Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2016-01

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

WMF Board ditched a community elected member for unknown reasons

Yesterday the board of trustees ditched one of it's members, User:Doc James, without any reason given [1]. He was one of the few duly vetted members, that was elected by the real sovereign, the communities, not just appointed or such. DocJames was elected by 1857 community members, and ditched by only 8 people. This is utterly disturbing. As no reasons are given art all, let alone valid reasons, and the by-laws obviously gives leeway to such deplorable ways of ditching properly vetted members simply by not liking them, this has to be discussed as widely as possible. Only complete transparency is valid under such circumstances, anything else reeks of raping the core values of the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Board chair Patricio Lorente just made a contentless post about this in the mailing list[2]. In short: They felt, they couldn't work together, so they overruled the community and ditched one elected member for personal reasons. A plain confession of abuse of power in my POV. It's the same anti-community mindset, that got the last community members voted out of their positions, because they acted against the community in the superprotect putsch. I think, it's still not clear for those over there, that superprotect was not just an error, but an active and brutal act against the communities for pure personal gain, to get the beloved (and probably connected with bonuses) MV out, regardless what. Superprotect, and probably this ditching of a community member that failed to kowtow, are signs of working against the spirit of the wikiverse, and just for the expandable service organisation WMF. Thje WMF in itself has no value at all, it's just the service entity of the community. They are our servants, full stop. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Doc James made his statement on the mailing list[3], and nothing even remotely undue is to be read in it. If this is consistent with what happened there, the rest of the board clearly preferred might over right, like they did with Superputsch before. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Dariusz Jemielniak aka Pundit also issued a statement as one of the involved board members[4]. There is still no real reason given that exceeds far too much secrecy demanded by the board, that should be as open and transparent as possible. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Centralnotice-WP15BannerTranslations-RememberEvents-text1/ru

Please, remove the comma from this message, cause it's grammatically incorrect in Russian. MaxBioHazard (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, please use Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat for this kind of requests in future, so that they are noticed faster. --Base (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Azwikipedia

This discussion should be continued on the Stewards'_noticeboard. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 3. The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, this is the wrong place to ask. The only people who could intervene are the stewards but the might be unable to do so if the wiki has other active admins/bureaucrats or dispute resolution channels. If you have been left no other option (and I really mean "no other option"), then you could try asking at the Stewards' noticeboard, but make sure you read the notice at the top. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Green Giant, you can left that RfC on Stewards Noticeboard.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Idin Mammadof talk 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Aldnonymous and Green Giant, I wrote. There is no reaction. But then what do I do? -Idin Mammadof talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues..., User:sefer azeri writes: "atan haqqında yazdığın məqaləni də sildim bu da sənə paz olsun ... çox göt-baş atsan onun qəzeti haqqında məqaləni də sənin qəzetin haqqında məqaləni də siləcəm ... nə istəyirsən elə" (To displease you, I will do everything.). -Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues... and vandalism continues...!!! Ladies and Gentlemen !!! How long the vandals, remain unpunished ?! How long the vandals, the administrator will be ?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In these edit the person says "deleted due to copyright infringement"[5][6]. Were these images copied and pasted from another source? Or were they taken by you personally? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It belongs to me. They are stored in my personal library. There is no copyright infringement. They have been removed without any reason. They removed without discussion. Also, this page also deleted. Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you make the image yourself? Please note that simply owning a copy of an image is not the same as owning the copyright of an image. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no problem. I am the author. Documents belongs to me. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you email the image in question as I am unable to see it? Also you said that you took the picture with your own camera? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I photographed their own picture. Web pages belonging to me, these photos are available: 1, 2 Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So this was published in 1933 [7] You do not own the content in question but it should be in the public domain as it is so old. This document is from 1993 [8] Unless that is your signature on the bottom you do not own it. The person who wrote the document or the government owns it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said and you acknowledge, there is no copyright infringement: 1. That is the official document (Letter of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.)), according to our laws, in the public domain. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 8:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree the first one appears okay. But were does it say government documents are public domain? I do not see it here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You see through autotranslator. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I found: Article 7. Objects not covered by copyright protection, (page 15). --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that indeed says state documents are not covered by copyright. Have requested the deleting admin comment here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For it have requested the deleting admin comment here. No results. Is there another way to solve the problem? Vandals will not be punished? --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to give them some time to respond. Also they are not a "vandal". They are deleting stuff as they see it as a copyright infringement. I am waiting to hear their side of the story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time? I can show 100 cases. They will not let me in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as well as other users. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, there was no discussion. Now I began. Articles must be restored first. But I still have not recovered, only 1 article has been restored. In this article, the photo has not been restored yet: [20].--Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay yes I see that. Will give the admin more time to response. Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. "Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban?" - I did not understand, you want to know the reason for this? I have not breached any rules. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if their was a discussion that resulted in your ban. And if so can you post it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I created this article. Protested. But they could not delete the article. They blocked me. They are a group. Receive a salary from the state. They do not allow us to. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (Müzakirə edilmədən silinən məqalələr):
    • Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (Reklam və spam xarakterli məqalələr);
    • Blank pages (Information pages are not). (Boş məqalələr (çox qısa və heç bir informasiya daşımayan məqalələr (məsələn, Filankəs - rejissor)) (Ən sadə məzmun qaydası: Məqalə başlıqdan və bu başlığı çox sadə şəkildə də olsa ifadə edən ən azı bir cümlədən ibarət olmalıdır.));
    • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (Vandalizm nəticəsində yaradılmış məqalələr);
    • Misspell the name of the article. For example ( az:Fizuli instead of, az:Fizuli) (Məqalə başlığı səhv yazılmış yönləndirilən məqalələr (məsələn, Fizuli));
    • Written on the same subject, if another article (Eyni və ya çox yaxın məzmuna malik başqa məqalənin mövcud olması);
    • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (Məzmunu mötəbər mənbələrlə əsaslandırılması mümkün olmayan məqalələr, o cümlədən istifadəçilərin mənbələrə əsaslanmayan özfəaliyyəti);
    • Articles in other languages (Digər dillərdə yazılmış məqalələr).

Under these rules, the articles can not be deleted: [21], [22], [23].

