Mardetanha

talk

The following request for comments is closed.





Proposal [ edit ]

Statement of the issues [ edit ]

This statement is intended to be concise and easy to understand. It is not by any means intended to reference every single instance of alleged violation of Wikimedia policies and norms. Additional information can be found in the discussions and RFCs mentioned above.

Why steward intervention is needed

A discussion to review the sysop status of Cekli829 failed to remove administrative rights or provide effective accountability. The comments of bureaucrat User:Eldarado at 18:41, 26 fevral 2019 (UTC) seem to discourage the participation of non-administrators (though Google Translate is not very clear). In fact, local policy requires a majority of administrators to approve of the desysop proposal first.

It is apparent throughout the discussions referenced that Facebook and WhatsApp groups play a large part of the governance of azwiki (so much so that users are blocked based on what they say there), and naturally those groups exclude the participation of editors from the decision making process. It is impossible to determine if any coordinated response is being organized to issues such as the desysop discussion and this very RFC, though we have been told that a link to this RFC was made in that group (see above).

Crux of proposal [ edit ]

All admins/bureaucrats/interface admins will have their rights removed

No local admins/bureaucrats/interface admins for 6 months from close of RFC During this time global sysops and stewards will patrol the wiki

No permanent local admins/bureaucrats/interface admins for 12 months from close of RFC For stewards to assign temporary (or permanent rights, after 12 months), elections must be conducted in a fair manner (allow all azwiki editors to participate), have the necessary levels of support, and not be affected by canvassing.

Stewards will conduct a review of long-term blocks of users

Discussion [ edit ]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I'm Indian, and am not a sock of the globally locked user who started this RFC, in fact I didn't even know that you had run for multiple steward elections before this RFC. Regards. — FR 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

NMW03: Cekli829ə niyə vermirsiniz? Axı o da Azərbaycanca yazır, ingiliscə yaza bilmir? Mən igiliscə başa düşürəm, yaza bilmirəm, aydındırmı? Məsələn, dostunuz birlikdə vandallıq etdiyiniz, Vikipediyanın işini birlikdə pozduğunuz, Azerifactory deyir ki burada istifadəçilərin bəzisi klondur, yoxlamaq lazımdır. Söz düşmüşkən, dostunuz, birlikdə vandallıq etdiyiniz Azerifactory Azərbaycanca yaza bilmir, başa da düşmür, ondan bir soruşun Azərbaycanca vikipediyada nə işi var? Dostundursa deməli onun dilini sən bilirsən. Cope paste üsulu ilə məqalələr düzəldir, ağlına nə gəldi yazır, onu nə məcbur edir buna? Soruşun, mən soruşsam cavab verməyəcək, sizə bəlkə cavab verdi. Ayan Bəkirov (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ayan Bəkirov, for your speech style, you can be sure that your block will not opened.--NMW03 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

NMW03: Ayan Bəkirov (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose I am especially surprised why Armenian Genocide matters here. Even UN doesn't acknowledge it as a genocide. Why to force this upon Azerbaijani Wikipedia? Can someone explain it to me? Seems not rational for me. Regarding Cekli829, because I don't have much information about his activitiy and background in this issue, I would remain neutral.--Verman1 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Verman1, UN does recognise the genocide. Additionally, thousands of independent academic sources have established that the event occured. Regards. — FR 00:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC) FR30799386 Wrong information. UN never recognized Armenian Genocide. Moreover, 90% of UN members don't recognize this genocide. This discussion seems to me more like enforcing Azerbaijani Wikipedia to accept Armenian Genocide (which goes beyond Wikipedia's neutrality principle), than to desysop Cekli829. If it was only about him, I would remain neutral. --Verman1 (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Verman1: Hiàn (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Hiàn: Verman1 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Verman1, if you don't have much information about Cekli's activity, why you oppose? Because main cause of this Rfc is his activity. Please think again. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment -- We are not discussing one of the core issues pertaining to the existing copyright-violations (and a refusal by sysops to delete them). I will be interested to note the views of other sysops, as to the issue. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

-- We are not discussing one of the core issues pertaining to the existing copyright-violations (and a refusal by sysops to delete them). I will be interested to note the views of other sysops, as to the issue. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Strongly support per Winged Blades of Godric's above comment. Yes, there are underlying issues which will require addressing in future, such as the active editors' attitudes towards certain controversial topics and resultant neutrality of the articles on the wiki. However, when active sysops refuse to delete a copyright violation and actually block a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team for bringing it to their attention, grave legal implications arise. If the copyright owner decides to take legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, what are they to do? Blame it on a group of mostly-anonymous volunteer sysops who refuse to enact the basic principles they're supposed to uphold? Or will the numerous violations just be dealt with via the DMCA process? The Wikimedia Foundation ought to rely on its volunteers to enforce these policies, that's one of the core reasons sysops have the ability to delete pages and revisions thereof. If the cohort of administrators is not fit for purpose, then office actions, de-sysopping, enabling global sysop actions and even incubation of the wiki should be on the table. SITH (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

per Winged Blades of Godric's above comment. Yes, there are underlying issues which will require addressing in future, such as the active editors' attitudes towards certain controversial topics and resultant neutrality of the articles on the wiki. However, when refuse to delete a copyright violation and actually block a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team for bringing it to their attention, grave implications arise. If the copyright owner decides to take legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, what are they to do? Blame it on a group of mostly-anonymous volunteer sysops who refuse to enact the basic principles they're supposed to uphold? Or will the numerous violations just be dealt with via the DMCA process? The Wikimedia Foundation ought to rely on its volunteers to enforce these policies, that's one of the core reasons sysops have the ability to delete pages and revisions thereof. If the cohort of administrators is not fit for purpose, then office actions, de-sysopping, enabling global sysop actions and even incubation of the wiki should be on the table. 10:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Comment -- It seems to me that each of these accounts (Cekli829, Azerifactory ) is used by several users. I wrote about it ( [8], [9] ). They did not answer. Other managers did not comment on that, perhaps, they consider it normal. But according to the rules these user accounts should be immediately canceled. Çim Çen In (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Comment -- Dear Admins, this is baseless slander accusation by puppetsock of user Çim Çen In named "Aydin Mammadov", which violated billions of times rules in Azerbaijani wiki but feel free to do IP check on me and on this user. --Azerifactory (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

-- It seems to me that each of these accounts (Cekli829, Azerifactory ) is used by several users. I wrote about it ( [8], [9] ). They did not answer. Other managers did not comment on that, perhaps, they consider it normal. But according to the rules these user accounts should be immediately canceled. Çim Çen In (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Cənablar, nə qədər ki, Sortilegus buradadır anamızdan əmdiyimiz süd burnumuzdan töküləcək. Dünən Səfərin etdiyini bu gün Cekli829 edir, Azerifactory edir, bunları qovacaqsınız, başqaları edəcək, çünki bir xəstə oturub Vikipediyanın başında belə işlər planlaşdırır. Hamının da ondan zəhləsi gedir. Göydən üç alma düşdü... Çim Çen In (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment -- Hesab edirəm ki, Cekli829 Sortilegus, Wertuose, Azerifactory NMW03 hesablarının IP ləri yoxlanılarsa bəzi şeylər üzə çıxa bilər. Bəlkə Kozi adı ilə yazan Sortilegus özü olub? Cekli829un nəyinə gərəkdir Sortilegusu dəstəyləyir? Hamı kimi Cekli829un da ondan zəhləsi gedir. Ən yaxşısı bütün idarəçilərin getməsi, yeni heyətdə Sortilegus, Wertuose olmamasıdır. Çim Çen In (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Avropa İnsan Haqları Məhkəməsi " qondarma erməni soyqırımı" iddiası ilə bağlı mühüm qərar qəbul edib. -Europe Human Rights court issued vital decision on " Fictional Armenian genocide." The source: http://news.lent.az/news/218040 " Uydurma erməni soyqırımı iddiası tarixi həqiqətdən uzaqdır" - Fabricated armenian genocide claim is far away from historical truth. The source: http://www.anl.az/down/meqale/xalqqazeti/xalqqazeti_aprel2009/76712.htm

You can checkk all the sources, they all either state "Fictional"(Qondarma) or "Fabricated" (Uydurma).

And in the article they have stated "Many well known encyclopedias present this event as a genocide." But all the cited encyclopedias there are English or such foreign langauge sources. Which one should they obey now: The literature, content and official statement of their own language or foreign langauges? One of admins of Tk.wiki, --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruhubelent, Neutrality means Wikipedia should provide the reader with an accurate summary of what Reliable Sources (in general) say about a subject. When sources say different things then the summary should generally reflect what the majority say, along with a summary the other positions. Coverage of each position should be roughly in proportion to the coverage of each position in the sources. Fringe positions with minimal coverage in Reliable sources should recieve little or no coverage in the article. Someone reading any language Wikipedia should leave with a clear understanding that an overwhelming majority of historians considere "Armenian Genocide" to be a historical fact, and that some governments and academics disagree. It should be clear that that disagreement lies almost entirely along nationalistic lines. It is understandable that a specific language of Wikipedia will heavily use sources in its own language, out of convenience for editors and for easier reading by visitors. It is understandable that a specific language of Wikipedia will go more in depth in connection to countries where that language is spoken. However the important thing is that administrators should not be blocking users who make accurate and well sourced contributions. If that can be done with local-language sources, great. It appears that at least some Administrators on AzWiki have been attempting to argue Truth. Wikipedia cannot resolve arguments over Truth. Internet-arguments about Truth are useless and endless. That is disruptive. Wikipedia can more reasonably resolve debate over which sources have a general reputation for Reliability, and generally reach acceptable agreement on an accurate summary of sources. I do not see anyone at AzWiki denying that most of the world considers "Armenian Genocide" to be a historical fact. The problem is that they do not want to provide an accurate summary of that fact. Instead they want argue that the world is wrong, and at least some admins abuse their tools trying to win that battle. It doesn't matter if the world is wrong. Wikipedia's job is to accurately inform readers what the sources say, even if The World Is Wrong. I just took a look at the Turkish Wikipedia article.[21] I know little about the Armenian Genocide, I had to use Google Translate, and I only read the lead section... but the Turkish lead generally seems reasonable. Alsee (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Support if you do not like the nuclear option here, then present your sustained community health campaign, with admin training. but stewards will do it is not viable; need a cadre of native speaking scholars. Slowking4 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

if you do not like the nuclear option here, then present your sustained community health campaign, with admin training. but is not viable; need a cadre of native speaking scholars. Slowking4 (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Support We have an ethical obligation to take this step. Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We have an ethical obligation to take this step. 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Undecided - I can see the attraction of the "nuclear option" but I feel NickK makes some good points.

