's talk page. Should policy be changed to disallow this if there is no reason to hide the content? Peter James (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Attribution isn't the only problem here. Deleting years of page history obstructs all sorts of routine editing tasks and generally makes it difficult for editors to understand why the current version is how it is. There has to be a balance between hiding* copyright violations and disrupting the edit history. One rule for every situation isn't going to work.
* And I say hiding deliberately, because unless we're going to start database-deleting copyvios, they're always still present in some form; a revdel'd copyvio is technically still content the WMF is disseminating to 1,106 admins. That's where the always-delete armchair lawyering falls flat. Policies with legal considerations still need to be applied with common sense. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it would be reasonable to get input from Legal on this issue as to exactly what is "required" and what sorts of things we've just done over the years that have turned into habits. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on whether we should be revdeleting long term (or any) copyvios, I agree with others the attribution point doesn't make much sense. A point which no one seems to have raised yet is that the current version of WP:terms of use says:

    When you re-use or re-distribute a text page developed by the Wikimedia community, you agree to attribute the authors in any of the following fashions:


    iii. Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions).

    Something along those lines have been part of the terms of use since the first one in 2009 when we moved to dual CC BY-SA with GFDL (see Wikipedia:Licensing update and [26]). As I understand it, (and see e.g. [27] vs [28]) the ToU came into effect when we moved to CC BY-SA so there was never a time when we were CC BY-SA but lacked a ToU. (Maybe some other projects.) Considering GFDL only requires a list of the 5 principle authors albeit at the top of the page, it seems weird to claim more is required for those who contributed on a GFDL only licence.

    I'd further note as Peter James's point sort of touched upon, WP:Copying within Wikipedia also mentions this a lot e.g. in the lead

    The edit summary must provide either a link to the original source or a list of all contributors.

    then in the body it quotes the terms of use and later

    Attribution can be provided in any of the fashions detailed in the Terms of Use (listed above), although methods (a) and (c) — i.e., through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to; or through a list of all authors — are the most practical for transferring text from one Wikipedia page to another. Both methods have strengths and weaknesses, but either satisfies the licensing requirements if properly done.


    If the material being copied has more than one author, attribution requirements can technically be satisfied with a note in edit summary directing attention to a list of contributors on the talk page, but as the Terms of Service indicate, a hyperlink is preferred where possible.


    you may satisfy attribution either by providing a complete list of authors of the original content (the complete list can be generated by copying the history of the remote page) or by providing a direct link to the original material. If the list of authors is brief, this may be provided in the edit summary. A direct link (such as an InterWikimedia link) must be included in the edit summary; the template {{Interwiki copy}} is available for the article's talk page. If leaving a list of authors, also provide a URL to the original page in case it becomes necessary in the future to access that history. (See Help:Transwiki.))

    TL;DR list of authors is supposed to be sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 compliance from Wikimedia projects as per our very own ToU. If a list of authors isn't sufficient e.g. for content from GFDL only times or if the ToU is somehow insufficient then IMO we have a lot more problems than simply rev deletion. If it is sufficient then rev deletion is actually slightly better than a simple list of authors since there is a direct hyperlink to the editor, along with a time stamp and the byte change. Again I make no comment on our use of rev-deletion.

    Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

    I should clarify I'm only referring to the legal/copyright compliance aspects of attribution. If people feel that we should keep more attribution for ethical reasons even though we are fully entitled to only provide a list of authors, that's not something I wanted to touch upon. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    I had originally written "Revision deletion has created a copyright violation" below my example, but I have quickly removed that statement before someone replied to it. That's because I (now) agree that there is likely no legal/copyright issue and we're only talking about an attribution desire that seems to have been agreed on when RD1 was created. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, I notice the language issue. "Attribution" is a license requirement, but the word doesn't necessarily have to refer to the license requirement. The highlighted content lacks... what does it lack? I lack a word. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot Bug at MFD[edit]

This is all sorted for now, following up with bot operator on their talk page (User_talk:Legobot#More_bad_MfD_archiver_edits) for future issues. — xaosflux Talk 12:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, could someone please close the MFD discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Is Warnitive a Word? and remove it from the log page? The bot that clerks MFD has a bug when drafts with question marks in the name are listed for discussion and go into the old business section, which results in it repeatedly transcluding the same discussion into the log page with exponential growth of the number of entries. [29] [30]. The bot has ignored my addition of a bots deny tag [31] and is continuing to add more copies of the same MFD discussion to the page. Thanks, (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban appeal of Mhdsuhail111[edit]

