Jump to content

Requests for comment/Administrators and bureaucrats abuse in Georgian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus at this point in time for action to be taken, with several aspects of this discussion now being out of date or inaccurately reflecting the state of current events. ~riley (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case details


In Georgian Wikipedia lasts for years unbearable abuse of admin and bureaucratic rights. Please see more details here. It's about regular discrediting and prosecution of unwanted users, banishment without good cause, threats and violations of free speech, regular meatpuppetry. All Admin+ rights were fraudulently focused on three users. Every attempt to solve the problem locally fails again and again. So, please, do not be indifferent. Deu. 06:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Comment by MF-W

It would be prudent to also hear other comments from the Georgian community. Did you announce this RFC locally?

As far as I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong), you claim that the problem is that the current 3 sysops (of whom 2 are bureaucrats) of Georgian Wikipedia are abusive and have little to no support of the community. I would propose to hold a vote of confidence on these users. If it's not possible to do so on Georgian Wikipedia because they prevent it, it could be held here on Meta, although that itself would be a bad sign on these users. Afterwards stewards will evaluate the results. At the same time or later, also other users could run as sysops. To my mind, this would seem to be a simple solution of the problem. --MF-W 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just announced the local community. I hope the other users of KaWiki will also write something here.
Your offer to keep vote of confidence on Meta seems sensible to me.
The problem is not just that administrators keep their rights, but rather that they do not feel responsible for what they are doing. For example, Although they have already received a warning from Wikimedia Foundation, they refuse any interference in the contest they have taken. Through the projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation this group could bring in new users in Wikipedia (which is very, very positive). Mainly these are the students of the school. But misusing their resource for own purposes and meatpuppetry is very very negative fact.
My goal is not necessarily removal of admin rights. It seems more important to me that as administrators they do not always violate the community. So that, in my view, it would also be preventive if you value everything open, because in Georgian Wikipedia everyone still has respect to the stewards. Deu. 11:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:David1010, User:MIKHEIL, User:Otogi: Would you be ok with holding a vote of confidence as described in my comment above? --MF-W 20:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MF-W, I personally haven’t support for the idea of a vote on the meta-wiki, as Community of Georgian Wikipedia already made its choice. The User:Deu, who requires a vote on a meta-wiki, has not been active in recent years, and his contribution to the Georgian Wikipedia is limited by the fact that he participatеd in several discussions only (see User:Deu Contributions). Therefore, the requirement of people, who have not done anything for the development of Wikipedia in recent years, I can’t take into consideration. As for the active users of Wikipedia who are almost every day trying to develop Georgian Wikipedia, encourage new users and conduct various projects, they have no problems with their Admins and their position has already been expressed.--David1010 (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just embarrassing. That's the meatpuppetry poll, where "Community of Georgian Wikipedia already made its choice". It is embarrassing that the bureaucrat on the one hand recognizes many of the users participating here as entitled to vote, and on the other hand does not consider the unwanted users because of their supposedly limited activity. And indeed, it would be interesting, who specifically are the users who have not done anything for Wikipedia. Just bunished Gobrona, გიო ოქრო or Zangala, all of them are very active (if the activity here plays any role whatsoever). Deu. 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Surprizi