Certainly the editing community needs to understand that unambiguous extensive copyvio is unacceptable. This perhaps could be managed from outside the local community. On the topic of Armenian genocide I don't think it is impossible to have a sound article, though I understand that many editors might be fearful to work on it. It is not hard to explain that there are different perceptions, and that the Azerbaijan government (and Turkish government) does not consider it a genocide, whereas a large number of other entities do. Nor should it be difficult to present the different academic narratives, explaining clearly which academics, or groups, support which aspects. If, of course, it is dangerous to state "Professor X from Y disagrees with the Azerbaijan government line" then people will have to make their own decisions on whether the game is worth the candle. Rich Farmbrough 21:51 20 May 2019 (GMT).

Support per above statement 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 22:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

per above statement 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 22:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Notified WMF Trust & Safety team via email. No response yet. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 17:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Just received confirmation from Joe Sutherland over at T&S that they are indeed aware of the ongoing RfC and will evaluate the situation as discussions continue. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 19:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support The main reason I support this proposal is there is a category page named "Armenian fraudulency" on their Wikipedia. Others maybe debateable as I have stated in my previous comment. As soon as possible such things should be destroyed from Wikipedia and in my opinion, people who did and maintained it should not have any authority on Wikipedia. Kind regards, --Ruhubelent (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Support I find what Alsee has written above persuasive. * Pppery * has returned 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I find what Alsee has written above persuasive. * Pppery * 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Support per Winged Blades of Godric -- AGK ■

per Winged Blades of Godric -- Support I am shocked to see that the Admins are abusing their rights, I support the proposal listed here. --Thegooduser (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that the Admins are abusing their rights, I support the proposal listed here. --Thegooduser (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Support There is overwhelming evidence of abuse of the tools in order to further politically motivated historical revisionism. Conceding that this is a drastic step, IMO it is a necessary response to a scandalous situation that is threatening the integrity of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There is overwhelming evidence of abuse of the tools in order to further politically motivated historical revisionism. Conceding that this is a drastic step, IMO it is a necessary response to a scandalous situation that is threatening the integrity of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Strongest support per WBG and Tony. I have trepidations about the global community intervening. However, the legal issues are a big concern and even more concerning to me is the complete disregard for discussion of POV issues, instead proposing that those claiming them need to just convince society of the problems. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

per WBG and Tony. I have trepidations about the global community intervening. However, the legal issues are a big concern and even more concerning to me is the complete disregard for discussion of POV issues, instead proposing that those claiming them need to just convince society of the problems. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Comment While it is obvious that blatant misuse of the tools including wheel warring deserve not just an emergency desysop but a permanent ban in regard to adminship. However, this proposal goes beyond this by demanding to desysop all admins of az:wp. While the reported problems (defense of biased articles and copyvios per admin tools) are troubling and serious, it is hard to verify all this as someone who does not speak the Azerbaijani language. Hence, I would recommend to create a small committee of five or six stewards including HakanIST and Mardetanha who appear to speak Azerbaijani to analyze the conduct of the local admins and to present their conclusions to the community before we decide whether we support this proposal. Google Translate is not suited as a substitute for a real knowledge of the language to follow the relevant discussions. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

While it is obvious that blatant misuse of the tools including wheel warring deserve not just an emergency desysop but a permanent ban in regard to adminship. However, this proposal goes beyond this by demanding to desysop all admins of az:wp. While the reported problems (defense of biased articles and copyvios per admin tools) are troubling and serious, it is hard to verify all this as someone who does not speak the Azerbaijani language. Hence, I would recommend to create a small committee of five or six stewards including HakanIST and Mardetanha who appear to speak Azerbaijani to analyze the conduct of the local admins and to present their conclusions to the community before we decide whether we support this proposal. Google Translate is not suited as a substitute for a real knowledge of the language to follow the relevant discussions. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Support Per the eloquent demonstrations by az sysops that something is very rotten in the state of azWP. --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the eloquent demonstrations by az sysops that something is very rotten in the state of azWP. --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Support . Having an entire Wikipedia controlled by a corrupt clique enforcing their own (and their government's) political views, blocking editors for the simple renaming of an article, and blocking those whose off-wiki comments on social media sites they don't like, is intolerable. The situation is bringing the whole Wikipedia movement into disrepute, and much as I don't like intervention from the global community in a local Wikipedia's issues, when a Wikipedia's entire governance structure is corrupt and self-serving, it is unfortunately necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC) I'll just add that I fully agree with what Bilorv says below. If the choice is between a Wikipedia acting as a government propaganda mouthpiece and a blocked Wikipedia, the latter is by far the better option. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC) A Wikipedia that allows itself to be used as a tool to spread propaganda and similar stuff isn't even Wikipedia at all if you ask me. Saederup92 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Or perhaps it is the perfect example of a Wikipedia in its natural state? All the others instinctively progress to high levels of pov and bias but are restrained by rules, but Azeri Wikipedia, free from the proper enforcement of those rules, actually goes the whole way there. How else can you explain Boing! said Zebedee's "intolerable" being tolerated for a decade or more? Remember, that much highlighted "So Called Armenian Genocide" article has had that title since at least 2009! [22] 88.108.93.109 14:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

. Having an entire Wikipedia controlled by a corrupt clique enforcing their own (and their government's) political views, blocking editors for the simple renaming of an article, and blocking those whose off-wiki comments on social media sites they don't like, is intolerable. The situation is bringing the whole Wikipedia movement into disrepute, and much as I don't like intervention from the global community in a local Wikipedia's issues, when a Wikipedia's entire governance structure is corrupt and self-serving, it is unfortunately necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Support Waddie96 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Waddie96 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Question : Can we please move Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı to something else now ? The consensus that this is an inappropriate title is clear, yes? Also I have the expactation now that nobody will revert this move, let alone block for it, and if someone does block, I would like for admins to annul the block as if it never, ever, ever happened (think the annulment of a marriage). I think User:Winged Blades of Godric's block for trying to remove blatant genocide denial from the title should be annulled as if it never happened. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC) WhisperToMe We (or at least I) can't move the page because there is a redirect in the way. We need an admin or someone else with advanced permissions to move the page. As far as I can determine there are zero active admins willing to do so. I also suspect you are mistaken that no one will revert the move or block for it. On May 18th another admin not only reverted Category:Armenian_fraud back onto the page, they abused the Minor Edit tag while doing so.[23] Alsee (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Alsee: now hopeully people wopuld have the sense not to interfere in take #2. In the event someone tries another block, the block should get completely annulled as if it never existed. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC) WhisperToMe the issue isn't that we need the admins to not-block. The issue is that we need an admin to preform the page move. As far as I can tell there are currently no active admins on azwiki interested in doing do. However I invite you or anyone else to try posting on their admin noticeboard, or even pinging them individially. Alsee (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Alsee, turns out a non-admin who tried the page move was reverted and blocked: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%BCsusi:F%C9%99aliyy%C9%99tl%C9%99r/%D5%80%D5%B8%D5%BE%D5%BF%D5%A1%D6%80 at 15:23 UTC 10 June, so it is a matter of not having an azwiki admin blocking. I pinged the azwiki admin on here and gave the azwiki admin until 11:59 PM tonight to undo this. At this rate we need a steward to do this. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

: Can we please move Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı to something else ? The consensus that this is an inappropriate title is clear, yes? Also I have the expactation now that nobody will revert this move, let alone block for it, and if someone does block, I would like for admins to annul the block as if it never, ever, ever happened (think the annulment of a marriage). I think User:Winged Blades of Godric's block for trying to remove blatant genocide denial from the title should be annulled as if it never happened. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Support There have been several requests for comments on meta regarding harassment on azerbaijani wikipedia, despite the fact that the project has an local policy on that at az:Vikipediya:Təhqir, təhdid və aqressiyaya yol verilməməlidir.

Administrators on az.wikiedia take back each other actions, like is shown in the adminstats tool. That is a sign of decisions being made whithout discussing them. Since admins must carry out the decisions the community makes (either via policies or discussions), these actions are unacceptable. Any admin that cannot follow the decisions of the community should not be an admin.--Snaevar (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong support the consistent disruptive behaviour by Cekli829 runs contrary to the principles of Wikipedias, and the defense Wertuose makes of the status quo, including the very worrying passage "Such actions by az-wiki users can cause situation like in Turkey, where Wikipedia is banned by authorities" (NPOV is more important than following governments' official positions), makes me think that a total desysopping is necessary as the problem is pandemic in the sysop crew rather than just being one rogue admin. As a compromise I would also support the desysopping of just Cekli829. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

