Requests for comment/Afrikaans Wikipedia issues
I am a user of the Afrikaans Wikipedia, where I have done the bulk of my contributions from June 2014.  I usually create new articles that are translated from the English or Simple English Wikipedia. I have identified a number of issues on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and I have been raising them for years, however most of the administrators have just remained silent or further worsened the issue.
- Sysop abuse
I nominated a Category:Dictators (a group of pages of whom somebody perceives to be dictators, I find it stange that this subjective criteria can be endorsed by a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia)  earlier this year for deletion, giving clear reasoning according to the Wikipedia policy as has been done on en.wikipedia. However, without even providing a closing reason admin User:K175 concludes the nomination as keep. 
Today, 9 September, I proceed to restore the discussion and the nomination template. A mysterious IP (not the first occasion)  proceeds to edit war in removing the tag, without any discussion or reasoning. A total of four edit reversions occurred. Suddenly at the same time, User:K175 reverts back to the version of this mysterious IP and issues a generic warning. On my removal of this warning from my talk page, he instantly blocked me from editing for "vandalism". (The IP which was also complicit in reversions is still free to edit)
This is not the first time I feel this admin is acting highly partisan. See Yasser Arafat  - I moved the page to the common spelling as the spelling as "Jasser" seems to be used very seldomly used and to "Afrikaansify" words just for the purposes of Wikipedia seemed like original research. (I did the same thing with other articles like ) This admin swiftly moved the page back citing "its used in the media" and proceeded to protect the page from moving. No move/edit wars had occurred. I find the swift protection of the page unjustified.
Moreover see  - A translation of the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. I translated this article with content translation from the English Wikipedia article, which discussed the merits and critics of the theory in an encyclopaedic manner. User:K175 applies a neutrality tag and posts a threat to delete it on the talk page.  Another mysterious brand new account emerges to add content to the article, amongst which a sentence "was die laaste spyker in die doodskis in die Swart Egiptiese hipotese" (was the last nail in the coffin for the Black Egyptian Hypothesis) which leads me to believe that if there was any content contrary to neutrality in this article - it would be this. Despite my extensive replies , User:K175 did not reply and the tags remained.
This admin seems to be very disinterested in engaging in discussion as to the rationale of his decisions but is eager to mete out blocks and reversions to keep pages in line with what he wants.
 View K175's reply (a rare occurrence to get a reply) on the Afrikaans village pump to yet another one of my queries on the page notability and neutrality issues, again, seemingly not addressing the issues raised but rather with personal attacks (calling me an "ongeletterde" (illiterate)). I don't see how such a partisan user can have been given administrator privileges on af.wiki. In this RfC I wish to find out if these violations of policy and abuse of privileges are valid enough to have the administrator privileges of this user removed.
- POV Sockpuppetry
In relation to the suspicious accounts I've identified above, there seems to be IPs and new accounts that are well aware of the wiki environment, policies, the intricacies of editing, etc, that seem to show up on af.wiki to make controversial POV reversions. They rarely discuss their edits and when using talk pages, proceed to make personal remarks and stoke substantive/political debate on the subject (accusing me of political agendas, amongst other personal comments) rather than referring to the nature of the edits in relation to Wikipedia policy. This really creates an atmosphere of disruption, distrust and intimidation. The links I cite above give further insight to this.
The accusations and personal attacks coming from both the IPs and User:K175, and their same nature of not wanting to engage in a constructive discussion and rather edit war (and here block) to get their way leaves me very suspicious.
- Edit warring
I never edit warred with more than three reverts prior to this, but over the past year these IPs that keep jumping out of nowhere would just keep edit warring without engaging in discussion. So in the end, their "last man standing" game always worked with my discussion points on talk pages going unanswered whilst their revision prevailed without any substantiation whatsoever. The fact that all of this went unchecked by the admins creates a precedent that the only way to engage with these users is to keep reverting them, which I have always been cautious about doing, till now. I don't see how  this ban on me is justified considering the amount of time I've edited on af.wiki and that fact that I've always been willing to abstain from reverting whilst rather engaging on talk pages in long essays which get either no reply, a short personal attack in reply or a political debate outside of encyclopaedic scope which seeks to convert the talk page into some kind of free for all online forum .