It's great pleasure for me to represent myself as independent part from this situation. I start work in wikipedia from 2009 year and all knows me as non-conflict person. My words can agree user Deu too. Nowadays I am abwiki sysop and around 2 months ago was Georgian Wiktionary sysop too. This conflict situation reach his maximum around 2-3 months ago as user Deu writed in his "Dormiunt leges aliquando". When I saw the heavy situation and imagined what will happen in the future I decided take situation in my hands. As I was acting sysop I sad that choose me as sysop and I'll try manage and change situation in a right way. But unfortunately only 5 person voted in my election. I asked myself, why "nobody" was came on the election? I sad everybody that I am very experienced and know life best of all because I am an accountant and can identify and fix problems. But nobody came to elections, especially these who thought that their rights was damage by somebody. I several times was with and agreed with user Deu, but nothing. He asked some question and after that he was blocked by sysop for some words. Also User Zangala not made vote because she also was blocked after user deu during my election. But nobody told me not User Deu not user Zangala that we are with you. Instead of this 3 days ago one of our user UndDerDie start his election as sysop. I was wonder, why he wanted to be as sysop, because when my elections ended he came after three days, he started in Georgian Wikipedia 2 years and 4 weeks ago, and end of this period 01/01/2018-16/08/2018 he didn't worked in Wikipedia. And I understand that after my election finished, "somebody" called him and sad something like this "look yes we know you didn't worked in Georgia 8 and half month but start working and after one month you can call your election". As he sad he always wanted to be Georgian Wikipedia sysop. I cant believe that person who start 2016 year very good, but in 2017 years he made less then 5-th part from previous year edits and stopped work last 8 month in 2018 year, he wonted and dreamed to be Georgian Wikipedia sysop? And what can we see now? User Deu who asked him several "heavy" questions agrees with him. also user გიო ოქრო sad that "if you will work hard in future I'll vote for you". He voted for user UndDerDie. Also user Zangala on this election sad that "we must vote for new and yang people". My dears, what young, what "will work hard", please call him! Where is he? Now is his election and he must answer all questions! Nobody can saw him last 3 days and now is his election. Somebody will asked me, now is another discussion and not about User UndDerDie. You know with my opinion I think user Deu has his own plan. If somebody asked me I will say that if user UndDerDie will become sysop it would be no problem. Why not? I sad several times and I will say again: sysop is just responsibility not more. Freedom have we similar editors. So who takes in hand a broom, it would be his responsibility, not mine.
After all, I can't understand what happened if some person made his duties as sysop by the broom? Why I must help him to be free? Please explain to me, if somebody works, why to obstruct him?
p.s. Nobody who lose sysop power in 2014 year, nobody call new election to be new sysop. Why? But don't tell me that work here more then 3 sysop it is impossible. If you will say something like this, it means that you don't know how work in Wikipedia in whole. So for me, I cant see problem in Georgia Wikipedia. Tanks!--Surprizi (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by UndDerDie

First of all, I'd love to say that the whole thing is not about me or anyone else becoming sysop. I (just like many other users) believe that Georgian Wikipedia is in a big crisis. And the reason is actioncs, conducted by 3 administrators and te ones who support and help them. For instance, one of the, Otogi, blocked user Gobrona for 3(!!!) months. The reason for that was "violation of ethics, personal attack and violation of Wikipedia's fundamental rules". But, at the same time, Otogi said that "Election of this user is nothing, but a well calculated provocation" without providing any evidence (And I'm pretty sure that he won't, as far as there's nothing to provide). Gobrona got blocked for saying that Jaba1977 asked some users (who happen to be his "wiki-students" and know him in real life) to vote in elections one way or another. Many of them (at least 6) haven't made a single edit since voting on MIKHEIL's status. It should also be noted that the these users (actually, not even one of them) participated in election of Surprizi, but provided extremely needed votes for MIKHEIL and now, after realizing that there was a possibility of me becoming sysop, all of a sudden, they appeared once again (probably, after this election most of them will be inactive once again, until situation like this occures once again). For example, look at contributions of AkakiBalanchivadze. He was inactive prior to election, determining Mikheil's status and only appeared to vote and then didn't make a single edit for almost a month. He also was inactive for one month prior to my election and suddenly appeared to make a few edits and then cast his vote. And he is not the only one with record like this. Look at contributions of Nino270201, who was inactive for 1,5 year prior to election determining MIKHEIL's status. UndDerDie (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New comment by Deu