the consistent disruptive behaviour by Cekli829 runs contrary to the principles of Wikipedias, and the defense Wertuose makes of the status quo, including the very worrying passage "Such actions by az-wiki users can cause situation like in Turkey, where Wikipedia is banned by authorities" (NPOV is more important than following governments' official positions), makes me think that a total desysopping is necessary as the problem is pandemic in the sysop crew rather than just being one rogue admin. As a compromise I would also support the desysopping of just Cekli829. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Support The abuse of admin rights and the failure/unwillingness of the other administrators to prevent it is indicative of a deeper rot within azwiki. Not only do the opposing arguments by some azwiki admins fail to inspire confidence, their failure to see the gravity of Cekli829's transgressions reinforce my decision to support this proposal. Gazoth (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The abuse of admin rights and the failure/unwillingness of the other administrators to prevent it is indicative of a deeper rot within azwiki. Not only do the opposing arguments by some azwiki admins fail to inspire confidence, their failure to see the gravity of Cekli829's transgressions reinforce my decision to support this proposal. Gazoth (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Support Hand the project over to the global sysops. The local sysops clearly have proven to either be part of the problem at worst and apathetic or incompetent at best. Justifying denial of a genocide is clearly indicative of greater problems in that community. Also the fact that sysops from that project are claiming people are "sock puppets" here because they can clearly see there is an issue at AZ wiki is ridiculous, and in it self points to a greater problem. --Cameron11598 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hand the project over to the global sysops. The local sysops clearly have proven to either be part of the problem at worst and apathetic or incompetent at best. Justifying denial of a genocide is clearly indicative of greater problems in that community. Also the fact that sysops from that project are claiming people are "sock puppets" here because they can clearly see there is an issue at AZ wiki is ridiculous, and in it self points to a greater problem. --Cameron11598 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Support As much as I hate central authority needing to take control here, with all the potential consequent accusations of "imperialism" and the like, I think we have to. This project is out of control, and there is no other way to prevent abuse by the current sysop team. That having been said: I think we all need to be a little realistic about just how much we can really accomplish on this wiki. Concerning the Armenian Genocide, for example, I don't think everyone from azwiki above was outright denying there was a genocide. (Some may have, but not all.) But the point they were making is that there is substantial historiography within Azerbaijan, and within the Azeri academic community, which takes the Turkish side of the discussion as truth. Personally, that bothers me a lot. Yet consider how long it has taken to break down some pieces of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy historiography in the United States. I think the point that people were trying to make is that it may be incredibly difficult to get what most of us would consider an objective account of the Armenian Genocide to stick in azwiki. I don't know what to do about that, but it's not a problem that's going away so fast. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC) I can understand a language edition making subtle tweaks, like giving slightly more space to one side of an argument versus another; this is an aspect that will never be "truly remedied" but I can understand that. What bothers me is the blatant denialism and the blatant anti-Armenian category, in that ethnic tribalism is more important than trying to write an encyclopedia article from an international, neutral waypoint. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As much as I hate central authority needing to take control here, with all the potential consequent accusations of "imperialism" and the like, I think we have to. This project is out of control, and there is no other way to prevent abuse by the current sysop team. Oppose If the problem is with Cekli829: Leaderboard (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Leaderboard, Cekli829 is merely the most obvious case. Unfortunately multiple admins disregarded or obstructed the copyright issues. Multiple admins have participated in the POV information-warfare about the "Armenian hoax" (just yesterday Admin Araz Yaquboglu blocked[24] someone for "false information" merely because they tried to change "fictional Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide", recently admin Vusal1981 reverted "Category:Armenian fraud" back onto the page marked as a "minor" edit,[25] and more). And all of the active admins discussing what to do about Cekli829 voted to support him. This is not a case of local admins trying to eliminate a rogue admin, this is a case of all or most admins conspiring off-wiki in active collusion with Cekli829 to defend each other and and to explicitly treat the wiki as a weapon of hyper-nationalistic information warefare. I did some random browsing before taking a position here (I didn't save the links), and I saw admins frivolously blocking people without warning and frivolously revoking talk page access while they did so, and I saw them frivolously applying full page protection to take collective-admin-ownership of pages to have an apparent admin-party doing routine article building free from any pesky non-admins. They are not acting as admin-custodians of the wiki, they are collectively treating the wiki as their private property. It there are any acceptable admins amoung the group, it would take extensive digging to identify them. Alsee (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For the records, Cekli829 has already been desysoped by stewards for wheel-warring. Regards. — FR 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternate proposal [ edit ]

This section was migrated from Requests for comment/Complaint about Cekli829 on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Hello. I’m filing a complaint against Cekli829, requesting comment and action for his acts in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Firstly, he blocked Aykhan Zayedzadeh for a comment he published on en:Facebook. He gave the courtesy rules and blocking rules in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as the reason behind this block (dated 30 April 2019; lasts until 2020, a pretty long term block). This is a quote from the courtesy rules: “Vikipediyada nəzakət — Vikipediyada istifadəçilərin əməl etməli olduğu qaydalar toplusudur və nəzakətsizlik (kobudluq) hallarının qarşısını almağa yönəlmişdir”. (translation: Courtesy in Wikipedia — is a collection of rules that users should follow in Wikipedia and aimed at preventing incidents of impoliteness/rudeness). As you can see, it mentions Wikipedia, not other sites or projects. And this is a quote from blocking rules: “Bloklama qaydaları — bütün Vikipediya istifadəçilərinin bilməli olduqları əsas qaydalardandır”. (translation: “Blocking rules — is one the main rules that all Wikipedia users must know”. An another quote from it: “Bloklama — idarəçilər və bürokratlar tərəfindən hər hansısa bir Vikipediya məqaləsinin redaktəsinə və ya istifadəçinin fəaliyyətinə qoyulan qadağadır”. (translation: Blocking — is a ban imposed by sysops or bureaucrats to an edit on any Wikipedia or user’s activiy”). While this is a quote from Cekli829: “Əgər burada "İstifadəçi Azərbaycanca Vikipediyada digər istifadəçilərə qarşı kobud davranıb onları təhqir və təhdid edərsə;" yazılsaydı, o zaman mənə qarşı ittiham səsləndirilən haqlı olardı”, pointing at rule number 4 of blocking rules in AzWiki. Here, you can clearly see that he is distortion the rules for his own likings. Facebook is not part of the Wikimedia Project. Making this block groundless. Also, this Facebook comment’s existence is unclear itself. He then continued to call me “saxtakar” in here, which violates the rules no. 2, 7 and 12 mentioned in here. He also wrote this about me in the same page: “Baskervill AzVikidə uzun müddət fəaliyyət göstərən idarəçilərdən narazı olan istifadəçilərə rəhbərlik edir, hətta bəzi konkret hallarda (məsələn, Aykhan Zayedzadehin blokunu açması) onların istəklərini yerinə yetirərək, digər idarəçiləri gözdən salmağa çalışır”. (translation: Baskervill is leading the users who are complaining about AzWiki sysops who have been active for a long time, and in some particular situations (for example, opening Aykhan Zayedzadeh’s block) he does what they want and try to denunk other sysops”). This is absolute slander and false accusation. He was accused of sockpuppetry in here. There are already complaints about this user in meta and AzWiki. I believe that an action directed towards Cekli829 is necessary. As a sysop in AzWiki, I can assure you that we cannot deal with this user. We are in a helpless situation. He avoids discussions when he is in the wrong. We are acquainted with meta as the highest authority. Please, help us in desysoping Cekli829. I’ve started a voting below:

Support --Baskervill (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

--Baskervill (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Support Heç birşey yazmayacam, sadəcə lehinəyəm çünki məni yaxından tanıyan Vikipediyaçılar bilirki, heç vaxt heçkəsin xətrinə dəymək, qəlbini qırmaq istəməmişəm. Bu müzakirələrdə üzülərək iştirak edirəm. Çünki ortada səhv olanda bizimdi, düz olanda. Çox heyifki, xoşluqla həll edilmədi və vəziyyət Azviki üçün bu dərəcəli hala gəldi. Mən daha yaxşı nəticələrə ümid edirdim. -- Turkmen talk 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Heç birşey yazmayacam, sadəcə lehinəyəm çünki məni yaxından tanıyan Vikipediyaçılar bilirki, heç vaxt heçkəsin xətrinə dəymək, qəlbini qırmaq istəməmişəm. Bu müzakirələrdə üzülərək iştirak edirəm. Çünki ortada səhv olanda bizimdi, düz olanda. Çox heyifki, xoşluqla həll edilmədi və vəziyyət Azviki üçün bu dərəcəli hala gəldi. Mən daha yaxşı nəticələrə ümid edirdim. -- 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Support --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 22:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

--► Sincerely: 22:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Comment Enough. I am not a sockpuppetry of Cekli. İt is a lie. -- N KOzi Talk 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Enough. I am not a sockpuppetry of Cekli. İt is a lie. -- 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Second choice Support . The proposal to remove all administrators as of this writing sits around 60-70%, on the line between "majority" and "consensus". But if that fails, we cannot just walk away from azwiki and do nothing. Cekli829 is a large cause of the problems described above, so this would at least have some effectiveness. This is distinctly second choice because other admins have done bad things and I am not sure that azwiki can sort that out by themselves, and I am not sure that we can here either in the horrible format of Meta RFC. -- Rschen7754 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) And for what it's worth Baskervill: wheel warring is not okay. -- Rschen7754 06:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Confirming that I want to see the emergency desysop of Cekli become permanent. -- Rschen7754 06:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

. The proposal to remove all administrators as of this writing sits around 60-70%, on the line between "majority" and "consensus". But if that fails, we cannot just walk away from azwiki and do nothing. Cekli829 is a large cause of the problems described above, so this would at least have some effectiveness. This is distinctly second choice because other admins have done bad things and I am not sure that azwiki can sort that out by themselves, and I am not sure that we can here either in the horrible format of Meta RFC. -- 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Comment The problem is that admins do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Your proposal was first proposed by me 5-6 years ago. -- N KOzi Talk 06:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that admins do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Your proposal was first proposed by me 5-6 years ago. -- 06:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Note: As a matter of housekeeping, Cekli829 and Baskervill were emergency desysopped a few minutes ago by a steward for wheel warring. Generally in this type of situation the community (usually the bureaucrats) is left with the decision of whether or not to regrant adminship. [26] -- Rschen7754 06:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of housekeeping, Cekli829 and Baskervill were emergency desysopped a few minutes ago by a steward for wheel warring. Generally in this type of situation the community (usually the bureaucrats) is left with the decision of whether or not to regrant adminship. [26] -- 06:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: N KOzi Talk 06:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

06:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Strong support I feel this has gone beyond what can be tolerated. Whether or not the nuclear proposal above passes I think we should make Cekli829's desysop permanent. This level of abuse of the administrative toolset should never be tolerated. Regards. — FR 06:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC) P.S:Baskervill's actions also need to be looked into, given they also participated in wheel warring. However, I hope that can be left to the Azerbaijani community to deliberate. — FR 06:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel this has gone beyond what can be tolerated. Whether or not the nuclear proposal above passes I think we should make Cekli829's desysop permanent. This level of abuse of the administrative toolset should never be tolerated. Regards. — 06:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Strong support --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support. @Rschen7754: I think that, you should be blocking the Cekli829, asking WMF to globally lock the account so they are blocked from all wikis. There are many reasons for this. I mentioned one of the reasons. That is the other reason: [27] and [28]. It does not end there. There are other causes and they are more horrible. But this does not end with it. Admins in Azerbaijani Wikipedia can block users using actual Wikipedia rules, but by making up reasoning of why certain user have violated the rules. They avoid discussions when they are wrong. Thus, they themselves violate Gaming the system rule. And if someone is questioning a users' block, they get blocked too. That's what's basically going on. To be honest, it's getting a bit better, as some of admins who were doing that got out of WP, but because of personal reasons, not because they violated the rules. But the problem still exists and I don't want to wait until all the incompetent once will simply get tired of Wikipedia. They should be striped of their admin status ASAP... All this is written here. I do not want to repeat all of them. Çim Çen In (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Point of order [ edit ]

Now that Cekli829 has been emergency desysopped, what does this second proposal mean? (I didn't expect this to happen, but we're here now). Technically Cekli829 can ask for the rights back from a bureaucrat, but of the 2 azwiki bureaucrats, one has already declined a request to do so without a RFA.

There were ideas above to 1) prevent Cekli829 from becoming an admin again for a set time and 2) because azwiki has bureaucrats, warn them against regranting the rights under penalty of losing their bureaucrat rights - do we add that to this proposal?

Some have mentioned requesting a global ban against Cekli829, and without commenting on the merits of that proposal, a ban would have to come from WMF at this stage. The community global ban policy requires the user to be indefinitely blocked on 2 wikis and Cekli829 is only indefinitely blocked on 1 (hywiki). (Yes, it is possible to start a RFC on anything and get a consensus to override the policy. That is also a very bad precedent to set).

Or, we just close this section with no conclusion and wait to see if Cekli829 1) runs for adminship again and 2) passes, but if both happen then I fear we are back to where we started. That is, unless the original proposal to desysop everyone passes, though in my mind I have gone back and forth about what that proposal means now too.



Thoughts? @Baskervill, Ajraddatz, and NickK: --Rschen7754 05:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Rschen7754: Aldnonymous Bicara? 05:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) That's what I hope too, but I've seen stranger things before. Maybe I worry too much. -- Rschen7754 05:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

05:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: NickK (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

NickK (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC) NickK: N KOzi Talk 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Проблема в том что большинства участников и админов азвики не отдають себе отчет о своих действиях. Одни и те же участники здесь голосовали за лишение всех админ флагов и а тут голосують за избрание Baskervillа. Тут надо искать координалного решение. Когда я быль админом я несколько раз искаль выход из положения, но не смог. Половина или большая часть участников хотять отделаться лишением Cekli админфлага, но мне кажеться что этого недостаточно. -- N KOzi Talk 12:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternate proposal - B option [ edit ]

Historical proposal [ edit ]

There are currently four active Meta RFCs about the Azerbaijani Wikipedia: Requests for comment/Copyright violations and no reason block by sysop on Azwiki, Requests for comment/Sysop abuse in Azerbaijani Wikipedia, Requests for comment/Racism at Azerbaijani Wikipedia, and Requests for comment/Long term block for Whatsapp message on azwiki.

These reveal flaws with the current azwiki administration:

They allow copyvios to run amok.

They block people for no reason, vague reasons, or due to activity on non-Wikimedia websites.

They engage in POV-pushing, most prominently Armenian Genocide denial.

I think the best solution would be to office-actions prune (wikipedia:en:template:Pp-reset) azwiki and DB-lock it for at least 6 months.

Lojbanist (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You can propose the closure of a language edition of a wiki on Proposals for closing projects and, once the 6-month grace period is expired, propose its reopening on Requests for new languages. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

and surveyed a few pages at azwiki. Of twenty random pages that I tested using Special:Random, five were unambiguous copyright violations according to Earwig's tool. I would tag them for deletion but I don't know the copyvio-specific delete template for azwiki. The accusations of POV-pushing on the Armenian Genocide certainly require investigation. Albeit using a translation tool, there are clearly flagrant violations of the maintenance of a neutral point of view which seem to go unchecked. I'm not going to comment on the blocks placed by admins because I have no desire to get in the middle of a user squabble. But yes, something needs to be done, so office actions are my suggestion. SITH (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) You don't need to know the copy-vio-template of a particular wiki. {{delete|Your rationale over here}} works almost always. For an example, see my tagging of an az.wiki article over this edit, created by the sysop, who is the subject of the other Copyvio-RFC. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric thanks for the heads up, I subsequently realised that through SWMT. However, if there are so few sysops and the ones which are active are violating copyright, surely the only recourse is to invite office actions? SITH (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC) StraussInTheHouse: close the wiki; unless things go way way south than it's currently. We have 2 lac, 36 thousand and 497 wikis is quite a sexy thing to say whilst asking donors for even more money, 496 hampers the spirits:-) On a serious note, I won't like the Office to decide on content-issues and unless we can prove that a lot much of content over az.wiki is copyrighted (which ain't likely), Office won't bother. I am making my own note(s) and hope to get one/two user de-sysoped and/or blocked. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Strongly support office actions. Yes, Azerbaijani Wikipedia has some issues with the administrators. For example, this complaint was sent by me (or at least heavily included me). Cekli829 protected Vusal, who was the direct of this complaint. He then continued to "violate copyright laws", by directly copy&pasting articles from various websites. He called Godric's software "baseless". So, yeah, his delusional intentions are very visible. Cekli829 also protects pretty unencyclopedic articles in deletion requests page. Please, take some actions against him. He blocked me for a week, because I protested against his copyright violations. This lack of restraint must have consequences. Also, denial of Armenian Genocide has nothing to do with these issues. It is a controversial subject. Armenian Wikipedia also does the same for history of Azerbaijan, and late Ottoman-early Republican Turkey history. Holocaust cannot be compared with the Armenian Genocide claim, which was a series of internal ethnoreligious conflicts within the Ottoman Empire and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. Edits without any edit summaries are also a common issue within the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. When asked why? General answer is "can't be bothered with". Another thing, some inactive administrators' statuses are also being kept. Some adminstators truly, as stated in 2017, terrorise the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. In reality, Azerbaijani Wikipedia has great admins who are active within the rules of Wikimedia (such as: Turkmen, Toghrul Rahimli, White Demon, Azerifactory, Nicat49, Eldarado, Eminn). Most of the complaints go unheard. Such as this. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 18:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Another thing, me and Turkmen asked Cekli to paraphase the article, while Toghrul Rahimli told me via Messenger app that he was waiting Cekli to paraphase the article. Turkmen told Cekli that if he does not paraphase article, he would delete it. As we all can understand, he didn't cared. While all of these are happening, another article that violates the copyright law was also published. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 19:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support de-sysopping all sysops and cleaning up the wiki. I find the response below by Cekli to be wholely unsatisfactory in justifying the poor state of the wiki (the Armenian Genocide part is particularly concerning). Hiàn (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support De-sysop all and enable Global Sysops; also, don't grant permanent adminship to any user. It will decided previous date, but sysops don't let it. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

De-sysop all and enable Global Sysops; also, don't grant permanent adminship to any user. It will decided previous date, but sysops don't let it. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Support I agree with Drabdullayev17. --Samral (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Drabdullayev17. --Samral (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Strongly support . I'm totally agree with Drabdullayev17. I don't agree racism, homophoby and despotism in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.--Sefer azeri (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

. I'm totally agree with Drabdullayev17. I don't agree racism, homophoby and despotism in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.--Sefer azeri (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Strong support. Unfortunately, this seems the only option left. --MrClog (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions [ edit ]

I'm just reading through some of the material that has been presented and I have the following questions which I am interested in hearing opinions (from anyone) about.

There are 17 admins on az.wikipedia. Have they been invited to comment on this RFC? What about the 2 bureaucrats? In particular, I would like to hear their perspectives on the three allegations that have been made: The copyright violations. The exceptions Cekli829 mentions may cover some but not all of the alleged violations. ( Winged Blades of Godric: The concerns about the abuse of the block tool. One incident in particular: at Requests for comment/Sysop abuse in Azerbaijani Wikipedia an az.wiki bureaucrat User:Eldarado admits "I think that it is not right to block the user before the end of the discussion. I just want to note that Vusal1981 is unable to discuss patiently and discreetly as an administrator. This is not the first case." Was anything ever done about this? The concerns that content about the Armenian genocide is biased towards its denial. Specifically, what is up with w:az:Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı and why does Google Translate give me "So-called Armenian genocide" for it? This is impossible for az.wikipedia to defend. Yet administrator User:White Demon later attempts just that in the RFC, saying "Because many references, which show that it is "qondarma", are given in the article". Have there been any attempts at a reconfirmation RFA for Cekli829 (or against some of the other admins) on az.wikipedia? Or are there concerns about participants being blocked or otherwise intimidated for participating in it (or even this Meta RFC)? Generally stewards would want to see this be resolved locally through such a discussion unless there is a very good reason not to. While many of the allegations are against Cekli829, not all of them are. Is there anything to be gained by removing some of the sysops? All of the sysops/crats? Are the concerns that by not acting upon instances of abuse of power, they are complicit in this matter? Or is it best to force all admins to be reconfirmed in the spirit of fairness and resetting the slate? If we went this route - the three examples I gave (Chechen, Hindi, Pashto Wikipedias) probably had that many admins combined. (I apologize for not noticing how many admins they had earlier). Removing 17 admins is a bit precedent-setting (though, they do already have the global sysop group enabled). I will say that if we could have done this for Croatian Wikipedia, we would have solved their problems overnight (they only have 15 admins, though they have some CUs which was probably the sticking point). In particular for Cekli829, there is also the problem described in Requests for comment/Preclude Cekli829 from running in some future steward elections. I don't know if that has any bearing on this. --Rschen7754 05:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Bloklama ilə bağlı münasibətim...

