Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. after some discussion with fellow stewards, I am closing this RFC, there is mild support to desysop all admins on azwiki, but from what we see it is not going to fix the problem, some of the admins has been chosen recently and one has been reelected during this RFC, desyspoing all of them is not going to do any good to the community, but we have to ask all Azwiki admin to be more careful and make sure that they are following rules and guidelines and our norms. as a result of the RFC, one problematic admin has been desysopped and if he wants to gain his access back he has to go through another RFA but to fix the problem and make azwiki better, I will be traveling to Azerbaycan this month (with WMF support) to help and discuss the issues in more details, and we will try help azwiki admins to not repeat mistakes from the past. I am really hopeful azwiki admins heard the concerns and do their best to address them. Mardetanha talk 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Statement of the issues

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.

  • Copyright violations: See threads at [1] and w:az:Vikipediya:İdarəçilərə_müraciət#Copyright_violation. While exceptions may cover some of the questionable articles (not considering the issues of plagiarism here), not all of the articles have been accounted for. Cekli829 also threatens to block over the questioning of his own articles.
  • Abuse of block tool: Cekli829 blocking a user over a Facebook comment (see discussion immediately under my original comment in the #Questions section, where Cekli829 freely admits to this)
  • Use of admin tools to push POV editing: This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but here is one example:
  • Accusations of undisclosed paid editing have been made but I am not in the position to comment on their validity.
  • Concerns about sockpuppetry: [5]
  • Wheel warring: [6]
  • Mass canvassing for adminship: [7]
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

  • 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

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 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)[reply]

  • Support Support --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support per Cekli's oppose !vote which shows a blatant lack of self-awareness. As I said above, he (and the other sysops) have effectively turned Az-Wikipedia into a tool to push their own nationalistic POV. Cekli's own brazen admission, where-in he accuses the OP of being politically motivated and asks us to migrate to Armenian Wikipedia (Azerbaizan and Armenia have been involved in a decade-long series of conflicts) whilst asserting that the present biases are quite normal courtesy information warfare (coupled with his weird comments over the piece linked by FR) exhibit that they are an utter disgrace to the broader motto of Wikimedia. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more Cekli is writing over here as, the more am I being certain of his being an entire misfit for our broader purposes. Anybody whose motive is to push Azerbaizani POV into Azerbaini Wikipedia, to counter the Armenian folks over hy.wiki, need to migrate to some non-Wikimedian site.
      • That being said, I am keeping a tab on their internal discussion to remove his sysop bits, which will be a major factor as to whether (or not) we proceed with RsChen's nuclear option. AFAIS, it's roughly the same circumstances as was the last time and Cekli is (as-usual) pointing to hy.wiki stuff as some sort of justification whilst accusing us of blocking their common interests. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--Samral (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose a blanket desysop at this time. I think that we could apply a finer instrument in this case and re-evaluate after. Specifically, I would support a desysop of Cekli and any other specific admins/crats that have enabled the copyright violations and inappropriate block(s). I know that in the past we've had an all or nothing approach, but as we are internet volunteers and not a court of common law we are not bound to our previous decisions. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am open to considering this, but there are some practicalities that would have to be worked out. Since azwiki has bureaucrats, there is no technical means to prevent a bureaucrat from regranting Cekli the rights (such as happened on Commons a few years ago). --Rschen7754 17:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a problem. We could desysop Cekli, give him a clear explanation of how his behaviour warrants desysopping, and ban him from holding administrative permissions for six months. Local bureaucrats could be warned to not overturn the ban and desysopped if they do. A bit more messy, but it retains the local community as much as possible. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ajraddatz: I can't detail the misdeeds of every sysop (if you are looking for such evidence) but they are wholly complicit in this affair. From mass-opposing the de-sysop proposal of Cekli (which was raised on roughly similar issues, months back) to another sysop's de-tagging my Copyvio-detections noting that it was written by Cekli and (hence??) can't be deleted. Over this RFC, WhiteDemon (yet another sysop) similarly pushes the nationalistic line and when queried about the genocide stuff (coupled with other extreme nationalistic POV pushing) points toward hy.wiki stuff as a quasi-justification of their actions along with other lame rebuts. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support for the reasons put forward by Tony Ballioni and in light of Cekli's behaviour, one must considered whether Cekli should further be sanctioned individually for their conduct. Nick (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am hesitant to get involved in this but Cekli's response here really concerns me but I'm not sure that I'm ready to support an desysop of everyone. I am also profoundly concerned that so much is done off-wiki in such a murky, almost deceptive way, but most of this RFC seems to be predicated on Cekli's behavior, so I'd like to get clarification on why that's not being dealt with first? But even asking this, I keep circling back to this issue of WhatsApp/FB decision making for an entire community and it does not inspire confidence in me with the current "leadership" there, as well as some other issues which involve BLPs but that's another matter. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment @Praxidicae and Ajraddatz: do you think de-sysop of Cekli is enough in this case? What about other sysops? I think they are gulity because didn't do anythink about Cekli and protect other users right. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't think that just desysopping Cekli is enough given the rampant behind the scenes colluding but I also haven't evaluated all the administrator's behavior there. I do however think that Cekli should be desysopped regardless of the outcome of this RFC in terms of AZwiki over all. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment @Praxidicae: I think other sysops will re-elect if they deserve. So de-sysop all of them is not big deal. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that dismantling an entire, active community is no big deal. Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Winged Blades of Godric's last comment combined with my uneasiness about the off-wiki collaboration among other things makes me think that a serious change is needed and this appears to be the only way to quell the apparent abuse happening on AZwiki. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment Please note the above mentioned correspondence.--Turkmen talk 21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkmen Can you please explain what exactly you are pointing out about this correspondence? Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment I'd also like to add to my original statement, as I forgot to do so yesterday, that I don't think turning AZ into a GS wiki is a good idea and I don't have a perfect solution but I think that a better way to go about this should it pass is to evaluate each administrator individually (and crats) and make it clear that all admin actions (specifically blocks and similar) must be discussed on-wiki and must point to on-wiki conduct, rather than such actions being decided in the proverbial "backroom". As far as dealing with the heavy-handed, retributive blocks based in pov-violating nationalism from those with tools, I don't have a solution for that other than I do think it is Wikimedia's (and the community as a whole) responsibility not to allow such things to proliferate and flourish on an open encyclopedia and to continue to allow such things damages the integrity of all projects. Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. While I am not particularly keen on having a blanket desysop occur, I think this is the right course of action given the evidence of abuse presented. Similarly to Nick, I'd support further sanctions on Cekli. Hiàn (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Hi! First and foremost i'm sorry for being a bit late for the discussion. As the most recently-elected sysop i can tell that there're a lot of things to deal with on Azwiki. A lot of pages still need to be fixed, templates are very unstable, Mediawiki pages have to be updated, Laboratory has to be handled carefully. We read the articles and choose whether it can be a good or featured article. Global sysops don't know Azerbaijani so it will make the whole situation more complex. We have to take these into account before making these kind of decisions. Sincerely--Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I'm not agree armenaphobic views of Cekli and other admins--Sefer azeri (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I only support to remove admin rights of Cekli829.--NMW03 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I've read the whole discussion and as a sysop in Az.wikipedia, I can say that before any decisions, neutral admins / bureacrauts should check Cekli's track record before any decisions. Let's be honest, some of the users that accuse Cekli, violated the rules multiples times, and that includes Wikipedia:The duck test. As a result, it is very easy to finger point and blame sysops. Furthermore, I strongly believe there is a hidden discussion going on social media to overthrow admins, which also breaches Wikipedia's rules. Regards.-- Azerifactory (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've wrote my opinion above as I believe it will cause huge disruptions in Az.Wiki's work and I'm writing this an admin in Az.Wiki.--Azerifactory (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, what? I live in California and have never been to Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, or Turkey. I have written entire articles about roads in California. There is no conspiracy here, I just believe that Wikimedia wikis shouldn't be run by admins who abuse their tools to push POV and copyvios. --Rschen7754 06:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I live in India and have never set foot outside my country except en:Chiang Mai and Raleigh. Neither do I know any Armenian (or Azerbaijani) nor am I any active over other social-media-sites. To the best of my knowledge, I am yet to go into the business of socks. But, you are obviously free to sketch conspiracy theories to dismiss legitimate concerns, (that have been since co-voiced by multiple users in good standing).Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly oppose Hi all. I am a sysop of az-wiki and Azerbaijani Wikimedians User Group leader. Because of my work I had no time to read discussions and share my views here before. That's why I am really surprised by the tension of discussions, and especially by the statements of some az-wiki users who are periodically conflicting with other users and sysops on different issues, and of two former sysops who were a nightmare of users, but now all of them are accusing az-wiki sysops in actions that allegedly violate the rules or threaten the future of the project. Of course knowing all our active users and sysops well, I agree with some of their claims, I know that feeling of frustration when someone blackmails you or edit warring with you or blocks you from editing. But as a user who has many edits in Russian and English wikis, and as a participant of many conferences organised by Wikimedia Foundation I know that the same situation is common for almost all wikiprojects. In the past 4 years with efforts of our user group we achieved global ban of 2 users, one of them was a sysop. So our users are familiar with such issues and we know what is wrong and what is good for az-wiki. We don't block anyone for more than one year and most of those who were blocked for one year or less can be unblocked after few months if they are willing to edit and ask sysops to unblock them. I just want to say that relations between users and sysops are not that catastrophic as some users want to show here, and it seems that they use Meta for revenge. I think that desysoping of all sysops is not a solution, because of some unintended results and problems which will arise after 6 months. Rschen7754, I will send my views on this issue by e-mail to you. If stewards have specific proposals, we can take them into account. I will organize a wikimeeting this week and discuss with all involved users and sysops the situation, and also will start discussion on az-wiki to learn opinions of users who cannot participate in offline meeting. I hope it will help to solve the problems.--Wertuose (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wertuose: What do you feel about az:Qondarma_Erməni_soyqırımı and my block by Cekli? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Winged Blades of Godric: the immediate block is not needed in such cases, because firstly sysop has to explain the reasons of his edits or reverts. The name of article is incorrect, because the word "so-called" cannot be used in the name of article. Azerbaijani historiography backs Turkish claims about Armenian Genocide and we cannot ask anyone in az-wiki to write this article in line with Armenian claims. Such actions by az-wiki users can cause situation like in Turkey, where Wikipedia is banned by authorities, and threats for users. But the name change is possible I think.--Wertuose (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such actions by az-wiki users can cause situation like in Turkey, where Wikipedia is banned by authorities -- So, you effectively parrot Azerbaijani government claims across multiple articles (as put out over this RFC, in more details) and choose to rapidly shut down any user, who rebuts your nationalistic agenda-pushing. FWIW, I am clueless as to why you deem me to be an Armenian and/or make hazy claims about mine coming from az-wiki. Also, do you believe that the bunches of sources mentioned over here are written by Armenians? Have you read about Armenian Genocide denial or believe that roughly every wiki (apart from your's) are victims of Armenian users? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Winged Blades of Godric: If you want to discuss Armenian Genocide I can find Azerbaijani academicians who will discuss this with you. I am not a historian and not an expert in genocides, so I can't help you on this. I just said that Azerbaijani historiography backs Turkish claims about Armenian Genocide and we cannot ask anyone in az-wiki to write this article in line with Armenian claims. You have to ask not az-wiki users, but Azerbaijani historians, Ministry of Education, other governmental organisations and politicians to change their views about this issue and publish it, as we can cite them.