Pakistan administered Kashmir – The result of the review was to endorse the redirect. The original AfD was affected by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, but there is a consensus that the close was nevertheless an accurate reading of the consensus. – Joe (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Some of the users at AfD had suggested Delete/Redirect used WP:POVFORK as reason. This comment i believe was just carried over from the older AfD about a duplicate article with a POV title due to the word "occupied". The current title did not had "occupied" word, and yet no explanation was given how it is POVFORK? and whose POV? Because it is a term used be neutral third party RS, mainstream media, books and The UN.
Currently there is no existing article, that is about the geographical, political and historical entity referred to as "Pakistan administered Kashmir". There were multiple RS and strong policy based justifications by several users to 'Keep' as discussed in the 'table' at RoySmith's talk.
In addition, as one can expect, this AfD was disrupted by SOCK and canvassing. User:The Donkey King has been blocked as a sock after he !voted. I believe this should also should be taken into account while deciding the weight of arguments.
The article was started at the current location as there was a need felt to provide internal links about the article on this unique entity. A redirect to Kashmir does not serve the purpose
Endorse that was about as well-explained of a close as you could see for a contentious AfD, and one that accurately reflects consensus. Furthermore, I don't know what we're reviewing here as I don't see any of these claims fitting into any of the acceptable purposes found at WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyertalk22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that, but I still don't see how this could have been closed as a keep or no consensus, especially given the well-reasoned close. SportingFlyertalk22:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We may have an issue where political partisans have overrun the discussion and so we aren't getting a fair one. I'm personally struggling with how have an article for the area, under the name used by the UN, is a POVFORK. I can see how such an article *could* be a POVFORK, but I'm not seeing with how the name *is* one. While I fully understand why it was closed the way it was, I just don't see how the outcome makes sense. I'm hoping that some folks not involved in the underlying dispute can either explain why this *name* is a POVFORK or agree it is not. Hobit (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree that would be grounds for possibly overturning the result, I don't see any pattern with the non-keep votes which would suggest any political slant against keeping the article. Users who work on Pakistani articles, users who work on Indian articles, and users who work on completely different articles all voted delete/redirect on this one. SportingFlyertalk07:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest point to overturn the closure is about the quality of input provided by the Keep voters and that provided by Delete voters were rather different. Knowing that WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE or a counting of noses. As Hobit rightly notes this, The POVFORK rationale was never justified by explaining what POV there was. Even when folks (like User:Gotitbro and myself) questioned what POV there was in the article, there were no explanations forthcoming. Understandably so, as there was no justification. The strategy here by (Quoting Hobit) "Political partisans (who) have overrun the discussion" was about WP:Stuffing the ballot box with a factually incorrect reasoning. And to answer to SportingFlyer it is quite easy to spot some of these offline canvassed voters who can be seen returning from long breaks to stuff the ballot, a recent eg.[1],MRV,[2]. I will elaborate more on this in my comment below. --DBigXrayᗙ14:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will explain below why I would close the AfD as no consensus.
The closing admin wrote:
I didn't see any arguments on either side which were so obviously invalid that they should be ignored, so the weight of numbers ruled the day here. Depending on how you count some of the more nuanced comments, things are running about 2:1 against keeping.
Since "the weight of numbers ruled the day here", to uphold a "redirect" close, it is crucial that the editors from the "delete or redirect" side are established editors, not new users. From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry:
In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.
Of the editors who supported deletion or redirection, I would per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry "disregar[d] or giv[e] significantly less weight" to the comments made by:
Although Satpal Dandiwal (talk · contribs), who supported deletion or redirection, has few edits on the English Wikipedia, I am not giving less weight to his comment because he is an established editor and admin on the Punjabi Wikipedia. I am also not giving less weight to 123sarangi (talk · contribs), who has 646 edits, because the account was created in 2010 and has consistently edited over the years.
I would not give less weight to any of the "keep" editors because all of them are established editors.
After this review, I have a new count of 7 established editors supporting retention and 8 established editors supporting deletion or redirection.
I agree with the closing admin that there were no "arguments on either side which were so obviously invalid that they should be ignored so the weight of numbers ruled the day here". Since the established editors were divided on this issue, I would close the AfD as "no consensus".
This was a difficult AfD to close. Thank you, RoySmith, for providing an extensive closing rationale and further expanding on your talk page about how you closed the AfD. Had the AfD participants all been established editors with a count of 12–7 saying the article's content is a WP:POVFORK, I would have reached the same conclusion that there is a rough consensus against a standalone article.
As the AfD closer, I'm going to remain officially neutral here, but I do want to comment on the concept of vetting discussants. Once you've hung around AfD for a while, you get to recognize the regulars. When I see new names, I'll often look at their contribution as a quick WP:SPA filter. I don't have any hard criteria; I'm looking for some vague mix of account age, edit count, and diversity of topics edited. I just went back and checked the users identified above as likely puppets. I don't recall doing so when I was working on this AfD, but based on what I see now, I'm pretty sure all would have passed my screen and been given full weight. -- RoySmith(talk)16:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying up here to everyone since there is a lot of discussion below.)