Dear MF-W, dear stewards,
Unfortunately, the persecution of unwanted users just lasts and deepens. It is running the election of an administrator. The candidate UndDerDie has suggested himself. When asked about this vote, he explained that, in his view, this was a meatpuppetry. The users Gobrona, გიო ოქრო and me agreed with him, all three of us had the same opinion several times before expressed. Not only because of this UndDerDie got our support in the election. After that, MIKHEIL threatened to punish all three of us for our opinion on meatpuppetry (1, 2, 3). Please, see chapter four again: I and user Zangala were even earlier punished for the same opinion about the vote. And indeed, user Gobrona was punished by administrators MIKHEIL for two weeks when Gobrona once again voiced against meatpuppetry. For Otogi, who once even declared criticism of an administrator to be generally unacceptable, this punishment was inadequate and increased it to 3 months. In addition, Otogi said to გიო ოქრო, "You must also be bunished in the long term." Otogi votes against AndDerDie and explains that it is generally very bad behavior to suggest himself as an administrator. So, during the election, the users supporting the candidate are targeted and even the candidate has been discredited for his opinion and for suggesting himself.
Please unblock first Gobrona, three-month banishment is an incredibly severe punishment. The Georgian administrators will not do it. Deu. 08:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by გიო ოქრო

Hello. I apologize if I make mistakes when writing. I would like to tell you that there is chaos in Georgian Wikipedia. 2 out of 3 administrators are actively "terrorizing" users with disagreements. They use non-active friends to increase their number of supporters during voting. All three administrators are passively passive, which makes a bad point for Georgian Wikipedia. The new candidate for the administrator is not allowed by the "friends" to occupy the position. Active users are blocked for approving the truth. It's no longer possible. We need a new administration. Best regards გიო ოქრო (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zangala

Dear users, Bad behavior is not actually to suggest yourself, but banishment for three months for the unwanted critical opinion of an active user during the administration elections. User Deu is a lawyer and he let us all see what legal violations exist in Georgian Wikipedia. The administrators have monopolized Wikipedia. They see each new administrator candidate as a competitor, because, following the new rules they originally supported, an administrator would have to experience 50 administrative and 500 general edits per month. This regulation removed several administrators from their rights, including myself, the active user since 2005. But for MIKHEIL, one of the authors of the regulation, this rule does not apply. Selective justice. We ask for your intervention. Best regards --Zangala (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. please unblock Gobrona. Best regards გიო ოქრო (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to join Deu, გიო ოქრო and I believe, many others and ask to unblock Gobrona. This is really hard-working user, who didn't deserve any punishment (especially so severe) and unlike the ones who blocked him, isn't doing harm to Georgian Wikipedia. UndDerDie (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mehman97

I will begin in the same tone as the accuser began:

1) I'll start with the rule of removing the status of the administrator

The rule says the following: "If the administrator does not have at least 500 general and 50 sysop edits within 3 months, the user will be deprived of the administrator status without voting." ("თუ ადმინისტრატორს 3 თვის განმავლობაში არ ექნება მინიმუმ 500 ზოგადი და 50 ადმინისტრაციული რედაქტირება, მომხმარებელს კენჭისყრის გარეშე ჩამოერთვას ადმინისტრატორის სტატუსი."), but unfortunately in this same rule it is not specifically indicated about what three months are we talking about. There can be two variation: 1) it's about the last three months or 2) about any three months. None of the participants in the forum where discussions about the new regulation took place, paid no attention to it and did not indicate this, including Mr. DEU. Proceeding from this, we can say the following first case, MIKHEIL didn't violate Wikipedia's rules because over the past three months he had the necessary editing (see: this). So, based on this, MIKHEIL has the full right to reserve the duties of administrator. But, if we act on the basis of the second point above (about any three months), then MIKHEIL should have left the rights of the administrator. Because the Wikipedia rules do not exactly tell us what to do in this situation, I personally asked one of the bureaucrats to appoint in this occasion elections were where the users of the Georgian Wikipedia would decide whether to reserve the rights of the administrator MIKHEIL or should leave it. After that, one of the bureaucrats Georgian Wikipedia has appointed a vote, there the majority of the voting participants voted for leaving the rights of MIKHEIL as an administrator (you can see).

As for the new laws that were adopted in 2014, I can say this one thing: at that time most administrators were passive, which can be freely checked, out of which some participants proposed new rules and most users of Georgian Wikipedia supported this initiative, so for me it is not clear why Mr. DEU is protesting, was the law passed by majority vote or not?