In addition, I would like to mention:

Deleted articles have already been restored:az:Söhrab Arabov, az:Rövzət Dəmirçizadə, az:Məhyəddin Abbasov, az:Nəsib Muxtarov (arxeoloq). But now the deletion is discussed. No reason given. These pages will not edit anonymous az:Vikipediya:Kənd meydanı, az:Vikipediya:İdarəçilərə müraciət, az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə namizəd səhifələr, az:Nuxa qalası, az:Nuxa qəzası, az:Şəki dövləti. They want to be I could not edit anonymous, and I could not have to complain. So I can not complain that they want to lock me global. For this nachili private discussions. The same individuals: User:Wertuose, User:Sortilegus, User:sefer azeri. But not yet found any reason not bud. If they though an appeal to the Steward, let them come here. If they are right, what are afraid?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism continues. Again, the pictures are deleted without discussion ([29], [30] They belong to the opposition. For this reason deleted.). Some, after being restored. But some still have not been recovered ( [31] ). Worst of all is that such things happen regularly. We are angry, we are wasting our time, but it is happening again. All intellectuals went out. How long this situation will last? Please help. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sefer azeri yesterday pleaded with me unjustly block. Sefer azeri recently had 6 articles indisputably clear. Because he had created Aydinsalis substances. Hasan that when the complainant had brought back again the other administrators Article 2 of them. Then Aydinsalis 4 article "deletion candidate pages" pulled pane debate. That there is a debate as it is written in the pages it may take up to 15 days. 4 article that has opened the debate over the 15 days after the idea had reported only four people in the discussion. 20 days after the start of the debate. Sefer azeri and Keete 37 makes it nearly always the same review to any discussion of an argument, are deleted without reason and the principles he commented. Sefer azeri immediately "deleted unanimously decided to say" that archive discussion.[32] I took back the debate from the archive "this election is not the place," I said. "We're doing this in the election here, you" was decided unanimously "to say the debate concludes," I said. "Secondly not finish first in this debate, because I said you are neutral in this debate." You're the delete Articles "I said." The decision you should not give any manager, "I said.[33] Sefer azeri blocks show the grounds that I did vandalism pleaded with.--Samral (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I blocked 10 times. 9 Sefer azeri did. Is it coincidence that so? I appeal to all administrators [34]. None of them did not answer. It's not just me. Many users refer pleaded with him to receive the status administration [35], [36], . But almost none received no reply.--Samral (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear META. They violated general principles of Wikipedia, and it is constantly going on. Vandalism is legal, and you do nothing? I still have to wait? Is it true that you never look at my complaint? I want to believe that you will defend the principles of Wikipedia, albeit belatedly. --Idin Mammadof 9:39, 23 September 2015 2015 (UTC)
The users also blocked indefinitely. Without any reason: [38], [39], [40] --Idin Mammadof 17:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The second account you mention was blocked for two weeks in 2014, with a reason given: Vikipediyadanın normal işinin pozulması; https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_m%C3%BCzakir%C9%99si%3A94.20.244.157&diff=2975193&oldid=2975188 - the link goes to a discussion where the impending block was made perfectly clear - they now edit quite a lot, apparently without a problem. Rich Farmbrough 17:46 10 January 2016 (GMT).
Time has passed 14 days, another year has passed. He's still on the block. The reason for the above is completely false. He did not break any rules. --Idin Mammadof 18:34 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Foundation wiki feedback

The Foundation made the Foundation Wiki read only, some 2-3 years back.

They argue that "This wiki idea is all very well, but there would be too much vandalism for a serious project to run on it." I think....

And as a sop to those who might wish to comment or ask questions they have linked to a page on Meta - Foundation wiki feedback where the doyens of the Foundation will be delighted to read and respond to the murmurings of hoi polloi.

Except that they aren't and they don't.

The only people to comment from WMF over the last year are long-time community members:

And they have not commented often (or since November)

How do we re-engage the Foundation with their wiki and the community?

Rich Farmbrough 18:11 10 January 2016 (GMT).

I've been saying for a long time that the only way is to radically change the context: Grants:IdeaLab/A place to work together. Nemo 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A kind question to the administrator SemperBlotto

Dear Mr Knaggs,

I would like to ask you if I you can create an abbreviation "HAG-MAC" that I have encountered a lot of times in the notes of the faculty that I have been registered as a student. If you could explain to me why did you delete my previous abbreviation/sumbol that I had posted, I would be really thankfull to you.

Yours sincerelly

WKDDR Previous added by WKDDR 18 Oct 2015 16:42

@SemperBlotto: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikilore

Hello friends, I have proposed a new Wikimedia project named Wikilore. Check it out and give your views.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How do i create web pages in wikimedia by importing a csv file

I have tried installing the semantics and importing a csv file through Extensions. Also tried through the Special Pages Import feature, but none of them worked to create pages in my wikimedia portal.

See here This might work for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Meta page with content prints as blank page except page title and footer

Not sure if this is a sensible place to ask but I made a page on Meta and when I print it or create a pdf of it its completely blank, is this a bug? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:John_Cummings/publication_guide

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The entire content is enclosed in a "noprint" class, what was your objective? Nemo 16:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nemo, not at all, is it possible to keep the page looking the same while allowing it to be printable? John Cummings (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@John Cummings: please try it now.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Well that's much better as it will actually print something but the text is displayed underneath the image, not on top of it, any more ideas? Thanks John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WMF Trustee Arnnon Geshuri

A vote of no confidence has been raised at Vote of confidence:Arnnon Geshuri. Please vote or add comments there. --Fæ (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Block request for BAICAN XXX at ro.wikinews

Copied from User_talk:Syum90#Block_request. Discussion continues here at the Wikimedia Forum.--Syum90 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion continues at the Requests for comment/Block request for BAICAN XXX at ro.wikinews (a more appropriate place for such topic). --Wintereu 12:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you had some admin activity at ro.wikinews and that you're still active. At ro.wikinews we have a user that is causing us serious troubles. There are indeed 2 admins, but one of them (Ionutzmovie) retired (at least temporary) from ro.wikipedia and hasn't been active on ro.wikinews since 8.10.2015. The other one (MSClaudiu, also a bureaucrat) hasn't been active since 17.06.2015. I tried to contact him, but haven't received any reply. Therefore, since none of them is active, I decided to ask you to end this situation:

BAICAN XXX (see link), well-known user indefinitely blocked on ro.wikipedia and several other Romanian language projects and it.wikivoyage (for one year due to personal attacks) with many clones used along the time (see here, Clone cunoscute ale lui BAICAN XXX - Known clones of user BAICAN XXX), has already been blocked and warned several times on ro.wikinews (see here). Still, he continue in the very same manner that led to his account being blocked. His destructive edits include, but are not limited to: copyright violations, personal attacks, refusal to accept consensus (such as the one regarding the articles to be verified before being published, in almost the same manner as en.wikinews), deletion of the delete templates, creation of pages unrelated to ro.wikinews that contain personal beliefs and/or criticisms regarding other projects. After another set of warnings, including a final warning and only warning, and two other messages regarding personal attacks and acceptance of the consensus (both without any feedback), he (again) continues to act the same way. Therefore, time has come to put an end. Just for the record, his last block was for one month (see here).

Thank you for the time spent in reading this long message above. Hope you will consider in helping us out. Regards, Wintereu 16:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If you need anything, like diffs or any sort of translations regarding the situation described, please let me know. Thanks again. --Wintereu 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wintereu: Mentioned diffs and comments by other local users would be helpful.--Syum90 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Warnings and notifications given to BAICAN XXX since last block

Below you will find a list of the warnings, notifications and other relevant messages given to BAICAN XXX since November 2015:

  1. Level 1 warning — given on 7.11.2015 for this edit on other user's comment. Împotrivă means against, although the comment made by user XXN was a simple question and nothing else.
  2. Notification given on 17.11.2015 regarding lack of sources for the articles created by this user.
  3. A second notification given on 22.11.2015 regarding lack of sources for another article this user created.
  4. Level 2 warning given on 2.12.2015 regarding the abusive deletion of the delete templates from several pages (see [41], [42], [43]).
  5. Notification given on 5.12.2015 regarding insults made to another user, using an IP address (see confirmation here).
  6. Level 3 warning given on 10.12.2015 for copyright violations regarding two articles created by the user.
  7. Level 4 warning (final warning) given on 28.12.2015 for abusive deletion of the delete templates within the following articles:
    • this article — proposed for deletion because it's not related to Wikinews and it's full of criticisms and insults against an administrator from ro.wikibooks.
    • this article — proposed for deletion because it's not a news (ro.wikinews has the very same criteria as en.wikinews).
    • this article — proposed for deletion due lack of neutral point of view and journalistic writing language.
  8. Level 4 warning (final warning similar to only warning) given on 2.01.2016 for:
    • another deletion of the delete template here
    • partial deletion of a previous warning given to him (see here) and again 23 minutes later (see here)
    • another deletion of the delete template here
    • deletion of the delete template here (deletion proposed for lack of neutral point of view and journalistic language style)
    • deletion of the delete template here (deletion proposed for lack of journalistic language style; article written almost entirely using quotes)
  9. Message in which I told this user about an article that he created using 3 different news from 3 different periods of time (imagine that). I also made a final request to stop adding the publicare template (the equivalent of publish template) before an article gets verified (according to consensus and criteria from our local tea house, which are the same as the ones from en.wikinews used to verify an article). I can give you lots of examples with this user adding the template before the articles get verified.
  10. Notification regarding other insults made by this user reffering to another user as a venetic patriot from the north (venetic is used in a pejorative way to describe a person who lives in a foreign country and considered as a foreigner in the place he/she established). The notification was given on 7.01.2016.

--Wintereu 00:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is also relevant the following fact. For any of the warnings and other messages above there was no feedback, nothing. There is not even a single attempt this user has made to collaborate with others, nor to learn from his mistakes. --Wintereu 00:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have summarised a couple of Baican's comments from Wikiștiri below:
  • „Ți-a adus Babel-ul lui Bourge, tu ar trebui să traduci fără greșeli mai degrabă din RUSĂ,... poate ai și rude în Rusia..”? (here)
Courtesy translation: “[They/you] have brought the Babel from Bourge, you should be able to translate without mistakes from RUSSIAN instead,… maybe you also have relatives in Russia?”
Context: Bourge is the old name of Voloh28, an account he doesn't have access to anymore. This fact was divulged early on in the discussions for granting Voloh28 administrator rights. Although other users and administrators confirmed that Voloh28 in fact is Bourge, Baican refused to accept this, calling him an "imposter" then moving on to invoking his nationality as a reason to doubt his aptitude as contributor and therefore administrator.


  • „asta-i grozav ca stil, 2 piloți mori dintr-o împușcătură, ...insurgenți turci în Siria..., i-a ucis pe unul din piloți, - off, unde ești tu Țepeș Doamne...” (here)
Courtesy translation: “this style is “terrific”, 2 pilots die in a single shot, …Turkish insurgents in Syria…, killed one of the pilots, - oh, where are you My Lord Țepeș…”
Context: the article referred to was hot off the presses – new information was coming in at a rapid pace and the article had to be updated. Instead of contributing to the article, Baican chose to make fun of the author – Voloh28 – using Țepeș (more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler) as a higher entity. The reasons for using Țepeș in this sense are many, however, the most probable are patriotic – Țepeș was a ruthless ruler who kept invaders at bay. Taking into consideration earlier comments of defamatory character stated by Baican towards Voloh28 (and other contributors), it could be interpreted as a derogatory comment towards Voloh28's nationality; a borderline racial slur.


  • „Hei, wikipediștilor care l-ați votat PENTRU, aveți dovada, un agramat nu se corectează, nici votat - nici corectat!” (here)
Courtesy translation: “Hey all you Wikipedians who voted FOR, here you have the proof, an ignorant person doesn't correct himself, neither when voted nor when corrected!”
Context: as mentioned before, Baican opposed granting Voloh28 administrator rights. He did some minor corrections to an article published by Voloh28 and chose to make fun of him in the summary, tacitly calling everyone who voted for Voloh28, idiots.