--Wertuose (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            @Wertuose and Azerifactory: What is your future plan about Cekli? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            @Drabdullayev17: We have to decide together inside community. As I proposed we will discuss it in wikimeeting and online. Me or any other sysop cannot force users to make decision, I can just share my views and users are free to make decision. If as a result of the discussions we will decide to desysop any of our sysops, this decision will be put into action. But the topics for discussion will be set by stewards. I want to see specific proposals on what they want from us. IMHO this is the only way for our users and sysops to feel accountable.--Wertuose (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            So what you are saying is that the az.wiki sysops are willing to use the tools to enforce the governments view of a genocide against users arguing for the objective fact that such a genocide occurred? Your response here proves why a blanket desysop is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            Check this category -- name and it's contents. Also this article -- I've seen negation-ism and denial-ism in cases of genocide but this's ...... Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            I didn't say anything about enforcing the governments views, I said that this is Azerbaijani historiography's views. And you think that by desysoping you will solve the problem and after 6 months we will elect new sysops who don't live in Azerbaijan and don't read Azerbaijani sources? You are talking about facts, but don't think about reality. I see that you and some other users want to change the direction of discussion from desysoping because of misuse of administrative rights to Armenian genocide denial. Or am I wrong?--Wertuose (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            The issue that this part of the RFC is trying to address is that sysops are using the block tool to enforce a particular POV (Armenian genocide denial) on the article. --Rschen7754 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Winged Blades of Godric:, why are you falsely accusing me or some of my colleagues for anti-Armenian sentiment, without any evidence. Perhaps you are suffering from anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, since you've very active in slandering innocent users that have nothing to do with this whole case.--Azerifactory (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Azerifactory:, why are you falsely accusing me or some of my colleagues for anti-Armenian sentiment, without any evidence. Not falsely, Cekli has proven that he is pursuing a nationalist approach. Perhaps you are suffering from anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, since you've very active in slandering innocent users that have nothing to do with this whole case. When and how? --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aykhan Zayedzadeh, stop slandering me. I was referenting to Winged Blades of Godric. Or perhaps is it ur sockpuppet, since u are keen to defend him?--Azerifactory (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric:, you are my sockpuppet ==D @Azerifactory:, yes, I, a person who doesn't know Indian, a person who is busy on AzWiki, will open a sockpuppet user and do all of this. Azerifactory, why are you so delusional? With your logic Cekli is your sockpuppet lmao. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 16:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wertuose: you are mistaking us for Cekli. He is the one using Wikipedia as a revenge tool. As he blocked me for a Facebook comment. This is clearly used for revenge purposes. Also, I'm against dealing with Cekli locally. I'm sure that he will find a way out in AzWiki, as it is dominated by users who know him personally (including you). --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. The issues were there for a long, long time, and no admins tried to get the wiki in order and push against the biased views of ‘Azerbaijani community’ as Cekli829 calls it (as long as there’s no evidence to the contrary). Genocide denial should be strongly pushed back against by our movement, and a blanket desysop is the only way we can show we are serious against such things and will not allow any community to get away with it.
    Any similar issues with Armenian Wikipedia can be raised and dealt with in a separate RfC (although NPOV regarding Nagorno-Karabakh question is less egregious than genocide denial), it’s not an excuse for Azerbaijani admins, as it stands, it’s just a distraction. As to why Azerbaijani community might be ruled via Facebook/Whatsapp groups, it seems like having offwiki communications is a long-standing tradition (link in Russian) of the present community. stjn[ru] 14:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly oppose. Bəzi anlaşılmamazlıqlara görə bütün idarəçilərdən statuslarının alınması çıxış yolu deyil. Yaxın zamanda keçiriləcək görüşdən sonra bütün anlaşılmamazlıqların aradan qalxacağına inanıram. Hörmətlə.--Nicat49 (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. In addition to the genocide denial and apparent misuse of admin tools, azwiki is about 470 times smaller than the English Wikipedia; it would be much easier for an in-group to form on a smaller wiki, and it would be much easier for an in-group to significantly influence the overall operation of said wiki. I think this is a warranted course of action, although I don't know if there's anything better that could plausibly be done. Jc86035 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strongly oppose Mübahisələrin qlobal müstəviyə keçməsinə əsas görmürəm və bu müzakirə qərarını AzViki üçün olduqca sərt hesab edirəm.--Babək Akifoğlu (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment Remember my statement? I'm just waiting to be called "a traitor to the motherland" by one of these people. This is actually happening now in this and this page lol. The discussion in this page (last two discussions) is the proof of the need for general desysoping. For example, Bloklanan kimi metada öz "dərdlərinə" əlac axtarmağa başlayırlar. Orada da onlara özləri kimi o vikidən, bu vikidən bloklanıb "qovulmuş" istifadəçilər həmdərd tapılır, ya da əsasən daha çox erməni-fars kökənli istifadəçilər hay verirlər. Onlar üçün də "nə olursa olsun, azvikiyə zərər olsun" prinsipi əsasdır. Cekli də o 3-4 istifadəçinin "ipini yığan" idarəçilərdən biridir, ona görə də hay-küyün əsas mərkəzində o olur həmişə is a quote by @Sortilegus:. Apparently we are working with users that are of Armenian and Persian decent. Also, "ipini yığan" is an offensive term used by Sortilegus. It seems that sysops are allowed to insult ordinary users whenever they want. Btw, @Çim Çen In: has a interesting case with @Azerifactory: (exposing him) that needs to be checked. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment So, basically, nearly everyone opposing this is a sysop in AzWiki. And they responded only after the proposal was shown. They truly didn't cared for COPYVIO, users breaking the NPVO and Cekli abusing the sysop tools. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Strongly support! Bir ay ərzində ən çox redaktə məndə olub. Buna görə medal da verdilər. Amma medal veriləndə mən bloklanmışdım. O vaxtdan blokdayam Aykhan Zayedzadehin əsassız bloklanmağına etiraz etdiyimə görə. Yazdım ki, "İdarəçilər bizə yuxarıdan aşağı baxırlarsa burada fəaliyyət göstərə bilməyəcəyik. Erməni dilini öyrənib, keçərik ermənicə Vikipediyaya, ermənilər bizə qiymət verərlər." Buna gə Azerifactory mənə xəbərdarlıq etdi, guya bu şantajdır. Dedim xəbərdarlığı qəbul etmirəm, istədiyim vikipediyanı seçmək mənim şəxsi işimdir. Bunu yazan kimi blokladı. Garabekir (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Heç bir qaydanı pozmamışam. Yalnız bir məqalədə dəyişiklik etmişəm, istəyirdim səhvləri düzəldim. Amma imkan vermədilər. Cekli829-in səhv etdiyini yazan kimi əvvəlcə məni təhqir etdi, dedi adım arvad adıdır, sonra müddətsiz blokladı. Bloklama üçün heç bir səbəb göstərmir, suallarıma da cavab vermədi. Demişdi rusca vikipediyaya yaz :) mən də yazmışdım. O vaxtdan gözləyirəm. İngiliscəm zəif olduğu üçün Azərbaycanca yazıram, yoldaşlardan xahiş edirəm bunu ingiliscəyə çevirsinlər. Əvvəlcədən təşəkkürlər. Ayan Bəkirov (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to all admins check all users' trackrecord before making any decisions as some of the users here violated the laws many times and I'm pretty sure there are sockpuppets among them.--Azerifactory (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ayan Bəkirov, ingiliscəniz zəifdirsə burdakı müzakirələri başa düşmədən niyə lehinə səs verirsiniz? İstifadəçi adınız Ayandır. Hər halda Ayan adlı birinə oğlan/bəy deməyəcəyik.--NMW03 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NMW03: guya ağıllı bir sual verdiniz? Bu sualı 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)[reply]
@NMW03: please translate your question also in English. And first give this question to Cekli829, let's look at some of the toughest interview questions, and some sample responses. What do you think you can get by continuing with insults? Ayan Bəkirov (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Verman1: International consensus is the event happened. There is no POV pushing because this is not an opinion. How long will azwiki choose to fly right in the face of the evidence and ignore it? Hiàn (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiàn: Before anyone tries to interpret my opinion (as well as the opinion of majority Azerbaijani Wikipedia users and editors), I want to put this straight out. Yes, the event happened. The only disagreement is over the naming. What happened during 1915-1923 in Ottoman Empire was ethnic cleansing perpetuated by both sides. Will you deny it? This doesn't qualify as "genocide", which is one of the reasons why 90% of countries and UN doesn't recognize it. You guys are falsely accusing Azerbaijani Wikipedia in nationalism. --Verman1 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
Comment Comment @Rschen7754, Winged Blades of Godric, and StraussInTheHouse: what do you think about these ([10] and [11])? I think @Azerifactory: should also be checked as he accused several users of being or using sockpuppet accounts. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 17:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment @Azerifactory: unclear and ungrounded slander may not be accepted. We look forward to seeing you. Try to prove what you are saying. What prevents you? Çim Çen In (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment about sockpuppetry: please read the CU policy, and if you think that a check is warranted, go to SRCU. SRCU is not a vending machine and you cannot just request checks on random people and have them done. You must prove your case. --Rschen7754 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754, thank you. Also could you tell me, are Aykhan Zayedzadeh and Çim Çen In will be punished for false accusations and abusive behaviour towards me? Just read his last comments, absolutely slander after slander.--Azerifactory (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that @Azerifactory: is the one making "false accusations" and showing "abusive behaviour". --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 08:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I am not an admin on Meta, so you will have to ask at RFH. --Rschen7754 00:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Azerifactory: What is wrong with your partner – and why? Why don't you answer these questions? Is someone's behaviour towards you bullying or just challenging? Çim Çen In (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Azerifactory: I have another question. Why did you block Çim Çen In at 16:50, 9 May 2019? --Rschen7754 04:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird. Has been blocked as a sock of this user. Might be except that the claimed master had edited only twice, before being blocked for socking and the log-entry does not link to any other user/discussion. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: That user, and some others on this discussion page are sockpuppets of Aydinsalis, globally banned in az-wiki by WMF for threats to users' life. We all in az-wiki know his style of discussion. That guy has psychological problems and even duplication of personality. You can find his discussion threads even in Jimbo's talk page with accusations that Jimbo sold Wikipedia to the governments of some countries :) His other sockpuppets with a high probability are Ayan Bəkirov and Garabekir. And "Aydın Məmmədov" is his real name.--Wertuose (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wertuose: Facts have been submitted. It is impossible to refute the facts by slandering. Please talk about the main issue. Are you ready for that? Çim Çen In (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wertuose: This is a rather dumb way of handling globally banned users. If that is really a globally banned user, you should not be blocking the user but asking WMF (ca at wikimedia dot org) to globally lock the account so they are blocked from all wikis. They also have access to CheckUser and private information and can make a much better determination than you can of sockpuppetry. Also, their name is on the logs, not yours, so you are not the target of any retribution, which is typical for globally banned users. --Rschen7754 18:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support -- Bir neçə yerdə, ən sonda burada yazdım ki, Cekli829 hesabından azı iki nəfər istifadə edir. Yazdım ki, 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? Amma heç bir reaksiya olmadı. Cekli829 bundan sonra üzə çıxmadı, bir kəlmə belə yazmayıb. Eyni, belə bir iddianı Azerifactorya qarşı da irəli sürdüm, o da cavab vermədi. İdarəçilər isə buna normal yanaşırlar. Aydın Məmmədov haqqında bir neçə kəlmə, xəstədir, həkimlər dedi 1 aydan çox yaşamayacaq. O öləndən sonra istifadəçiləri bloklamaq üçün yeni ideyalar axtarıb tapmaq lazımdır. Dünən görməyə getmişdim, mənə bir nağıl danışdı. Mən bunu ciddi hesab etmirəm, amma ola bilsin, Cekli829, Wertuose və bəziləri bunu ciddi hesab etsinlər. Biri vardı, biri yoxdu. Azərbaycan dilində Vikipediyada bir bürokrat vardı. İstifadəçi adı Sortilegus idi. Bu zahirdə peyğmbər kimi idi. Bir adamı belə bloklamazdı. Amma kim onunla kiçik bir mübahisə edərdisə, anasından əmdiyi südü burnundan tökdürərdi. Başqa hesablar vasitəsi ilə. Aydın Məmmədova qarşı Səfər Azerini və Keretini göndərmişdi, onu bloklatmaq üçün. Səfər azerinin hesabı ilə başqalarının da anadan əmdiyi südü burnundan töküb. Amma Aydın Məmmədov deyəndə ki sən onları müdafiə etmisən, dedi yox, sübut istədi, sübut ortaya qoyulmasın deyə başqa idarəçi hesabı ilə onu bloklatdırdı. Aləm dəyib bir-birinə. İş respublika prokurorluğuna qədər gedib çıxıb, Aydın Məmmədovu bloklayan idarəçi etiraf edib ki, bunu Sortilegus edib, bloku açıb, razılaşıblar ki müzakirə başlasın. Aydın Məmmədovun hansı qaydanı pozduğu aydınlaşdırılsın. O bloku açıb, Cekli829 bloklayıb, açıb Cekli829 yenidən bloklayıb, niyə? Çünki müzakirə etmək üçün heç nə yox idi. Aydın Məmmədov nə demişdisə düz demişdi. İş yenə böyüyüb, hətta örtada ölüm hadisəsinin olması da mümkün idi. Cekli829 ən yaxın adamını, bir ağsaqqalı Aydın Məmmədovun yanına göndərib ki, mənlik deyil, Sortilegusdur, o deyir, mən də bloklayıram. Get başqa bir hesab aç, fəaliyyət göstər, mənim səninlə işim olayacaq, söz verirəm.