2) All about the competition which caused outrage

Competition "From Freedom To Independence" which was conducted by our user group (Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia) in May was completed on May 31 of this year. After that, we waited a whole month for the confirmation of our Grant project for the competition at this time the user group and the jury did not take any action. Thus the articles that were written during the contest were freely available and anyone could read them, therefore, when in the beginning of July this year the jury began to evaluate the articles, it considered that all articles written under the laws of the Georgian Wikipedia and therefore did not thoroughly recheck the sources of the articles. We understand that we made a big mistake when they crossed the sources of the articles from where they were written. So on July 19, 2018 until the Trust and Safety team contacted us, we had already canceled the results (see this. So the accusation that our user group is funding plagiarism - this is a complete absurdity since we canceled all the results in the places about which plagiarism was spoken. The remaining funds from the Grant were transferred back to the fund. all the details of the contest were described in the Grant report which is provided to the fund (see this). All the necessary information about this you can ask from the Wikimedia Foundation Community Resources team.

As for user DEU blocking: he reason for blocking User:Deu was his unfounded undocumented charges against the user group and specifically against me (Mehman97) and the administrator MIKHEIL where he noted that we allegedly appropriated the fund's money and specifically put them in our pocket. Because of this User:MIKHEIL (as administrator) on demand 3 other Wikipedians, has temporarily blocked the User:Deu for unreasonable charges of misappropriating money. Also, User:Deu started a personal attack on the user MIKHEIL as administrator (Pay attention to the name of the section where there is a charge against MIKHEIL), which is also punishable by the rules of Georgian Wikipedia (see this & this. User:Deu If you notice that was blocked again and this time not by User:MIKHEIL, but by another administrator of Georgian Wikipedia, the reasons for which he was blocked - This is disrespect for the laws of Georgian Wikipedia and personal attacks against some participants Georgian Wikipedia.

Despite all the UG-GE has apologized to all the Wikipedians for the discomfort caused. Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia made an official statement at the news forum in the Georgian Wikipedia, in which the following is stated:

"Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia apologizes to the Georgian Wikipedia community for the discomfort caused by the above facts revealed during this period. Unfortunately, Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia could not resist these events and did not instantly affect the conflict situation. The main reason is the lack of human resources. I want to assure you that UG-GE will act in the future and will eradicate all the shortcomings in the organization's activities in conflict situations. UG-GE thanks all interested and involved individuals." (see this).

In the end: We (UG-GE) have disassembled all the problem nuances with the WMF and you can check it. So this question is closed to us (UG-GE).

3) Unreasonable slander

as for Meatpuppetry: Imagine that a person who creates a maximum of 5 articles per year and who is most active in Village pump and discussion pages, and also constantly discredits other participants, suddenly takes and accuses the most active participant in Wikipedia, who made a huge contribution to the Georgian Wikipedia, which is actively advertises Wikipedia and which constantly leads Wikipedia new faces. How can you call it one word? I think everyone has their own answer ...

So, on what basis does user DEU accuse the most active user? Here the answer is simple: the users who supported the administrator MIKHEIL were WIKI-scholar of Jaba1977. But where is the evidence that he influenced his former students? It is not! A charge without evidence is slander and, according to Wikipedia laws, a user who has slandered another must be punished for which user DEU deserves a second block. Oh yeah! user DEU had one witness who allegedly argued that user Jaba1977, once asked him to give a vote in his favor and allegedly he also uses his students for some purpose. And who is this witness? User:გიორგი ჩუბინიძე — a user who, since the beginning of the conflict, was an accomplice of user DEU and who has a personal dislike for participant Jaba1977, as well as he is an offended participant in the contest, which caused discontent.

Also, accuse the participants of the fact that they allegedly did not take independent decisions (where they themselves made a decision), these are insults! Note, that user Jaba1977, who is accused unreasonably, all this time patiently did not interfere in this ridiculous situation. Also, get acquainted with the contribution of User:Jaba1977, which he contributes to the Wikimedia projects (see this).