Given the confirmed continued socking, this appeal is certainly not going to be successful. Come back in a year or two without socking. --Heymid (contribs) 14:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a courtesy I am posting the following statement of Mhdsuhail111, who is appealing their community ban(per WP:3X). I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been blocked on Wikipedia for a long time. I know that my appeals may be wasting your time. I have been blocked on Wikipedia because of creating multiple accounts. The accounts I created after this account are User:Anji_mba, User:Mhdsuhail30, User:Mhdsuhail123, User:Muhammed.suhail, User:Hackerwala111, User:Malayalammojo, User:Mhdsuhail007 and User:Psychotraveller. In my confirmed sock puppet User:Baijujnair is not my account. He is a colleague who works with me. I think he may start the account using the same Wi-Fi of company. You can please cross check the ip is from Bangalore, India. Another account is shown in my Suspected Sock puppet User:Thadevoos_Jr, I am not behind this account who created this account. The mentioned above are the accounts created by me. With this created accounted I started disruptive edits in Wikipedia articles, basically in Malayalam movies. The movie articles I edited using User:Mhdsuhail111 are Gangster_(2014_film), Mayavi_(2007_film), Bhaskar_the_Rascal, Rajamanikyam, Loham and Utopiayile_Rajavu. In these articles I made the edits on box office figures of those movies. I did these edits because basically I am a Mammootty fan. In many newspaper articles I saw the box office collection of the movies. I was not bothered about providing reliable sources to make these changes. I made many fluctuated figures in box office collection of those movies. From my sock puppet account User:Anji_mba I was just doing the edits for my company. I was just started editing in this account in Neobank section and suddenly I was blocked. From User:Mhdsuhail30 account I didn't made any edits. After creating the account I has been blocked. From User:Mhdsuhail123 I make edits on Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) and Pulimurugan box office figures. From User:Muhammed.suhail I was in discussion on Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films to add movie The_Great_Father, Ramaleela, Premam, Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) in the list. With this account I created the page for Malayalam movie Masterpiece_(2017_film). With the account User:Hackerwala111 I started discussion in Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films to add some movies to the list. With the account User:Malayalammojo I edits in the articles like Oru_Kuttanadan_Blog and Mamangam_(2019_film). But those edits were made with providing reliable sources. With the account User:Mhdsuhail007 I made discussions on Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films talk pages to add movie Ramaleela. With User:Psychotraveller account I was in discussion on Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films talk pages and in Neobank Page to add my company name with proper sources. These all are the violations I done with my accounts I created. I am so sorry for that. I know my sorry won't make these violations to the good side.

If I get unblocked I am sure that I can provide good things to Wikipedia. From my Sock puppets accounts I created, admins can check the edits I made. I made lot changes in talk pages and discussed with the admins in the respective articles. Using my sock puppet account User:Muhammed.suhail I created the page for Masterpiece_(2017_film). I am 100% sure that I can provide these types of edits on Wikipedia. My interesting subject is movies, and I am able to provide the information regarding movies in the respective talk pages of the articles. I can provide information of Malayalam movies shooting dates, release dates, and news links, cast, First look release dates, Teaser/trailer release dates etc with the reliable sources. This information can provide more valuable to the articles in the Wikipedia in Malayalam movies section.

I know that because of my disruptive edits many difficulties are faced by the admins to clear that mistakes. And also its cause the credibility of those articles on Wikipedia. From now onwards I will provide 100% genuine information from my side with reliable sources. If I need to be banned from the Malayalam movies section I am ok. Then I will be contributing to the Neobank page. I am working in a Neobank startup in Bangalore, India. So I am able to provide the updated news to the pages. It will help those articles more valuable to the readers on Wikipedia. I am waiting for a positive response from the admins.Mhdsuhail111 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If he’s more than six months in without socking, then I support an unblock per WP:OFFER. User appears to be genuinely open, apologetic and willing to contribute constructively. --Heymid (contribs) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm generally biased against unbanning any person who has created this amount of sockpuppets and ended up 3X-banned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
So is Suhailshahid10 a sock? From Mhdsuhail111's talk page, it sounds like the evidence was solid, technically and behaviorally, though they denied it at the time, and it was not mentioned at all in the latest ban appeal. Suhailshahid10, who was later blocked temporarily for disruptive editing, made a random film-related edit to their user page in November 2020. DanCherek (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive Editing at List of West Coast hip hop artists[edit]

This has been going on for months: an unregistered user keeps adding artists from elsewhere in the United States, particularly New Orleans, to the List of West Coast hip hop artists. These edits are routinely reverted. user:Malcolmxl5 was good enough to protect the page for one week, and then later for one month, but each time the vandal reappeared after the page protection expired. Is it possible to protect this page again, perhaps for a longer period this time? Instant Comma (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

False attacks on me as engaging 8n "systemic sexism"[edit]

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)

