Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Hoaxes about Azerbaijan in Armenian Wikipedia

< Requests for comment

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Proposal

edit

Statement of the issue

edit

There is lot of false information about Azerbaijan and its towns and villages in Armenian Wikipedia (hy.wikipedia.org). First of all, the map of Azerbaijan in the infobox of the article about Azerbaijan is incorrect and does not show all territory of Azerbaijan (Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur region). Secondly, in the articles about the towns and villages of Azerbaijan in Karabakh and surrounding districts (Khankendi, Shusha, Lachin etc.) they are showed like the towns of Artsakh. Thridly, the Position Map template of Azerbaijan does not show these territories within the Azerbaijan.

These territories were not under Azerbaijani control and de facto were under control of Artaskh fully till November 2020 and partially till October 2023. But these territories were continuing to be the part of internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan[1] and no any state recognised Artsakh, even Armenia. Azerbaijan restored its contol over its internationally recognised territory and fully over Nagorno Karabakh in September-Octover 2023 and, according to the decree of Artsakh's president, Artsakh ceased to exist on January 1, 2024[2].

However the attempts to correct the articles in Armenian Wikipedia are reverting by local users:

  1. Wrong map of Azerbaijan in the article about the country is returning back[3][4][5][6]
  2. Maps of Azerbaijan in Position Map Template that do not show the territory of Karabakh and surrounding districts are returning back[7][8]
  3. In the articles about the towns of Azerbaijan in the "country" graph "Artsakh" is returning back instead of "Azerbaijan":
    1. Khankendi[9][10][11]
    2. Shusha[12][13][14]
    3. Lachin[15][16][17]
    4. Jabrayil[18][19]
    5. Zangilan[20][21][22]
    6. Kalbajar[23][24][25]
    7. Khojavend[26][27][28]
    8. Aghdere[29][30][31]
    9. Hadrut[32][33][34]
    10. Askeran[35][36][37]
    11. Aghdam[38][39]
    12. Minjivan[40][41][42]
    13. Fuzuli[43][44]

On the talk page of the article about Azerbaijan user Gardmanahay wrote that there was some consensus to show the point of view of Artskah. First of all, this decission, if it exists, is against the policy of neutrality because these territories are internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan. Secondly, this decission is even not already actual because Artsakh is no more exists and as I mentioned above these territories are under control of Azerbaijan. All this was explained by me on that talk page as well.

User Atheist Armenian who continues to revert the false information back ignored my warning on his talk page writing that Artaskh is continue to exist de jure, but this statement is a hoax. There is no any Artsakh there and only Azerbaijan should be shown now. No any reaction was for my request on the Village pump as well.

I didn't want to escalate the situation in Meta involving stewards. Thats is why firstly I asked active admins in local Administrators' forum to react, fix the situation, revert the edits of user Atheist Armenian and prevent the same corrections in other articles of Armenian Wikipedia. I pinged all of local administrator (@23artashes:; @Beko:; @GeoO:; @Lilitik22:; @Samo04:; @Sigma'am:; @Voskanyan:; @Xelgen:; @ԱշբոտՏՆՂ:) and put a request on a talk pages of all of active admins[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. But however only two of them answered. GeoO wrote that he doesn't have an opinion on that topic[52] and Samo04 first tryied to turn discussion into other way, mentioning some potential problems in azwiki[53], but after that he wrote that the articles must be changed as per current situation[54], but again there is still no any changes and in fact as an admin he did not do anything to correct the articles (as he explained because he is not active in Wikipedia and applied to withdraw from the administration[55]). There were other comments from other users as well and as per their comments I realized that no any local user wants to correct these articles. And local administrators just ignoring the issue. That is why I initiated this request.