Like many geopolitical disputes, the India–Pakistan topic area is deeply affected by sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. The four accounts I gave less weight to either were created fewer than two months before the AfD's start or had fewer than 150 edits. Reyk noted below that "Accounts almost two months old with hundreds of edits can't be dismissed as single purpose meatpuppets." 123sarangi noted below that "If an editor is new but made dozens of edits across Wiki then they could be no longer considered as meat or SPA." This is true. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets know this too. It therefore is difficult to determine whether an account created two months ago with hundreds of edits is truly a new editor or is really a puppet.
Like you, RoySmith (talk·contribs), I don't have any hard criteria for whether to give less weight to an account. But for a subjective issue like whether an article in a contentious geopolitical dispute is a WP:POVFORK, I would not give accounts created two months ago the same weight as accounts with established editing histories when "the weight of numbers rul[e] the day here". I don't know whether these accounts are truly new editors or puppets. I gave them less weight in my evaluation of the arguments because I just don't know. When I don't know, I follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, which says, "When in doubt, don't delete." (Or don't redirect in this case.)
In a contentious geopolitical dispute AfD, it is reasonable and within discretion for an admin to weigh the editing histories differently. This is why I am only commenting as "I would close the AfD as no consensus" instead of "overturn to no consensus".
DBigXray, the many concerns you have raised below about various accounts likely will not help your case with WP:DRV. I recommend that if you solid evidence of impropriety, you take your concerns to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The more acrimony and accusations that are generated here, the less likely that more uninvolved editors like SportingFlyer, Hobit, Reyk, and me will participate in the DRV.
Comment- The only !vote you could legitimately throw out is the sockpuppet. Accounts almost two months old with hundreds of edits can't be dismissed as single purpose meatpuppets. It's not OK to draw an arbitrary age line like this to throw out opinions you don't like, particularly if you're not going to dispute any of the content of them. Besides which, Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari has been around for over a year. They registered in November 2017. ReykYO!10:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Even "no consensus" would still result in restoration of long term redirect since article was created by DBigXray against consensus long term consensus. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari registered in 6 November 2017. That is more than 1 year ago not 31 days. You are also incorrect about the guideline on WP:MEAT which talks about the overall contributions of the editor and if they had edited outside the AFD page. If an editor is new but made dozens of edits across Wiki then they could be no longer considered as meat or SPA. You have absolutely missed the part where it says: "Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion". Accounts you are naming fail that requirement and none of the users, including that blocked editor could be ever tagged or considered a meat puppet for the same reason. I recommend you to modify your assessment. Radhamadhab Sarangi (Talk2Me|Contribs) 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cunard for your detailed analysis of the user votes here. Although I believe we all should follow the weight of the strong arguements instead of counting of noses, (as "WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE"). As Cunard noted above Since "the weight of numbers ruled the day here" I am elaborating more on the disruption by offline canvassing here. Frankly, no one should be surprised here, that an India-Pak related AfD has been overrun by Canvassed voters. In the AE Log [3] one can see several of these nationalistic editors SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), NadirAli (talk · contribs), JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs), D4iNa4 (talk · contribs), MapSGV (talk · contribs), TripWire (talk · contribs), Mar4d (talk · contribs), MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs), Raymond3023 (talk · contribs) and Sdmarathe (talk · contribs) "all indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan", So they cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom. It is quite easy to spot the same set of editors, suddenly appearing at AfDs, RfCs and Talk page discussions to vote in a same manner. I will add the diff of some of those examples that I found recently in this list of editors who supported deletion or redirection prepared by Cunard.
123sarangi (talk · contribs) – account created in 2010; 646 edits[11] His only edit [12] on a talk page in his 8 year history was in support of a group of editors. Same with his first AfD !vote [13] which was on this AfD to delete the article that he refers "a template" and in support the same group,
1990'sguy (talk · contribs) – established editor not Indian but seen regularly voting on Indian topics in support of the group, [21] AfDs [22][23][24] and talk pages [25][26] and in return the group supports 1990sGuy on his Christian topics AfD and RFCs. [27][28][29]
Srkamal (talk · contribs) only 2 AfDs till date [32]. Suspicious because he went directly to the talk page and voted Keep on talk page[33] and AfD[34] and then made a volte-face and changed his vote as Delete a few minutes later at both locations.