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)[reply]

Comment 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)[reply]
@Rschen7754: can a steward review my block? I'am not acquanted with any of them so can you ping one, please? --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to ask at SN but it may be deferred until we see what happens with this RFC. --Rschen7754 18:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: there is nothing good. Everything is the same as before. It seems to me that each of these accounts (Cekli829, Azerifactory ) is used by several users. I wrote about it ( [12], [13] ). 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. Anyway, I invite them, maybe they said something like: Sortilegus, Wertuose, Sultan11, Baskervill, Vusal1981, Babək Akifoğlu, Araz Yaquboglu, Eminn, White Demon, Nicat49, Anar kerimxanov, Eldarado, Qolcomaq, Turkmen, Toghrul Rahimli, 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? Bu suala aydınlıq gətirin, belə bir fakt Azerifactory üçün də var, imkan varsa bunu da araşdıraq. Hörmətlə, Çim Çen In (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Interestingly, @Cekli829: went quite after the allegations and proof of him using two sockpuppet accounts on Village Pump of Azerbaijani Wikipedia. He used them to oppose him being desyosped on AzWiki as seen here. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 19:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754: I've blocked @Çim Çen In: on basis of being sockpuppet of Aydinsalis.--Azerifactory (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Azerifactory: and as I said above to Wertuose, that is a rather dumb way of handling it. This should be handled by WMF since it is their ban. --Rschen7754 22:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Azerifactory:, your claim was debunked here. You need actual proof, not some assumptions. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aykhan Zayedzadeh:, there is enough evidence is here [14]. Where he doesn't bring other evidence that he is not a puppet of Aydin Salis. It's a classic Wikipedia:The duck test case. Furthermore, this user's track record says that the user was mainly gets active when there was a case about admins. There is extremly low contribution by him towards Wiki but "for some sudden reason", he appears out of nowhere contributes to the disputes and then vanishes away. But since you've been defending this user so fiercely, and love to slander me without any evidence, perhaps you're involved with him on social media. I hope there's an investigation to this as well.--Azerifactory (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Azerifactory: >falsely acusing me of slander and false accusations. Nice one there. For god's sake do whatever you want I have no idea who Çim Çen In is. Amount of lies you have published i this page is ridicilous. And stop using the word "slander" in every single comment. It doesn't help you prove your false point. "Since you're defending" is such a dumb factor to put in. You have been defending Cekli since you've joined this RFC. Not the mention how overreactive and dramatic you have acted during the whole discussion. Does that make tou the same person as Tarkhan Pashazadeh? You are the attacker, but yet you are the one to play the victim role. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 22:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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. Bu başqası da ola bilər, amma mənə görə cəmi 5-10 % ehtimal var. Azerifactory Aydinsalisəm ya Abutalıbam bu sizi sizə qarşı irəli sürdüyüm ittihamdan azad etməyəcək. Susmağa davam etsəniz, çox ehtimal ki idarəçi statusunuz ləğv ediləcək. Odur ki, Aydinsalis məsələsini ortaya atmaqdansa, özünüzü ittihamdan müdafiə etməyə çalışın. Çim Çen In (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Burada Sortilegus ilə NKOzinin əlaqəli şəxs ola biləcəyini yazmışdım. Bu gün bu qismən təsdiqləndi. NKOzinin buradakı redaktəsinə ilk reaksiyanı burada Sortilegus verdi. Sortilegus burada yazılanları izləyirsə, 2 idarəçilərin istifadəçi hesabının hər birindən azı iki istifadəçinin istifadə etməsi barədə göstərdiyim dəlillərə niyə münasibət bildirmir? Bu səhifəni izləyirsə, birinci növbədə buna cavab verməli idi. Çim Çen In (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support The behavior displayed by multiple sysops is abhorrent and should be stopped. The Wikimedia Foundation projects are not political arms of countries, and they are not interested in alternate versions of history. Nihlus 23:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I do not have much knowledge of what happens in az.wiki, I do not intend to give an opinion on the case as whole, but I disagree with the removal of all 18 current sysops. My rationale is simple: several of them did not have their actions or behavior clearly questioned. Without specifying the conduct of each one, which rules were violated and why, it is very unfair to remove their sysops rights. It is hard work to do? Yes, of course, but necessary. Érico (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides the fact that Meta RFC simply just is not equipped to go through hundreds of diffs like an ArbCom might, and besides the fact that there are too many sysops who have made questionable actions, it can be argued that admins should be removed because they did not act when they saw clear cases of admin abuse taking place. --Rschen7754 01:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As volunteers, we are not omnipresent. On a medium wiki, sysops typically can not get involved in every single case. With the experience of having been sysop at a time that pt.wiki had only 15 active sysops, I can say that a considerable portion of them simply prefers to abstain. With the exception of restricted rights (CU, OS, etc), it would be complicated to us, from meta and others projects, force all sysops of a particular project to act in situations like this. Érico (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that pt.wiki (a wiki which has had CUs and I think OS for a long time) is an apt comparison with a wiki that has 17 admins total, along with a systemic POV problem (and a very active Facebook discussion group, apparently). Removing all rights would force all admins to be reconfirmed. --Rschen7754 01:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, before 2015 we had about 15-20 active sysops (we reached the historical low of 30 sysops in 2012, but half of them was inactive). Anyway, this is another history... Érico (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment This discussion has been linked to on the Wikipedia subreddit. There should be a bot or something for this. Brightgalrs (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support. There are basically two problems here:
    • Non-neutral content. This problem is quite hard to resolve as we are speaking basically of a country at war with a very strong popular opinion. The fact that Azerbajiani language is split between three alphabets, with Latin alphabet used in azwiki in use only in Azerbaijan (Azerbaijani speakers in Russia use Cyrillic, those in Iran use Persian) does not help. We basically get that this wiki has most of its contributors and readers in Azerbaijan only. A quick look at w:en:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan helps us get that 91% of Azerbaijani have a strong anti-Armenian POV, and in addition there is a state-sponsored anti-Armenian propaganda and persecution of those supporting Armenia. The fact that w:en:Azerbaijani diaspora is also sponsored by Azerbaijan does not help us either. This means that the vast majority of speakers of the language have a strong POV, and naturally readers want to see their POV reflected on Wikipedia as well. We can hardly find Azerbaijani speakers capable of reflecting Armenian POV on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, both due to limited number of people with such convictions and due to fear of prosecution. Finding admins who can effectively do that would require specific recruiting efforts, likely among diaspora or Azerbaijani scholars abroad.
      I would thus suggest focusing on blatant hatred and discrimination and impose sanctions on those adding racist, discriminatory or insulting content, as well as remove such content. I don't think sanctions should apply to those who defend mild Azerbaijani POV (e.g. on Nagorno-Karabakh belonging to Azerbaijan), as this would piss off the majority of Azerbaijani community.
    • Unreasonable administrative actions. There are several examples above that are not acceptable for any wiki in any context. This includes copyright violations, and Azerbaijani Wikipedia seems to be excessively laxist on those. A possible solution is identifying if there are some major sources used and discuss if permissions can be granted for those, otherwise copyvio has to go. More importantly, this includes completely unreasonable policies like extremely lengthy blocks of established users for messages on social media or next to no possibility to remove administrator's rights.
      I would suggest reviewing administrative actions and remove rights of those who prevented removal of materials identified as copyright violation (not those who did nothing, but those who removed it) and those who applied blocks that are unreasonable by any standards.
    I think that we need to find a balance between saving an editing community and preventing actions that do not meet our standards or values such as discriminations or copyvios. Having people speaking Azerbaijani who is neutral and can read discussions would be very helpful: unlike Chechen community which was almost nonexistent beyond few key people, we are speaking of a large and active community which is led by a few wrong people but otherwise should not be closed — NickK (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "We can hardly find Azerbaijani speakers capable of reflecting Armenian POV on Azerbaijani Wikipedia". In what way is that relevant? Articles on Wikipedia should not ever exist to reflect the pov of editors. Their content must just accurately reflect the content of acceptable sources. Are you implying that it is impossible for a neutrally written Azerbaijani language Wikipedia to exist? But actually, almost nobody has said that, they are just saying those currently "in charge" are making a neutrally written Azerbaijani language Wikipedia impossible to achieve. Maybe it will be ultimately impossible to achieve regardless, but surely it should be reformed to a condition that would at least permit it to happen. 88.108.86.85 02:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather say that finding Azerbaijani sources reflecting Armenian POV or Azerbaijani editors willing to use foreign-language sources to reflect Armenian POV is almost impossible. That's the reality of the language community, and we can hardly change this. As a result, this point of view is naturally underrepresented, creating a bias in NPOV. However, I fully agree that those actively preventing Azerbaijani Wikipedia from being neutral, such as those adding discriminatory content or actively preventing removal thereof, should go. I just don't think that those passively preventing that (e.g. not adding Armenian POV or not removing Azerbaijani POV) should go, as this will concern the majority of the language community — NickK (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way... So far only three people were involved in pushing a blatantly discriminatory name az:Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı (Fake Armenian genocide). They are: İrada (WMF globally banned), Drüfft (globally locked) and Cekli829. To me this is a good evidence that desysoping Cekli829 alone would fix a significant part of the problem — NickK (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, especially regarding copyvios and behaviour displayed by sysops. Vulphere 02:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this long overdue proposal per the reasons provided in "Why steward intervention is needed". ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support The admins on this wiki have obviously abused these extra buttons and something needs to be done about it. --Examknow (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per the proposer. NMaia (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support and I'd also take into account the global ban of the most involved users in this. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 22:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of this RFC? Meta has no jurisdiction over another wiki's affairs. If the WMF risks legal problems from the wiki, it's their responsibility to do something about it, or at least make it clear that something needs to be done. A discussion in a foreign language on a different wiki can't result in desysoping there. The global sysop usergroup, during its creation, was specifically allowed to exist on condition that it only ever acts in small wikis that don't opt out, and stewards are similarly specifically restricted in their role. Each wiki is self-governed. We don't have a system for appealing to Meta to override a local decision, and this is quite deliberate. --Yair rand (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you aren't aware, there is a history about Meta (Specifically Stewards) intervening on local matters, notably hiwiki. (Commenting on iPad I can't find the link but I assume someone did it in this page or you can find it on Archive.) — regards, Revi 00:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support After thinking I agree with the proposal. --N KOziTalk 06:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the AZwiki admins indeed supported the titling of an article implying the genocide is false, and especially in a mocking tone, that would be an embarrassment to the WMF. Action needs to be taken. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Wikipedia is not run by cabals, azwiki seems to be exactly going there. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 13:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Question: 1) When will this discussion be closed? 2) If this proposal is approved, will Azerbaijani Wikipedia contents be moved to Incubator? --Agusbou2015 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support From this RFC, I will quote a couple of diffs:
    • [15] İf the user humiliates the sysop during the discussion there is no need to wait end of the discussion. I hoped after 1 month user will understand his mistakes and be more respectful to the sysops. Though his thoughts and activity directs only to strike against sysops. First Cekli, then me, tomorrow who knows who else. --Vusal1981 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • [16] {{u|Vusal1981}} blocked me for similar reasons. He wrote "You're blocked for 3 months, because despite the warnings, you insukted the sysops, especially the accusatory word "Inciting the conversation", also for not getting an outcome from the previous blocks...
  • Just these two diffs alone tells me that the AzWiki sysops value their ego more than their service to the project. Sysops are not promoted in the projects to inflate their self importance, nor are they supposed to be using their administrator privileges to lord over and bully editors. --Blackmane (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. [17] --Rschen7754 06:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Given the social and political circumstances, a NPOV treatment of issues that are a point of contention between Azerbaijan and other countries may be an unrealistic expectation no matter how many people are desysopped, but blatant copyvio by admins is a risk to Wikipedia as a global project that can more easily be identified and addressed. Sandstein (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. To start with, Cekli829 has clearly abused the admin tools. Beyond that, they have demonstrated unusually bad judgement and unusually poor self control in frivolously blocking Winged Blades of Godric[18] when they explicitly knew their use of admin tools was under scrutiny. Then they demonstrated that they were unfit for EDIT access, much less fit for admin tools, when they !voted oppose on the basis that it is "normal" to treat Wikipedia as a weapon of "information warfare".[19] Beyond that, I am horrified that they appear to have been promoting Wikipedia as a warfare-platform to students at a wikicamp.[20] I wish we could end this with just the one admin. However the comments by other admins here, and their comments and behavior on AzWiki, make it clear that this is not an isolated problem. As much as I hate to use the word "cabal", many or most of them appear to have formed a secretive self-protecting off-wiki "cabal" with an agenda. It is unclear whether any current admins know what Neutral Point Of View means:

    NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.


    I suggest that the future process to create new admins explicitly raise Neutrality as a candidate-question. I also suggest that bureaucrats take note of applicant's understanding and competence on that subject before giving out admin tools. And as a post-script, the fact that a pair of admins were just emergency de-sysoped ironically confirms the problem here. Block-warring a dozen times was blatantly pointless. Neither of them realized that adminship is NOT about powerplays and it's not about winning. Adminship is about having the good sense NOT to use the admin buttons. Alsee (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per above. -FASTILY 00:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support as i would like see Az-Wiki reorganized. And i thing admins/bureaucrats should not be on duty more than 6 months. HulaguKaan (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. POV-pushing by admins is not welcome. 2001:569:BD7D:6E00:1D1B:20BA:C52B:65BA 16:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I speak Turkmen and Turkish, I can comprehend Azerbaijani near to 99% percent as it is extremely close to the two languages I speak. I investigated the "so-called Armenian genocide" claim. Az.wiki has to obey the sources that are available in AZ language, right? The sources cited in the az.wiki article all contain statement like "Fictional/Fabricated Armenian genocide." Now, do you expect az.wiki admins to ignore the sources and write according to the expectation of English speakers or according to the english sources? Here are the excerpts (you may verify via google translate):
  1. 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
  2. "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • Support Support We have an ethical obligation to take this step. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]

  • Support Support I find what Alsee has written above persuasive. * Pppery * has returned 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per Winged Blades of Godric --AGK ■ 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support Support Waddie96 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Alsee: I am aware of that block; since the person who did the block (Cekli829) is being raked over the coals, 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • Strong support 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose If the problem is with @Cekli829:, then desysop him (and I would expect better from a 7-time steward candidate). But I disapprove of the whole community being affected by one man's action. Instead, I would be in favour of greater accountability and oversight on that wiki for some time, and then take action if appropriate. Leaderboard (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
For the records, Cekli829 has already been desysoped by stewards for wheel-warring. Regards. — FR 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

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 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)[reply]

    • Comment Comment @Baskervill and Turkmen: başqa idarəçilərin adları çəkmirəm, çəksəm də cavab verməyəcəklər. Siz bir az əvvəl burada səs verdiniz, səs verdiyiniz mətndə yazılmışdı ki, Cekli829 haqsız hərəkət edəndə müzakirələrə qatılmır, bunu oxumusunuz yəqin? Hamıdan əvvəl mən Cekli829un hesabından iki istifadəçinin istifadə etdiyinə dair fakt göstərdim. Cekli829 bundan sonra qeyb oldu, üzə çıxmadı. Bundan sonra sizlərdən Turkmen onun IP-lərini yoxlatdıraraq müəyyənləşdirdi ki 3 istifadəçi adından 1 istifadəçi istifadə edirmiş. Amma mənim təqdim etdiyim faktı bir kənara ataraq elan etdiniz ki, Cekli829 çoxsaylı hesabdan istifadə edir. Amma ikinci bir variant da vardı: Cekli829 və daha iki hesabdan kimsə istifadə edir, bu Cekli829 da ola bilərdi, NKOzi də tamam başqa biri də, məsələn, Sortilegus ola bilərdi. Siz əminsinizmi ki, NKOzi hesabından Cekli829 istifadə edib? Bəlkə Cekli829 hesabından NKOzi, yaxud başqası istifadə edirdi? Cekli829a verdiyim suala cavab verə bilməməsi, Cekli829istifadəçi hesabından başqasının istifadə etdiyini göstərir. Eyni faktı Azerifactory barədə də göstərmişəm. Daşdan səs çıxır, amma nə ondan, nə sizdən, nə də yerdə qalan idarəçilərdən səs çıxmır. Əvəzində Azerifactory məni qisasçılıq zəminində bloklayıb. Bəs Azerifactory məsələsinə kim baxacaqdır? AzVikidə bu məsələyə toxunmağa niyə heç kim cəsarət etmir? Kimdir sizə müstəqil hərəkət etməyi qadağan edən, Sortilegus? Yuxarıda yazmışam, deyilənə görə bütün vandalizmlərin, təhqirlərin, kütləvi bloklamaların mənbəyi Sortilegusdur. Bu doğrudurmu? Doğrudurmu ki onun icazəsi və göstərişi olmadan siz mənə cavab yaza, müzakirələrdə iştirak edə bilməzsiniz? Əgər belə deyilsə mənə cavab yazmağa, ciddi problemlərin müzakirəsində iştirak etməyə sizə nə mane olur? Çim Çen In (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - for very clearly using administrative rights in pursuit of a political agenda, allowing and publishing copyright violations, and generally bringing the project into disrepute. Cekli829 could be globally banned for any one of these many incidents. This support is not exclusive to the proposal above. Ivanvector (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Agusbou2015 (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment -- @Rschen7754: you wrote, he (Cekli829) was accused of sockpuppetry in here. I think this is not true. Cekli829 did not use another account. Another user has used Cekli829 account. I have written this in Azebaijani many times. All sysops know this. But they are silent. They want it to be hidden. The same is true for Azerifactory. I have written this in Azebaijani many times. All sysops know this. But they are silent. They want it to be hidden. As I said this, they told me you Aydinsalis. How did they know? The answer will be laughable: "İstifadəçi boyununa aldı ki, klondur" (translation: The user acknowledged that he was a puppet). They should be striped of their admin status ASAP Çim Çen In (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Baskervill - who is unable to answer my question, wants to be a sysop again. Only the Azerbaijani Wikipedia can have such things. Çim Çen In (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment -- @Rschen7754:, I'm getting really annoyed by Çim Çen In fake accusation, bullying and slander against my address, when he is a clone of banned user named AydinSalis. Please check his track record, which shows the user suddenly gets active once in a while and contributes only when there is a dispute at Wikitalks. Could you please take an action--Azerifactory (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Azerifactory, you should email ca@wikimedia.org giving evidence. There is little much a normal user can do in the case of a WMF ban. Regards. — FR 02:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated. Thank you.--Azerifactory (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose in favour of Rschen7754's proposal and after the emergency desysop. The issues are too systemic. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose While I support the de-sysop of Cekli829, Cekli829 resolved that by wheel warring. This is now effectively a proposal to do nothing. I have seen substantial evidence that is inadequate. Either we need to remove all admins, or we would need to consider admins individually. Would we want to consider a big messy review of more than a dozen admins? That would be ugly, but leaving the wiki with zero local admins is also ugly. Alsee (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support as second choice, but much prefer Rschen7754's proposal as the corruption clearly runs deep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order