  • The fundamental problem here seems to be that the category system is broken. Attributes such as nationality, sex and occupation are independent. Categories which combine these in some arbitrary combination or permutation are bound to be frustrating and unsatisfactory. People should stop trying to make this broken system work and lobby the WMF to create a more logical data structure and/or better integration with WikiData. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    The problem has nothing to do with the categorization system, and everything to do with the injustices in the World beyond Wikipedia. That people who belong to these arbitrary categories were directly, intentionally, and repeatedly excluded from full participation in humanity is an undeniable fact; thus the participation of those people in certain activities, jobs, or whatnot is something that bears noting; the very bigotry that kept them out of participation is the thing that makes the cases of participation, especially early or ones that in context were unusual, worth noting. Not every intersection of attribute and job is noteworthy but the fact that people with a certain attribute were prevented from holding that job makes the cases where they did hold that job something worth noting in some cases. Your attention should be spent not on fixing the problems with Wikipedia's category system, spend that energy on actively fighting against the bigotry in the world that created the problem in the first place. --Jayron32 14:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    The fundamental problem here is an editor accusing another editor of sexist editing. Levivich harass/hound 15:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Seems like WP:Dramaboard syndrome to me? Complaints about complaints all using poor language choices. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    If he's not doing sexist things, that would amount to a personal attack. I'm not saying he is, and I'm not saying he's not, I'm just saying that such an accusation needs clear evidence to back it up, and should not be used merely to cast aspersions. I'll leave it up to others to arrive at a conclusion with that one, just noting that such a statement could easily be read as a personal attack if there isn't a clear antecedant cause. --Jayron32 16:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of permissions[edit]

I am requesting that my rollback and pending-changes permissions be revoked. I do not use them anymore, as I do very little counter-vandalism work these days (and the majority of what I do can be accomplished using Twinkle which doesn't require them), and rollback especially can do more harm than good if done mistakenly. –NorthwestPassage talk 23:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done NorthwestPassage, if you want them back at any point, just let me know. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating User talk:Carryminatiop[edit]

Carryminatiop is repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLP article Rashmika Mandanna. But I'm unable to create User talk:Carryminatiop to warn them because the term CarryMinati is on a blacklist. Notifying so that any administrator could help. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I'll do you one better. Since every edit was falsely marked "added content" and clearly, per the dates on the sources alone, introducing erroneously personal life information, I've revoked the account's editing privileges completely. Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    The above statement is not technically true, as they still have talk page access. Maybe just "I blocked them"? Primefac (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    But since their talk page is on a blacklist, they are de facto talk page banned? RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    I suppose that's true, until some numpty goes and creates it... Primefac (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is CarryMinati blacklisted, and should it be made not possible to create an account using a blacklisted term? (I thought it already was like that, actually.) ——Serial 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Carry Minati is apparently a noted Indian YouTuber. I'm guessing it was due to his fans creating accounts? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Accounts, drafts, and all sorts of annoying-type editing. In other words, spam spam spam egg and spam. Unfortunately title blacklist ≠ username blacklist. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Although I'm wondering if maybe it shouldn't, at least partly. These kinds of cases are annoying to deal with. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would be opposed to adding the same logic to the username blacklist. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For usernames there is the global blacklist. The title blacklist should be deleted as it is not being maintained - an article was created in 2019, there's another where the article was created in 2017, and the blacklist's only effect now is to prevent creation of redirects and user and talk pages, and to make it more difficult to nominate articles with these titles for deletion. There is also a title that was used for vandalism for a few days in 2009 but is also used in legitimate articles that still has a section to itself. Peter James (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think a page about a dissolved Credit Union should be removed...[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Thank goodness. Please note that Notability is not temporary. There is no relevant administrative action here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Here is the proof of dissolvement: — Preceding unsigned comment added by VPMSX (talkcontribs) 14:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)@VPMSX: you can nominate a page for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. However note that just because a organization that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia anymore. Also please remember to sign any comments you make by inserting ~~~~ at the end. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It is very hard to get an article deleted if the subject is deemed notable, and notability does not require the continued existence of the subject. Even a building that was never completed can have it's own article, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump_Tower_(Tampa)_(2nd_nomination), for example. - Donald Albury 15:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, any attempt to get the article about the Credit Union deleted solely due to it closing down will fail.-- (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ronildarius edit warring[edit]

Why I can not add this information? it is not business and not advertising it is science. Why you wrote about Intellectual Ventures LLC they didn't provide any publications. In this case, links for publications were provided. These publications in Open access — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronildarius (talkcontribs) 2021-04-21T06:52:06 (UTC)

  • This is the administrator's noticeboard. Talk:Mosquito laser, which you have yet to use even once, is over there. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring in Shusha[edit]

In Shusha, there is a low-key edit-warring ongoing without any discussions on the talk page (and in this area discussions are usually useless anyway, the sides never find consensus). The article is under discretionary sanctions (Armenia-Azerbaijan), probably imposing 1RR or something similar could help.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I commented on this issue at talk. How good is this? [32] The source says that the town was destroyed by more than 80%, and had 90% Azerbaijani majority, and Steverci (talk · contribs) keeps changing it to "damaged" and deletes mention of Azerbaijani majority. [33] Maybe someone could have a look? Grandmaster 09:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

delete photo file[edit]

Not an enwiki admin issue. — xaosflux Talk 22:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete these file:here

  • for three reasons:
  1. the information on which the map is based is wrong and there is no source for it.
  2. the name of the map is not accurate.
  3. the file editor is no longer active to be noted.

for these reasons above, i hope one of the administrators will delete the file. Thank you.

The file is hosted on Commons, not this Wikipedia. If you want it deleting you'll have to start a commons:Commons:Deletion_requests on the file page at Commons commons:File:Greater_Yemen.png. Nthep (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.