Because of these concerns on large scale Vote Stuffing on India-Pak topics, it becomes even more important to strictly follow WP:NOTAVOTE and focus on the weight and validity of the argument, and assigning appropriate weights to the arguements. Lot of folks mentioned POVFORK, but if that argument is factually incorrect and unjustified, and yet we start counting the heads of people who invoked POVFORK, then in a way we are actually encouraging disruption and more sock / meat puppetry and clique based voting. --DBigXrayᗙ16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be being malicious? I think your extreme bad faith assumption for justifying your apparent POV pushing is only boosting hostility. You should strike all your bad faith accusations right now. Radhamadhab Sarangi (Talk2Me|Contribs) 16:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- overturn argument hinges on one participant among dozens being a sockpuppet, a handful of others being unfairly mischaracterised as SPAs, and unfounded accusations of canvassing. That's no argument to overturn at all. Reading the discussion, the closing statement, and the discussion on RoySmith's talk page, I don't think he got this one wrong. ReykYO!10:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as AfD participant. DBigXray has been misleading others throughout AfD and during these post-AfD discussions which are complete waste of time. DBigXray has been denying established existence of multiple RfCs held before regarding this POVFORK,[36][37] and I had also linked some of those discussions in my comment.[38] There were indeed multiple RfCs that resulted in removal of POVFORK which DBigXray desperately wants to create.[39][40] I would recommend reading those past discussions to realize why the AfD close was 100% valid. Very few editors must have avoided verifying DBigXray's misleading claims but small number of editors dont form enough consensus for keeping a POVFORK when consensus has been always against creating it. Calling others a sock or canvassed editors won't ever help OP's case. Radhamadhab Sarangi (Talk2Me|Contribs) 15:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
regretful endorse While I don't think it makes any sense for a name, used by the UN, to be a POVFORK, this is where our processes have gotten us too. Normally I just don't comment in such a situation, but since I commented above, I felt I should be clear. Hobit (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK doesn't need to be about the title of an article, it can be (and most often is) about its content. We might disagree about the POV part, but the FORK bit still has clear merit: regardless of whether we believe an article ought to exist at this title, it's inevitable that almost all of it will duplicate content found elsewhere. – Uanfala (talk)12:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was about to close this in essentially the same way for the same reasons, but then my PC crashed and I lost the closing rationale. Both based on the numbers and the arguments submitted, and the need to avoid content forks especially in contested topic areas, I believe that the redirect (to this or some other appropriate location) best reflects consensus and policy. Sandstein 10:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It is impossible not to think that the creation was nothing more than clear attempt to enforce a petty nationalistic POV. The AfD participants did a good job by presenting their accurate arguments against the keeping the article. 202.69.15.88 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, the whole point of me starting this DRV was for requesting that the consensus be judged on the basis of weight of arguments of keep and Deletes, instead of vote counts. 2 Users being sock blocked just re-affirms my point. Closures, heavily influenced by vote counts will inadvertently encourage more meat and sockpuppetry. --DBigXrayᗙ20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Farooqahmadbhat was blocked as a sock master of a small irrelevant account[41], not "as a sock" and he didn't "voted Delete" but opposed deletion and only came to notify about his "merger proposal"[42]. Either you are very incompetent in English or just completely deceptive. Why we should not count Farooqahmadbhat's opinion but count your falsifications? It makes no sense. Suppose if you get blocked tomorrow, then will you prefer if we discount all your arguments? That's not how we work. Neither it would make any sense to accept your deceptive statements that are filled with nationalist POV. I am the IP who commented above as 202.69.15.88. 37.111.130.177 (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before the AfD close, editors were 12–7 against a standalone article. With two AfD participants blocked as sockpuppets, the count is now 10–7 against a standalone article.
This DRV will be closed as "endorse". But if more of the editors against a standalone article are blocked as sockpuppets in the future, it would be worthwhile to ask the DRV closer for permission to take this back to DRV to ask for a fresh AfD since the previous one was tainted by sockpuppetry.
Cunard, due to the recent sock blocks and based on the comment posted above by you earlier, I see this as a strong reason to overturn the closure as "No Consensus". By suggesting numbers such as 10-7 without giving weightage to the actual arguments, we are only encouraging the Meat/Sock puppet masters that all they need is to mobilize a couple of accounts and the balance can be tilted in whatever way they like. This is in stark contrast of my understanding of WP:CONSENSUS.--DBigXrayᗙ12:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good close. DBigXray didn't even know that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is the accurate title, yet he created a redundant fork against consensus. I had said on AFD that reliable sources and UN sources provide same description for both subjects then it also means that we should create article on both "Pakistani-administered Kashmir" and "Indian-administered Kashmir", or avoid creating any of them because we are not here for redundant content forking.[43] DBigXray's refuses to create "Indian-administered Kashmir" however he aggressively defends his creation of "Pakistan administered Kashmir" against consensus. There is Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, but existence of a "Pakistan administered Kashmir" would justify creation of a Human rights abuses in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and continue increasing the number of more redundant forks which are meant to be avoided. Together with bad knowledge of policies and IDHT, DBigXray's repeated false accusations constitute harassment. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that Pakistan"-"administered Kashmir should have been the better title then WP:RM discussion is the way to do it not deletion. The "-" is really a trivial issue here, I am ready to add a "-" if it is so important for the title as you said in your opinion. FYI Indian-administered Kashmir is an "existing" article with a more appropriate name where as an article on Pakistan-administered Kashmir has just been deleted and redirected. I will not comment on WP:OSE examples of Human rights. but please see the map, Pak administered Kashmir is not the same as Azad Kashmir.
_(claims_hatched).svg)
.svg)