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)[reply]

  • @Rschen7754: since Cekli829 already desysoped I think we can close this alternate proposal (section closing), and I don't think he will be re-elected as I see him wheel warring with another admin.--AldnonymousBicara? 05:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754: In my view, we need something to prevent Cekli829 from getting the rights again. The second bureaucrat had supported Cekli829 in different discussions, but I don't know if this is enough for getting rights. Having looked at recent azwiki discussion, I have an impression that azwiki is somehow divided between two camps, with one being pro-Cekli829 and another one opposing him plus a significant number of silent users, so desysopping everybody can be a solution — NickK (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NickK: You are right. There is one solution. All admins will have their rights removed. --N KOziTalk 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 KOziTalk 12:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a problem indeed, but the community is too active for mass desysopship, GS and S can't handle all their request without having proper knowledge of the language, we traditionally never try to interfere with editorial dispute, and if editorial dispute did ever happened and its unrelated to the current armenian problem we have how could we solve it without the proper knowledge of the language?--AldnonymousBicara? 09:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel we should close the section regarding Cekli829. I hope that there is little chance of him applying and getting back the administrator toolset in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. However, I also feel that we should pursue community sanctions against him in a separate RFC given the level of abuse that has been demonstrated.  — FR 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @FR30799386: but the main problem is not Cekli829? The problem is in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. If the situation was satisfactory, Cekli829 did not do that. This situation continues for many years. Look. The same things, the same events, only names change. There was a plan to normalize the situation. But Meta did not support it. Now it will be so. In the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, they think so: it is better to consider and punish a person guilty. Otherwise, Meta will consider all of us guilty. Who is guilty? This time, Cekli829. Çim Çen In (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should all consider Meta guilty! These problems in Azerbaijani Wikipedia have being going on for a decade or more. The Wikimedia Foundation has, for years, been providing the population of Azerbaijan with a website that is full of censored articles often containing unsatisfactory language and dangerous distortions. (It is not just Armenia-related articles, look at the size and scope of [29] compared to [30]). It has been alerted to this situation on numerous occasions but has chosen to do nothing concrete about it. There has to be a limit to the policy of encouraging things to be resolved locally if, after many years, no local solution has been able to emerge. 92.10.95.1 15:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @92.10.95.1: users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a discussion about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the administrators deleted, which goes against the rules. The page had never been deleted indeed, but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative). Wertuose did it. It was a vandalism. But there was no reaction from Meta. If we had an arbitration, we would not come here for now. We could solve our own problems ourselves. Of course, we should all consider Meta guilty. Çim Çen In (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kind of unfair assessment isn't? Meta has and always traditionally try to not interfere with local project, there's a good reason for this.--AldnonymousBicara? 02:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he should be banned from being granted adminship on azwiki for at least six months. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support look like the users over there are abusing their rights. Fungster (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal - B option

CLOSED/BAĞLANDI:

Enough has been said on this particular proposal. It does not have support. Təklif uğursuz. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • 1. Let's forget the bad things that happened in the past, and do not let the unpleasant things happen in the future.
  • 2. Amnesty should be declared, let's cancel all the blocking (including global blocks, two users from Azerbaijan).
  • 3. An Arbitration Committee should be created (rebuild voting). Those users, including sysops who disrupt the work in Wikipedia, who is busy with inequitable edits, who does vandalism and brakes rules should be subjected to temporal or non-temporal blocks.
  • 4. Until the arbitration, we need a supervisor. Meta can assign someone. Until the Arbitration Committee commences functionally, that person will fulfill the function of the Arbitration Committee.
  • 5. The experience of Wikipedia's leading language editions regarding temporal or non-temporal election of administrators has to be learned and implemented in AzWp. To compare with enwp is not so relavnt, them being som much numerous. I suggest that we adopt the svwp experience. Оn svwp good experince of having only one year approval of sysops and that they after that need to be yearly reparroved. Had problems with their sysops and went into this (bi)yearly reapproval but over a 2-3 years period, where half of them were up to reapproval on a biyearly basis. I suggest go itne this process. Çim Çen In (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754: but I suggested that, those users, including sysops who disrupt the work in Wikipedia, who is busy with inequitable edits, who does vandalism and brakes rules should be subjected to temporal or non-temporal blocks. I know Azerbaijani Wikipedia well. The main reason for blocks is something else. Those who make rules and those who want to create discipline are blocked globally (İrada and Aydinsalis). Who is dissatisfied with the sysops, is blocked and can not participate in the elections. Can election be neutral in this case? Do you like that choice? But Baskervill could not answer my question. Why should he be an sysop?
  • Only 1-2 months before the arbitration commencement, one person must perform the function of the Arbitration Committee. I offered you. Only 1-2 months. The whole problem will be solved. Nothing else is needed. Çim Çen In (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking about this for sometime and came up with this:
  • Allow the Azerbaijani community to function with administrators and all for a period of six months from now provided they:
  • Implement a comprehensive and stringent copyright violation policy and review all articles for copyright violations
  • Rewrite controversial articles such as the Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı adhering to the principles of NPOV
  • Create a policy inline with the English Wikipedia involved policy
  • Create a policy prohibiting wheel-warring
  • Review long term blocks of users
  • After six months however, if the points above are not implemented, then we go ahead with Rschen7754's nuclear proposal above.
  • @FR30799386: The content of the article (Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı) should not be different. But the title of the article may vary. We took this rule from Russian Wikipedia. We wrote here: Azərbaycanca danışan oxucunun ən çox tanış olduğu varianta üstünlük verilməlidir, bu mubahisə yaradarsa onda Azərbaycan dilində olan ensiklopediya, dərslik və ya akademik nəşrlərdə istifadə olunmuş varianta üstünlük verilməlidir ([31]). This is a common problem, not a local problem. Your other suggestions are good, but should be accepted at the same time with my suggestion. Otherwise, there will be no result. Çim Çen In (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose all alternates discussed here as too complex. There is already a clear direction the global community is heading with Rschen7754's proposal, and I'm sorry, but all of these alternate proposals really look like attempts to distract from that forming consensus. Going with the simple original proposal is best here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment No problem. But sysops Azerbaijani Wikipedia laugh at this discussion. They are sure that the decision will not be made. Çim Çen In (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment Rschen7754's proposal it will not be accepted, it all knows, and the managers of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. My suggestion will probably not be accepted. There are other interests here. I hope the problems will be solved. I am leaving the discussion now. Çim Çen In (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose How??? You want to install arbcom on dysfunctional community? Let say we do this proposal, how do you know if the said user from dysfunctional comunity is fit to become an arbcom?--AldnonymousBicara? 13:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment @Aldnonymous: So I suggested that "Amnesty should be declared, let's cancel all the blocking (including global blocks, two users from Azerbaijan)". I added that, "The main reason for blocks is something else. Those who make rules and those who want to create discipline are blocked globally (İrada and Aydinsalis). Who is dissatisfied with the sysops, is blocked and can not participate in the elections. Can election be neutral in this case? Do you like that choice? But Baskervill could not answer my question. Why should he be an sysop? ". For normal elections, there must be amnesty. If the Arbitration Committee is set up, everyone should follow the rules. Çim Çen In (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Amnesty should be declared? Meta is not a judicial. Aydinsalis and Irada blocked by foundation. If you want to open the blocks, you must be write email to ca@wikimedia.org.--NMW03 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The administrators have already abused their powers. They should be removed. I am also very against the idea of unblocking vandals as this will create even more problems. I am however with the idea of an ArbCom here. Until new SUPERVISEDsyosps are appointed, the steward should control all admin tasks. --Examknow (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I hope more amicable solution that will not involve me doing all the work for the language I do not understand. I've dealt with Chinese Wikipedia CU stuff last year, and it was — and is — a pain to do that continually. — regards, Revi 12:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formally Oppose Oppose, though I definitely don't want to be ArbCom of any wiki, much less az.wiki. I personally think that the best option is to stick with the original proposal and see where the support falls off. --Rschen7754 05:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oppose per above 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 01:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Comment @NickK: If you agree with my proposal, why did you vote against it? @Drabdullayev17: You are from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. You know all the problems there. Why do not you agree with my proposal? Which item do you dislike? Do you have any alternatives? Çim Çen In (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Çim Çen In: What exactly in my comment makes you think that I agree with your proposal? I think I made it quite clear that I oppose it — NickK (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NickK: "I have an idea why İrada was blocked by the Foundation, and unblocking her would really move us in the opposite direction from resolving the conflict" - you wrote that. This is my suggestion. Çim Çen In (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Çim Çen In: You really suggest to move us in the opposite direction from resolving the conflict, i.e. move us towards making this conflit even worse? That sounds like a very bad suggestion — NickK (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NickK: I made a mistake. I misunderstood, I did not read the sentence until the end. Now I understand your idea clearly. I first thought you would want to cancel the block of irada. Why do I want it? Irada has translated and prepared almost all the rules, including the Arbitration project. After Irada, nobody worked on the rules. Except one or two minor rules. There is no vandalism in Irada's activity. Why not remove the block? The fund does not block those who are dealing with vandalism, but it blocks the lady. Why? I can show the fact that background information is given by vandal sysops. The fund believes them. Çim Çen In (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Çim Çen In: Your comment pretty much summarises the problem: azwiki had too many users who, on one hand, were active in anti-vandalism and policy work and appreciated for it, and on the other hand, active in harassment, NPOV violations or unjustified blocks. This reached a dangerous point where something has to be done about it, and giving the same people even more rights does not sound like a good solution to me — NickK (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Historical proposal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @StraussInTheHouse:--Office won't 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)[reply]
  • I did a quick check of random articles in a similar fashion and almost 15-20% were blatant copy-right violations; all of which were created by Cekli829, a active sysop. I accordingly tagged three of them, for speedy deletion, citing COPYVIO as a rationale and adding the Earwig-copyvio-detection link in the edit summaries. After about 2 days, Araz Yaquboglu removed all the 3 deletion templates, without leaving any edit summary. I asked him over his t/p; as to the rationale and pointed to our TOU as well as the proofs of copy-right violation. The one-liner response was that it was created by Cekli829 and hence can't be deleted !
  • As I challenged Yaquboglu over his t/p; another user chimed in and pointed to the specific template for Copy-vio-deletion and supported my taggings; pending which I re-tagged all of the articles with the new template. About 72 hours later, Cekli829 (the very creator of the article) reverted me over all the 3 articles without providing any rationale and noted over the AN thread that since he had cited the links; my claims were baseless.
  • Two more articles which I have tagged in meanwhile were also reverted by Cekli829, the creator-sysop. In a subsequent discussion over my t/p; he pointed to a single case of mistaken tagging (the source was available under CC-4.0) but refused to entertain the other declines and when re-asked, threatened to block me.
Təqdim etdiyiniz mənbələrlə bağlı fikrimi bildirmişəm. --►Cekli829 16:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support 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)[reply]
Mənim münasibətim...
İngilis dilini mükəmməl bilmədiyim üçün bu məsələyə münasibətimi ana dilimdə - azərbaycanca bildirmək istəyirəm. Ona görə də ingilis dilini mükəmməl bilən istifadəçilərdən xahiş edirəm ki, mənim yazdıqlarımı tərcümə etsinlər. Bəri başdan deyim ki, burada AzVikinin ünvanına səslənən fikirlər qərəzlidir. Açıq-aydın görünür ki, burada AzVikinin ünvanına mənfi fikirlər səsləndirən iddiaçılar Azərbaycan qanunvericiliyindən və Ermənistan–Azərbaycan Dağlıq Qarabağ münaqişəsindən xəbərdar deyillər. Ölkə qanunvericiliyi ilə bağlı ona görə qeyd edirəm ki, müəllif hüququ ilə əlaqəli məsələlərdə AzVikidə qanunvericiliyin tələbi qorunur və ona uyğun hərəkət edilir. Belə ki, "Müəlliflik hüququ və əlaqəli hüquqlar haqqında" Azərbaycan Respublikasının Qanununa əsasən, aşağıdakılar müəlliflik hüququnun obyektləri deyildir:
a) rəsmi sənədlər (qanunlar, məhkəmə qərarları, qanunvericilik, inzibati və məhkəmə xarakterli digər mətnlər), həmçinin onların rəsmi tərcümələri;
b) dövlət rəmzləri və nişanları (bayraqlar, gerblər, himnlər, ordenlər, pul nişanları, digər dövlət rəmzləri və nişanları);
v) xalq yaradıcılığı (folklor) nümunələri;
q) günün yenilikləri, müxtəlif hadisə və faktlar barədə informasiya xarakterli məlumatlar.
Həmçinin, president.az saytının məlumatlarından istifadə üçün də müvafiq icazə vardır.
Müəllif hüququ ilə bağlı qaldırılan iddiaların əksəriyyəti məhz bu məsələlər ilə bağlıdır. Və yaxud da aktiv istifadəçilərimizin əksəriyyəti yaradıcı insanlardır. Hansı ki, onların yazıları müxtəlif saytlarda dərc olunur. Qeyd edim ki, elə bu gün Winged Blades of Godric AzVikidə yaratdığım "Hallabonq" məqaləsinə "Müəllif hüququ pozuntusu" şablonunu əlavə etmişdir ki, həmin şablonda qeyd etdiyi link məhz mənim "YouTube" kanalım olan "TarPas" kanalındakı "Hallabonq / Dekopon nədir? Portağal, yoxsa mandarin? Azərbaycan onu əkən 5-ci ölkədir" adlı videonun linkidir. O videonu və mətni də mən hazırlayaraq, AzVikidə də müvafiq mövzuda məqalə yaratmışam. Ona görə də hər hansısa müəllif hüququ pozuntusundan söhbət belə gedə bilməz. Digər mübahisəli hallarda da əksər vaxtlarda vəziyyət belə olur. Onun da deyim ki, hazırda Azərbaycan dilində mövcud olan saytlar içərisində müəllif hüququnun ən yaxşı qorunduğu saytlardan biri məhz az.wikipedia.org saytıdır.
Ermənilərlə bağlı məsələyə gəldikdə isə 30 mart 2018-ci ildə Azərbaycan parlamentində qəbul olunmuş "Azərbaycanlıların soyqırımının 100 illiyi ilə əlaqədar Azərbaycan Respublikası Milli Məclisinin Bəyanatı"nda olan bu iki abzası diqqətinizə çatdırıram:
"...Erməni millətçiləri qonşu dövlətlərə, o cümlədən Azərbaycan Respublikasına qarşı ərazi iddialarına haqq qazandırmaq, bunun vasitəsi kimi seçdikləri işğalçılıq, soyqırım və dövlət terrorizmi əməllərini pərdələmək üçün hər vasitədən istifadə edərək, guya 1915-ci ildə Osmanlı dövləti ərazisində soyqırıma məruz qaldıqları, “incidilmiş, məzlum və əzabkeş xalq” olduqları barədə uydurmaların beynəlxalq miqyasda qəbul olunmasına cəhd göstərirlər. Təəssüf ki, Azərbaycan xalqına qarşı həyata keçirilmiş real soyqırım faktlarına göz yuman ayrı-ayrı dövlətlərin parlamentləri və hökumətləri, bəzən də beynəlxalq təşkilatlar bir sıra hallarda yalançı erməni təbliğatının təsiri altına düşərək, yaxud siyasi konyunkturaya əsaslanaraq “erməni soyqırımı” əfsanəsini müzakirə mövzusuna çevirmiş, hətta bu barədə əsassız və ədalətsiz aktlar qəbul etmişlər..."
"Tarixdə heç bir “erməni soyqırımının” baş vermədiyini elmi həqiqətə sadiq qalan tədqiqatçılar, o cümlədən bir sıra Qərb alimləri çoxdan sübuta yetirmişlər. “Erməni soyqırımı” haqqında uydurmalar xəstə təxəyyülün məhsulu olub real tarixi faktlara əsaslanmır. Türkiyədə Osmanlı dövrünə aid arxivlərin açılması, tədqiqatçıların, o cümlədən erməni alimlərinin XX əsrin əvvəlləri ilə bağlı tarixi sənədlərlə tanış olmağa dəvət edilməsi, lakin erməni alimlərinin sağlam elmi polemikadan imtina etməsi də “erməni soyqırımı” əfsanəsini dünyaya yayanların iç üzünü açıb göstərir."
Hamınıza hörmətlə, --►Cekli829 20:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the racism in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. On the contrary, nationalism in the Armenian Wikipedia shows itself more vividly. For example, just look at these pictures: [32], [33]. Moreover, in the Armenian Wikipedia they write the names of the settlements of the Azerbaijani Turks, where Armenians are not living: hy:Ակնա (քաղաք), hy:Քարվաճառ, hy:Բերձոր, hy:Քաշունիք. First, solve these problems.--Qolcomaq (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cekli829: blocked me for a year on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, due to Facebook comments. Facebook isn't part of the Wikimedia Project. So anything happening there has nothing to do with this. Please, I request immediate action against Cekli, as he is clearly violating every single rule of this project. He must be de-sysoped due to abuse of rights. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 18:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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.