  • „Apropo, vezi că în lipsa ta de la Wikționar, un nou venit, gradat, are voie să fie gazdă în locul tău, salutând nou-veniții... și probabil va face (vai!... după capul lui) introducerea categoriilor neacceptate de tine acolo.” (here)
Courtesy translation: “By the way, notice that in light of your absence from Wiktionary, a new arrival, gradually, is allowed to be the host instead of you, welcoming new arrivals… and will probably (alas!... after his own head) introduce new categories which you don't accept”
Context: During a period of time, I was unable to participate as much as I used to in the Romanian Wiktionary project. But I never stopped monitoring it or other Romanian-speaking Wikipedia projects. Another user – which Baican has made fun of repeatedly on Wikiștiri – started welcoming new arrivals. Baican was blocked 5 times from participating in Romanian Wiktionary and he holds a grudge against me for blocking him.


  • „eliminat agramația din sintaxa lui Robbie SUEDIA din eticheta de ștergere” (here)
Courtesy translation: ”eliminated the ignorant syntax by Robbie SWEDEN from the delete template”
Context: after monitoring Baican's contributions during the autumn of 2015, I started to get concerned about the large amount of material published which violated copyright and the reoccurring lack of sources. Sometimes he didn't even bother to translate the article, just published it in German (see here). After contacting Ionutzmovie, I was advised to add the copyvio and delete template to every article suspected of breaking rules and regulations. This didn't, however, prohibit Baican from deleting these templates, starting an editing war, not only with me but with every other user who added the template.


  • „Robbie swe a lăsat baltă de câteva zile Wikționarul wikipedic pentru a încerca să tulbure rapid și bine apele aici la Wikiștiri. Nu mă interesează cine l-a trimis pe Robbie în misiune, dar el nu este omul bine nimerit pentru a upta contra așa-ziselor articole copyviolate. Pentru că peste jumătate din toate contribuțiile lui Robbie SWE de la ro.wikționar, zeci și zeci de mii adică, are definițiile copiate literal (chiar) din DEX, DN de neologisme românești. După ce el va înlătura toate copy-violurile sale de acolo ar putea eventual să se dea aici la Wikiștiri drept mare cenzor politic al celor câteva articole apărute.” (here)
Courtesy translation: “Robbie swe has for a couple of days now, abandoned the wikipedic Wiktionary in order to try to mess things up quicker and better here at Wikinews. I'm not interested who sent Robbie on this mission, but he is not the right guy to fight these so-called copyviolated articles. Because more than half of all of Robbie SWE's contributions at ro.wikționar, tens and tens of thousands, are definitions literally copied (actually) from DEX, the DN of Romanian neologisms. After he circumvents all of his copyviolations from there, he will be able to eventually come and make himself the great political censor of the few articles written here”
Context: as mentioned before, I was unable to participate as usual for a period of time. Baican is convinced that I am "hired" by some unknown entity or agency to inhibit his participation in these projects. His accusation, that I illegally copied articles from DEX, is not only ludicrous but completely insulting. The Romanian Wiktionary imported articles from DEX Online in accord with its administrators. The fact that DEX has a GNU and GPL license, and that we followed instructions, makes us no different from English Wiktionary which imported Webster's Dictionary, 1913. I explained this to Baican, but he has kept calling me a plagiarist, diminishing all my 61.000+ contributions, must of which have been manual.


  • „Lipsite de corectitudine politică: adică ridicând probleme legate de imigrația în Europa, de scandaluri economico-politice, articolele vizate de tine să fie șterse ar fi în afara CORECTULUI POLITIC? Eu am îndoieli în acest caz că tu înțelegi sensul respectivului termen.” (here)
Courtesy translation: “Without political correctness: that is to say, raising problems connected to immigration in Europe, economic and political scandals, the articles analysed by you to be deleted, that would be outside POLTICAL CORRECTNESS? I'm starting to have my doubts that you actually understand what that term means”
Context: Baican started adding a large number of biased articles, critical towards immigration, in light of the large influx of refugees from war-stricken areas in the Middle East and North Africa. He initially gave no sources, then started adding sources – after being prompted to by me – which were questionable (for instance news outlets from the German anti-Islamic political movement Pegida). These articles were not written objectively and provided readers with a distorted view of the refugee crisis. When copyvio and delete templates were added, I was accused of censuring the truth.


  • „Nefondate obiecții ale unui copiator al DEX-ului pe ro.Wikționar!..., mai găsești tu Robbie SWE din Suedia ceva păcăleli.” (here)
Courtesy translation: “Insubstantial objections of DEX copier on ro.Wikționar!..., you seem to manage to find hoaxes Robbie SWE from Sweden”
Context: Once again referring to my contributions to Romanian Wiktionary as plagiarisms – an accusation invoked in the summary of each revert. The pattern of referring to my nationality – a curious and reoccurring trait he has done to me and other users, culminating in the venetic patriot from the north comment mentioned above – has prompted me to suspect that Baican harbours strong intolerance towards users of other nationalities. I find racial intolerance completely unacceptable.


  • „Șicanare fără rost, Robbie SWE, o Franță întreagă deplânge atentatul și numărul mare de morți și tu te pretezi la gesturi neagreabile și nedemne cerând să fie șters un articol ce este scris și în memoria celor morți! Ție chiar nu ți-e un pic RUȘINE de ceea ce faci? Sau ești bine plătit pentru asta !..........Iar găselnița că o adresă are scris grancez în loc de francez este puerilă, așa a fost tipărită - așa funcționează, scrisă... doar pentru inteligenți, deci semidocții sunt excluși.” (here)
Courtesy translation: “Teasing without any reason, Robbie SWE, the whole country of France is in tears over the attack and the large number of casualties, and you indulge yourself in distasteful and undignified gestures, requiring this article, which was also written in the memory of those who died, to be deleted! You don't have an ounce of SHAME in what you do? Or are you well-paid for this!.......... While your little discovery that an address was written grancez instead of francez is infantile, that's how it was written, that's how it works, written… only for those intelligent, therefore half-learned are excluded”
Context: Baican published an article about the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13th. Initially without sources and with speculative content not supported by the sources he eventually added later on. One of the sources was in its original state poorly written, leading me to mark it as unreliable. Accusing me of being shameless and a cretin was not only uncalled for, it also redirected attention from the subject at hand; a lack of procedure when it comes to source inclusion and credibility.