Why steward intervention is needed

Because currently Armenian Wikipedia misleads its readers providing hoaxes about Azerbaijan, its map and its towns and villages (violating one of the main rules of Wikipedia - Do not create hoaxes) and local administrators do nothing with the reverts that prevent the attempts to correct those pages, I don't see other way than involving stewards. In fact local administartion ignors the one of the big problems of Armenian Wikipedia and don't fulfill their obligations as administrators. --Interfase (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crux of proposal

edit

Currently I see three options here:

  • Stewards can contact with local administrators and explain them that their Wikipedia cannot provide information that differs from the reality and ask them to make a decission about the changes I mentioned above.
  • Stewards can revert the reverts of my opponents above themselves and put a note on Armenian Wikipedia's noticeboard that all other articles must be corrected on the same manner.
  • Armenian Wikipedia should be temporarly blocked till the situation is changed. Because currently Armenian Wikipedia is not and Encyclopedia, it is typical Hoaxpedia. --Interfase (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  •   Question: aside from the fact that stewards rarely intervene in such instances, how is blocking an entire wiki meant to work? --SHB2000 (t • c) 07:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this: Proposals for closing projects. But maybe there is another option to do this. But anyway I would prefer to use first two options than this one. Interfase (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposals for closing projects is a page for closing projects that are small and inactive, not for closing a project of a regionally significant language. --SHB2000 (t • c) 08:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. But what should be done with projects that distribute massive hoaxes and local administrators do nothing about it? Interfase (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki containing hoaxes is not a valid reason nor for project deletion as it also has valid content (probably much more valid content than presumably invalid content) nor can a project be blocked as block is possible for accounts and IPs only. To further address some of your invalid arguments, you have listed an English Wikipedia policy. I shall remind you that every project is independent and self-governated meaning policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia cannot be applied to the Armenian Wikipedia. Furthermore your stewards action request is invalid as well, stewards do not possess supervote rights meaning their vote/opinion is just as rightful as of any other community member: that means stewards cannot override local community decisions unless safety concerns or other risks exist and are emergent. I just listed some statements that I think you should consider as the one who made this request, and my comment does not mean I am biased towards any of the involved parties in this presumed dispute. Best, A09|(pogovor) 10:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A09 I'd love to know what's your criteria for "valid contents", if there are propaganda contents just based on pro-themselves, then IMHO of IMHO, they can't be valid contents, they shall be considered invalid contents. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have missed my point entirely and you're trying to falsify what I had said. Valid content is any contribution aligned with WP:5P regardless of a project. My point still stands. Promotional/propaganda content is not a reason to close/soft delete a project, instead it should be removed locally. A09|(pogovor) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You fix it locally or drop the stick; this isn't an issue for us at Meta to override. --SHB2000 (t • c) 10:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is reasonable for any user to request the blocking of the entire Wikipedia in any language. For instance, in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, nearly all settlements in Armenia are represented as settlements in Azerbaijan. For example, the currently existing village of az:Rind is presented as part of the Sharur-Daralagyaz uezd of the Erivan Governorate. This is not an isolated incident but occurs in hundreds of cases. However, it has never occurred to me to raise the issue of blocking the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. In this situation, we are genuinely dealing with a hoax. Now, let's understand to what extent the case presented by the Interfase user fits the definition of a hoax. No one disputes that the Republic of Artsakh existed until the end of 2023. It is a well-known fact that in September 2023, Azerbaijan carried out ethnic cleansing in Artsakh ([56], [57], [58]), and under the threat of war, the President of Artsakh announced the termination of the republic's existence. Any country formed by referendum (regardless of the level of international recognition) cannot be dissolved by the decision of one person. It is also well-known that after the ethnic cleansing, the same president rescinded his decision to dissolve Artsakh ([59], [60]). Another well-known fact is that in international law, all decisions made under the threat of force are invalid (A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.). These facts are presented not to prompt users to discuss international law here, but to make it clear that there is no issue of a hoax. The articles about those settlements state that these territories are now under the control of Azerbaijan. They may not be updated in all articles, which is due to the lack of users interested in those topics at the moment. Over time, and depending on the development of events, appropriate edits will be made. This type of discussion did not really surprise me. It is not the first time that Interfase has used wiki projects for personal interests and certain internal conflicts. Last month, the user was massively