  1. There are 17 admins on az.wikipedia. Have they been invited to comment on this RFC? What about the 2 bureaucrats?
  2. 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: is that the perception you are getting?) I wonder if "q) günün yenilikləri, müxtəlif hadisə və faktlar barədə informasiya xarakterli məlumatlar." (which Google Translate says means "q) information about the day's news, information about different events and facts") is being used as an excuse to say that entire sentences can be copied verbatim out of sources as long as they talk about facts, which pretty much means anything that one would find on Wikipedia?
    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".
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
  5. 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)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754:, Aykhan Zayedzadeh (talk · contribs) blocked by Cekli829 (expiry 1 year) for Facebook comment.--NMW03 (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NMW03:, Aykhan Zayedzadehnin bloklanmasına səbəb olan həmin Facebook kommenti Vikipediya ilə bağlı idi. O, şərhlər yazaraq, mənə böhtan atmış (məsələn, məqalələri pulla yazdığımı iddia etmiş) və məni təhqir etmişdir. --►Cekli829 10:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google Translate:" @ NMW03: The same Facebook statement that caused the blockage of Aykhan Zayedzadeh was related to Wikipedia. He wrote comments, slandered me (for example, I wrote articles for money) and insulted me." I interpret this as a clear admission from Cekli829 that he blocked a user on az.wikipedia because of a Facebook comment. --Rschen7754 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cekli829:, amma bloklama qaydalarında Facebookdakı rəyə görə bloklanılmalıdır yazılmayıb. Vikipediyada olsa bloklaya bilərdiniz.--NMW03 (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NMW03:, yəni demək istəyirsiniz ki, Vikipediyadakı fəaliyyətimə görə Aykhan Zayedzadeh məni Vikipediyadan kənarda - indiki halda "Facebook"da təhqir edə və mənə böhtan ata bilər? Sizə ötən il baş vermiş analoji halı xatırlatmaq istəyirəm: buyurun, tanış olun. --►Cekli829 10:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Cekli829:, so, anyone who has ties to Wikipedia cannot using insultive words (which in fact, my words weren't insultive) outside of Wikipedia, and they are obliged to get blocked on Wikipedia? What kind of a logic is this? This is why we are thinking to de-sysop you. From the day that courtesy rules were accepted, you contantly pursued to exploit them. Sysops like you who abuse the system surely deserve punishment. When it comes to racism, I have published a complaint about usage of racist/biased POV words when describing anything related to Armenians and Armenia, as seen here. Azerbaijani Wikipedia is free to use local sources (such as Ashurbeyli, Bunyadov etc.) when giving out facts about the country it represents. Although, this must be done correspondingly with the neutral POV. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 10:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cekli829:, bəli çünki Facebook Vikimedia Fondunun saytı deyil. Buna görə orada yazılanlara görə bloklaması tamamilə qisasçılıq zəmnindədir. Göstərdiyiniz müzakirədə isə Mardetanha öz fikrini səsləndirib. Buna görə istifadəçinin blokunu açmağınızı xahiş edirəm.--NMW03 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hiàn:, Why all sysops? Should everyone be removed from management because of one person's mistake?--NMW03 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754:, Discussed. But nothing happened.--NMW03 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NMW03: And that is the problem: if azwiki administrators are not willing to vote him out (especially if the allegations of limiting the discussion to admins only is true) then they are complicit in this too. That is why the option of removing all administrators has to be considered. --Rschen7754 00:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754:--
    Cekli829's defense covers 2 of my tagged articles (one was a mistaken tagging and the other is gray-zone stuff). Over my az-wiki t/p; I have clearly pointed to the copy-righted status of three-pages (and how he blatantly copied from them; the timeline et al) but he has so far denied to answer those queries. He asked me to not disrupt the project, on top of his initial warning to block me.
    There was a RFC about Cekli's sysop permissions about 2 months back. A lot of sysops opined that there were no cause to remove Cekli and one even threatened to remove the OP out of some Whatsapp group, if he continued. There were some comments that only sysops can participate and all that along with a lot of (seemingly secondary) commentary about activities over some WP-group, who was admin over there and who was not.
    This's one of the reasons behind my asking for a clean slate. There's too much group-think as a result of excessive interlinking of Whatsapp, Facebook et al with the regular operations of the site. (Cekli even admits to blocking one user for comments over Facebook.)
    By not acting upon the matter, they are complicit in the entire affair. As told above by some WP-group member, (post my tagging) there have been explicit discussions about what to do with the copyright-violations, before one sysop reverted all of them. Pending my re-taggings, Cekli829 reverted those himself.
    I guess almost all the sysops know each other very well and accordingly......... I also note that despite my posting about the copyright violations over their administrator-noticeboard, not a single admin participated. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reading his post over here, I see that he claims to have uploaded the video to the Youtube site himself and hence, copyright rules don't apply. Weird; might be true. But, the video is not in the public domain (and can't be either due to usage of copyrighted songs under fair-use).
    As a defense against painting the genocide as a lie, I see that Cekli points to the resolution achieved over Azerbaijani Parliament that professed it to be conspiracy. Brazen nationalistic editing at it's worst. As pointed out over another RFC, almost all pages toe the national line with Cekli's intensive copying of stuff from the parliament website.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the article and cited a bunch of sources over the t/p. Let's see. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NMW03: WBG sums it up better than I can myself - I share many of the same opinions with regards to this. Hiàn (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bloklama ilə bağlı münasibətim...
"İstifadəçi digər istifadəçilərə qarşı kobud davranıb onları təhqir və təhdid edərsə;" - Əgər burada "İstifadəçi Azərbaycanca Vikipediyada digər istifadəçilərə qarşı kobud davranıb onları təhqir və təhdid edərsə;" yazılsaydı, o zaman mənə qarşı ittiham səsləndirilən haqlı olardı. İndiki halda isə həmin qaydada təhqirin harada olması konkret qeyd edilməyib. Ona görə də hörmətli həmkarımız Mardetanha demişkən, "heckes tehqir etmeye haqi yox, wiki da olup ya whatsappda farqi yox".
Həmçinin həmin bölmənin sonunda yazılıb ki, "Bloklama müddəti idarəçi tərəfindən sərbəst olaraq təyin edilir." Mən də bunu və daha əvvəllər də Aykhan Zayedzadehnin dəfələrlə digər həmkarlarım Vusal1981, Baskervill və Eldarado tərəfindən bloklandığını nəzərə alaraq, mövcud blok müddətini tətbiq etdim.
Qeyd edim ki, Aykhan Zayedzadeh AzViki istifadəçilərinin hər kəsə açıq "Facebook" qrupu olan "Azərbaycanca Vikipediya - Azerbaijani Wikipedia" qrupunda məni dəfələrlə təhqir etmiş, mənə böhtan atmışdır (məsələn, məqalələri pulla yazdığımı iddia etmiş). Təəssüf ki, o, məndən üzr istəmək əvəzinə eyni fəaliyyətini bloklandıqdan sonra da davam etdirməkdədir. --►Cekli829 05:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any Wikimedia site can make any policy about anything, but that policy must fall within Wikimedia norms and policies.
  • It is not acceptable to block a user just because they give legitimate criticism on or off wiki. If it was, we would have blocked so many users onwiki by now for what they said in public and private rooms on IRC and Wikipedia criticism sites. The only exceptions are violations of the Privacy policy (for example, maliciously posting a user's IP, address, email, passport) and threats of harm. User:Cekli829: Did he post your private information? Did he threaten to hurt you or any other person? Why did you not block him from the Facebook group and leave it at that?
  • User:Cekli829: Why did you block the user, when the comment was about you? Why did you not leave this to another administrator if it was so bad? Because you did the block, it looks like you are taking revenge against this user - not that they violated policy and so they must be blocked.
  • Just a thought: secret channels used for communication can be dangerous. Transparency is a major Wikimedia principle. If you are using Facebook or WhatsApp to make decisions, this is not okay, because outsiders cannot see why you came to make a decision, and they question the fairness and integrity of the project. Anecdotally, from my time as a steward I can tell you that this is where wikis start to go bad. --Rschen7754 06:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Dear @Rschen7754: Nicat49 is still blaming me with "threatening him" and "insult". This is missleading of community. First of all in az-wiki there is no standard "insult list" and "threatening words list"... We don't know which words are forbidden. I have told him "if i had personal problem with him, i would meet him in real life. But i have no personal problem with him, i am not psycho, Nicat49 is only virtual caracter for me." so he uses this expression as a threat. Then he told me "During your wikipedia carrier you only made few edits, created some 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)[reply]
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)[reply]