-- Dear Rschen7754, same questions i have asked to AZ-Wiki Community and nobody reacted to my questions. Nicat49 did exactly the same thing. Instead of defending his arguments, he just used block tool against me. And he did it several times during last 3-4 years. He always tries to make pressure against my contribution in Wikipedia. You can check, after my edits, he directly checks the article..if he does not like cancels my edits...Only he blocked my account during my 8 years wikipedia carrier. And as most of the administrator know each other personally, rest of the administrator almost do not react to the conflicts happened between regular user and administrator. It's kind of the solidarity among the majority of administrators. I hope you can do something to re-organize our community, as there is rigid regime which we cannot manage and fix it out by ourselves. we need help. HulaguKaan (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

HulaguKaan sadəcə yalan danışmaqla məşğuldu. Mən və digər istifadəçilər müzakirə zamanı öz fikirlərimizi bildirmişik . Ümumi müzakirə əsasında verilmiş qərarla razılaşmayan HulaguKaan idarəçini təhqir və təhdid etmişdir. Bu səbəbdən də bloklanma qaydalarının 4-cü bəndinə uyğun olaraq bloklanmışdır. Qeyd edim ki, istifadəçi 8 illik fəaliyyəti ərzində cəmi 2 dəfə bloklanmışdır. Hər ikisində səbəb idarəçini təhqir etməsi olmuşdur. Hörmətlə.--Nicat49 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Dear Rschen7754: useless articles"... And i have responden him "who are you to misprise my contribuition in Wikipedia. All, even some orthographic corrections are welcomed in Wikipedia, then why are you scorn my actions? Actually what you told me is humiliation." i bold this "who you are" expression...it is not exactly as "who the f. you are" it is literally "who are you"...But still he blocked me... Few years ago, same situation happened too. During conversation, instead of prove his opinions, he blocked me. When he blocks, he selects block duration...as much as he wants...there is no rules...Only thanks to other administrators, my block duration was reduced... When do some edits, and if he is disagree with my some edits, he does not change the edits which he thinks should be proved by some sources...he just take back all edits made by me...and as a result, other edits, with sources, with proved facts also is being deleted. He does not care. Check my account, you will see, only this administrator one by one checks what i do..it means he just keeps his eyes on my account...Looking for something to block my account again..i have created several articles about Armenians who lived in Azerbaijan, based on objective sources...instead of helping, add something more, he just cleans them.. When there is no certain rules, written clearly, then such problems will occur frequently. And some of administrators mill misuse their administrator competencies, abuse blocking tools, and will interpret "basic rules" (without details) as they wish. So please, WIKIMEDIA, take an action against this chaotic situation and re-organize our community. HulaguKaan (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, after my edits here, and here, Nicat49 have started to threaten me with block again. He just interprets my words out of real context and tries to provoke me. And after misinterpreting my words, he says this words are reason for my block. I am sure in the next step he will block my account again, as he did it by the very same way few years ago. I have told him that i will inform all Wiki-Media, Meta-Wiki community about your actions, and he says this is threat? So what should i do? I stop to answer him. Please, guys, take action against this situation. :: Rschen7754 I hope you can help us. I have no personal problem with this user nor any azerbaijani administrator. SSome guys, recommended me to communicate with Nicat49 through other platforms, like Facebook, but I refused it, I will not text him. TThis is Wikipedia's issue and we will solve it here, not in real life, physically. I hope Wikipedia will consider our problems. HulaguKaan (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)















Hörmətli Rschen7754: "Bloklama ilə bağlı münasibətim..." hissəsində izah etdim - tətbiq etdiyim blokun AzVikinin hazırda qüvvədə olan "Bloklama qaydaları"na uyğun olduğu əsaslı şəkildə qeyd etmişəm. Əgər etirazınız varsa, Azərbaycanca Vikipediya toplumuna təklif edin ki, həmin qaydalarda konkretləşdirmə məqsədilə dəyişikliyin edilməsi üçün səsvermə keçirsinlər. Əgər qayda dəyişərsə, məsələn orada qeyd olunarsa ki, "bu qaydalar yalnız Azərbaycanca Vikipediyadakı fəaliyyət üçün nəzərdə tutulub", o zaman mən Aykhan Zayedzadehnin blokunu dərhal açaram. --► Cekli 829 06:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to only desysop Cekli for now. Then we can deal with other sysop locally. If anything goes wrong we can repropose this. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cekli829 desysop discussion fully protected [ edit ]

Eldarado: w:az:Vikipediya:İdarəçi müzakirəsi? Why is participation by non-administrators not allowed? --Rschen7754 04:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: our local wiki rules, this issue should first be discussed among administrators. This is first step. If majority of votes will be support, we'll start second step. In second step we should start voting open for everyone. PS: That page is for only for administrators discussion. That's why we protected that page. -- eldarado ✉ 09:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado: Rschen7754 16:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: eldarado ✉ 18:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Commons, Wikidata both have a vote requiring 50%. Commons requires a discussion beforehand on the admin noticeboard (that anyone can take part in), but it is not a vote and is only on whether there should be a vote. I would say that the vast majority of wikis (if they have a desysop policy) have an unrestricted vote (they might prohibit someone who doesn't have 50 edits from voting, but that is it). --Rschen7754 19:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Came here from reddit with some deja-vu. This issue is not new. Ten years ago I brought the issue of the content of the Azerbaijani-language Wikipedia to a RfC [35]. Faced with solid resistance against tackling the issue from administrators and the Wikipedia system, and with the content manipulation/content variation on the various non-English language Wikipedia's in mind, I later wrote on my talk page that Wikipedia would have been Joseph Goebbels' propaganda weapon of choice had it been around in the 1940s. Jimmy Wales later cited those and related words as a reason to justify banning me from the English-language Wikipedia (according to Wales they proved I was "diametrically opposed to the aims of Wikipedia"). But my opinion was correct: many of the non-English language Wikipedia's are little more than ghettoized cesspits of propaganda and lies and the Wikipedia Foundation enables their existence and does nothing to improve their condition. it was true in 2009, it was true in 2012, it is true today. Do you think I could request an unblock on the grounds that I was right? Normally, abject humility and an admission of being entirely wrong is required. Meowy. 88.108.86.85 21:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You also all need to realize the issues at stake are serious. Look at what an Azeri-wiki editor wrote here [36] "Here [i.e., on the Azeri Wiki] are just those who get salaries from the government. Others are not allowed. They threaten us with arrest and torture". 88.108.86.85 02:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)



Dear Wikipedia community, you can see from here, Nicat49 just keeps his eyes on me, please check history of all articles i have created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HulaguKaan (talk)

HulaguKaan: Rschen7754: Nicat49: The idea that administartors are acquainted with each other and supporting each other is a groundless hypothesis. HulaguKaan, each language section of the Wikipedia has its own local rules, if you had read the rules of the azwiki you would not have such a problem. Now, I see that there is no block on you, I think you have no reason to be dissatisfied now, isn't it? The next time there are such minor issues, there is no need to discuss here in a global context. To do this, you can also set certain pages on azviki or write it directly to my discussion page. -- eldarado ✉ 20:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado: Rschen7754 20:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: azvikidə təhqir etmiş istifadəçini təhqir olunan idarəçi blok edə bilməz, bunu ancaq başqa idarəçi edə bilər deyə bir qayda yoxdur. İstifadəçinin bir neçə dəfə təhqirə yol verməsini Eldarado: Nicat49 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado: The next time there are such minor issues, there is no need to discuss here in a global context. To do this, you can also set certain pages on azviki or write it directly to my discussion page. What page do you mean? Would you please tell me? For example, where should I write, and how should I write it? Bununla yanaşı bilmək istəyirəm idarəçilərin parollarını başqasına verməsi ilə bağlı göstərdiyim faktları AzVikidə araşdıran olacaq, ya bunu da ayrıca METAYa yazım? Və əsassız növbəti blokumu açan olacaq, ya kimsə əsas tapacaq? Gördüyünüz kimi əsas kimi göstərilənlər burada rədd olundu. O zaman blokumu niyə açan yoxdur? Hörmətlə, Çim Çen In (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado and Nicat49 cannot block A? --Rschen7754 01:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 12:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rschen7754: this rules which is about "attack to users and humiliating them" (İstifadəçilərə hücum və ya onların şəxsiyyətlərinin alçaldılması), there is written "istifadəçinin məqalə yaza bilmək qabiliyyətinin olmamasını yazmaq" ("write to user that he/she has no ability/skills to write an article") - and let's see what says Nicat49 to me "4)Sizin fəailiyyətinizin çox hissəsi ya kimlərləsə nəyisə mübahisə etməkdən, ya da Maşadu di Asis, Qalust Gülbənkiyan, İspan dili Krallıq Akademiyası, Saylau Serikov və s kimi 1-2 cümləlik məqalələr yaratmaqdan ibarətdir." (Most of your activity on Wikipedia is only consisted of discussion something with somebodies, or creating articles with 1-2 phrases such as Maşadu di Asis, Qalust Gülbənkiyan, İspan dili Krallıq Akademiyası, Saylau Serikov) and "Yaxşı olar ki, nə özünüzün, nə də mənim vaxtımı mənasız müzakirələrə sərf etməyərək vikipediyada daha faydalı işlərlə məşğul olasız" (it would be better not to waste your and mine time to senseless discussions and do some more usefull things on Wikipedia)...So what should i do? Is it proper way for administrator to speak with me? HulaguKaan (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rschen7754: HulaguKaan (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, dear @Rschen7754:, i have never insulted Nicat49. He just misinterprets my words. he was just looking for allegations to block my accounts, in order shut my mouth. And now, unfortunately, other administrator also supports him by telling i have insulted him. i have never insulted him. Other administrator is strongly against any interruption from Meta-Viki, that's why he needs to support him in order not to lose one more administrator after blocking of 2 administrators. That's my opinion HulaguKaan (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Aykhan Zayedzadeh: Nəzərə almaq lazımdır ki, bloklanma qisas yox, xəbərdarlıq və qoruyucu vasitədir. Qaydalarda çox şey yazılıb, amma əməl edən yoxdur. Bəlkəm 100 nəfər Aydinsalisin klonu adı ilə bloklanıb, o cümlədən mən də 2 dəfə. Çoxu 1 dənə şərh yazdığına görə. Amma qaydalar buna yol vermir. Əslində bunu iddia edənlər bloklanmalıdırlar, sübutsuz iddiaya görə. Bəs Aydinsalisi bloklamaq doğru idimi? Qaydada göstərilib: Vikipediyada müəyyən əməyi olan istifadəçinin müddətsiz bloklanması, mütləq xəbərdarlıqdan və müzakirələrdən sonra olmalıdır. Amma müzakirə olmayıb. Olubsa göstərsinlər. Belə-belə işlər. Çim Çen In (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