changing the Armenian names of those settlements in Wikidata ([61], [62], [63]). Of course, I am glad that as a result of the discussion, we managed to explain to the user that the desired changes were essentially the hoax he mentioned. Now, the user is moving the issue from Wikidata to another platform and is raising the question of blocking the entire Wikipedia. In the Armenian Wikipedia, I intended to have a constructive discussion with Interfase, but I did not consider it reasonable when he threatened Metawiki in every discussion. To summarize, I should mention that all Wikipedias have their problems. Perhaps the biggest issues are found in the English Wikipedia, simply because it contains the most information. Through healthy discussions and over time, some problems are resolved while new ones arise. However, if a user does not have a personal interest (en:Conflict of interest), it is not reasonable to raise the question of blocking Wikipedia as a whole. Best--Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show any article in Azerbaijani Wikipedia about any town or any village of Armenia with another country in infobox instead of Armenia. Or show any article in Azerbaijani Wikipedia with cut map of Armenia. You cannot because there is no such hoaxes there. If you see any issue with any article in Azerbaijani Wikipedia try to edit it or discuss it on the talk page there (like I did) and don't try to turn discussion into another way.
The problem in Armenian Wikipedia is not that there are issues with articles there. The problem is that the local users prevent to correct these problems and local administrators don't react and prevent such reverts of corrections. It is a well-known fact that since September 2023 Artsakh ceased to exist aither de jure and de facto. And that is why we should have only "Azerbaijan" in infobox and show the correct map of Azerbaijan. Like all other Wikipedias do.
I wrote on the local Admins' forum that I did not want to raise this issue in Meta and I was hoping that local admins will listen the common sence. But unfortunately, local administrators ignored this issue and did not even attempt to do do anythig. That is why I think that stewards must be involved to fix the problem with local attitude towards the project. Armenian Wikipedia is not separated online encyclopedia like pro-Russian non-neutral Runiversalis, where article about Russian invasion of Ukraine is called "Special military operation to protect the population of Donbass, as well as demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine"[64]. It is a part of Wikimedia and should not be a stain of shame on this global project. Interfase (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You selectively use parts of the discussion to achieve your goal while ignoring the fact that the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh is not certain. I presented at least three points: 1. A person cannot dissolve a state formed by referendum. (A referendum is the highest manifestation of democracy). 2. The person canceled that decision. 3. Decisions taken under the threat of force are invalid in international law. You subtly bypass these points and attempt to justify blocking the Armenian Wikipedia. I understand your motivation and I am sure that this will not be the last platform or action you undertake with ethnic motives. I do not rule out that in the near future, the infobox of the settlements in the Armenian Wikipedia may display the name of the entity currently controlling those territories alongside Artsakh. However, taking only this small issue and demanding the blocking of the entire Wikipedia is, at least to me, not in the spirit of Wikipedia. We have already had discussions on different platforms, and there is no question whose answer is new to me. Therefore, I would appreciate the participation of experienced editors without personal interest. It will be interesting to see if there is a decision to block the entire project. However, I doubt you will be satisfied with that. Perhaps next, you will start advocating for the removal of articles about Armenians and Armenia from Wikipedias in other languages. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The referendum in Nagorno Karabakh was not internationally recognized like the Nagorno Karabakh Republic as well. So, it doesn't matter which territories local authorities included into the claimed territories of NKR.
2. Actually what decissions Shakhramanian made doesn't matter. He was a president of unrecognised state. So, any his decission or statements means nothing actually. If tomorrow he says that Artsakh includes Baku as well, will you change "Azerbaijan" to "Artsakh " in the infobox of the article about Baku in hywiki?
3. The trivial fact is that these territories were and stay as an internationally recognised territories of Azerbaijan and since September 2023 became its de facto territories as well.
And please do not mislead the participants of these discussion claiming that I "demand to block" Armenian Wikipedia. I wrote it as a last option (if it is possible to do so). But first options are related to fix the local issues or by local admins or (if they cannot do their job) by stewards. Also don't mislead participants of these discussion claiming that I have any "ethnic motives". My motives are transparent. To protect Wikimedia projects from the hoaxes about Azerbaijan and not spoil its reputation. Interfase (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there was no ethnic basis, yet you massively changed the Armenian names of settlements in Wikidata. Then, when you realized it was a gross violation of Wikipedia's policy, you switched to the Armenian Wikipedia, again with supposedly non-ethnic motives. There are too many coincidences in this case.