  • Hörmətli @Rschen7754: mən axı "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. --►Cekli829 06:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, blocking a user for Facebook comments is, truly, incorrect. It seems to be a great way to threatened people. Anything happening out-of-Wikipedia must stay like that. Furthermore, Cekli is overreacting, and most importantly, lying (as he always did). My comment's translation is as follows: "You might have made the article for money. There is nothing wrong with that. But protecting such as articles in such manner is ridicilous." This was my respond to Cekli calling Winged's software "baseless". You kinda can understand why I said the first sentence. The artciles are somewhat unencyclopedic, are about companies (pretty popular among paid-to-made articles), and has one or two citations, also written in a promotional manner. Cekli has always abused the system and exploited the rights given to him years ago, when AzWiki desperately needed sysops. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, in another post that he made on the same group he said "filthy and ill-bred people like Aykhan Zayedzadeh has no place in Wikipedia". Isn't this hypocricy? Didn't he blocked me for the same thing he did now? --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 10:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, also, about your first question, yes, a sysop made a post on Faceboo inviting the sysops to this RFC. Every sysop, except for the ones that are not on that group (like 2 or 3), are aware of this RFC. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 10:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aykhan Zayedzadeh:, zəhmət olmazsa, sözlərimi təhrif etmə... --►Cekli829 10:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, another thing, "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" (If the rule is changed, for example, if they write that "these rules are only for the activity on Azerbaijani Wikipedia", then I will immediately unblock Aykhan Zayedzadeh) is enough to de-sysop someone. A rule accepted in AzWiki is automatically about AzWiki. There is no need to clarify that "this rule is for AzWiki". Btw, Cekli's latest comment is a total lie. He wrote "əxlaqsız və tərbiyəsiz" when describing me, and my translations are correct. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to say that it is an unusual interpretation. I am sure that azwiki has rules about vandalism, but if I went to Wikia and did some vandalism, while that certainly is a bad thing, I shouldn't expect to get blocked on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, for example. --Rschen7754 05:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, about your third question, no, nothing has been done about him. Since that incident he went dark. Cekli (who I suppose is a friend of Vusal) said that he had IRL issues that needed to be solved. So nothing has been done on an inactive sysop. It has been a long time since he was active, what is the meaning of keeping him as a sysop if he isn't going to reestablish his activity anytime soo? He can repropose his nomination after his IRL issues are solved. Right? --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 11:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aykhan Zayedzadeh: Paid editing is a pretty serious accusation (it is a violation of the Terms of Use if not properly disclosed). Can you provide links to the articles that you reference above? --Rschen7754 18:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Winged Blades of Godric:, you moved page. OK. Please delete this image--NMW03 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Winged Blades of Godric:, "Erməni-soyqırımı" violates the Azerbaijani grammar rules. It should be "Erməni Soyqırımı" or "Erməni soyqırımı". --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754:, basically, all articles that Winged Blades of Godric demeed COPYVIO. Especially this (especially for this). Also, some articles Cekli creates promotes his YouTube channel. Is this allowed? --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 15:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rschen7754:, here is where Cekli insulted me. I removed some elements to protect the identity of the person who sent me this screenshot, as I'm blocked by Cekli even in Facebook. The whole post is about me, and he even wrote my username in the post. "Əxlaqlı insanlara Vikipediyada hər zaman yer olacaq. Tərbiyəsiz insanlara isə yer olmayacaq!" (There will always be a place for virtuous in Wikipedia. But never for filthy people!) is clear insult a directed towards me, which violates the courtesy rules of AzWiki. "bu qaydalar yalnız Azərbaycanca Vikipediyadakı fəaliyyət üçün nəzərdə tutulub", o zaman mən Aykhan Zayedzadehnin blokunu dərhal açaram" (If the rule is changed, for example, if they write that "these rules are only for the activity on Azerbaijani Wikipedia", then I will immediately unblock Aykhan Zayedzadeh) is a quote from Cekli. He blocked me Facebook comments, shouldn't he get blocked for this post too? I'm saying this again, Facebook isn't part of the Wikimedia Project. Anything happening there stays there, it must not interfere to Wikipedia. And sysops shall not exploit the rights WE gave them to. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cekli829: Can you justify your absolutely ridiculous block of WBG at azwiki? Hiàn (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hiàn: WBG kimdir? Əgər Winged Blades of Godrici nəzərdə tutursunuzsa, ona bloklanma səbəbini izah etmişəm. --►Cekli829 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems fair. I would hope you realise that keeping the name at present follows fairly flawed logic. Hiàn (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Hiàn: Məqalənin mövcud adı azərbaycandilli vikicəmiyyətin maraqlarına və Azərbaycan dilində olan mənbələrə uyğundur. --►Cekli829 17:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thing is, Cekli, Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral website. Following the interests and beliefs of a pro-Azerbaijani viewpoint is not neutral. Every other Wikipedia article calls the event the Armenian Genocide, the Azerbaijani does not. It is the widespread consensus of scholars that the event did occur, but the Azerbaijani article chose to flagrantly disregard that. Some Japanese scholars believe the Nanjing Massacre didn't occur, but the Japanese Wikipedia article didn't call it the "Nanjing Massacre lie", eh? Hiàn (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Hiàn: Sorry for jumping into your discussion. I am in no way trying to defend Cekli829. However, I just want to know your opinion. Do you think it is fair that Armenian Wikipedia blatantly changes the map of Azerbaijan like this?--Verman1 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it is changed, then no it is not fair. That does not in any way whatsoever justify any of the poor behaviour and content on azwiki. That is not the subject of this RfC. Hiàn (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • And that's the matter in my opinion. When dealing with sensitive issues like Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the issues must be resolved in complex form. Otherwise it may seem an hostile act. Sorry for being so straight, but because I was very close to the conflict I know this matter very well. The UN doesn't recognize Armenian Genocide. However, Azerbaijan's borders are clearly recognized at UN. Don't you think it is a bit biased to force Azerbaijani Wikipedia to accept the Armenian Genocide, but ignoring the falsifications of Armenian Wikipedia?--Verman1 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Absolutely not. As I said before, it is the overwhelming consensus of scholars that the genocide did happen - whether it is recognised or not is not relevant in the least bit here. The Azerbaijani Wikipedia chooses to ignore this. Again, the Azerbaijani borders situation is a different situation that should be dealt with separately. No one's trying to downplay the Armenian-Azerbaijani bias/conflict, but while we're discussing azwiki we shouldn't be discussing hywiki. Whatever the outcome of this RfC, this is not meant to deal a blow towards the Azerbaijanis, or try and suppress them in any way - this is about something far different. Hiàn (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry, but again you seem like enforcing your POV. Overwhelming scholars may believe in one thing, but state archives in Turkey and in Armenia have not been researched regarding this. How we are supposed to take it as granted then? Once again, when dealing with Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict the issues must be resolved in complex form, otherwise both sides will reject the outcome, therefore discussing hywiki is not just essential, but also vital here. Otherwise it will exactly look like a blow or suppression towards Azerbaijanis, since the decision will be one-sided.--Verman1 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Qeyd edim ki, başqa dil bölmələrindəki eyni mövzulu məqalələrlə müqayisədə AzVikidə olan bu məqalənin mətnində neytrallıq prinsipləri daha yaxşı qorunub. --►Cekli829 18:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be a news report where a Wikipedia administrator says "But the Karabakh conflict cannot be resolved by information wars. The victory of Azerbaijanis in Wikipedia will come when the Azerbaijani army liberates our land". This seems to clearly indicate that there are certain administrators on the Azerbaijani wiki are clearly pushing a nationalistic POV. FR30799386 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FR30799386:, Tarkhan Pashazadeh is Cekli829 himself. Per commons file and social media link disclosed by Cekli himself. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 09:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all. Firstly excuse for my late commenting this topic as a bureaucrat of Azwiki. I've read all of the above. And I'll try to explain all the questions of Rschen7754. Almost all of the ideas against Cekli829 are true, and if we can remove the Cekli829's sysop rights, most of the problems will be solve in Azwiki. Why can't we do that? Because, according to the old local rules, the voting for removing the sysops rights were required to be approved by all sysops. But by voting we have made changes to these rules. According to the new rules: For start voting will need approval of only a large part of the sysops. And now, our community can start to voting for removing sysops and bureaucrat simply. We need some time to solve recent problems, and I think that this important decision that will affect a community should not be approved in such a short time. First, we must try to solve our problem locally. The following voting can be a major blow to the Azwiki community. Therefore, I think it would be the best solution to give some advices for resolving the problems in the local direction. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me.--eldarado ✉ 21:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eldarado: Thank you for your reply. We would like to avoid removal of all administrative rights if possible. But some more questions:
    The previous discussion [34] had 4 oppose votes and 1 support vote. Is this correct? Wouldn't this also fail under the new rules, because it "will need approval of only a large part of the sysops"?
    Other administrators have been mentioned in these RFCs. What do you say about their conduct?
    Finally, it seems that other administrators are justifying their actions because of Cekli829. How then do we know that a desysop request for Cekli would succeed? --Rschen7754 21:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What if we desysopped Cekli and banned him from re-obtaining sysop rights for six months from here, then stepped back and let the local community work out the problems? That and some clearly explained expectations for user treatment, blocking, and responding to copyright infractions might just resolve this without needing to use more drastic measures. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's two courses of action here: 1) wait to see if the local community desyops Cekli - which I don't think will happen, or 2) do it here. But I would like to hear the answers to the questions I posed above. I also want to be careful that we are not just assigning more blame to Cekli, just because well, he is a lot more globally known for his steward nominations. --Rschen7754 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or I suppose, 3) if @Cekli829: chooses to voluntarily resign. --Rschen7754 01:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajraddatz: it also will be good solution way, because most of problems directly about Cekli. --eldarado ✉ 22:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello everyone. We will raise this issue in the near future. Discussion of blocks has already started. I ask you to be patient and give us time. Regards,Turkmen talk 21:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754: I think that the after the recent problems other sysops opinions will change. And I would like to mention other sysops names for join this discussion. @Anar kerimxanov:, @Araz Yaquboglu:, @Azerifactory:, @Babək Akifoğlu:, @Baskervill:, @Eminn:, @Nicat49:, @Qolcomaq:, @Sortilegus:, @Toghrul Rahimli:, @Wertuose:, @White Demon: --eldarado ✉ 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Turkmen and Eldarado: I can only speak for myself here. I don't think this RFC will close within this week. However, what concerns me is that this behavior has gone on for years, and it is only now when mass desysops have been proposed that there has been any action taken on the part of the azwiki community. I don't think anyone expects to have all the problems of azwiki solved overnight. But you need to convince us that you are going to work on these problems, and sooner rather than later (and it would help to have some of the mentioned sysops acknowledge their own errors). If the plan is to have a discussion that will last months and eventually die out with no action - that's not okay. Right now I still support my proposal of removing all rights on azwiki because I'm convinced that this is the only way that the problem will be fixed - but I'm willing to consider less drastic options if convinced otherwise. --Rschen7754 05:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And also Turkmen, to clarify, under my proposal former admins would not be blocked, stewards would just not grant admin rights again for a period of time (but editing would still be allowed). --Rschen7754 05:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754: I think you're right. My idea was first to solve this issue locally and if I didn't do it, I would fully support your proposal. I will arrange a discussion for this evening to remove Cekli's status. I would like to have this problem solved by the Azwiki community. --eldarado ✉ 06:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cekli829 desysop discussion fully protected

@Eldarado: Why is the desysop discussion for Cekli829 being held on a page that is fully protected, w:az:Vikipediya:İdarəçi müzakirəsi? Why is participation by non-administrators not allowed? --Rschen7754 04:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: According to 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)[reply]
@Eldarado: This is rather unfortunate in this situation. I can't say that this is not allowed (for example, on English Wikipedia desysops are entirely through ArbCom), but in this particular scenario, where many administrators are accused of wrongdoing, it calls into question whether the administrators are banding together over Facebook groups and protecting one of their own. --Rschen7754 16:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Unfortunately, there isn't ArbCom in azviki yet. What do non-ArbCom wikis do? Could you show me please some example? --eldarado ✉ 18:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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:, First of all, let me note that before writing my mind I reiterated all the correspondence between Nicat49 and HulaguKaan. There is no problem to grow in here and blocks are also right. Hulagu Kaan has been blocked twice (1 week and 1 month) and reasons of both are insult. Even in one of blocks was canceled by Nicat49, but HulaguKaan had insulted him during the discussion. Such discussions are likely to be in every language section of the Wikipedia, and most blocked users think the block is wrong. The reason why other administrators did not participate in the discussion was that the block was right.
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)[reply]
@Eldarado: Maybe. But why is Nicat49 doing the block when the person insulted was Nicat49? Why not leave this for another administrator to handle? Such blocks only tend to make people angry because they see it as the administrator using their block tool to win the dispute. --Rschen7754 20:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: çünki, 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: da təstiq edir. Gələcəkdə yeni qaydalar olsa, həmin qaydalara uyğun addımlar atmaq olar, mənim buna etirazım yoxdu. Hörmətlə.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: you say, 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)[reply]
@Eldarado and Nicat49: 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 01:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: no, more like "there is no spesific rule that says the insulted sysop cannot block the user who insulted him/her, only the other sysops can". --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 12:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, please have a look to 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)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, I personally thing that it would be better to cancel all administrative right of local admins, and in future it wwould be better select them 6 months + 6 months, but not for lifetime, or 10 years, like some of them..This is character of human, bbeing in same position for a long time, after somewhile human starts to be more harmfull, corruptive and useless, instead of being hhelpfull. HulaguKaan (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Aykhan Zayedzadeh: yes, more like "there is no spesific rule that says the insulted sysop cannot block the user who insulted him/her, only the other sysops can": İstifadəçini bloklayan idarəçinin məqsədi ilk növbədə vandalizmin və Vikipediyaya vurulacaq hər-hansı ziyanın qarşısını almaqdır. 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)[reply]
@NMW03: they can not say anything, and now have they sent you? Tell them to read it [37], [38]. @Rschen7754: anyone who ignores my question is dissatisfied with someone else: Dramatic situation . Çim Çen In (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:, of course NO, all sysops can block A and also B (an admin) can block A. If protests someone, we discuss about block between all sysops. --eldarado ✉ 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: why won't you answer my question? Çim Çen In (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't know. My guess is no, though. --Rschen7754 01:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Canvassing for adminship