- Notability criteria
A clear policy of notability exists on af.wikipedia . Despite this, it seems to be rarely enforced with the general perception seeming to be "Solank die inhoud objektief is en die artikel meer as bemarking is, wat myns insiens wel die geval is, kan hy bly" (As long as the content is objective and the article is more than marketing, it can stay). The same user, has over the years, created thousands of articles about the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa and beyond.    Every single little church, minister and assembly has a long article and thousands of such articles exist. As a random example out of these thousands, af.wiki has a long article about a "Dwight Snyman", a plain Google search of the subject on Google gives no reliable, third-party sources. Most articles simply make references to the same old church journals that are not even available online. The articles are also generally written with extreme detail and in a praising tone. I feel this is the most obvious violation of the notability policy yet no administrators have done anything. It makes me speculate as to if there is an unwritten rule that a user can create any article on af.wiki as long as the user has been substantially contributing in other areas, and is contributing to topics that give coverage to conservative Afrikaner-related subjects, no matter how encyclopaedically dubious. I feel that a mass deletion nomination is in order but I am unsure about how I am to go about doing such. I would like to request for comment as to if the grounds for deletion for these articles (or at least the one I pointed out) are sound.
Enter User:MickeyDangerez and articles about cannabis. See  and . It seems this is where the community is pushing for a line to be drawn. The page(s) are nominated for deletion invoking the rigorous application of the notability (citing of reliable sources, encyclopaedic style etc.) policy of the English Wikipedia. However it is astonishing how admins are ready to implement to this extent only.
It seems that the neutrality policy follows the same unwritten rule that the notability policy seems to follow. My first encounter with this double standards was on the page of Hendrik Verwoerd, the very architect of apartheid, whose page on af.wiki depicts him as a hero. The article today still desperately claims "In die geskiedenis van die Afrikaners en van Suid-Afrika bly die grondlegger van die 1961-Republiek ’n sleutelfiguur en vir sommige mense 'n held." (In the history of the Afrikaners and of South Africa, the founder of the 1961 Republic remains a key figure and is for some people hero.) - With no mention of the well documented racialist policies of apartheid and their effect on people of colour. The article even boasts that "Sy premierskap word gekenmerk aan die drastiese verbetering van swart lewenstandaarde" (His premiership is characterized by the drastic improvement of black living standards), a claim seemingly to be substantiated by a book, without even a quote that is not accessible online - Such a claim is not even implied in the whole English article. When I tried to edit the article by translating sentences from the English article with the relevant, reliable and online-accessible references to sources like the New York Times , it was swiftly reverted and on the talk page I was simply told "don't bring the propaganda of the English Wikipedia here"  whereas it was clear that the Afrikaans article was laced with bias and propaganda. The discussion at the talk page resulted in again, a debate about apartheid as opposed to the substance of the edit and sources in relation to Wikipedia policy. At the time I was under the impression that the administrators had the discretion to have the last say on matters, so I did not probe the issue any further.
Similar attempts to push POV can be seen at  where the source cited in the lede states "He succeeds the university’s first black vice-chancellor, Russel Botman"; I translated this text and inserted it into the article. However, the same mysterious string of IPs replaced "black" with "brown" and proceeded to remove any mention of race. I engaged countless times with the IPs on their talk pages and the talk page of the article, but they only replied with personal attacks and continued to edit war. (There were 4 reversions by the IP user on "Wim de Villiers" but no block was inflicted, only on me for "vandalism" whilst I've been quietly creating content for the wiki for about 3 years now)
This has been going on for a long enough time and the admins of af.wiki have not attempted to mediate or remedy this at all. I thus seek a outside perspective on these happenings by requesting for the comments of the broader wiki community on these issues.
Note: some parts of this section are closed, please only join the parts that are still open.
If doing something like George Ho won't make you or anyone angry, then I'd love to ask @Aliwal2012, BenBezuidenhout, JCBrand, Jcwf, Naudefj, and Oesjaar: @Puvircho, RAM, SpesBona, Suidpunt, Voyageur, and Wawiel: (afwiki sysops except K175) TBH, by watching out your inputs, K175 should be fired from afwiki sysops, that so-called "sysop" is somewhat like Makecat in my memory, which so-called someone as sock of some others, without first requesting Checkusers.