4) About discrediting

All user DEU accusations are a big lie, which by such actions discredits specific individuals, administration, bureaucrats and does not allow users of Georgian Wikipedia to work normally. Unfortunately he is not alone in this matter, people who have personal disagreement with the administration (such as user:Gobrona) help him in this matter. All this conflict, which user DEU began, dates back to 2014, when user DEU and several other administrators lost this status for their passivity, according to the new accepted norms. Because of this, user DEU is very offended by the current administration, which was the initiators of the new law by the administrators and therefore now user DEU tries to discredit the administrators in every way. As you see it has very far-sighted ambitions. I'm very sorry that this user instead of normal work, is engaged in the discrediting of active participants, which leads to a decrease in the productivity of Wikipedia. Because of such actions, the last three months Georgian Wikipedia is almost on the verge of stagnation. So, I suggest you look at the contribution of administrators and those people whom user DEU accuses, and then look at the contribution of user DEU himself.

5) In total

User DEU continues to discredit the active participants of the Georgian Wikipedia, and with their accusations that are not justified, discredits the whole Wikipedia. Therefore, in relation to him must take appropriate measures, as it badly affects the hormonal work of Wikipedia.

As for this discussion: the Georgian Wikipedia community is not that small so that they do not solve the problems in the Georgian Wikipedia, so I think all decisions regarding the Georgian Wikipedia should be accepted locally or with the participation of the entire Georgian Wiki-Community.

Thanks -- 10:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The recent comments, such as User:Zangala, proves my theory, which I mentioned above, that the old administrators are very, but very offended by the current administrators, who at one time initiated a new law and in consequence of which several administrators lost their status. And the rest of the commentators by and large have a personal dislike for administrators and active users. P.S. Unfortunately at the moment there is a very large pressure on the administrators' corps, which adversely affects Wikipedia. --Mehman 97 10:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And one question personally to the user Zangala, why did your friend — lawyer DEU, fail to take into account at one time that the new law does not have accuracy and didn't indicate this, and why did you not take this fact into account? -- Mehman 97 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the blocking of the user:Gobrona, this participant, despite multiple warnings (see this & this), continued without evidence to blame others. So, he fully deserved the block. -- Mehman 97 10:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All answers to the Mehman97's contradictory explanations and questions can be found in my detailed report. Deu. 11:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jaba1977

