Requests for comment/Do something about ukwiki

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for anything proposed by the creator. --MF-W 22:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No activity in this RfC, and the issue appears to be resolved, however this discussion can be opened at any time if the issue rearises. Znotch190711 (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the problem has not been resolved; I provided all the facts and expected a decision from authorized people. The situation in Ukrainian Wikipedia has not changed for the better, and my account is still banned there... Yevrowl (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reverted this closure as an in inactive RfC is definde as two years of no activity and as indicated by the proposer, the issue has not been resolved. ~riley (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks a lot! The global problem of mass falsification and replacement of sources with "pro-Ukrainian" on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is still not being resolved. Yevrowl (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Please check the actions of the Ukrainian Wikipedia administrators Goo3 and Yakudza for compliance with the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation. Yevrowl (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issues

User Yevrowl was blocked for repeated falsification of sources. More details --Yakudza (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can Yevrowl read this? It's helpful in this situation. Stewards can't do anything unless it's an emergency regarding local blocks. Thanks. --Cohaf (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yevrowl, the sources you use are mostly books. I've downloaded six of them randomly. In 3, there was no any information you were "quoting". Other were only partly correct. The user is trying to find the articles and books to prove the position he needs. --Goo3 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yevrowl is one of the users who are unfairly blocked on Ukrainian wikis just because of Russian-related mentions. --60.26.9.255 01:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked for using irrelevant sources (basically writing a pro-Russian/anti-Ukrainian statement and giving a source which does not prove it but is relatively neutral instead). This is hardly acceptable, and the fact that he used it to push a marginal point of view made it worse. While it can be discussed whether an indefinite block is needed or a shorter block would be enough, the fact that the user does not understand that these actions were problematic does not help — NickK (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NickK: So are you claiming that Crimea should "back to Ukraine"? --117.15.55.114 05:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What my personal views have to with this RfC? — NickK (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user was legally blocked for destructive activities in Ukrainian wikipedia --Devlet Geray (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "legally blocked"? Does that mean "blocked by local sysops in accordance with local policy"? Or does it mean "blocked by Office Action"? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81: I would assume he wanted to say 'legitimately blocked', i.e. in accordance with local policy — NickK (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @NickK. I think at this point, @Yevrowl, unless you can provide specific diffs that are such complete violations of WMF policy that either the stewards or WMF staff would intervene, you're probably out of luck, as @Cohaf points out above. "Please check..." without any specific information will never get you anywhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81: Can you just help close this RFC which is going nowhere. Just a further note, I don't think WMF will intervene unless there is a really serious enough matter which cannot be resolved locally (and all due process are followed). The chances of this is slim given what happened over at enwp. I will encourage the person who ask for help to really engage other admins to see if the blocks are just, or just trying to find a way to get unblocked locally. We are sorry we can't help you here this time, but if you have adequate information, please come back and we are happy to see what we can do. --Cohaf (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cohaf: I'm going to give OP one week to provide some specific evidence. After that, I will close this request as invalid. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cohaf:, @StevenJ81:, thank you very much for carefully approaching my question and giving me the opportunity to speak up. The essence of the conflict is that both the official authorities of Ukraine and Wikipedia administrators in every possible way obscure the facts of anti-Semitism and vandalism of organizations of Ukrainian nationalists (OUN, UPA), portraying them only as heroes who fought exclusively for the independence of Ukraine. I note that similar things are happening at the state level in the Baltic countries. However, explicit calls for anti-Semitism and vandalism are present both in the statutory documents of the organization of Ukrainian nationalists, and in the printed works of their main figures and ideologists, and here is an example of such paragraphs (translation can be done using Google translate). I really got excited, taking up the rivalry in the edits with the administrators, who have a clear sympathy for the Ukrainian nationalists, even fighting in the SS troops; while I consider the Red Army to be the saviors of mankind. Be that as it may, now I am engaged in the publication of articles on work at the aircraft factory, namely, archival and promising models of flying vehicles; decommissioned computers; as well as hobbies, articles on chess - everything on the Russian-language Wikipedia. I would like to replenish the Ukrainian-language Wikipedia, as I also know the Ukrainian language very well. Thank you again if you read to the end, and for understanding the situation. Ready to answer any questions. Yevrowl (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough, IMO this is a content dispute, and I dont think this violates any of TOUs. We need proof of gross improper conduct to be able do something.