There's been a recent wave of possible vandalizing or at least very pointed edits (heavy removal of information, wiki links, and disputed notices) on Azerbaijan and Iran related articles. Since I can't see proper reversions or NPOVization, it seems that only very few people care about the articles, and even from the short list, some of them may be partial (like myself, I live in Iran).
This is rather important since the situation is rather bad now, and while the two countries are in a good relation in the surface (the Iranian president is visiting Republic of Azerbaijan as I'm writing this), there are hot issues being discussed in the independent or non-official newspapers and websites, published in Tehran, Baku, or Tabriz, accusing "Persians" of anti-Azerbaijani behaviour (which includes Iranian-Armenian relations), asking for autonomous status for northwestern Iranian provinces, or accusing the ROA of funding separatist movements in northwestern Iran (which the separatists call "South Azerbaijan") and common maneuvers with the USA in the disputed water borders in the Caspian Sea.
I would wish to ask people to give some Wiki love to some of the pages, so we could really get some NPOV in the articles (google searches leading to the articles may be increasing) and more people could watch of the articles to help reduce the vandalizations. It's always hard for likes of me the distinguish vandalization and very pointed major edits that don't consider Wikipedia policy.
Ah, I forgot. Some of the articles are [[Azerbaijan]], [[Azerbaijan (disambiguation)]], [[History of Azerbaijan]], [[South Azerbaijan]], [[Azerbaijanis]], [[Azerbaijani language]], [[Aran (Azerbaijan)]], [[Shervan]], and [[Persian language]]. Some of these I can't revert anymore because of the three reverts policy.
roozbeh
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:11:40 +0430, Roozbeh Pournader roozbeh@gmail.com wrote:
There's been a recent wave of possible vandalizing or at least very pointed edits (heavy removal of information, wiki links, and disputed notices) on Azerbaijan and Iran related articles. Since I can't see proper reversions or NPOVization, it seems that only very few people care about the articles, and even from the short list, some of them may be partial (like myself, I live in Iran).
This is rather important since the situation is rather bad now, and while the two countries are in a good relation in the surface (the Iranian president is visiting Republic of Azerbaijan as I'm writing this), there are hot issues being discussed in the independent or non-official newspapers and websites, published in Tehran, Baku, or Tabriz, accusing "Persians" of anti-Azerbaijani behaviour (which includes Iranian-Armenian relations), asking for autonomous status for northwestern Iranian provinces, or accusing the ROA of funding separatist movements in northwestern Iran (which the separatists call "South Azerbaijan") and common maneuvers with the USA in the disputed water borders in the Caspian Sea.
I would wish to ask people to give some Wiki love to some of the pages, so we could really get some NPOV in the articles (google searches leading to the articles may be increasing) and more people could watch of the articles to help reduce the vandalizations. It's always hard for likes of me the distinguish vandalization and very pointed major edits that don't consider Wikipedia policy.
On 08/06/04 11:46, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
Ah, I forgot. Some of the articles are [[Azerbaijan]], [[Azerbaijan (disambiguation)]], [[History of Azerbaijan]], [[South Azerbaijan]], [[Azerbaijanis]], [[Azerbaijani language]], [[Aran (Azerbaijan)]], [[Shervan]], and [[Persian language]]. Some of these I can't revert anymore because of the three reverts policy.
These articles are indeed under current attack from a variety of anon IPs and could do with a close eye at present.
- d.
How about just protecting them, use a very condensed version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just too much text and graphics people) and make people work on a proxy draft instead?
S
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
On 08/06/04 11:46, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
Ah, I forgot. Some of the articles are
[[Azerbaijan]], [[Azerbaijan
(disambiguation)]], [[History of Azerbaijan]],
[[South Azerbaijan]],
[[Azerbaijanis]], [[Azerbaijani language]], [[Aran
(Azerbaijan)]],
[[Shervan]], and [[Persian language]]. Some of
these I can't revert
anymore because of the three reverts policy.
These articles are indeed under current attack from a variety of anon IPs and could do with a close eye at present.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
S.Vertigo (sewev@yahoo.com) [040808 05:43]:
How about just protecting them, use a very condensed version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just too much text and graphics people) and make people work on a proxy draft instead?
Hasn't worked - the anons don't talk, they just revert. Protecting one page for a month did nothing - they just came back when it was unprotected and started over.
Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem on Wikipedia. Particularly in cases where it appears semi-official, as with these cases and with User:Levzur on Georgia-related articles. I suspect a series of AC rulings as we go isn't really the best way to approach the problem. What can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is just the tip of it.
- d.
Right, well then whats needed is a kind of "huddle" or "quick conference" for deciding to ban "POV vandals," ie. 'people who are for one reason or another refusing to comply with NPOV and Civility.' (Part of being "civil" is also talking and discussing, right?)
If they also violated NoInsults, there woundnt need to be any discussion at all before they would be blocked, would there? So theres a good line there to work with.
S
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
S.Vertigo (sewev@yahoo.com) [040808 05:43]:
How about just protecting them, use a very
condensed
version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just too much text and graphics people) and make people
work on
a proxy draft instead?
Hasn't worked - the anons don't talk, they just revert. Protecting one page for a month did nothing - they just came back when it was unprotected and started over.
Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem on Wikipedia. Particularly in cases where it appears semi-official, as with these cases and with User:Levzur on Georgia-related articles. I suspect a series of AC rulings as we go isn't really the best way to approach the problem. What can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is just the tip of it.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 20:21:44 -0700 (PDT), S.Vertigo sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
Right, well then whats needed is a kind of "huddle" or "quick conference" for deciding to ban "POV vandals," ie. 'people who are for one reason or another refusing to comply with NPOV and Civility.' (Part of being "civil" is also talking and discussing, right?)
Something like, say, good old Wikipedia:Quickpolls (now defunct)? What's your scheme to prevent abuse of the system?
What am I, the answer man?
S
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
Something like, say, good old Wikipedia:Quickpolls (now defunct)? What's your scheme to prevent abuse
of
the system?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT), S.Vertigo sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
How about just protecting them, use a very condensed version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just too much text and graphics people) and make people work on a proxy draft instead?
That has already been tried, to no effect. Some of the above articles were protected for two weeks (a few for more than a month), but the anonymous users started their reverts very early after they were unprotected.
We (me and [[User:Refdoc]], mainly) also tried to act in the NPOV way, finding how hard it ethically is to include some complete nonsense in an encyclopedic article, but doing it finally. But even when the anonymous users' opinions were included in the articles, they went and removed the other POVs or the objections to their own POVs, and reverted to the earlier wordings of themselves (also removing wiki links and boldfacing many many phrases).
We could not make them talk much either. Instead of talking on topic, they were either blaming people, or were being called names (by, for example, [[User:K1]]).
Anyway, let's hope this is history, and we can get [[History of Azerbaijan]] in shape again...
Really appreciating any kind of advice, [[User:Roozbeh]]