@Rschen7754: This action was used by a former candidates in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. This is an invitation and no one is asked to give the positive vote. --Baskervill (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Baskervill:, how are you selecting the people who get the message ?  — FR 06:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, This is for notice purposes only and everyone made this in ourviki. I think this isn't illegal. Could you please tell me that why did you ask this? --eldarado ✉ 06:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I always had very good relationships with Azwiki users. You can see them from the positive votes given to me. @FR30799386: we are a small community and almost everyone knows each other. I didn't ask anyone for support, I just wanted to let some users know about such a vote. I've sent the invitation messages to 10 people and you can see many similar messages from the discussion pages of those people. We like to inform active users about the voting in azwiki. --Baskervill (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the last three messages written to the user's discussion page--Baskervill (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be prohibited by the azwiki rules or by global rules, but this does not reflect well on the candidate. How do we know that you aren't choosing users who will only support you, and "forgetting" to leave the message on the pages of users who won't? I notice that Cekli829 didn't get one of those invitations, for example. I notice some admins did not either.
I don't want to remove all admins on az.wikipedia. I think that it is going to be a huge headache for stewards and global sysops to keep up with all of the requests in a language they don't speak and a community they are not familiar with. But I see a consistent lack of transparency and integrity from the community and the more I investigate, I keep finding more and more things amiss. And this only adds to that picture. --Rschen7754 06:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: The sysops in Azerbaijani wikipedia have been selected by the local wiki community, and there is no problem between any sysops at this time. The solution of the problems should not be this way. I have a question for you. If the rights of all sysops are taken away, who will be managed in azerbaijani wikipedia? New managers will not be elected by the community? and most importantly, a person who does not know the Azerbaijani language how can manage this wikipedia ?--Baskervill (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I did not need to send such a message to admins because they are very active users.--Baskervill (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Baskervill: This does not address my concerns. How do we know that you aren't choosing users who will only support you, and "forgetting" to leave the message on the pages of users who won't?
The answer to those questions is addressed in the initial #Proposal: stewards and global sysops will monitor the wiki like they do all the others with no active admins. There will be a 6 month period where no local admins can be elected, and 6 months after that where temporary adminship may be assigned. However, canvassing like this would not be permitted. --Rschen7754 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Baskervill: I have a question for you. O biri idarəçilər kimi mənim suallarıma cavab vermirsinizsə, Vikipediya prinsiplərinə əməl etmək fikriniz yoxdursa, hansı haqla idarəçi olmaq istəyirsiniz? İdarəçi o deməkdir ki bu işlərlə məşğul olsun. Suallara cavab versin. problemləri həll etsin. Qayda pozuntularını aradan qaldırsın. Siz isə indiyə qədər bu işləri etməmisiniz, bundan sonra da etməyəcəksinzi. O zaman niyə siz və sizinkimilər idarəçi olmalıdırlar? Özünüz kimi biri məni bloklayıb. İddia edir ki mən qlobal bloklanmış Aydinsalisəm. Ona burada cavab verildi ki qlobal bloklanmış istifadəçini idarəçi bloklamalı deyil. Bu mənim blokumun açmaq üçün sizə kifəyət deyilmi? Amma daşdan səs çıxır sizdən səs çıxmır, çünki müzakirələrə qatılmağa sizə icazə vermirlər. Müstəqil fikri olmayan, bir nəfərin göstərişləri ilə hərəkət edən siz və o biri idarəçilər AzVikiyə lazım deyil. Sizə status lazımdır öyünməyə, mən idarəçiyəm, mən başqalarından üstünəm, mən kimisə bloklaya bilərəm. Bundan başqa sizə heç nə lazım deyil. Çıxın gedin öz yoşunuzla, getmək istəmirsinizsə, idarəçilik edin, baş girləməyin. İki yoldan birini seçin. Çim Çen In (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sizin sualınız konkret nə ilə bağlıdır ?--Baskervill (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Baskervill: mənim suallım 10-la da yox, bəlkəm 100-lə olacaq. Bu suallar ona görə indiyədək cavabsı qalıb ki, Azərbaycanca Vikipediyada idarəçilər əsas idarəçi fəaliyyəti ilə məşğul olmayıblar. Bildiyiniz kimi, Kənd meydanında ( [41], [42] ) və burada bir neçə dəfə konkret fakt göstərdim ki, Cekli829 və Azerifactory istifadəçi hesablarından azı iki istifadəçinin istifadə etməsinə şübhələr var, konkret fakt göstərdim. Bundan sonra Cekli829 üzə çıxmadı, suala cavab vermədi. Sual bundan ibarət idi, bu redaktəni kim edib? Tərxan Paşazadə qəzet kolleksiyaçısıdır, bu sahə üzrə mütəxəssisdir, o belə səhv edə bilməzdi. O zaman bu redaktəni kim edib? Bunu yazan kimi dərhal Kozi oyunu başladı, guya Cekli829 çoxsaylı hesabdan istifadə edir. Niyə? İdarəçi hesabından 2 nəfərin istifadə etməsi sübut olunarsa dərhal həmin idarəçinin statusu ləğv edilməlidir. Amma idarəçi iki hesabdan istifadə edərsə bu normal hesab oluna bilər. Göstərdiyim fakta isə idarəçilərdən heç kim münasibət bildirmədi. Azerifactory isə məni blokladı. Bildiyiniz kimi, burada da göstərildi, AzVikinin qaydalarında da var, bloklama qisasçılıq zəminində olmamalıdır. Mən deyirəm Azerifactory hesabından azı iki istifadəçi istifadəçi istifadə edir, Azerifactory da məni bloklayır. Bu qisas məqsədi daşımırmı? Bəs siz niyə məsələyə müdaxilə etmədiniz? Azerifactoryun qaydanı pozduğunu demədiniz? Azerifactory bəhanə olaraq göstərir ki, mən qlobal bloklanmış Aydinsalisam. Amma ona burada məlumat verildi ki, buna görə o istifadəçini bloklaya bilməz. Niyə blokumu açmırsınız? Niyə göstərdiyim fakları ört-basdır edirsiniz?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision deletion of the wheel warring log entries

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)[reply]
@Turkmen: Why is 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)[reply]
@Turkmen: Considering that Baskervill was desysopped for the wheel warring and is now running for administrator again, I would think that the community should be able to review what happened when making their decision. --Rschen7754 00:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Turkmen talk 14:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Inactivity desysops

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)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Why do you think they (Turkmen, Eldarado, Eldarado, Azerifactory, Baskervill... ) do not answer my question? What prevents them from answering? What are they afraid of? What do they want to hide? Çim Çen In (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, Per our rules inactive sysops should remove their rights. What is troubling you? @Çim Çen In:, hansı sualdan danışırsız? nəyi gizlədirik? nədən qorxuruq? mən sizi anlaya bilmirəm. Zəhmət olmasa fikrinizi aydın şəkildə izah edin. Sizi narahat edən nədir? --eldarado ✉ 08:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: Cekli829 və Azerifactory istifadəçi hesablarının hər birindən azı iki istifadəçinin istifadə etməsi ilə bağlı Kənd Meydanında və burada yazmışam. Burada bir neçə dəfə, həm azərbaycanca, həm də ingiliscə. Reaksiya yalnız bu oldu: Cekli829 yoxa çıxdı, Kozi oyunu başladır, Azerifactory isə məni blokladı. Zəhmət olmasa hər iki istifadəçinin istifadəçi hesablarından azı 2 istifadəçinin istifadə etməsi ilə bağlı göstərdiyim faktlara münasibət bildirin. Çim Çen In (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Çim Çen In:, Bu sizin fikrinizdi bu təsdiq edən heç bir səbəb yoxdur axı. Sizin yazdıqlarınız da sadəcə olaraq təxmindir. Əgər "sübut" varsa ortada lazımi tədbirlər görmək olacaq əks halda iddianız öz təsdiqini tapmayacaq. Əgər dediyiniz kimidirsə iki şəxs istifadə edirsə o hesabları mən nə üçün və nədən qorxmalıyam ki? --eldarado ✉ 10:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: sübut nəyə deyirsiniz? Mən sübut göstərmişəm, göstərdiyim doğru deyildirsə, zəhmət olmasa əsaslandırın. Mən faktları göstərirəm, ehtimallar əsasında mülahizə irəli sürmürəm. Siz isə göstərdiyim faktı inkar etmək istəyirsiniz. Faktı necə inkar edə bilərsiniz axı? O belə edib, bu da sübut, linki təqdim etmişəm, hamı öz gözü ilə bunu görə bilir. Siz niyə görmək istəmirsiniz bəs? Bir şey ki təqdim olunub, ortaya qoyulub, necə demək olar ki belə şey yoxdur? Çim Çen In (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FR30799386:, Of course I envision the sysop actions --eldarado ✉ 14:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Çim Çen In:, kiminsə yazə tipindən cümlələrindən necə əmin olmaq olar? Və nə üçün bunu israrla mənə deyirsiz? checkuserə yazın müəyyən etsin və gərəkən edilsin. Bu mənim səalhiyyətimdə deyil. --eldarado ✉ 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: söhbət kiminsə yazı tipindən getmir, söhbət iki idarəçinin hər birinin istifadəçi hesabından azı iki nəfərin istifadə etməsindən və bu kobud qayda pozuntusu olduğu halda o biri idarəçilərin buna göz yummalarından gedir. Mən harda yazmışam, yazı tipini? Mən fakt göstərdim, "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)[reply]
@FR30799386:, and you can check last 6 month edits and sysop actions of that users. --eldarado ✉ 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Çim Çen In:, siz nə danışırsız? Mən nə vaxt kiminsə tərəfini saxlayıb nəyisə gizlətmişəm? Bunu nəyə əsasən deyirsiz? Mən harda demişəm ki, Ceklinin redaktələrini özü edib və ya başqası edib? Mən bun necə əmin ola bilərəm ki? Ceklinin kukla hesab mövzusunu KM-də Checkuserə müraciət əsasında yazmışam KM də keçidi tapa bilərsiz. Məni niyə belə şeylərdə ittiham edirsiz? Hansı faktı gizlətmişəm? Sizin dediyini faktları isbat edəcək mexanizma yoxdur axı vikidə. Komputer arxasında kimin oturub yazdığını necə bilmək olar axı? Azerifactory barədə dediklərinizi də eyni şeydi. Əgər bir hesabdan çoxsaylı istifadəni yoxlamağın yolları varsa müraciət edin checkuserlərə bəlkə aydınlaşdırarlar. Ama dediyim kimi bu mənim səlahiyyətimdə deyil və buna görə məni ittifam etməyiniz doğru deyil. --eldarado ✉ 07:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: Cavabınızı doğru hesab etmirəm. Cavabınıza başqalarının münasibət bildirməsi üçün aşağıda öz sualımın və sizin cavabınızın ingiliscə tərcüməsini verdim, baxaq görək 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Rschen7754: In this case (public accounts), our rule is similar to the English Wikipedia: unlimited blocking ([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)[reply]

A larger problem

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.--BRP ever 02:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

List of principles

(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.
  • Copyrighted 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Nicat49: guya Azerifactory Fuad Ələkbərov adlı tanınmış bir ictimai xadimdir. Boş söhbətdir. Azerifactory IS NOT Fuad Alakbarov. Sizi də bloklamaq istəyirlər. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 02:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aykhan Zayedzadeh: təşəkkür edirəm. burada və burada fikrimi bildirmişəm. Sadəcə absurd iddiadır.--Nicat49 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misuse of administrative tools by azwiki admins