NMW03: [37], [38]. Rschen7754: Dramatic situation . Çim Çen In (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Why was Aydinsalis globally banned? Was it for annoying Jimmy Wales by attempting to highlight (or "whining", as one EL Wiki administrator called it) the serious problems with Az Wiki on Wales' talk page, and then doing it a further 4 or 5 times when Wales declined to respond to the first post except for saying (about the Azerbaijani Wiki) "there are some really great Wikipedians there working hard for NPOV" and that they "are among my top personal heroes". At the risk of a global banning, dare I ask him to point out to us where that npov was to be found and who those heroic great Wikipedians were? 92.10.82.115 20:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Google Translate fails me here. Are you telling me that if A insults B (an admin), then B can block A, but C (another admin) cannot block A? Rschen7754: eldarado ✉ 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado: Çim Çen In (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Global bans of any user are generally not discussed onwiki because it can open up WMF to legal liability. --Rschen7754 00:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC) If I were to email ca@wikimedia.org, would the reason be given? Until I know otherwise, I'm going to assume Aydinsalis was globally banned because it was concluded that he was damaging the image of the Wikipedia project because he had been revealing some core flaws in the Wikipedia project by repeatedly and over several years, highlighting the problem of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. 92.10.82.115 01:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC) I don't know. My guess is no, though. --Rschen7754 01:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Probably right. Anyway, the problems Aydinsalis was repeatedly raising concerned only accusations of editors being arbitrarily blocked. The problems are much bigger than that. I'm worried that the copyright abuse issue is being talked up, while the more important issues for users - article censorship and the "ownership" of the Azerbaijani language Wikipedia by Azerbaijan (all article content is required by its administrators to agree with that country's state propaganda) - are being given lesser importance. The administrator-enforced editing policy on Azerbaijani Wikipedia appears to be to hijack the concept of cultural relativism in order to permit and justify fringe viewpoint content presented as mainstream viewpoints, and for genuine mainstream viewpoints to be removed entirely. Opposing that policy is considered by administrators to be "disrupting the Wikipedia project" and a reason for a block. The "So-called Armenian Genocide" article [39] is just the most obvious example of this. Look at its talk page - recently, an editor who posted a list of sources to justify the term "Armenian Genocide" was blocked for using a "non-conforming" term by writing "Armenian Genocide" rather than "So-called Armenian Genocide"! 92.10.82.115 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing for adminship [ edit ]

Baskervill: [40] about your adminship nomination? This is concerning. --Rschen7754 04:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Azerifactoryun Aydinsalis məsələsini bura atması onun sonuncu çıxış yolu idi, başa düşmək çətin deyil. Amma bu yol artıq köhnəlib, onu vəziyyətdən çıxara bilməyəcək Mən bir neçə faktı nəzərə çatdırmaq istəyirəm burada Azerifactory deyir ki, Hüseyn706 və MehemmedSamirMS Aydin Salisin klonları da ola bilər. Amma bunun əksi sübut olunur. Burada 3 IP nin Garabekir və Abutalubın Aydinsalis olduğunu iddia edib, lakin nəticə olmayıb. Burada başqa istifadəçilər məni Aydinsalislə eyniləşdirmək istəyiblər nəticə yoxdur. Burada Aydinsalisi mənmlə və 8 digər istifadəçi ilə tutuşdurublar, amma nəticə yoxdur. Yəni Aydinsalisin bir dənə klonu belə tapılmayıb indiyədək, o cümlədən, dörd yoxlama nəticəsiz qalıb, mənim klon olmağımla bağlı isə 2 yoxlama nəticəsiz qalıb. Sübut yoxdursa nə etməli? Azerifactory deyir sübut yoxdursa onda deyək istifadəçi boyununa aldı ki, klondur. :) Azerifactory yazdıqlarını oxuyanda nədənsə mənə elə gəlir ki, bu redaktəni də ondan başqa heç kim edə bilməzdi... Bir neçə kəlmə də Aydinsalisin bloku haqqında. Qaydaya görə Vikibediyada müəyyən əməyi olan şəxsin müddətsiz bloklanması yalnız müzakirələrdən sonra ola bilər. Bu müzakirəyə Cekli829 imkan verməyib, 3-4 dəfə onu dalbadal bloklayıb. Çünki müzakirə ediləsi bir şey olmayıb, müzakirədə səbəb göstərmək lazım idi, səbəb isə olmayıb. Səbəbsiz, sifarişli bloklara nə vaxt son qoyulacaq? Göstərdiyim faktlar nə vaxt araşdırılacaq? Çim Çen In (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Rschen7754, it may not be a good solution, however it is the only solution besides doing nothing which is an even worse solution. — FR 18:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion of the wheel warring log entries [ edit ]

Turkmen: hide the block log entries related to the wheel warring? It makes it look like the az.wiki community is trying to hide the fact that the wheel warring happened. --Rschen7754 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Because of blocking war between administrators, a lot of blocks existed in the user’s notes of blocks. That’s why I made cleaning in user’s notes of blocks. If you will need on the basis of discussions, I may take back changings that I made. Regards--Turkmen talk 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Turkmen: this user with three edits blocked? Are you blocking everyone who started working in Wikipedia? Or is there another reason? Çim Çen In (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Turkmen: Rschen7754 00:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Done--Turkmen talk 14:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)





Inactivity desysops [ edit ]

There are three new desysop nominations for inactivity, made by User:Eldarado at w:az:Vikipediya:İdarəçi müzakirəsi. I do not know what to think about this new development, whether this is positive or negative. --Rschen7754 06:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Çim Çen In: Steward requests/Checkuser səhifəsində yoxlaya bilərsiniz.--NMW03 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Steward requests/Checkuser səhifəsində yoxlaya bilərsiniz.--NMW03 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado, has been inactive for two days.(last activity on 18 May), has been inactive for 11 days (last active on 10 May) while Sultan11 has been inactive for 7 days (last active on 14 May). How exactly are these administrator "inactive" ? — FR 14:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado, re-ping — FR 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386: eldarado ✉ 14:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Çim Çen In: eldarado ✉ 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado: bu redaktə, qəzet kolleksiyaçısı olan şəxsin redaktəsinə bənzəmir. Tərxan Paşazadə qəzet işində mütəxəssisdir, o, belə səhv edə bilməzdi. Burada qərəzli bir şey də yoxdur, təhqir də yoxdur ki deyim qisas məqsədi ilə edilib. Bəs onda bu redaktəni kim edib? Cekli829 hesabından Tərxan Paşazadədədən başqa kim istifadə edir? " Burada yazı tipindən söz açılırmı? Cekli829 bu sualla cavab vermədi, təkzib etmək mümkün olsaydı, bir kəlmə deyərdi ki mən etmişəm, mənim redaktəmdir. Demədi ki? Siz amma deyirsiniz ki o edib?! Elə deyirsiniz də, başqa nə deyirsiniz ki? Cekli829 bu faktı gizlətmək üçün Kozi oyununa başladı. Niyə? İdarəçi hesabından 2 nəfərin istifadə etməsi sübut olunarsa dərhal həmin idarəçinin statusu ləğv edilməlidir. Amma idarəçi iki hesabdan istifadə edərsə bu normal don geindirmək mümkündür. Bəli, mən faktı göstərəndən sonra bu baş verdi. Siz də diqqəti əsas məsələdən yayındırmaq üçün bu oyunda iştirak etdiniz, bilərəkdən, ya bilməyərəkdən. Qərar qəbul etdiniz ki, Cekli829 çoxsaylı hesabdan istifadə edib. Hansı əsasla? Siz nə bilirsiniz ki, Cekli829 çoxsaylı hesabdan istifadə edib, yoxsa Cekli829 hesabından Kozi istifadə edib? Fakt artıq sizə məlum idi ki, Cekli829 istifadəçi hesabından ikinci bir istifadəçi istifadə edir. Niyə bunu gizlətməyə çalışırsınız. Azerifactory barədə göstərdiyim faktı da gizlədirsiniz. Mən onun yazı tərzini yox, həmin hesabdan çoxsaylı istifadəni göstərmişəm. Və nəhayət, Azerifactory məni hansı əsasla bloklayır? Mən onun hesabından iki istifadəçinin istifadə etdiyini göstərirəm, o da məni bloklayır. Budurmu siz idarəçilərin iş prinsipi? Elə ona görə də AzViki idarəçilərinin hamısının statusunun alınması gündəmə gətirilib. Mən bunun qarşısını almaq üçün B planı təklif etdim, AzVikidən heç bir dəstək gəlmədi. A planı qəbul ediləcək onda, bu Azərbaycan üçün bir biabırçılıqdır. Niyə vəziyyəti bu həddə çatdırdınız? Çim Çen In (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) FR30799386: eldarado ✉ 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Çim Çen In: eldarado ✉ 07:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Eldarado: Rschen7754 və başqaları sizin cavabınızı qənaətbəxş hesab edəcəklər ya yox? Bir sualım da var, Cekli829 üçün Checkuser lazım olursa, məni, onlarla istifadəçini bloklayanda Checkuserə niyə yada düşmür? Çim Çen In (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Any user account should represent an individual and not a group. Haring an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the user being required to stop the practice and change their password, or in sanctions (up to and including the account being blocked), depending on circumstances. (Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts). 'User:Azerifactory' these are shared account. Although there is clear and consistent evidence. He wrote here: I unblocked Garabekir ([43]). Garabekir thanked him for that ([44]). But in fact Baskervill unblocked Garabekir ([45]). Azerifactory wrote a few days also later: " I unblocked Garabekir "([46]) ?! The issue was discussed ([47]). But Azerifactory can not answer it.



