Requests for comment/"Putin khuylo!" on the main page

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. no action as out of scope for global RfC. This conversation should only take place at the host wiki  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to nominate article ru:Путин — хуйло! (Russian version of the article en:Putin khuylo!) for discussion to give it status as a good article. My aim was this article to be on the main page on the Russian Wikipedia like any other good article. But after this nomination ruwiki's administrator Sigwald blocked me on the Wikipedia namespace for 7 days and deleted the nomination page. I asked him on my talkpage to unblock me, but he refused my request. Moreover, ruwiki's bureaucrat Vladimir Solovjev started discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard with the aim of blocking me in the Wikipedia namespace for a long time, and ruwiki's admistrators Сайга, DZ and Oleg Yunakov supported his suggestion. I asked Jimbo Wales about this situation, but he said nothing and Lemonaka recommended me to start this RfC.

I believe that these putinverstehers (Sigwald, Vladimir Solovjev, Сайга, DZ and Oleg Yunakov) are not rights, and the ban on nominating the article "Putin khuylo!" for the status of good article should be cancelled. Please write here your opinion about this. Asorev (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you only wants this article on the main page for politican reasons. Wikipedia is neutral and we should keep it neutral. Happytravels (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, if an article was nominated in the procedurally correct way, it seems not correct to unilaterally cancel the nomination and block the user. Unless we don't know all the details. Labrang (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated in the procedurally correct way. The only reason for block was my assertion that I did this for political reason. If I had lied and had not said it, then I would not have been blocked. Asorev (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happytravels, do you mean that whether an article can be nominated for good status should depend on whether the nominator has stated their motives or not? That is, if someone says that they is nominating an article for good status not for political reasons, then there is no obstacle to assigning the article good status, and if the nominator directly states that they is nominating an article for political reasons, then this should be an obstacle to assigning good status to the article? Asorev (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that OP was blocked on ruwiki for their actions here. Not sure how proper that is. Firestar464 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the ruwiki's administrators are afraid of honest discussion in which they have not ability to block their collocutor. Asorev (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a few questions:
  1. You claimed that "The article was nominated in the procedurally correct way", but does ruwiki delete invalid good article nominations if they fail the minimum requirement (if there's any)?
  2. Can you reflect if you response to their deletion is proper or not? The block reason seems to go beyond a mere "good article nomination for political reasons."
  3. Looks like you have a local ArbCom. Have you explored that option?
Utlimately you need to find ways to appeal the block locally. There isn't much that Meta can do. 94rain Talk 23:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asorev's actions and incessant frivolous litigation are currently being reviewed by the RuWiki Arbcom: [1]. The published draft of the verdict is to ban the user from all meta-namespaces for 3 months.
This draft is currently being reviewed in order to increase the sanctions. Source: I am one of the ArbCom members at the moment. Le Loy (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are you going to increase the sanctions after I was blocked in ruwiki with an expiration time of indefinite? Is it a joke? Asorev (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One can be indefblocked and topic-banned at the same time. The topic-ban would have an effect at the decision on the potential request for unblock. Le Loy (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> does ruwiki delete invalid good article nominations if they fail the minimum requirement
I do not know. It was my first nomination.
> Can you reflect if you response to their deletion is proper or not?
I did not discuss the deletion because instead of it I discussed my block.
> Looks like you have a local ArbCom. Have you explored that option?