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 finished I saw that page had been deleted by the user Eldarado on 21 may 2019. I commented there politely again that they did big mistake and page needs to be restored immediately if not I am gonna complain about them and do whatever possible to have them punished for this vandalism. The user Eldarado removed my comment and blocked me for 5 months just for this - comment of mine which is in Azerbaijani says the same thing I mentioned above. I want to mention one fact as well that this page [49] was removed suspiciously by the user Baskervill two times in different years for same reasons and restored again. If this page is old and not encyclopedic why remove and restore it two times and again beginning discussion about removal of this page and unfairly remove it [50]. It is like a comedy game these people don't know what they are doing even opposing their are own thoughts in different times. Most of the pages these so called admins created mostly consist two sentences which is really ridicilous and information they have provided their have no sources. The first pages needs to be removed is their own fake pages which have been created just for their promotion to be admins. The other fact that I faced is the user Toghrul Rahimli proposed another ordered page removal which is about newly appointed badge on December 2018 “Azərbaycan Narı” döş nişanı, “Azərbaycan Narı” döş nişanı wikipedia page which they call not being encyclopedic despite the fact that the userElshad Iman (Elşad İman) thoroughly explained why this page needs to exist and there were lots of opposings against the removal of this page and most thoughts were this page to remain on wikipedia the user Eldarado removed it just commenting that he doesn't consider others thoughts and page needs to be removed just because he thinks it is right to do it with that way and unfortunately removed that page. And he didn't forget to threaten the users who oppose him and tell that they will sue them on wikipedia with block as well. I want to conclude my Comment these illegalities are going to continue if there is not going strict punisment for this users their adminships need to be suspended. Some stewardship needs to be done because these people are taking unreasonable actions committing vandalism on wikipedia. Now I can't commit wikipedia just because unfairly being blocked by the user Eldarado. These users are exposed and common way for them to reject these accusations and call it slander. These facts can't be denied and beforehand describing these fats as a slander again should be not accepted. Please take some action and finally stop this dictatorship. Lifarsi 05:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I've improved a lot of human rights related topics in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Including, human rights in Azerbaijan. You are just paranoid as I assume you are that banned user--Azerifactory (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles were deleted per rules with discussion and block reason is rude insult. I think this is revenge feel and no need to discussion.--eldarado ✉ 19:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr user Eldarado I warned you not insulted and please do not mix insult with warning. Stop your own paranoia immediately. You are all liars who have been promoted to be admins with fake ways. Look at the pages you have al created it is nothing than two or three senttences. you cal it information which is encyclopedic? OH DEAR ME! For you all everyone slanders you, only you are right have right to do anything here ha? Why to remove my comment, who gives you that right and then blocking me? Did you feel yourself like a dictator here? ha? You didn't follow any rules, you blocked me for no reason stop lying and this is not a revenge, from the first time I warned you not to do this but you acted like a dictator you prolonged discussion of the removal of the page more than a month but in fact it needed to be finished in 15 days! no rules were followed here. From now on I oppose your vandalism. Please I ask wikimedia community to take some actions finally against these fake users, vandals! I am from deep of my heart trying to be polite but there is not any polite way to describe these human beings. STOP THESE USERS! Lifarsi 11:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Azerifactory you are number one vandal who has nothing to say here and yes it is really ridicilous you are not even embarrassed to come and comment here to continue your lies. Stop your lies you are the head of all of these filthy actions you are all don't deserve anything. You are not eligible to be admins! you are all acting with a biased way. Lifarsi 12:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Azerifactory Eldarado It is of course really funny and ridicilious when you decide to delete some pages you are not taking into consideration the comments where people vote to not delete these pages. You vandals say comments like "do not delete" are not enough and people have to write more reasons why to not delete. But you youselves easily write vote for "on favor of deletion" without any description why to do so. And how most pages are being deleted without any reason, then they are again being activated by these admins. How does it happen? Why it happens like this no-one knows. Even you don't know that because you are acting with your emotions not with a decent, logical way. You were just ordered to remove certain pages and you are doing and fulfilling that order. That's all User: Jakfres1916 00:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lifarsi. You can be banned for this sentence: "You are all liars who have been promoted to be admins with a fake ways"
In fact i banned you for removing votes here: [51] and [52]. You insulted me several times even accused me for working for financial interests, but i tolerated. Here are the discussion [53]. Your edit count didn't meet azwiki rules, so i removed your vote. You were given time to read the rules but instead you started to insult me and deleted votes on nomination page. Also Elshad Iman was banned for threating administrators with applying to court had we deleted the article:[54]
Now please stop all these complaints like you accuse us that we delete the articles for some interests. Rüzgar Mövsüm is not an encyclopedic person. Just being a government critic doesn't mean he should be on Wikipedia and deleters of the page are trolls. You can see azwiki is unbiased and you can read articles like this and this on a daily basis.--Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I removed your Toghrul Rahimli vote just you removed my vote and and comments, stop your lies you are an admin but acting like a vandal and you are really grown to be professional on that. who you think you are all? You can delete my comment and vote but I can't do the same ha? I ACTED AS A RESPONSE TO YOUR ATTEMPT AND SAID YOU DID IT AND I AM DOING IT AS WELL! STOP LYING! Lifarsi 12:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i rest my case until a steward reads this discussion and ban your both accounts above for spamming the page and insulting us. Sincerely,--Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. talk Is it justice when you say both accounts insult? Can you show me my insults before again giving unreasonable desicions? And it's just funny amazing. Just several persons can vote if one person is an encyclopedic person or not. Especially when this page was for 3-4 years in wikipedia. Is it not funny when this page was deleted because private conflict, then activated and stayed there for 4 years, and then suddenly several admins decided that this person is not an encylopedic person anymore User: Jakfres1916 00:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No-one insults you dear user Toghrul Rahimli Stop your drama here. The page which was about Ruzgar Movsum was removed several times and restored interestingly it had same content removed by same users and restored by them as well. On which reasonable way it can be done like that? Suddenly it comes into the mind of Azerifactory Eldarado remove the pages and then later restore it? Are you kidding me? Of course you need to rest until the later time of your life. You are not eligible to be admins. The users who are needed to be banned needs to be you users of vandal team. You are all liars nothing more than that. Lifarsi 12:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people liar is enough to consider as an insult. Anyway, it doesn't matter how old the article is, if it doesn't meet the standarts, it will be deleted. Check out the nomination page and you'll see that most of these articles are old. We didn't have patrol system back then, that's why a lot of articles was missed from control. Now that azwiki is developing, these type of articles will be deleted after discussions and it will be a cleaner place.--Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you Toghrul Rahimli say my edit count didn't azwiki rules? Rules which have been created by you all vandal team? you even didn't follow the rules you have created which says discussion needs to be finished in 15 days. What was the need for prolongation? you are all not taking into consideration the thoughts of other users. Page "Azərbaycan Narı" döş nişanı that was voted on favor of remaining by users was removed remain by Eldarado saying just it is not encyclopedic maybe he considers the two sentenced pages he created as encyclopedic ha? like I said you feel yourselves like a dictator here think about this place as your own property. Lifarsi 01:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling you a liar Toghrul Rahimli touches you ha? There is one way to describe people like you and that terminology is a liar. you are bunch of liars and vandals! there were not patrol system ha? Same people deleted page and restored it? What is the relationship to patrolling on this matter? these users still on wikipedia as an admin. DO CONSIDER THIS PLACE AS A GAME YOU ARE PLAYING HAVING FUN FROM THIS? I ASK ALL WIKIMEDIA TO SUSPEND THESE USERS ADMINSHIP SINCE THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THESE POSITION. THEY ARE NOT POLITE AND NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES ON WIKIPEDIA. Lifarsi 01:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lifarsi, why do you write all the letters large? You blocked for this reason: [55]. You wrote here: SAXTAKARLAR: NMW03, Eldarado, Toghrul Rahimli! (English: FRAUDSTERS: NMW03, Eldarado, Toghrul Rahimli). Next: Eldarado sizi səhifəni necə silmisnizsə dərhal bərpa etməyə dəvət edirəm çünki qaydalardan kənar şəkildə səhifəni silmisiniz əks təqdirdə sizin her biriniz müzakirəni başladandan tutmuş bu səsvermədə məqalənin silinməsinə iştirak edənlərədək emin olunki sikayet olunacaq adminliyinizdə əllərinizdən alınacaqdir mən bunun üçün əlimdən gələni əsirgəməyəcəm (English: Eldarado I would like to invite you to restore it which you deleted it. Because you have deleted the page without follow the rules. Otherwise, I will complain to all of you. You admin rights will be removed. I will do my best for that) These sentences are enough for you to block. (+global block). Elshad Iman has been blocked for a complaint to court. If you continue insulting, I will apply to stewards for your global block. Regards, NMW03 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admins, could you please take action against Lifarsi as he insults everybody.--Azerifactory (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only changed the name of the page from "so called Armenian genocide" (qondarma Erməni soyqırımı) to "Armenian Genocide" (Erməni Soyqırımı), as it already is in other languages as well as in English version of the same page. But one of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia admins (Araz Yaquboglu) had blocked my account for 48 hours, claiming, that i share "false information".Հովտար (talk)
@Araz Yaquboglu: please remove Հովտար's block, move the Armenian genocide page back. I expect you to do this any time until 11:59 PM Baku time tonight. Հովտար's block should be deleted from the system as if it never happened. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I just formally requested for the stewards to get the page moved back if Araz doesn't do it himself/herself and undo the block. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Հովտար: @WhisperToMe: if you are neutral users, change map of Azerbaijan on hywiki.--NMW03 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: The map, one reason the stewards acted in regards to the azwiki genocide article is because a consensus on this page built up to change it, while no such discussion about the hywiki map of Azerbaijan built up on this page. Anyway what I argue is that the caption of any map in which a map of Azerbaijan is portrayed without Artsakh is to explain in the caption that Artsakh is internationally recognized as Azerbaijan but that it has no current control over it (same issue w Ukraine and Russia over Crimea). I think HYwiki should install captions which explain the situation. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user (@Հովտար:) has been unblocked. Azerbaijani Wikipedia is a community based on rules. If you want to change the name of any article, you should first ask the opinions of the active administrators and users about it. We believe that the power of discussion will solve all our problems.--Baskervill (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Most Wikipedias have the principle "Be bold" which means one may take the initiative to make a significant change moving forward. While there are occasions where a sudden move would be disruptive/problematic, page moves are usually locked and/or the talk page has a note explaining the situation. What complicates things in this case is the potential negative public relations that would come with denial of a genocide almost universally recognized by scholars. This is why the wider community at meta decided that the old azwiki name was inappropriate. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Հովտար your edits violated the Azerbaijani grammar. You must have consulted with an Azerbaijani user before doing that. You truly have no idea about how Azerbaijani language works, but still do whatever you desire. This means vandalism, which is enough for block. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€ ⚔ (hail sithis!) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On most wikis someone would never block for a first occurrence of someone putting in for example, bad English. They'd just fix it or revert. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aykhan Zayedzadeh and all AzWiki admins please take note. First: "Vandalism" means a deliberate intent to cause damage, and only a deliberate intent to cause damage. Accidentally violating the Azerbaijani grammar is obviously not vandalism. Second: Blocks are for people who are unwilling or unable to learn to work constructively. Except for the most severe deliberate damage, bad edits should result in an educational or warning message. That is how editors are expected to learn. A block should be used when correction and education fail, and the editor continues to cause disruption.
Educating users, especially new users, is time consuming. Giving people second or third or fourth chance is annoying. It is quicker and easier to immediately block people. However retaining editors, and bringing in new editors, is important for the health and survival of our project. It is important for the health and survival of each community. As an administrator you JOB is to retain, educate, and improve as many editors as possible. Don't be so quick to use the block button. Alsee (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide denial

There is a currently open page-move discussion to title the Armenian Genocide as the "Qondarma" Armenian Genocide. According to Google Translate the primary translation of "Qondarma" is "fictional". The alternate reported translations are false, fictitious, faked, imaginary, and bogus.

Aside from the proposed name being a gross violation of Neutrality policy (which cannot be subverted, disregarded or overriden by a local consensus on any project), the move-proposal itself is grossly improper and disruptive. The disucssion was initiated by Eldarado. The page-move-proposal complains that content on a different wiki is wrong, and it implicitly or explicitly encourages people to vote for the Neutrality-violating article title because the content is wrong. The proposal is so grossly biased, and abusively encouraging editors to vote abusively as some sort of retaliation or justice against the other wiki, renders the entire dicussion corrupt and invalid. I request that anyone competent in Azerbaijani lagnuage close the dicussion as invalid.

Aside from the grossly improper proposal itself, the supports either explicitly echo the (invalid) rationale of retaliating or explicitly-biased responses being justified by bad content on the other wiki, or they contain rationales otherwise blatantly contrary to policy, or they are trying to "vote" a numerical win with bare naked Support votes. (Consensus is not a vote. Responses have no weight except in light of valid policy and valid rationales. Naked votes are, at best, an implicit reflection of agreement with the rationales of preceeding responses. At best they have the same weight, or lack of weight, as those responses.)

A special note for those who care: It does not matter if the allegation about the other wiki is true or not. If there is a content problem on another wiki it should be addressed on that wiki, or addressed on Meta if someone is prepared to present evidence of serious admin abuse. Alsee (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am extremely disappointed that a request to move to the genocide denial title would even be initiated after a meta steward had already moved the page as per Steward_requests/Miscellaneous/2019-06#Move_azwiki_Armenian_Genocide_page_to_non-denial_name,_and_undo_block_of_users_who_tried_to_move_it
I second everything Alsee said, and will reiterate that the old title violates the principles of the WMF. I want to inform every person "voting yes" that their "vote" is zeroe'd out.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldarado: @Maqamedd: @Sofy2004: @Quliev Malik: @Firuze Nesibli: @Nuray95: @Vusal naa: @Araz Yaquboglu: @Patriot Kur: @A.Aida88: @Scherbatsky12: @Daydreamer2011: @Emiliya i-va: @Gulya S-va: @Sabin.K.M: @Orxan Zakir: @Samral: @Turkmen: @Qızılbaş: @میرعلی 797: @Ramil Cəbrayıl: @Həlimə: @Ayxan İsmayılov: I am not a WMF employee but nonetheless I am confident the following applies. Kindly note that the proposed Armenian genocide denial title is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation principles, and the request to use the title is closed. All votes to use the genocide denial title are zeroed. The Azerbaijani community is to use the neutral title "Armenian genocide" and to present the historical event according to the majority scholarship. This decision is final. Please accept this and thank you for your understanding.
Re: the map of Azerbaijan on HYwiki I found a solution where they are to have a caption clarifying that the Nagorno Karabkh region is not shown on the map. Please see the discussion at in which Azeris are welcome! see talk
Note the scenario is different for that map: the global wikipedia community had decided the azwiki armenian genocide title was grossly inappropriate while they made no such finding regarding the Hywiki Azerbaijan map.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WhisperToMe, regarding the map of Azerbaijan on HYwiki, I would like to say that if I am not mistaken the Nagorno Karabakh region is shown in grey color which is always used only to refer the territories of the other countries. While the other wikis have shown the above-mentioned territory either as a part of the Republic of Azerbaijan (de jure, and internationally and unanimously recognized view), or in differentiated color, namely light green which indicates that it is a part of Azerbaijan, however at the same time it is not under effective control/jurisdiction of the latter. What I want (and I suppose that AzWiki want) is elimination of this situation and substitution of grey color with green, at least light-green. Hope you will understand our attitude. Best regards, --Firuze Nesibli (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the notice! I did bring up using a different color for Nagorno Karabkh/Artsakh. You are welcome to leave comments on the hywiki section as it's important that they hear the thoughts of Azerbaijanis. While the decision is ultimately Hywiki's (unless the global meta community decides otherwise), I would like to see non-Armenians and non-Azerbaijanis weigh in their thoughts so we have thoughts coming from outside those communities. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I am withdrawing from all further participation in this RFC. The WMF has indicated that it is going to be handling these matters from now on, so I will no longer provide my services in this regard. --Rschen7754 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did great. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: I greatly appreciated your input here, it helped smooth a way. Thank you. –SJ talk  23:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj: These comments were made during the heat of w:en:WP:FRAM, and while I really don't want to spend my time doing dispute resolution like this if WMF is going to be doing this (especially in the poor way that they did on enwiki) I don't think that this comment was very productive/collaborative in hindsight and for that I apologize. That all being said, it would be interesting to know what happens eventually. (Apologies for editing a closed RFC but I hope this is okay given the nature of my comments). --Rschen7754 00:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Do_something_about_azwiki&oldid=27281320"