Talk:Detention of Pavel Pernikaŭ/Archive 1

Archive 1

Draftification?

@Praxidicae: Can you explain what you mean in your edit summary by "serious BLP concerns, sourcing concerns and potentially safety"? I understand moving it to "Detention of..." per the recent RM at Detention of Mark Bernstein and WP:BLP1E, but draftification I don't understand. Levivich 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it's poorly sourced for starters. And I think we need to give extra care to BLPs and those where WP:BLPCRIME applies. Bernstein received a lot of national and international coverage - this has not, even searching under the various spellings, including in Russian and Belarusian. CUPIDICAE💕 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with the sources? I don't see a BLPCRIME issue because this article does not suggest the subject committed a crime. Levivich 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? Then what is it he's supposedly notable for? Is the article about him being sentenced to puppies and rainbows for being an A+ Wikipedia editor? CUPIDICAE💕 18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm serious. Here are three GNG sources for Detention of Pavel Pernikaŭ: [1] [2] [3]. What's wrong with them? Levivich 18:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh, WP:NOTNEWS WP:BLP1E? They're as good as a press release. Being convicted of something doesn't equate to notability and certainly doesn't without sustained coverage. Not to mention that at least two of those sources are prisoners rights websites that essentially say the same thing, no I don't think they're particularly reliable enough on their own to establish notability. I'm not going to continue arguing with you. If you disagree, you're more than capable of reverting me and moving it back to mainspace yourself. CUPIDICAE💕 19:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for attempting to discuss this with you before reverting you, I'll try to avoid repeating this mistake. Levivich 19:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you also didn't notice that hte OpenDemocracy opinion piece is written by the same person who wrote the Mediazona piece, which is relevant since the agenda is clearly the same and isn't even mostly about the subject, but Bernstein. But by all means, snark away. CUPIDICAE💕 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, but it's not a problem that the same author writes two pieces for two outlets about the same subject. Why do you call the OpenDemocracy article an opinion piece? It's marked feature, not opinion. (Compare with this opinion piece.) Levivich 19:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone can point me to where <redacted> identified their real name on their Wikipedia account? CUPIDICAE💕 20:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If it helps with anything, just for the record, I would support the move of the article back into the main space, even if I understand the option might be debatable and might need a discussion first. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Oversighting

@Primefac: You OS'd a bunch of stuff from the draft but didn't OS (at least one instance of) the username, which I assume was... :-) an oversight? :-) :-) Anyway, it seems like a whole paragraph was removed, but I don't remember what was in it. I'm working on expanding this draft with more sources and will probably move it to mainspace later today. Can you leave some guidance about what OS is declaring in/out? I don't care much about the username (it's mentioned in some but not all sources), but the sources do give a bunch of info about the editing history, articles that were edited, and the December block, which I think was in the paragraph you removed (but I don't remember and can't see it). I'll wait until you remove the username (assuming you're going to do that) before making further edits so I don't create new revisions that need OSing. Thanks, Levivich 15:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Pavel has made no public declaration of his username, and thus it was removed. There was an inordinate amount of that in the original draft. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Primefac, but can you please answer the question that I am asking you, and not the question you think I'm asking you? :-) I'm not asking you why his username was removed. I'm asking you what else besides his username, if anything, should not be in the article? Thanks again, Levivich 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That is what I removed; if you remove the username but give every article ever edited by that account and the edit count, it defeats the purpose of removing the username. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Every article ever edited by that account" is an exaggeration, of course.

The RSes (you can see three in the article page, and four more I just added to the header of this page) talk about, specifically, the articles and edits he made for which he was charged and convicted. Is it OK to talk about those particular articles and edits? Because that's part of what you removed. Are we going to have a problem if I re-add it? Levivich 15:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not an exaggeration, it gave a blow-by-blow detailing of a series of different groups of edits made by the user in question (the only things not included were the timestamps). You do not need to list every article edited with relation to this story in order to get the point across. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You do not need to list every article edited with relation to this story in order to get the point across. Huh? He was charged for making three edits to two articles. I don't understand the phrase "list every article" when there are only two articles. Surely you don't mean list one and not the other, and surely you don't mean list neither, cuz that would leave the article very incomplete.

Here is what Nasha Niva said about it (citation at the top of this page, via Google translate):

Prosecutor Elena Tikhanovich presented three facts at the trial:

- in Wikipedia, Pavel Pernikov added a paragraph about the murder of Gennady Shutov in Brest, as well as about the unwillingness of the Belarusian authorities to take responsibility for such deaths;

- in Wikipedia, in the article on censorship, he added a mention of the murder in 2004 of journalist Veronika Cherkasova;

- posted an article on torture and death in places of detention on the website of a human rights organization.

That strikes me as a reasonable level of detail, and unless you object, that's roughly the level of detail I'll shoot for. Levivich 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a reasonable level of detail. That is not, however, what was removed; said content contained more than that. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. I hope you can understand that because I can't see what was removed, I have no way of knowing whether this level of detail is more or less than what was removed, which is why I asked you for guidance. Cheers, Levivich 16:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry to bother you, but thought I'd ping you in case you wanted to read it before I moved it to mainspace. Levivich 21:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything too problematic. Thanks for checking. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Flibirigit (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pavel Pernikaŭ was sentenced to two years imprisonment for making two edits to Wikipedia and posting one article to a human rights organization's website? Source: "«Википедисту» из Бреста Павлу Перникову присудили 2 года заключения за статьи о репрессиях и пытках в Беларуси [...] Павла осудили из-за двух правок статей в Википедии (о протестах в Беларуси в 2020 году), а также из-за статьи на сайте правозащитной организации." ("Wikipedian from Brest Pavel Pernikov sentenced to 2 years in prison for articles about repression and torture in Belarus [...] Pavel was convicted because of two edits to articles on Wikipedia (about the protests in Belarus in 2020), as well as because of an article on the website of a human rights organization.") [4] Belsat TV; see also [5] Nasha Niva, [6] Current Time TV, [7] European Radio for Belarus, [8] Esquire (Russian edition), and other citations in the article
  • ALT1: ... that a Belarusian Wikipedia editor was sentenced to two years imprisonment for making two edits to Wikipedia and posting one article to a human rights organization's website? Source: Same as ALT0
  • ALT2: ... that two Wikipedia edits can get you two years imprisonment in Belarus? Source: Same as ALT0
  • ALT3: ... that two edits can get you two years in Belarus? Source: Same as ALT0
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Snake Island
  • Comment: ALT1 is ALT0 without naming the editor. ALT2 and 3 are hookier but I'm concerned they're too trite for the subject matter.

Moved to mainspace by Homoatrox (talk) and Levivich (talk). Nominated by Levivich and Homoatrox (talk) at 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC).

• Pinging EEng, my hooker of choice. Levivich 18:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've returned to this several times in hopes of coming up with something better, but I've drawn a blank, partly because even I think this maybe isn't such a good basis for a joke. I did have the idea of comparing a Belarusian prison to an Arbcom case (which is worse?) but it didn't gel. Sorry. EEng 02:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I guess that makes four of us so I've struck 2 and 3. Levivich 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved editor I dislike ALT2 and 3, since they are too vague and aren't true to the actual meaning. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, ALT1 and ALT0 could be shortened as well. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to withdraw this; it seems unlikely to make for an interesting hook. Levivich 22:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Notabily questionable

• There is no real notability for this petty criminal. --91.20.6.51 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@91.20.6.51: There is no real basis for what you said, seriously though — Python Drink (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)