They want it to be hidden. After writing this many times, Eldarado only said: "Apply to Checkuser, we can do nothing." @Rschen7754: do you consider his answer correct? Or was he obliged to act differently? Çim Çen In (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Eldarado may (rightly) feel uncomfortable with proposing sanctions without technical evidence. Once the CheckUser is run, it is generally the responsibility of local sysops to perform any blocks. Just a note, English Wikipedia policies do sometimes summarize global norms, but that is not always the case and the rules on shared accounts varies greatly from wiki to wiki. --Rschen7754 18:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Rschen7754: [48]). I suggest that Eldarado discuss it in Azerbaijani Wikipedia and explore it. Both users should explain these events. If they can not explain, block them. After that, I will not write anything here. Thank you. Çim Çen In (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A larger problem [ edit ]

A repeatedly demonstrated yet undiscussed problem throughout this discussion is the fact that azwiki has been free to do its own thing for years now, and we (the global community) are now stepping in and saying that certain practices are wrong. From our perspective they are, and indeed Wikimedia projects should follow some core values and beliefs. But we should not be punishing this community for not following values which haven't been articulated to them or previously enforced. A good example above: In the above section, concerns are raised about canvassing for an RfA, but that is an established practice on azwiki and they see nothing wrong with it. Another example is the fully protected adminship discussion, which is the norm on that project. I would also argue that there is nothing wrong with those practices, and they do not reach the level of standard, cross-movement values that we should be enforcing.

Not every Wikimedia project needs to have the exact same policies and the same governance structures and norms. But we should be articulating and enforcing some core principles. I think that before mass desysops happen, we should explain what specifically is going wrong on azwiki and communicate that to the local administrators and community. However, it should be communicated with some indication of potential future enforcement: local governance can be removed if improvements are not made.

I've started making a list below, feel free to add to it. To ensure that these principles are acted on, I think that the first step should be to require the creation of local policies or guidelines written in the local language and subsequently enforced. For the first year, there could also be an external enforcement mechanism built into the policy, where if a user feels that local administrators are not properly enforcing the policies in a certain instance that case can be brought to a page on Meta to be enforced by stewards. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but things like the canvassing and the fully protected adminship discussion are small parts of the big picture to me. Are they worth desysopping an entire project over? No, but they all contribute pieces to the puzzle that show a picture of a project that has bad governance, and the bad governance has led to some bad admins, and the bad governance has led to difficulty in removing the bad admins and overall a lack of trust between the editors and the admins and the Wikimedia community at large.

I have also been thinking about having some principles as well across all projects. It wouldn't be a global policy, but more of an opt-in thing like the w:Geneva Convention. I don't even know that it would have any method of enforcement. But it would be a clear way of expecting what sort of big-picture principles can be expected from the governance of each individual project. Ideally, the 10 largest Wikimedia projects should be able to opt in on day 1 and not have to change their governance at all. Maybe that's for another RFC, but something to think about. --Rschen7754 01:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I agree with both Rschen7754 and Ajraddatz and I think we can do something in between. For starters we can remove local crats because with all the problems pointed above (i.e wheel warring etc) I think it's best to not allow crats on that wiki and all the sysop and sysop+ permissions need to go through Stewards. We can allow global sysops there so that in the emergency cases if the sysops are not acting emergency actions can be taken (may be through SRM and cases like spam/advertisement and copyrtvios, edit wars, obvious POVs and vandals etc). We can call for a confirmation of current admins (fair and square without protection or canvassing) and remove the ones that fail to get more than 70% supports. And follow the principles written below.-- B R P ever 02:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I would say that these principles in general are good, but it takes way more effort to implement it correctly. Azwiki has az:Vikipediya:Neytral mövqe which is perfectly reasonable. Its machine translation even contains a perfect example: If you simply place the facts in the form of facts in their wikis (Holocaust, mass murder of civilians) while they are in power, everyone will get a real picture of the nature of these people. One would of course expect that Armenian genocide would be described as a mass murder of civilians based on this rule. No, it is described as a claim that Armenians were systematically murdered. This is a good example where a wiki has a perfectly reasonable policy but which is not enforced as it should have been — NickK (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I don't see this as punishment. We're not trying to make someone pay a price for bad behaviour. We are saying that the way things are run have gotten so bad that even if there was a problem of the global community ignoring it for years, it can't be ignored any longer. I'm fine with creating principles, etc. but that should be in addition to a desysop, not in place of one. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Gotten so bad by whose standards? Ours certainly, but I do not see the entire azwiki community speaking out here. Most of them express surprise when specific concerns are raised. When I started on Wikia, there were some communities that were run like (most) Wikimedia projects, but there were also some run by admin cliques with top-down governance. And those communities saw nothing wrong with what they were doing - it had always been done that way. We should express expectations first to arrive at some sort of shared understanding, then resort to taking more drastic action if that doesn't work. If it's been so bad for so long, then another six months isn't going to hurt anything. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) They're free to fork if they want, but being part of a global movement means that you have to abide by global standards. These standards do not need to be written down. Simply claiming ignorance isn't a good excuse if the behaviour is objectively harmful and out of line with what is expected on Wikimedia projects. If they don't like the fact that we are holding them and want to keep running it the way it has been run, they retain the option of doing that, just not on WMF servers if we decide to go the desysop route. The moral relativism of saying that their admin standards and norms are different than what we would expect on our home projects doesn't work for something like using admin tools to deny the existence of a genocide. I'm sorry, but that is morally repugnant and we shouldn't need to have that written down. There is a huge difference between having different revdel or suppression standards and what we are talking about here. We just globally banned someone for blocking a steward and someone based off of their perceived sexual orientation. What is going on at az.wiki is arguably significantly worse than that, and there is a responsibility to step in. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) The page in question is not, and has never been protected. Looking through the history for the last couple of years, there has only been one attempt to move the page to a more neutral name by an external user (WBG) that was reverted by a single admin who has now been desysopped. I think that mass desysopping is a gross overreaction to that. And contrary to what you say, I think that we do need to write down our core expectations. There are significant differences between peoples, cultures and values across the world. I think that we are right to take a stand on many of those values, but we need to establish where those goalposts are rather than applying them retroactively. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) That was the most egregious recent action, but I think it is symptomatic of other problems on the wiki that make this the appropriate course of action. On the principles, I'd argue for a much more common law approach. We make policy and values through deciding on tough cases like this. It has the advantage of both not having to deal with wikilawyer on what is enforceable and what isn't, and it also provides projects with much more freedom to apply these values locally. The question isn't would we do this on our projects or is this in violation of a set of written values, but rather would a reasonable Wikimedian expect a project to be run like this without intervention? I think everyone agrees the answer here is "no", but the question is how do we deal with it. My general view is that the w:en:WP:ROPE approach generally doesn't work because even if things are still as bad in 6 months no one will feel like getting a new RfC together and re-debating this. If there are issues, the time to solve them is now, not in 6 months. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Expressing what we want to change is solving the problem, or at least a start to it. Mass desysops and wiping our hands of the problem has been done in the past to some success, but isn't guaranteed to do anything. I put this under a heading called larger problem because I think we as a movement have no real plan or strategic thinking of how to deal with people groups that don't think the same as we do. We keep pushing these problems off until they become really bad and then take drastic action while saying that it's been bad the whole time. Seems like a horrible way to deal with an issue that is repeated across multiple cultures and language groups. But Rschen's proposal looks like it will pass, so we likely won't need to test out your series of assumptions. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Wikimedians should not have to feel like they must walk on eggshells when they edit another project, especially if they are forced to revert crosswiki vandalism against themselves like one poor enwiki functionary is right now. There are some Wikimedia projects that I really worry about making any edit on for fear of being blocked if I offend some rogue administrator. Even as a former steward, and even as an administrator on English Wikipedia/Wikidata. About azwiki, the problem is that they don't seem to believe in transparency or integrity. All of this other stuff is just a symptom of that. --Rschen7754 00:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Well, agreed about walking on eggshells. One of the most toxic attitudes across Wikimedia is the local fiefdoms that develop on individual projects that see any outside help or action as an infringement against their sovereignty. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

List of principles [ edit ]

(Shared workspace for editing)

Neutral Point of View : Articles should provide readers with a summary of human knowledge on a subject, as presented in Reliable Sources. Due Weight : When Reliable Sources present conflicting viewpoints, an article should summarize all significant viewpoints roughly in proportion to the quantity and significance of those viewpoints in Reliable Sources. When there is a predominant viewpoint, the article should generally reflect the predominate viewpoint. Viewpoints which receive little coverage in reliable sources should receive little or no coverage in the article. The typical reader should leave with a clear understanding of all significant viewpoints, as well as a reasonable understanding of which viewpoints are predominant or in the minority.

: Articles should provide readers with a summary of human knowledge on a subject, as presented in Reliable Sources. Copyrighted content : Copyrighted content should not be hosted. Sources should be summarized and attributed without close paraphrasing or direct copying of content.