  • „sărman băiat, la Wikibook mi-ai șters toate Neologismele, aici vii cu aiurelile astea, cât ai avut la geografie? - 84.158.150.113” (here)
Courtesy translation: “poor boy, at Wikibook you deleted all my Neologism, here you come with this nonsense, how were your grades in geography?”
Context: Baican is prolific when it comes to creating sockpuppets (see his user page here) and contributing anonymously. The comment above was directed to Bacria Andrei Catalin and pretty much exemplifies the tone he has had towards him throughout the year, instead of trying to help and guide this user to improve his/her contributions.


Personal conclusion
Baican has been nominated for a global ban, but it didn't go through for some reason. He has shown a blatant disregard for rules and regulations, authority and other users. Not only has he been blocked from every major Romanian-speaking project, he has even been the subject of blocks and disputes in other projects as well:
  • Czech Wikipedia ([44]) – disputes over edits.
  • English Wiktionary ([45]) – a 6 month block for adding incorrect material and not following rules and regulations. I've monitored his contributions after the block was lifted and his behaviour has not improved.
  • English Wikipedia ([46]) – a 48-hour block for "rapid, contentious edits that editor refuses to discuss".
  • French Wikipedia ([47]) – adding an incomprehensible article which was deleted.
  • German Wiktionary ([48]) – reoccuring arguments with an administrator.
  • Hungarian Wikipedia ([49]) – disputes over content, and ignoring rules and regulations.
  • Italian Wikivoyage ([50]) – permanent block for abusive comments.
  • Polish Wiktionary ([51]) – disputes over edits and refusal to follow rules.
  • Spanish Wiktionary ([52]) – arguments with other users and refusal to follow rules.
  • Spanish Wikipedia ([53]) – disregard of rules and regulations.
My point here is that his behaviour is not restricted to Romanian projects – it is the way Baican works in every project. What frustrates other users, is his refusal to participate in discussions and when he – seldomly – chooses to do so, he communicates in a language foreign to the administrators and users of the project.
I know that this discussion is about Wikiștiri, but as he stated above, and I quote "[…] I have enough to do on other Wikimedia projects in English, German, Polish and why not in Wiktionario in Spanish!", the problem is not going to stop. Are we, as administrators and users in Romanian Wikipedia projects, supposed to monitor his contributions across every project? It's a daunting task and I believe that it's going to drain already meagre resources.
I hope this brought some more clarity in this discussion and I truly apologise for this lengthy input. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Defense

Hellou, Syum90! I regret that we can not, we are not able to resolve the dispute themselves on what is published and what is not published on ro.Wikinews. I hope, you succeed at all to understand the exact situation at ro.Wikinews, Wikinews.

I write this in early 2015 after being blocked from other projects ro.Wiki. In 2015 I wrote about 70 news/articles to Wikinews, most in relation to other users, contributors, following news editor of me writing about about 12 news/articles, and 3rd place ... not much is none. And what me, in context, I find it very significant, one who reported me to you and ask you firmly blocking my user:Wintereu has not written/created any articles on Wikinews, he making only comments usually negative and obstructionist regarding articles written by me. I certify written here by next statistical table, undone me:

Thus, you may speak of that ro.Wikinews lived and worked - informing people in 2015, mostly through news redacted by me user:BAICAN XXX. But this does not matter, it seems, for a group of interest in user information belongs: Wintereu not want freedom of news, but news like censorship after their own interests. So my articles-news that unwanted group relatatat topics being published, the news came and stepped on red! I suppose, because I have reliable information about it that those two administrators from ro.Wikiştiri - Ionuţmovie and MS Claudiu did not want to work with Wintereu interest-group and the two ran away, and disappeared as administrators unactiving actually to Wikinews. It is somewhat comical and incomprehensible what would happen here by ro.Wikiştiri, if user:Wintereu blocked his BAICAN XXX, and so I will not be able to edit news !? Perhaps this - no longer news ro.Wikiştiri public - wants this user:Wintereu, which has not yet drawn any news! I do not go, however, inactivity, I have enough to do on other Wikimedia projects in English, German, Polish and why not in Wiktionario in Spanish!

  • Looking notification list presented here by the user:Wintereu ("Warnings and notifications Given to Baican XXX Since last block") can easily deduce that while I, BAICAN XXX, I wrote 70 articles/news ro.Wikinews - with and without errors, this user:Wintereu, who has not written any news, came to ro.wikinews to track and notify point by point what's in the news BAICAN XXX! This arises from the above list that I, BAICAN XXX, I made mistakes like crazy, while Wintereu (by post only, "Hunter mistakes") presents by the Meta as the correct user from ro.Wikinews, but - it must be said clearly and repeatedly - that has not yet written any news there.
The two (user Wintereu and Robbie SWE) who will unconditionally as I, BAICAN XXX, to be blocked, are users who do not write and have written/redacted no news at ro.Wikiştiri. I suppose the fact that they both work, more or less, for any intelligence service concerned may in censorship. Robbie SWE, which is admin at ro.Wikţionar, locked myself there because I wanted to introduce to Wicţionar a lot of categories (Domain, Grammar, etc.) that do not exist and that he wants them as are, for example fr.Wikţionar or en.Wikţionar. He simply mind in saying that I had other conflicts in Wiktionary, I worked well with foreign Wicţionars, including FR, DE, ES, PL, and EN.Wiktionary. E.g. by en.Wikţionar to me, actually, I kinda 7,000 contributions ... so it puts a rhetorical question, if my contributions there were not quality it would have allowed the British to do/write to her 7,000 contributions?

And there is something related to en.Wikţionar, I contradicted myself there during a principle discussion Robbie SWE, severel years ago, I advocated the introduction of clear texts written in Romanian traditional Romanian diacritical characters ș,ț,Ș,Ț, while he, Robbie SWE, argued against keeping me s and t with cedilla character. But I was right with Romanian diacritics, they were then placed on all Wiki. So it could be and revenge from him, and this is possible! BAICAN XXX ( talk) 8:04, 22 January 2016 ( UTC)BAICAN XXX (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Syum90, please proceed as you think is best and right for fair news readers, news editors and Wikimedia projects! Goodbye!