- "POV Sock" doesn't seem pointful to me, if you're a real sock, then not only POV issues can be founded, you may have many other edit issues that are "duplex"ing someone, not surprise, I can't see who is 100% having same edit wrongs as you on afwiki.
- "Edit warring", another tbh, should be considered as violating 3RR and still won't holding up even got warnings, ps: even such case, an edit war fun can also have sophism, like what d:Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Danish_works happened (you can see what EncycloPetey said here, aren't those edit wars? and why no sysops on Wikidata plan to block him?)
- "Notability criteria", however, could be a pretty good reason that someone can warn you, because sysops, and only them, can play their brain on it (that's the reason why I don't hope to be a sysop on any wikis, as I don't wanna kill anyone with my fruit knife)
- "Neutrality" Yes, I support your RFC here, anyone that firstly insult others, is the one to be paid the price
- An additional comment pertaining to K175's sysop abuse:
- This admin has persisted with calling me a vandal  "I have removed the protection of your talk page. You can now respond to comments posted here. If you vandalise your talk page again, it will be protected immediately."- of which he is referring to two generic warning he issued to me for reverting the IPs on af:Kategorie:Diktators and af:Wim de Villiers, which I removed from my talk page.
- I appealed to local bureaucrat  Naudefj about why I had been warned and blocked for four reverts whilst the IPs that were edit warring with the same number of reverts on multiple occasions didn't get insomuch as a warning from these admins, never mind a block for disruption and edit warring. (Besides that, the reason for my block was "vandalism") The fact that K175 is still unapologetically calling me a vandal and threatening me with a longer block shows he has no intention to rectify the situation. K175 is frustrating the wiki process by expecting me to keep repeating myself and going in circles by asking me to re-nominate the page af:Kategorie:Diktators for deletion, but he instructs me that I must not restore the nomination I made in April that he closed without any reason whatsoever, he says this is blatant vandalism.
- The bureaucrat subsequently unblocked me but did not mediate with this admin at all stating "you're not going to fight on my talk page anymore, and I'm not going to choose either side ... Let's put it behind us and move on" - The lack of intervention from sysops on these issues is the very reason why I had to open this RfC.
- K175 opened a discussion on village pump about "allegations of racism"  by me, by quoting comments I've left here and on en:User_talk:MickeyDangerez#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FPetrus_Nie. The comments were not even directed at him but rather to the string of IPs that kept popping up to make controversial edits that suit a right wing Afrikaner viewpoint. He has not answered any questions as to why he has not warned or blocked the edit warring IPs that were complicit in making such edits. He has further, seemingly out of anger or spite,  expressed a wish to resign as administrator due to my alleged "pathetic racebating". Whilst this user has openly said that I am a "vandal" and an "illiterate" and that I love to enforce my political ideology - when I most of my edits that this user and the mysterious IPs are disputing are just translations from en.wiki or direct quotes from sources.
- --BooysenN (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Dagelf, Greenman, Bobbyshabangu, Thuvack, and Discott: I'd like to ask for the inputs of the board members of Wikimedia South Africa as well. --BooysenN (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am Dutch -not South African-, I have spent 3 years of my life working for an NGO in one of the rural areas of South Africa and I live in the US. I have been sysop at af.wiki for many years, but I have recently decided to leave the site. I am mostly at fr.wikibooks now. I don't always like the vibes (and actions) at af.wiki either -which is why I left- but that BooysenN wants to enforce his political ideology there can hardly be doubted. Writing tonnes of articles about the NG church is not my thing either, but it is hardly a crime or anything unsavory. The fact that BooysenN tries to portray it as such demonstrates his own personal bias. Jcwf (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- More like that I'm against the Afrikaans Wikipedia become a niche of Afrikaner POV and a place where everything Afrikaner-related gets away from notability criteria, our own policy makes this clear . Neutrality and Notability has to be enforced consistently. Can I go ahead a mass create thousands of pages of unheard sangomas that I found in some traditional healer's journal and expect them to meet the notability criteria? The Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Indonesian Wikipedias don't have articles about every single Imam, Mufti, Mosque etc. of every single predict of the Islamic world; Neither does the Hindi Wikipedia have articles about every single little sadhu, priest, temple etc. in every predict in India. If you try and create such pages in those places admins would surely delete it according to notability policies - so why must the Afrikaans Wikipedia be a safe heaven for such things? Theres no personal bias, we just can't keep bulks of non-notable NG Kerk articles but then when a topic like Dagga that doesn't sit well with the community comes along, then we now want to enforce notability criteria.