Another episode: You consider the decision of the President of Artsakh to dissolve Artsakh as the basis for ending its existence. However, when it comes to the decision to cancel that dissolution, you claim there was no president of the recognized Republic. It is necessary to accept general principles and apply them consistently. A selective approach is not correct and may indicate a conflict of interest. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a gross violation of Wikipedia's policy is to ptotect (as local users) and ignore (as local admins) the massive hoaxes in particular Wikipedia. Interfase (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A common mistake many make is that administrators of a given project are the one responsible for the content. They aren't, the community is. Thus it is not on admins and community functionaries to fix alleged mistakes. A09|(pogovor) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I as a community functionary tried to fix the mistakes, but all my corrections were reverted by local users and hoaxes were returned back to the articles and templates. And the local administrators do nothing to prevent these reverts that prevent to fix a mistakes. Admins are just ignoring this case. Or are they waiting untill someone start edit warring to react? I don't understand. Interfase (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misrepresenting yourself. Functionaries are sysops, bureaucrats, interface admins and checkusers, of which you are neither of the listed. You're just a community member (note that this does not mean any less voting/editing right). I'll need to investigate on this matter further to make a constructive comment. A09|(pogovor) 20:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very good with this terminology: functionary, member. Ok, let's be a community member. Doesn't matter in our case. Interfase (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not "consider the decision of the President of Artsakh to dissolve Artsakh as the basis for ending its existence". I just mentioned it as a part of story. The basis for ending of the existence of Artsakh is its de-facto ending of the existence, when Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity. You probably misunderstand my message in the statement. Interfase (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I am not a local administrator. Of course, I am less experienced than you, but in this matter, unlike you, I am working toward a specific solution by adding the name of the second entity to the infobox. Let the Metawiki community observe which of us uses wiki projects with ethnic motives and who is trying to find solutions to address the problems. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your action to add both names is a little bit late action. Two names into infobox (de-jure country and de-facto country) should be added since the starting of the project. But since September 2023 there must be only Azerbaijan, because there is no any Artsakh now. These towns and villages are both de jure and de facto in Azerbaijan. And what about the map of Azerbaijan? Interfase (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see a constructive discussion from you. I present solutions and take steps to solve the problem, while you continue to demand the blocking of the Armenian Wikipedia. I no longer find it appropriate to continue this discussion with you. I don't want to participate in a discussion where I also notice state-directed propaganda from a specific country. I leave the rest to Metawiki's decision. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course your actions are better, than it was before, but it is not a solution. We cannot put into infobox the name of not existing state. This is misinformation. Again, what about the maps? Why they are still cut in the main article and partially colored in the template? Azerbaijan restored its control over these territories and no any other country has claims to them. Interfase (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained above that there is no hoax here. I presented the facts and the steps I have taken towards a solution, as I have done for Շուշի, Ստեփանակերտ, Հադրութ, Ակնա, Ջրական, Կովսական, Միջնավան, Բերձոր and other settlements. However, this was not enough for Interfase, who, as I have mentioned, acts with ethnic motives. He is not interested in Wikipedia's policies but aims to use wiki projects for state propaganda of a specific country. I have already mentioned his destructive edits on Wikidata, which are considered en:Wikipedia:Vandalism ([65], [66], [67], [68]). In that case, everything was very obvious, and the user retreated, choosing a different tactic. In his discussion, the user cites the article "en:Russian invasion of Ukraine" as an example, which is considered a "Special military operation" on a non-neutral pro-Russian website. We are not talking about the Wikimedia Foundation project, but a similar site called руни.рф. Yet, the same phenomenon is present in the Wikipedia of Interfase's native language, and he has taken no action to uphold Wikipedia's policies. We have an article on the en:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh in English, German, Russian, and French. Do you know what the article is about in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia? You will be surprised, but it is about an ecological action: az:Xankəndi–Laçın yolunda aksiyalar. There is no mention of a blockade or deprivation of the right to food and movement for an entire region based on ethnic cleansing, but rather an ecological action in Azerbaijan, a country not known for such democratic manifestations (protests). If there were such cases, the demonstrators quickly ended up in prison. This is not руни.рф or azer.az, but wikiproject of Wikimedia Foundation. In this case, Interfase will say that the project is free and I can edit it myself in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. But accept that we are dealing with a selective approach, a en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and state propaganda. There is a series of obviously non-neutral (hoax) articles in the user's native Wikipedia, and he takes no action but wants to maintain Wikipedia policy. He claims to have no ethnic motive, although all his recent actions are anti-Armenian and anti-Armenia.