--Cohaf (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Banned the 1st time on April 4, precisely because of this information dispute. Immediately after that, information from the source (a book of an internationally recognized historian) was removed, which was added to another article. Also removed links to the historian killed in Ukraine in 2015, photo of the UPA figure in German uniform and his service in the schutzmannschaft, and many more examples of the removal of authoritative and non-authoritative (with which I also sometimes supplemented) sources of information from articles. An appeal to the administrator with evidence and clarifications was ignored. Instead, I received the following account locks. Yes, I have made mistakes - after all, only the one who does nothing is not mistaken, and over more than ten years I have published more than 1000 articles in several language versions of Wikipedia. But this is not a malicious violation of Wikipedia rules, but only upholding the right to contribute versatile information, backed up by sources, to articles with one-sided and completely non-neutral vision. Hope for understanding and support. Yevrowl (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably mention that, for instance, the historian killed in Ukraine in 2015 was en:Oles Buzina, who has no academic degree or peer-reviewed publications in the field of history but is instead a journalist widely known for his pro-Russian views. This makes this a much less reliable source on the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations. This is a good example of why this user ended up being blocked — NickK (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note separately that a «pro-russian» (or «anti-ukrainian») opinion is considered to be inconsistent with the official policy of the post-maidan authorities, for example, a statement by Israeli president Reuven Rivlin (this is reflected in the article about him) or documents from Yad Vashem. Yevrowl (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that an RfC on Meta-Wiki is a right place to deal with policies of Ukrainian government authorities — NickK (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here for a long time, but I really don't see it as anything that is against any important policies where there isn't any local avenues of discourse. I am also not convinced that there is an egregious abuse of administrator tools. This discussion should and ought to be send locally. Thanks --12:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose at best, this proposal grossly fails to present clear evidence for any systemic admin-abuse at ukwiki. The little evidence presented by anyone suggests this may be a frivolous claim. We really should be looking at UkWiki diffs, but almost the only evidence we have leads to a diff of Yevrowl making this highly dubious edit on RuWiki. In particular they changed an image caption from German police shoot women and children to The Ukrainian auxiliary police, along with the Nazis, shoot women and children. The Commons image info, as well as the original Holocaust museum source both identify the shooter as German, not Ukrainian. That diff raising significant concerns of improper editing. There's ongoing hostility between Russia and Ukraine, there is a lot of government-disseminated propaganda and disinformation, and there are a lot of well-intentioned-but-badly-misguided POV-warriors. If anyone wants to make a case for intervention to overturn the adminship of a wiki then they need to present a stack of diffs showing clear admin abuse. Alsee (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On one of my mistakes, and also corrected — there are many malicious distortions of history from uk.Wiki's members. When the war crimes of the OUN members are either hidden or replaced. Only a few examples are given in the corresponding section. Yevrowl (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC) P. S. This article on photography describes that the German Nazis participated along with Ukrainian assistants. And editing, by the way, is not mine.[reply]
  Naked Jewish women wait in a line before their execution by German Police with the assistance of Ukrainian auxiliaries.
- Controversial facts and deliberate distortions are different things? Yevrowl (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass falsifications of historical events and information

In this article described as not confirmed by authoritative sources, allegedly having a battle of the UPA against the NKVD, which took place in 1955. The NKVD in 1946 became the MGB, then in 1953 it merged into the MVD, and from 1954 the KGB stood out. Many historical fictions and shufflings can be observed in these categories, created mainly for the sake of propaganda and incitement of mutual enmity between the slavic peoples: Category: UPA fights with Soviet troops and Template: Russian-Ukrainian battles. Is this kind of content the norm in individual Wikipedia language sections? Yevrowl (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]