მაპატიეთ, რომ ვერ ვწერ ინგლისურად, რადგან არ ვიცი ინგლისური და არც მინდა დავიბრალო მისი ცოდნა, თუმცა ვთხოვ ჩემს კოლეგებს თარგმნონ ინგლისურად: თუკი გადავხედავთ ამ მომხმარებლების წვლილს ქართულ ვიკიპედიაში (1, 2, 3...) მარტივად დაინახავთ ერთ ფაქტს: არცერთს მონაწილეობა არ მიუღია არანაირ პროექტებში, არ დაუწერიათ არანაირი გრანტის განაცხადი, უფრო მეტიც ზოგიერთი მათგანი ვიკიპედიის განვითარებას შეგნებულად უშლის ხელს. ერთ-ერთის წყალობით ვიკიბანაკის იდეა ჩავარდა კიდეც. აქვე მინდა დავამატო, რომ ზოგიერთი მომხმარებლის მხრიდან მიმდინარეობს დადანაშაულება იმ მომხმარებლების არააქტიურობაში, რომლებიც ხმას აძლევენ. ძალიან მიკვირს, რადგან სწორედ ის მომხმარებლები საუბრობენ ამაზე ვინც ხმა მისცა ადმინისტრატორობის კანდიდატს, რომელსაც 8 თვე არაფერი გაუკეთებია. რაც შეეხება მეგობრებით თამაშის ბრალდებას უბრალოდ სასაცილოა და ამაზე პასუხს არც ვაპირებ. გარდა ამისა პასუხი მომხმარებელმა DEU-მ უკვე მიიღო და დაბლოკეს ერთი თვის ვადით მტკიცებულებების არქონის გამო (სხვები კი გააფრთხილეს). ჩემი აზრით მიზანმიმართული დისკრედიტაცია, რომელიც 11 ივნისის შემდეგ გრძელდება უნდა დასრულდეს და მოგვეცეს საშუალება ვიზრუნოთ ქართული ვიკიპედიის განვითარებაზე. --Jaba1977 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provide the translation of Jaba1977 text: "I apologize for not writing in English since I don’t speak English, therefore, I ask my colleagues to translate this text into English: If we revise the contribution of these Wikipedia users (1, 2, 3...), then we will see the next fact: none of them have participated in any projects, have not written any grants application, and even more — some of them are deliberately preventing the development of Wikipedia. “Thanks to one of them”, the idea of WikiCamp has failed. I also want to add that some users are being blamed for inactivity of users who vote. I am very surprised because those users are talking about, who themselves voted for the Admin candidate who has not done anything for last 8 months. As for meatpuppetry, it's just funny and I'm not going to answer that. In addition, the user Deu has already received answer and has been blocked for not having proof for one month (others have been warned). In my opinion, deliberate discretion that should be completed that started after June 11, and give us opportunity to take care of the development of Georgian Wikipedia." --Mehman 97 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Is thi? I'm not a participant? And What is this? (see Wikipedia Asian Month 2017 Georgian Edition (I am the Wikipedia Asian Ambasador 2017). Jaba is Lying. გიო ოქრო (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean competitions. I wrote a project. --Jaba1977 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ანუ დანარჩენ ორს ეთანხმები? არ დაგიწერია არანაირი გრანტის განაცხადი და შეგნებულად ხელს უშლი ვიკიპედიის განვითარებას? :) --Jaba1977 (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also provide the translation of Jaba1977 text: Does that mean you agree with the other two arguments? You didn't write any grant applications and deliberately preventing the development of Wikipedia. --Mehman 97 17:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
რა თქმა უნდა არა. Translation — Of course NO. გიო ოქრო (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ადმინისტრატორები არ აკეთებენ მსგავს არაფერს და ჯერ მათ მოეკითხებათ. Translation — Even administrators do not do anything similar (Projects). გიო ოქრო (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, user Jaba1977 is developing the theory that you absolutely must participate in the activities supported by Wikimedia Foundation or even write grant applications to become a proper and legitimate Wikipedian. According to him, such activities are even presuppositions of the truth. Unfortunately, his wiki students, whom he was able to bring to Wikipedia through Wikimedia Foundation-sponsored projects, also misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. Of course, I respect all those new users who mostly still go to school. However, misinterpretation of the nature of Wikipedia leads them into misunderstanding. Deu. 07:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Rschen7754

As a general note, this RFC would be more likely to bring about a resolution if all parties tried to keep their statements short and easily understandable to someone who is not involved in that community.

I have one thing to say: the ka.wikipedia inactivity policy is ridiculous. I complained about it way back in early 2015 (or somewhere around there) when it was introduced (if any stewards are reading this, I sent an email to the list complaining about it). --Rschen7754 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754, you are completely right. I also mentioned your complaint here, I tried to explain everything in detail. The problem, however, is not in the radical inactivity policy, but rather in selective justice. The inactivity policy was originally introduced to remove unwanted users. Otogi, one of the users originally strictly supporting the inactivity policy, later declares to himself that the goal of the new rule was not to introduce the general order, but only to remove the concrete unbearable passive administrators. For the authors of the policy, however, this inactivity policy does not apply, as you can see. Deu. 21:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by SHOTHA

First of all, I must apologize for my English. I agree with user Deu’s report. In fact, it’s hard not to agree with the facts. Bad precedents happened in Georgian Wikipedia in last couple of months. Those bad precedents are:

  1. Misuse of administrative power and not accepting criticism. I have no personal dislike to current administrators, I worked with them for years, I know most of them personally, appreciate them and their contribution. At least because of this I consider myself obliged to tell them what mistakes they are making. In some cases, unfortunately, their actions are even misapplication of their rights (imo). When I or other users tell them their mistakes, the only answer is that our action is ‘personal attack’ and it should be punished with warning or block.
  2. Not using discussion as a way of solving problems, not even trying to reach consensus and instead starting voting every time. Constructive criticism (again) and questions remain unanswered. For some reason, from the very beginning of each significant discussion, it is apriori considered that consensus is unreachable.
  3. Meatpuppetry. I personally think that meatpuppetry happened. I have no evidence of it, since it comes from actions outside Wikipedia, but in the voting of removal admin rights from MIKHEIL, it was obvious, in my opinion. Revealing meatpuppetry should be in the interests of administration as well, since it’s violation of Wikipedia rules and their job is to prevent this. But instead of trying to find out the truth about it, users pointing on meatpuppetry are getting warned or blocked (again) from administrators. It was the reason I refused to participate in that voting.
  4. Selective justice. Years ago after implementing new rule of admin contribution, admin rights were removed from 4 users retroactively, but they weren’t removed from MIKHEIL now.

Links to these actions are provided in user Deu’s report, so I won’t put them again here.

To be honest, I don’t know, what can be done in this situation. I don’t want to change the whole administration, since in Georgian Wikipedia there not many active and experienced users. I just want for administrators to realize the mistakes they’re making, to stop using warnings and blocks as a way of threatening users who don’t agree with their opinions, to stop seeing conspiracy and personal attacks in criticism and to stop using voting system every time the discussion is underway. I hope, you'll respond wisely and intervene in the best way for Wikipedia.--SHOTHA [UT] 11:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New comment by UndDerDie

Once again, I'd like to point out the problem of selective justice. This time, it is about Otogi's remarks, where he accuses me of being a provocateur and says that election, where I suggested myself as administrator "is nothing, but a well calculated provocation". While Gobrona was blocked for 3 months, Otogi has not yet received (and I do think that he won't, at least by incubment administrators) even warning. I've asked MIKHEIL and David1010 for action on their talk pages, but they remain silent. Please also note that MIKHEIL threatened to give a warning to Zangala and გიო ოქრო for a joke about inactivity of administrators. UndDerDie (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gobrona

Very briefly my opinion: Mistrust of me and other users to the votes held in the last period was not groundless. During the vote on the maintain/removal of MIKHEIL's administrative rights, new and inexperienced users appeared who were in favor of maintain MIKHEIL's rights. 80% of these users were former participants in the WikiCamp projects, organized by Jaba1977. Because of this, the doubt arose about the meatpuppetry. As users Deu, Zangala and I also emphasized this, two users, Deu and Zangala, were banned and I got a warning. Most of all, however, Deu was damaged, which remained banned for a month. After some time, during the administration elections of UndDerDie there were similar developments of procedures. The same users, who were not active for months, voted against UndDerDie. When I underlined this fact, the administrator MIKHEIL has banned me for two weeks. The second administrator, however, changed the length of the banishment to three months. He had no right, in my opinion. All those who know me also know that I have been active for years, have sufficient contributions and no history of vandalism. All this clearly shows that for the mentioned users every different opinion is unacceptable, always followed by bunishment. Finally, the main victim is Wikipedia itself. Gobrona (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

80% of these users were former participants in the WikiCamp projects, organized by Jaba1977. Because of this, the doubt arose about the meatpuppetry. - If I'm coming up with new users and let them vote for it means playing with friends? This kind of thinking prevents the development of Wikipedia. For the defamation and personal attacks, user:Gobrona and others have been warned, but after the recurrence they were blocked, which I think was fair. --Jaba1977 (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Gobrona. გიო ოქრო (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'am a new user of Georgian Wikipedia and already tired by insults from user:Deu. He always insists that we have not enough contributions and we are victims of meatpuppetry. But he forgets, when he voted for administrator to user, which was inactive during 8 months. I strongly support current administrators of Georgian Wikipedia! --AkakiBalanchivadze (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]