In accordance with the ArbCom's reglament, before applying a sue, I need to go through a pre-arbitration settlement, which I cannot do due to the block. Asorev (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking if you have done or say anything between the deletion of the page and the block. Or is the block a direct result of the nomination? 94rain Talk 00:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may check ru:Арбитраж:Просьба об удалении записи о блокировке из моего журнала блокировок#Проект отклонения заявки and the user's talk page (and machine translate them with your browser) for a list of what they've done. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the block was the direct result of the nomination. Asorev (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not an invloved party, but Russian Wikipedia is in huge stress during Ukraine-Russian Wars. Lemonaka (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this phrase on the main page is not a good idea. Blocking people who tries to do this is not, either, and probably worse, if what you've said is true and comprehensive, that is. Nor is calling others Putinverstehers without sound argument. I'm with 94rain. -- 魔琴 (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I named them as Putinverstehers because they supported my block for nomination atricle ru:Путин — хуйло! as a good article. Asorev (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Asorev had requested the ArbCom to undelete the article of Yekaterina Duntsova, a Russian reporter who announced to run for presidency but was then rejected. The reason he/she given was that Wikimedia Russia dissolved and that they should use IAR. I don't think that reflects a decent understanding of the Wikipedia project. --魔琴 (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the theme of this discussion. Moreover, the article was undeleted outside of ArbCom. Asorev (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. --魔琴 (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The nomination page was deleted because it did not meet #10 of the Russian Good Article Criteria, which states that Good Articles must be of a certain length.
  2. The reason Asorev was blocked seems to be not because they nominated it but because they filed several disruptive "litigious" requests as you can read in ru:Арбитраж:Просьба об удалении записи о блокировке из моего журнала блокировок#Проект отклонения заявки after some machine translation.
  3. They're still resorting to calling everyone names (e.g. "putinverstehers") despite claiming that they did so only because they did not know of the policy.
I suggest that this RfC be closed already. Is there a place to request closure somewhere here? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yger (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liu, you are wrong:
  1. The nomination page was deleted not because the article did not meet #10 of the Russian Good Article Criteria. Although at that moment the article's length was less than 8 000 signs, nevertheless the rule allows deviation from this length +/- by 3000 signs.
  2. Machine translation never was mentioned by an administrator as a cause of my block.
  3. I called them such word because it seemed me the only explanation of their behavior. Asorev (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Hmm, the rule says deviations are allowed "if it does not affect disclosure" (если это не влияет на раскрытие темы статьи)? Regardless, I just found out that the article already reached good article status in 2018. So basically what you did was create a confusing page that basically only had policy-violating language.
  2. I machine translated the Russian, not you. I was saying that I was basing my claim on machine-translated evidence.
  3. That seems to be one of the classic violations of ru:Википедия:Недопустимость оскорблений, угроз и агрессии (Russian version of no personal attacks).
Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have confused solid articles and good articles. Now article ru:Путин — хуйло! has status of a solid article. Sigwald named me as "troll, vandal and wikianarchist". Asorev (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Machine translation has failed us. SIgwald shouldn't be so extreme either. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if the article meets requirements, it should have been allowed to get the GA status. However, it seems this one does not meet the requirements. In controversial topics would never get that status as they are vulnerable to edit wars, but each wiki has different standards. Anyway, even if the article got the GA status, I would oppose to promoting it on the main page. And calling people who do not agree with you names is definitely not allowed. Żyrafał (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following consideration in support of my position. The approach that Wikipedia should be out of politics is quite correct for democratic countries. But it’s a completely different matter for non-democratic countries that oppose the spread of free knowledges, that is, they oppose Wikipedia. It is obvious that Putin is opposing Wikipedia - for example, recently in Russia the Russian branch of Wikimedia was forced to announce the cessation of its work. Therefore, it would be quite logical for Wikipedia to directly state that Wikipedia is against those who oppose it, that is, against Putin, and would post on its main page the article about song offensive to Putin. Asorev (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. -- 魔琴 (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yger (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian version of this article was nominated 8 times on the Ukrainian Wikipedia to give it status as a good article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. And none of the nominators was blocked for a nomination. Asorev (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different wikis have different quality standards.
Shouldn’t someone be closing this thing already? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about different requirements for good articles in different wikis. The point is that on ruwiki you can be blocked for nominating the article for good status, while in Ukrainian Wikipedia nominating the same article for good status is not considered as a violation of the rules. Asorev (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop. Different wikis also have different policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]