: Copyrighted content should not be hosted. Sources should be summarized and attributed without close paraphrasing or direct copying of content. Multimedia content : Azerbaijan Wikipedia could create an policy on multimedia content. It would be based on the 19th article of the Azerbaijan copyright law, which allows non-commercial, scaled down version of an newspaper, magazine, educational material and live television. Note: This falls under the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution:Licensing_policy. This policy requires the creation of a local Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). EDPs and required to be "minimal" in what copyrighted content they allow. Given the complexity of copyright law in general, the involvement of U.S. Fair Use (the servers are hosted in the U.S.), the involvement of Azerbaijani copyright exceptions, and the poor handling of copyright on AzWiki, I would be reluctant for AzWiki attempt to allow any copyrighted multimedia at this time.

: Azerbaijan Wikipedia could create an policy on multimedia content. It would be based on the 19th article of the Azerbaijan copyright law, which allows non-commercial, scaled down version of an newspaper, magazine, educational material and live television. Note: This falls under the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution:Licensing_policy. This policy requires the creation of a local Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). EDPs and required to be "minimal" in what copyrighted content they allow. Given the complexity of copyright law in general, the involvement of U.S. Fair Use (the servers are hosted in the U.S.), the involvement of Azerbaijani copyright exceptions, and the poor handling of copyright on AzWiki, I would be reluctant for AzWiki attempt to allow any copyrighted multimedia at this time. Involved : Administrators should not use their advanced access in situations where they are involved. When an administrator is involved, they should generally report the matter to an appropriate location for the matter to be reviewed and resolved by a random uninvolved administrator. Administrators are expected to have the temperment to handle difficult situations. Established editors should not be blocked for criticizing an administrator unless that language would clearly result in a block if it had been directed at a non-administrator. Any block for critism of an administrator should be treated as an involved matter and should generally be reviewed and preformed by an uninvolved administrator.

: Administrators should not use their advanced access in situations where they are involved. When an administrator is involved, they should generally report the matter to an appropriate location for the matter to be reviewed and resolved by a random uninvolved administrator. Administrators are expected to have the temperment to handle difficult situations. Established editors should not be blocked for criticizing an administrator unless that language would clearly result in a block if it had been directed at a non-administrator. Any block for critism of an administrator should be treated as an involved matter and should generally be reviewed and preformed by an uninvolved administrator. Wheel Warring : Administrators should not revert the actions of other administrators when they should reasonably know their action is likely to be reverted or otherwise objectionable. They should first discuss those actions and seek consensus for the action to be reverted.

: Administrators should not revert the actions of other administrators when they should reasonably know their action is likely to be reverted or otherwise objectionable. They should first discuss those actions and seek consensus for the action to be reverted. Redaction : Logs of administrator actions should be left unredacted unless the component being redacted contains grossly degrading material or personal attacks on users. Private information should be referred for Oversighting.

: Logs of administrator actions should be left unredacted unless the component being redacted contains grossly degrading material or personal attacks on users. Private information should be referred for Oversighting. A facet of transparency that's like openness to global discussion + cross-wiki stewardship? The more a wiki controls all of its own processes and governance, the more it should be able or willing to explain them to people from other projects. This includes clear documentation but also engagement with serious threads such as this [through an ambassador if needed for langage reasons]. In practice most communities are fine with this when cross-wiki issues come up, but it's worth making explicit.

Discussion [ edit ]

Comments on Neutrality version 1:

False. Different countries do not support different versions. There is no "different version" regarding content, there is only what acceptable academic sources say. There is nothing "difficult" to understand or implement about that. The perpetrator country, Turkey, and a close ally of that perpetrator country, both at the time and today, Azerbaijan, deny at state level the Armenian Genocide happened. That is irrelevant for establishing Wikipedia content. 92.5.251.7 12:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia content should reflect what is reported in reliable sources. I assume that here local language sources may report differently than the western academic literature consensus. I see no practical reason why the western perspective should be forced on the project when a compromise can be achieved. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Also, on this topic, Alsee gives a really good description above about neutrality and reasonable weighting. I don't have much experience editing in controversial content areas, but that seems to sum it up well. And if the trwiki article seems more balanced, then that could serve as a template for a revised article on azwiki. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) It looks like there's agreement for my newer version of Neutrality, so I removed the old one. I have some experience with controvercial areas, and I believe I have had some success in bringing the situation under control. Part of it is the idea that Wikipedia summarizes what the sources say. I'm tempted to add more, but I'm not sure it really fits in "principals". Part is that I present an attitude of brutal-disregard for both sides of a dispute. As far as possible, I literally don't even mention the topic they are fighting about. I give a firm and cold explanation of how Wikipedia works. This positions me as enforcer of Wikipedia policies, above and impartial to sides in this particular battle. Another part is related to an essay from English Wikipedia. Basically it is this: Many of the battles on Wikipedia are because people are trying to argue Truth. The answer is this: We don't argue Truth on Wikipedia. Those arguments do not work here . Internet arguments about Truth are endless and disruptive. We will not participate in those arguments. We ignore or close those arguments. If nearly all Reliable Sources say "The moon is made of cheese" then the article will accurately summarize that. It is an effective approach when you are also giving them useful information, when you're explaining what arguments do work on Wikipedia and which do not. Aguring Truth doesn't work, presenting Blogs as a source doesn't work, presenting Reliable Sources for their position will work, it will get their position into the article in some form. Discussing Due Weight may work. Discussing the accuracy of a summary may work. In many cases people unhappily accept that they have been given a fair chance to present adequate sourcing, and they failed to do so. Alsee (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC) At present, the situation in Azerbaijani Wikipedia is as follows: A new user can be blocked, but has not violated any of the rules. That's why educated people can not work in Wikipedia. The article about the Armenian genocide was mentioned above. But this article is not interesting for Azerbaijanis. An important article for the Azerbaijanis is the article Turkish people. But this article is empty. No one in Azerbaijan reads Wikipedia in English. Personally, I am reading English and Russian. But I do not know these languages well. Çim Çen In (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just commenting that private data should be referred to local functionaries/oversighters first, and only to stewards if it is an emergency or there are no local oversighters. The primacy of local projects here in determining which users they trust to make decisions regarding private data in accord with the global and/or local oversight policies needs to be respected. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, this is likely because the proposed global approach and the proposal for azwiki are being confused (partially my fault). -- Rschen7754 00:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I added an point on multimedia policy for Azerbaijan Wikipedia. Although they should not copy text to Wikipedia, I do not think that should apply to multimedia files as well. There is an english version of the Azerbaijan Copyright laws at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/222982 .--Snaevar (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, Rschen7754 , and TonyBallioni Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola. Is there any connection between this discussion and the SPI case? The clerk at the case recommended blocking two az.wiki admins, Azerifactory and Nicat49. I put at least a temporary halt to the clerk's request for administrator assistance as they would be blocked, not as socks, but as meat puppets, and that troubles me. I have already stated that Azerifactory is unlikely NovaSkola, and Nicat49 was previously found to be unrelated, although at the the time there were suggestions of meat puppetry. Even if this discussion has nothing to do with NovaSkola, I sure could use some help deciding how to dispose of the case at en.wiki, which is why I pinged the users I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Bbb23: #Inactivity desysops above, where some accusations were made but no conclusion was reached. -- Rschen7754 00:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola. Is there any connection between this discussion and the SPI case? The clerk at the case recommended blocking two az.wiki admins, Azerifactory and Nicat49. I put at least a temporary halt to the clerk's request for administrator assistance as they would be blocked, not as socks, but as meat puppets, and that troubles me. I have already stated that Azerifactory is unlikely NovaSkola, and Nicat49 was previously found to be unrelated, although at the the time there were suggestions of meat puppetry. Even if discussion has nothing to do with NovaSkola, I sure could use some help deciding how to dispose of the case at en.wiki, which is why I pinged the users I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Eldarado, Aykhan Zayedzadeh, Baskervill, Turkmen , and Toghrul Rahimli Nicat49 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment on copyright: This has to be changed to "Copyrighted material cannot be hosted." StevenJ81 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time Azwiki sysops are doing this misuse and illegality on wikipedia they act how they want and aprroach wikipedia as their own property. They just act like vandals, trying to impose their own rules here which is not unfamiliar for their own society. It is not secret that all bureacrats and those who have power in their hand in Azerbaijan acting like a dictator, if they even had opportunity in their hands they would have sucked the blood of their nation as well. Most of the azwiki admins think they can impose the dictatorship they are familiar with on wikipedia as well and unfortunately trying to do it and they remain unpunished. These sysops just act with the order of the certain people, on wikipedia they remove which pages they don't like, those who oppose them and declare their free thoughts are being blocked by them. In real life most of them know each-other and act as a vandal team. Since I am not an active user on wikipedia due to my own strained working regime and personal life I am not able to contribute to wikipedia actively and unfortunately remaining more space for such kind of vandal ill-thought people here. The biggest issue I faced here is about these admins' Toghrul Rahimli, Eldarado, Baskervill, Azerifactory vandal acivities here. They mostly propose the pages for the removal with certain power's orders and they know each other very well or maybe they are one person controlling different accounts. One of the pages they began to discuss for removal was about about a journalist and writer - Rüzgar Mövsüm who is in asylum in Germany for his critic journalism. The discussion began for the removal of this page by Azerifactory on 18 April 2019. The so-called reason they proposed for page's removal was the content is old and most of the links and sources have been provided are not working (There are objective reasons for some of the links and sources provided on that page to be not active. Since some sites (Meydan tv official site,Meydan TV wikipedia page, Official site of Azadlig org) which this journalist worked with blocked in the local country links can't be accessed). On the discussion page they imposed some rules like page discussion needs to be finished in 15 days and certain conclusion needs to be outcomed not more than that time. But they prolonged the discussion period more that a month since they couldn't find enough support for the deletion of the page and nevertheless I cautioned and notified these users that they are acting wrongly and misusing their cetain powers in a bad direction and actually warned Toghrul Rahimli, NMW03 that they are doing vandalism by misusing their power and doing biased actions. They described my notifications and warnings as a threat and insult despite the fact that my comments didn't consist any threat and insult I kindly notified them that here is not their father's property and they can't act with the way they want. The user NMW03 proposed to the user Toghrul Rahimli to block me since they didn't like my way of commenting and unfortuantely the user Toghrul Rahimli blocked me for one week, after the time my blocking was finis