  • in Romanian

Hellou, Syum90! Eu regret că noi nu putem, nu suntem în stare să rezolvăm singuri disputa privind ce este publicabil și ce nu este publicabil la ro.Wikinews. Eu sper să reușești cât de cât să înțelegi exact situația de la ro.Wikinews, Wikiștiri.

Eu scriu aici de la începutul lui 2015, după ce am fost blocat la alte proiecte ro.Wiki. În anul 2015 am scris cam 70 de știri/articole la Wikiștiri, cele mai multe în raport cu ceilalți utilizatori-contribuitori, următorul redactor de știri de după mine scriind cam vreo 12 știri/articole, iar pe locul 3... nu prea mai este nimeni. Și ceea ce mie, în context, mi se pare foarte semnificativ, cel care m-a reclamat la tine și îți cere ție ferm blocarea mea, user:Wintereu, nu a scris/creat nici un articol la Wikiștiri, el făcând doar comentarii, de regulă negative și obstrucționiste privitor la articolele scrise de mine. Certific cele scrise aici prin tabelul statistic următor, nefăcut de mine: *http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/RO/TablesWikipediaRO.htm#wikipedians

Astfel, s-ar putea vorbi de faptul că, ro.Wikinews a trăit și activat - informând oamenii în anul 2015, mai ales prin articolele create de mine, user:BAICAN XXX. Dar acest lucru nu contează, se pare, pentru un grup de interese în domeniul informațiilor de care aparține user:Wintereu care nu vrea libertate de știri, ci vrea cenzurarea știrilor după propriile interese. Și deci articolele-știri ale mele care au relatatat despre subiecte nedorite de grup a fi publicate, aceste știri au intrat sau călcat pe roșu! Eu presupun, căci nu am informații sigure despre asta, că cei 2 administratori de la ro.Wikiștiri - Ionuțmovie și MS Claudiu nu au vrut să colaboreze cu grupul-Wintereu de interese și cei doi au dat bir cu fugiții, nemaiactivând ca administratori și dispărând de fapt de la Wikiștiri. Este oarecum comic și de neînțeles ce se va întâmpla aici la ro.Wikiștiri dacă acest user:Wintereu cere blocarea lui BAICAN XXX, și deci eu nu voi mai putea redacta știri!? Poate tocmai asta, - să nu se mai publice știri la ro.Wikiștiri -, vrea acest user:Wintereu, care nu a redactat până acum nici o știre! Eu nu duc, oricum, lipsă de activitate, am destule de făcut pe alte proiecte Wikimedia în engleză, germană, polonă și de ce nu și la Wiktionario, în spaniolă!

  • Privind lista de notificări prezentată aici de către user:Wintereu ("Warnings and notifications given to BAICAN XXX since last block"), se poate ușor deduce că în timp ce eu, BAICAN XXX, am redactat 70 de articole/știri la ro.Wikinews - cu și fără erori, acest user:Wintereu, care nu a scris nici o știre, a venit la ro.wikinews pentru a urmări și notifica punct cu punct ce scrie în știri BAICAN XXX! Astfel apare din lista menționată, că eu, BAICAN XXX am făcut greșeli cu duiumul în ștrile redactate, în timp ce Wintereu (pe post de, doar, "vânător de greșeli") se prezintă la Meta ca fiind cel mai corect user de la ro.Wikinews, dar - asta trebuie spus clar și repetat -, care nu a redactat încă nici o știre acolo.
Cei doi (user Wintereu și Robbie SWE) care vor necondiționat ca eu, BAICAN XXX, să fiu blocat, sunt utilizatori care nu scriu și nu au scris/redactat nici o știre la ro.Wikiștiri. Eu presupun de altfel, că ei amândoi lucrează, mai mult sau mai puțin, pentru vreun serviciu de informații interesat poate în cenzurare. Robbie SWE, care este admin la ro.Wikționar, m-a blocat pe mine acolo pentru că am vrut să introduc la Wicționar o mulțime de categorii (de Domeniu, de Gramatică, etc.) care acolo lipsesc și pe care el nu le vrea așa cum sunt , de exemplu la fr.Wikționar sau la en.Wikționar. El minte pur și simplu când spune că eu am avut conflicte la alte Wikționare, eu am colaborat bine cu Wicționarele străine, inclusiv fr, de, es, pl, și en wikționar. De exemplu. la en.Wikționar eu, actualmente, am cam 7.000 de contribuții, ...deci se poate pune retoric întrebarea , dacă contribuțiile mele de acolo nu ar fi fost de

calitate, oare m-ar fi lăsat englezii să fac/scriu la ei 7.000 de contribuții?

Și mai este ceva, legat de en.Wikționar, eu l-am contrazis acolo pe Robbie SWE în cadrul unei discuții de principiu acum câțiva ani în urmă, eu am susținut clar introducerea în textele scrise în limba română a caracterelor diacritice românești tradiționale ș,Ș,ț,Ț în timp ce el, Robbie SWE, susținea contrar mie menținerea caracterelor s și t cu sedilă. Dar eu am avut dreptate cu diacriticele române, ele au fost după aceea introduse pe toate Wiki. Deci ar putea fi vorba și de o răzbunare din partea lui, este și asta posibil!BAICAN XXX (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pe tine, Syum90, te rog să procedezi cum crezi că este mai bine și corect pentru cititorii de știri corecte, redactorii de știri și pentru proiectele Wikimedia! S-auzim de bine! BAICAN XXX (discuție) 11 ianuarie 2016 16:13 (UTC)BAICAN XXX (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the message above:
  • I actually wrote (in my limited spare time) an article (see here) that respects every single policy and guideline (which are the same as on en.wikinews) with no exceptions. The user BAICAN XXX lied saying I haven't written any article.
  • The quality of the most pages created by him vary from poor to worse. See my previous comment on this page.
  • "... I have reliable information about it that those two administrators from ro.Wikiştiri - Ionuţmovie and MS Claudiu did not want to work with Wintereu interest-group and the two ran away, and disappeared as administrators unactiving actually to Wikinews." — That's a blatant lie. There wasn't any communication between me and MSClaudiu, except for a recent e-mail I sent him, regarding his long-term absence from ro.wikinews. Also, the only time I spoke with Ionutzmovie about BAICAN XXX was on 19.09.2015, as you can see here. --Wintereu 02:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I activate on Romanian Wikipedia and Romanian Wikinews. I confirm that BAICANXXX makes problems on ro.Wikinews and should be blocked.--VolohD 03:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Further more

Please also note the last message sent to me today by BAICAN XXX (verificări section):

"Dacă nu ai timp într-o oră, eu consider asta o încercare tendențioasă de a bloca funcționare ca un site de știri a Wikiștiri."