I have already mentioned that the user did not take any steps to make the settlements of Armenia neutral in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. They continue to be represented as imaginary settlements of Western Azerbaijan. Even the article on the state of en:Urartu, which in almost all languages is related to Armenian ethnicity, includes a whole section in Azerbaijani denying the connection of Armenians with Urartu. And after this, the user speaks of neutrality. The content of the "Xankəndi–Laçın yolunda aksiyalar" article alone is enough to show that there is no question of neutrality here. In the future, I will take steps to solve the future problems of the Armenian Wikipedia as I always did, but never at the instigation of any political center. If members of the wiki project without ethnic motives make reasonable proposals, I am ready to discuss them. The Armenian Wikipedia has a stable, mature community capable of solving any problem. Best--Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mislead the readers here about my motives and accusing me in vandalism or anti-Armenian propaganda. Try to be polite and adhere to the ethical rules please. Don't get personal instead of discussing the problem of your wikiproject. Also do not try to turn the discussion into another way. The topics you mentioned above about Urartu etc. can be discussed separately starting from the talk pages of these articles or in local Village's pump (like I did). There is no any triviality there (for example I think that the name of the article "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" in enwiki is wrong and violates the NPV, because de facto there was a lot of cases when the road was open for humanitarian aids and ambulances). But here we have deal with the trivial facts about the country where towns and villages of Karabakh are located. But again if you see any problem in azwiki, address your issue there first. I am not very active there and don't know about the local discussions and consensuses. Maybe you can make new consensus, who knows. And I don't see any "Western Azerbaijan" or "Western Azerbaijan/Armenia" in the infoboxes of the articles about towns and villages in Armenia in azwiki. There is only "Armenia". And your edits are not a correction. It had to be done till September 2023, not after. I also don't see any cut map of Armenia in azwiki. So, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. Interfase (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken steps to address the problems of the Armenian Wikipedia. I have added the flag of Azerbaijan in a number of articles and initiated a discussion in the Armenian Wikipedia, which is ongoing. On the other hand, I only receive demands. Therefore, I no longer consider it appropriate to continue this discussion in this context. If there are suggestions from the members without personal motives, I am always ready to discuss them and will be happy to listen. Best Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the place to be discussing content disputes. --SHB2000 (t • c) 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you took steps only after my request here. Why now? Why you didn't do it earlier when we were discussing the issue in local Wikipedia pages?
Secondly, just adding "Azerbaijan" is not enough. It had to be done till September 2023, not after. Now you need to remove "Artsakh" from infoboxes and correct the maps of Azerbaijan. Interfase (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but I will wait for Meta's decision. I am not obligated to do anything in the wiki projects, and I certainly do not intend to fulfill the demands of any political center. Best Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are not obligated to do anything. Administartors are obligated to do something with the reverts of the corrections. And if they cannot do it or don't want to do it, then stewards can be involved as I think. How else we can solve this problem? Interfase (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am not fully aware of the Meta community and its procedures, but I will follow the developments because this is important to me and I have already taken some steps in that direction. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this steps you didn't remove "Artsakh" from infobox. This hoax is still exists in articles. Yes, you added "Azerbaijan" into infobox, but then you have added word "occupied" next to "Azerbaijan". This is incorrect because Azerbaijan cannot occupy its own internationally recognized territory. Also you added word "depopulated" for several settlements. But for example for Shusha it is not correct as some part of its population returned there already. Interfase (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per hy:Վիքիպեդիա:Ընդհանուր հրաժարագիր no editor is obliged to do anything. That also means it is not sanctionable per se by stewards actions, and given the current situation I don't think there will be one. A09|(pogovor) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prevalence of nationalism in HyWiki in this level of magnitude is concerning and disappointing, imagine AzWiki writing that Vardenis is part of Goycha-Zangezur Republic. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Hoaxes_about_Azerbaijan_in_Armenian_Wikipedia&oldid=27638025"