Requests for comment/Zereshk's RfA at the Persian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.

Trouble at the Persian Wikipedia[edit]

copied from Metapub

Zereshk's RfA at the Persian Wikipedia ( is due to close at ‍‍14:14, June 17 2008 (UTC). He currently has 34 support votes, and 3 oppose votes (91%). However, a couple hours ago, Roozbeh, the bureaucrat there, extended the RfA for two more weeks ([1], [2]). His rational was "based on [other] users request (without naming anyone) the deadline is extended for two weeks so they can do more thorough research and change their vote." ([3]) I cannot recall any RfA on any Wikipedia that has lasted a total of three weeks, and consider this be a gross abuse of bureaucrat privileges. Several people have already protested Roozbeh's actions ([4]). I am requesting that the original RfA deadline be restored, and that Roozbeh possibly be punished for his actions. Khoikhoi 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this an internal matter for that wiki? I'm not sure anyone at meta has the authority to override a local 'crat. Certainly people could opine that it might not be a good approach, perhaps, but not actually overturn things I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's affairs of farsi wikipedia. We can't really do much. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone should do something about this outrage. He is the sole authority on Persian Wikipedia, wasn't even elected by the users and just because that he was the founder of Persian Wikipedia, he is enjoying bureaucrat privileges. This is an outragious action and I hope someone who could, perhaps Jimbo, get involve and overturn this mess. --Kaaveh Ahangar 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This should be discussed at, probably open a Request for comments if he does not allow people to discuss that on, but we can't act or do anything, the community there has to decide what has to be done. If they vote for desysop, fine, if they don't do anything at all, also fine, their decision.
I can't see any emergency here, this is a local affair, as Lar said, I'm sorry. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur, this is more a case for an RfC, or an RfAR (if there is an Arabic Arbcom) to discuss sysop violations; this does not seem to be a meta issue at current. -- Avi 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
As a long-term solution, there's nothing to stop people electing a second bureaucrat. It's comparable in size to the Nynorsk Wikipedia, which has four bureaucrats [5].--Cato 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We HAD second bureaucrat. He was under pressure for his decisions exactly like Roozbeh so he preferred to resign. Some of the stewards and Jimbo Wales might know about it. Another point is that User:Khoikhoi is not active wikipedian on persian wikipedia and I don't know why is he intervening in this matter. Hessam 03:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of those commenting here (and assuming it wasn't private), could you say which Stewards? giggy (:O) 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue could be that the current 'crat there may not be willing to have another work alongside him. If there's only one 'crat it can be difficult to get another one in if that 'crat doesn't want to let you do so. If RfCs on your wiki aren't working (try one) and a community vote to have him de-cratted doesn't work (try one), then you may need to ask for further intervention here... but make sure you've tried those on your local wiki first. giggy (:O) 01:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The very problem is that local discussion has not been working. There's a great deal of talk about it here. The main issue is the unwillingness of Roozbeh himself to negotiate. At the talk page I cited, when asked by a user to reduce the two-week extension to one week, Roozbeh said "Whenever I have extended the deadlines it has been for two weeks automatically. I don't think I am allowed to reduce it to one week, I am only permitted to extend once, and that was for two weeks. But you have a good point about repetitive arguments, I will keep that in mind next time." He has also said "I am moving at the moment and the truck is waiting for me, so all responses will have to wait till after." Khoikhoi 04:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This problem can be easily solved by electing more Crats. We are not active in this kind of issues and just complaining. Even there is no candidate for Cratship in In my opinion this is an internal problem and farsi wikipedian business and the solution is clear.--Kamix 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That is the long-term solution, but what about the short-term solution? Khoikhoi 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Please wait until the end of deadline and parallel with that issue please follow up the election for new Crat(s). Giggy hints will be useful too.--Kamix 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think that trying to elect new 'crats would be best solution. At least give it a try and see how that goes, then we can discuss further if, unfortunately, nothing avails. giggy (:O) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said that electing new 'crats would not be a good solution, but I was stressing that this is the long-term solution. I'm pretty sure the RfA started Monday, June 2nd. It was supposed to have ended June 16th (last Monday). Now it has been extended until July 1st., i.e. a whole month in total. Roozbeh's reason is that he says he has received anonymous email(s) asking him to do so. Do we really have to wait a month for this drag on? Khoikhoi 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am troubled that the 'crat is acting on anonymous requests. We have a general principle of openness. People should state their concerns publicly on the RfA.--Cato 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Roozbeh, the bureaucrat that Khoikhoi is talking about. His story only explains one side of the argument, and is definitely mistranslating and misrepresenting my words. For example, my rationale I provided for extending the deadline was "Due to request of users for more time for more careful consideration and also becuase of [already] changing votes [...]". Also, the tradition of RfA request on Persian Wikipedia has always been two-week nominations and two-week extensions. Such two-week extensions had precedent before on the Persian Wikipedia: Example from February 2006. There are other false claims in Khoikhoi's statements, but I really don't have time for dismissing them one by one. I have explained and discussed the issue in depth on the related talk page on the Persian Wikipedia with concerned editors.

Also, about me being the only bureaucrat on the Persian Wikipedia, that is understandable because the other bureaucrat, who was approved by the community, could not take the abuse anymore and resigned (he had become a close friend of mine in the meanwhile, so I can tell that by confidence). He was so frustrated from some parts of the Persian Wikipedia's user community that he could not stand it. There has been another RfB on the Persian Wikipedia, that failed.

I don't understand the part about willingness to negotiate. I have discussed the matter extensively on the Persian Wikipedia (during personally-very-difficult times), and I am willing to explain more if there are any new arguments. I stopped explaining after I found that the arguments are repeating themselves and because I really had a life. I am also quite sure Wikipedia's policies would not allow me to shorten an RfA period, and that's what I explained. I don't think a bureaucrat is in any position to negotiate anything. I believe I simply need to make sure everyone who wishes to participate in a discussion can, and read the discussion after the end of the polling to see what the community has decided.

I am available for explanation of my actions, it's simply that someone needs to tell me (no one told me about this one, for example), and that I don't really enjoy explaining already-explained issues for the tenth time. Roozbeh 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Roozbeh for your reply. I will address your points one-by-one:
  • Your use of the word "story" to describe my concerns is a bit of a sweeping accusation IMO.
  • You are not precisely clear where specifically I misrepresent you - and what exactly are my false claims? Furthermore, what is "I really don't have time" supposed to mean?
  • You forgot to address the issue over the "anonymous emails" in which you say the extension was requested. You mention it yourself here in the very first sentence: [6]
  • "I really had a life." IMO, it is your responsibility to deal with the concerns of the users. If they are being "repetitive", perhaps it is because there is a clear consensus against your decision.
  • "I am also quite sure Wikipedia's policies would not allow me to shorten an RfA period, and that's what I explained." Which policies? We're talking about an extension here, which you yourself was instrumental in formulating (you even refer to it as a "tradition").
  • "I don't think a bureaucrat is in any position to negotiate anything." Even if everyone else disagreed with the extension, there is no room for compromise? Even Aparhizi, one of the four users who opposed Zereshk, has disagreed with the extension: [7]
Khoikhoi 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

After one month and with one day delay Rozbeh came and archived the RfA and said that I am going to read the users' negotiation and request and then I will decide. more than 93% of users are agreed with Zereshk RfA and between these users you can easily find old and most reputed users with a good background. How long should we wait for his final decision? Please help us to solve this problem!--Kamix 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)