- And its not only NG Kerk articles that are escaping notability tests -  - Every building on the University of Pretoria has a page too, I mean, I would also like to create pages for every single building of my university campus but encyclopaedic notability is a thing. Does this mean I have a personal bias against university buildings too?
-  See this comment, the personal attacks speak for themselves. You want us to sit and discuss the topic of the article as if the talk page is some kind of a general forum. The article was translated from en.wiki's article that had clearly in an encyclopaedic tone and evaluated all merits and criticisms of the hypothesis as far as reliable sources are concerned. But you use the talk page to go off on some tangent citing Quora because the hypothesis itself doesn't sit well with your political inclinations - you make this clear in your message itself "The truth is that you barbarians on that southern tip have a lot to learn from the Egyptians." - Granted that you removed it but despite being active on Wikipedia(s) for over a decade do you really think that was an appropriate statement to put in a Wiki discussion?
-  You had also out of spite here proposed for the closure of the Xhosa Wikipedia and made accusations and assumptions on about 8 million people. "Xhosa people do not participate because they want to get paid." So I don't know who the personal bias and political agenda is possessed by. --BooysenN (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- One attention: @K175:'s Meta-Wiki talk page is redirected to @Beaumont877:'s, could someone please tell me why? Are both however something like en:WP:MEAT? Or any Checkuser/Steward/Ombudsman/WMF staff allowed it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- By visiting the history of User talk:K175 I saw two user rename logs, and per  both are global renames. Should someone of Global renamers tell me what the former "Adriaan Joubert" was requesting to do? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Question: Should I file a Checkuser request between K175 and Beaumont877?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Nominasie vir verwydering van af:Kategorie:Diktators: Op 13 April 2017 om 17:20 voeg af:Gebruiker:BooysenN die etiket vir spoedigeverwyderingskandidaat by die kategorie sonder dat dit duidelik was dat die kategorie hoegenaamd 'n kandidaat vir spoedige verwydering is. Om 18:15 dieselfde dag nomineer af:Gebruiker:Jcwf die kategorie vir verwydering. Volgens die riglyne genoem op af:Wikipedia:Bladsyverwydering word [d]ie konsensus van die gemeenskap [...] op die 15de dag uitgevoer. Gebruiker:Jcwf het dit by die nominasie so aangeteken. Op 17 Junie 2017 in 'n roetine argivering van verstreke nominasies argiveer ek die nominasie vir die betrokke kategorie, onder andere. Daar was een nominasie vir verwyder, een vir hou, en een kommentaar. Die enigste nominasie vir verwyder (wat eintlik begin het as 'n kommentaar en toe verander is na 'n verwyder soos hy sy argument ontwikkel) was deur Gebruiker:BooysenN gelewer. Lg. gebruiker het 'n geskiedenis van trolgedrag op die Afrikaanse Wikipedia (ek noem dit vandalisme, maar ek verstaan hy neem aanstoot van daardie term). Gebruikers se reputasies en onlangse gedrag moet in ag geneem word wanneer die konsensus bepaal word. Dit was baie duidelik dat konsensus nie bereik is nie. BooysenN beskuldig my op verskeie gevalle daarvan dat ek die nominasie sonder 'n geldige rede verwyder het, al het ek volgens my volledig in die wysigingsopsommings verduidelik wat gedoen word.
- Wysigingsoorloë: Ek sal later hierdie aantyging volledig navors. Soos ek verstaan vra Gebruiker:BooysenN vir die versperring van 'n IP-adres wat kwansuis in 'n wysigingsoorlog betrokke was. Laat ek net solank noem dat 'n vinnige blik na die wysigingsgeskiedenis wys dat dit Gebruiker:BooysenN was wat drie keer in 'n ry teruggerol het, en nie die IP-adres nie.