Courtesy translation:

If you don't have time in an hour, I'll consider this a tendentious attempt to block the project as a news site.

The message was sent after I removed the publish template due to the fact that the article in question (Chișinău: După neacceptarea lui Plahotniuc și retragerea desemnatului Păduraru, este numit Pavel Filip prim-ministru) was not verified yet. Also note from the article's history that BAICAN XXX already introduced that template on several occasions, although consensus is that every article should be verified first. --Wintereu 17:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

After the ultimatum expired, this user reintroduced (against consensus) the publish template into the article for the 7th time. Any further warning given to him is pretty much useless now, since he already received two final warnings. I request Syum90 or any other user with similar rights to carefully analyse all the info given and take a decision. Thank you. --Wintereu 23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Update. Upon review, the article was tagged with copyvio template. --Wintereu 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
For the 8th time within the same article, BAICAN XXX abusively introduced the publish template, though the article's review was negative. He also removed the template indicating copyvio problems. I urgently request Syum90 to make a decision. --Wintereu 07:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@BAICAN XXX: Discussion continues at Requests for comment/Block request for BAICAN XXX at ro.wikinews.--Syum90 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continues at the Requests for comment/Block request for BAICAN XXX at ro.wikinews (a more appropriate place for such topic). --Wintereu 12:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New Criteria for new articles in kawiki

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, A new rule has been proposed recently in the Georgian Wikipedia. If passed, it would require new articles to be more than 5 kilobytes to be accepted in Wikipedia. The articles already in Wikipedia as of the time of the rule’s passing, wouldn’t be eligible to be deleted. Additionally, the rule wasn’t supposed to affect articles about the kind of topics about which it is impossible to write a lengthy article. (It’s unclear how that would be determined, but the obvious way is to check similar articles in other Wikipedia projects) Thankfully, almost 40% of Georgian Users considered the project harmful to Wikipedia, so the rule didn’t pass. But the problem stays the same: the majority of users are not open to new members and they ignore the fact that the new rule would became a major obstacle for them. In Addition, the rule has been rejected, but some users want to discuss a revised version of it, which will probably be similar in essence but with minor revisions and lower limit (3-4 kbs). This is way I wanted to hear your opinion about this kind of restrictions and also ask you if any other Wikipedia projects has ever implemented one. Deu. 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from December 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in December 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ProcseeBot on meta?

Hi.

I noticed that on en.wiki ProcseeBot is blocking open proxies en masse.

I would suggest to run bot with this task here on meta, to block globally open proxies per «No open proxies» policy. --92.115.106.250 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So called "Missbrauchsfilter" on wikipedia.de

Once more: the user de:User:Karins Uschi ist a sock of de:user:Bertram, which ist harrasing since years, who was blocked on the decision of the community [54] after having used (up to today) some more hundreds sock puppets - see eg. CU 2006 [55], see [56]. -jkb- 11:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation seeking feedback about message notifications

In a recent email to the volunteers who act as communicators to communities, Quiddity, one of the developer team's community liaison, asked for interested parties to provide feedback about the personal message notifications

If there are interested users who have an opinion, and would like to assist in the development of better notifications, then please read "Sorting schemes" and contribute to the discussion at the places linked from that page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Journal Scientifique Libre development (open scientific publication)

A quick graphical explanation.

Hello all,

I'm developing a proposal for a new publication schema in science. Initial proposal was under HAL (the french open archive), and mainly aimed at my discipline (Life Cycle Assessment) that is particularly data intensive but hasn't jumped fully into associated tools.

I took the process from the start (creation of content), because to me scientific publication issues are not limited to Open Access of articles in the end. It has special importance for countries where universities and public research institutes have limited funding and the resulting limited access to scientific publications and data. Discussing and reading I know Greeks[57] and Venezuelans had issues paying subscription fees to scientific journals (but their aren't the only ones bothered on the matter [58] [59]). So I consider providing alternatives to these scientific communities a priority for research. If you have contacts in these chapters, linking you be appreciated.

The project started on two wikis. First work is on ENIPEDIA, a wiki from TU.Delft in Netherlands. The second is the french wikiversity. Discussing with Lionel Scheepmans recently, he advised me to have a look here on how to spread this initiative on several languages and in wikimedian communities and projects.

Your community is probably the wider and the one having the most important operational back-ground for this project. So I'd appreciate some guidance to deliver this proposal to each linguistic communities (friends of mine are translating in Arabic and Hindi). Expertise from particular project seems required to me. I know from exchanges with french wikiversitarian that for a potential integration into wikimedian projects the semantic components of my proposal need special attention and modification from wiki-data's project experts.


Right now I especially look after experienced bot programmers willing to help build the authorship bot (tutoring would be nice). If you're interested you're welcome to join in the effort.