- Onvanpaste kommentaar deur Gebruiker:Jcwf: In sy lang lasteraanval op my, Gebruiker:Jcwf, en die Afrikaanse projek in sy geheel (hy voer bv. aan dat ons 'n regse bastion van Afrikaner-oogpunt is), verwys Gebruiker:BooysenN na 'n aanmerking van Gebruiker:Jcwf op die besprekingsbladsy van af:Swart Egiptiese hipotese: And yes I think even you South Africans should at least try to put that awful usual racism of yours aside and show some respect for a civilization that has done without that disease of the mind for 5000 years. And yes I am sure I am asking a hard thing from you, given how you have made that skin of yours into a false god. The truth is that you barbarians on that southern tip have a lot to learn from the Egyptians. And yes I do mean ALL OF YOU. Dit is duidelik 'n kritiek van rassisme op sigself en nie 'n persoonlike aanval soos Gebruiker:BooysenN aanvoer nie. Gebruiker:BooysenN se benutting van hierdie insident om sy argument te ondersteun is lagwekkend. Die kommentaar was sterk bewoord en onvanpas, en Gebruiker:Jcwf was reg om dit spoedig te verwyder.
- My interpretasie van BooysenN se gedrag: Die gebruiker is m.i. 'n trol. Hy probeer sy gedrag te verdedig deur korrek na burokratiese ondoeltreffendhede by die Afrikaanse Wikipedia te verwys. Hy het al bewys dat hy nie by die Afrikaanse Wikipedia betrokke is om konstruktiewe bydraes te lewer nie, maar eerder om onmin te saai. Sy taalgebruik laat bowendien veel te wense oor, en ek twyfel of hy binnekort Afrikaans op 'n akademiese vlak gaan magtig word.
- My bedanking as administrateur: In die konteks van alles wat hierbo genoem is, het ek fouteer deur beleid aan te haal wat nie bestaan nie (ek het gemeen dat Gebruiker:BooysenN nie generiese waarskuwings van sy gebruikerbladsy mag verwyder nie). Gebruiker:BooysenN wys tereg daarop dat gebruikers by die Engelse Wikipedia boodskappe van hul besprekingsbladsye mag verwyder. A.g.v. hierdie fout voel ek dat dit tersaaklik is dat ek my bedanking as administrateur indien. Ek is egter nie bewus van hoe vg. beleid by die Engelse Wikipedia bereik is nie. Ek is ook nie bewus daarvan dat die Afrikaanse Wikipediagemeenskap al hierdie beleid bespreek het nie. Laat ek egter noem dat ek nie dink dat 'n gebruiker soos Gebruiker:BooysenN toegelaat moet word om waarskuwings van sy gebruikersbladsy te verwyder nie. As hy toegelaat word om dit te doen, skep dit die indruk dat hy nie 'n trol of vandalis is nie. Gebruiker:BooysenN se aantygings van rassisme en Afrikaner-regse "superioriteitskomplekse" is lagwekkend. Ek ontken dit in elk geval ten sterkste.
- Algemene waarnemings: Daar is prosesgebreke by die Afrikaanse Wikipedia. Dit is m.i. simptomaties van 'n klein projek waar histories min insette gelewer word by administrasieverrigtinge en administrateurs dus ongelukkig in 'n gewoonte verval het om soms sonder 'n omvattende beslegtingsprosedure op te tree. Dit is m.i. nie 'n ernstige probleem nie, maar iets wat aangespreek moet word soos ons die 50,000-artikelmerk nader. Ons moet egter ook pragmaties wees en vandalistiese gedrag vroegtydig identifiseer en bekamp voor gebruikers soos Gebruiker:BooysenN die idee kry dat hulle daarmee kan wegkom.
- Slot: Hierdie tipe besprekings moet eerder op die Afrikaanse Wikipedia plaasvind. Nou is dit hier op Meta, waar die bydraers wat geraak word moontlik nie gaan kyk nie. Dit is m.i. ondoeltreffend, maar ek dink Gebruiker:BooysenN het gevoel hy word persoonlik geteiken en dat hy dus ander roetes moes verken om beslegting van sy lys van besware te bewerkstellig - 'n gevoel wat m.i. ongeregverdig is. Ek nooi Gebruiker:BooysenN uit om sy slagoffermentaliteit te laat vaar en konstruktiewe bydraes te lewer. Hy sal egter eers die taal moet bemeester voordat sy bydraes opreg as van ensiklopediese waarde geag gaan word. K175 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
|Sorry for using google translate:|