--RP87 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi RP87, much better your graph ! If you don't receive information here. You can leave message on en.Wikiversity or even en.wikipedia. There is also [60] if you need instantaneous discussions. Good luck ! Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 19:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Azwikipedia

This discussion should be continued on the Stewards'_noticeboard. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 3. The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, this is the wrong place to ask. The only people who could intervene are the stewards but the might be unable to do so if the wiki has other active admins/bureaucrats or dispute resolution channels. If you have been left no other option (and I really mean "no other option"), then you could try asking at the Stewards' noticeboard, but make sure you read the notice at the top. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Green Giant, you can left that RfC on Stewards Noticeboard.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Idin Mammadof talk 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Aldnonymous and Green Giant, I wrote. There is no reaction. But then what do I do? -Idin Mammadof talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues..., User:sefer azeri writes: "atan haqqında yazdığın məqaləni də sildim bu da sənə paz olsun ... çox göt-baş atsan onun qəzeti haqqında məqaləni də sənin qəzetin haqqında məqaləni də siləcəm ... nə istəyirsən elə" (To displease you, I will do everything.). -Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues... and vandalism continues...!!! Ladies and Gentlemen !!! How long the vandals, remain unpunished ?! How long the vandals, the administrator will be ?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In these edit the person says "deleted due to copyright infringement"[61][62]. Were these images copied and pasted from another source? Or were they taken by you personally? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It belongs to me. They are stored in my personal library. There is no copyright infringement. They have been removed without any reason. They removed without discussion. Also, this page also deleted. Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you make the image yourself? Please note that simply owning a copy of an image is not the same as owning the copyright of an image. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no problem. I am the author. Documents belongs to me. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you email the image in question as I am unable to see it? Also you said that you took the picture with your own camera? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I photographed their own picture. Web pages belonging to me, these photos are available: 1, 2 Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So this was published in 1933 [63] You do not own the content in question but it should be in the public domain as it is so old. This document is from 1993 [64] Unless that is your signature on the bottom you do not own it. The person who wrote the document or the government owns it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said and you acknowledge, there is no copyright infringement: 1. That is the official document (Letter of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.)), according to our laws, in the public domain. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 8:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree the first one appears okay. But were does it say government documents are public domain? I do not see it here [65] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You see through autotranslator. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I found: Article 7. Objects not covered by copyright protection, (page 15). --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that indeed says state documents are not covered by copyright. Have requested the deleting admin comment here [66] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For it have requested the deleting admin comment here. No results. Is there another way to solve the problem? Vandals will not be punished? --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to give them some time to respond. Also they are not a "vandal". They are deleting stuff as they see it as a copyright infringement. I am waiting to hear their side of the story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time? I can show 100 cases. They will not let me in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as well as other users. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, there was no discussion. Now I began. Articles must be restored first. But I still have not recovered, only 1 article has been restored. In this article, the photo has not been restored yet: [76].--Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay yes I see that. Will give the admin more time to response. Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. "Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban?" - I did not understand, you want to know the reason for this? I have not breached any rules. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if their was a discussion that resulted in your ban. And if so can you post it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I created this article. Protested. But they could not delete the article. They blocked me. They are a group. Receive a salary from the state. They do not allow us to. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (Müzakirə edilmədən silinən məqalələr):
    • Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (Reklam və spam xarakterli məqalələr);
    • Blank pages (Information pages are not). (Boş məqalələr (çox qısa və heç bir informasiya daşımayan məqalələr (məsələn, Filankəs - rejissor)) (Ən sadə məzmun qaydası: Məqalə başlıqdan və bu başlığı çox sadə şəkildə də olsa ifadə edən ən azı bir cümlədən ibarət olmalıdır.));
    • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (Vandalizm nəticəsində yaradılmış məqalələr);
    • Misspell the name of the article. For example ( az:Fizuli instead of, az:Fizuli) (Məqalə başlığı səhv yazılmış yönləndirilən məqalələr (məsələn, Fizuli));
    • Written on the same subject, if another article (Eyni və ya çox yaxın məzmuna malik başqa məqalənin mövcud olması);
    • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (Məzmunu mötəbər mənbələrlə əsaslandırılması mümkün olmayan məqalələr, o cümlədən istifadəçilərin mənbələrə əsaslanmayan özfəaliyyəti);
    • Articles in other languages (Digər dillərdə yazılmış məqalələr).

Under these rules, the articles can not be deleted: [77], [78], [79].

In addition, I would like to mention:

Deleted articles have already been restored:az:Söhrab Arabov, az:Rövzət Dəmirçizadə, az:Məhyəddin Abbasov, az:Nəsib Muxtarov (arxeoloq). But now the deletion is discussed. No reason given. These pages will not edit anonymous az:Vikipediya:Kənd meydanı, az:Vikipediya:İdarəçilərə müraciət, az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə namizəd səhifələr, az:Nuxa qalası, az:Nuxa qəzası, az:Şəki dövləti. They want to be I could not edit anonymous, and I could not have to complain. So I can not complain that they want to lock me global. For this nachili private discussions. The same individuals: User:Wertuose, User:Sortilegus, User:sefer azeri. But not yet found any reason not bud. If they though an appeal to the Steward, let them come here. If they are right, what are afraid?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism continues. Again, the pictures are deleted without discussion ([85], [86] They belong to the opposition. For this reason deleted.). Some, after being restored. But some still have not been recovered ( [87] ). Worst of all is that such things happen regularly. We are angry, we are wasting our time, but it is happening again. All intellectuals went out. How long this situation will last? Please help. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sefer azeri yesterday pleaded with me unjustly block. Sefer azeri recently had 6 articles indisputably clear. Because he had created Aydinsalis substances. Hasan that when the complainant had brought back again the other administrators Article 2 of them. Then Aydinsalis 4 article "deletion candidate pages" pulled pane debate. That there is a debate as it is written in the pages it may take up to 15 days. 4 article that has opened the debate over the 15 days after the idea had reported only four people in the discussion. 20 days after the start of the debate. Sefer azeri and Keete 37 makes it nearly always the same review to any discussion of an argument, are deleted without reason and the principles he commented. Sefer azeri immediately "deleted unanimously decided to say" that archive discussion.[88] I took back the debate from the archive "this election is not the place," I said. "We're doing this in the election here, you" was decided unanimously "to say the debate concludes," I said. "Secondly not finish first in this debate, because I said you are neutral in this debate." You're the delete Articles "I said." The decision you should not give any manager, "I said.[89] Sefer azeri blocks show the grounds that I did vandalism pleaded with.--Samral (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I blocked 10 times. 9 Sefer azeri did. Is it coincidence that so? I appeal to all administrators [90]. None of them did not answer. It's not just me. Many users refer pleaded with him to receive the status administration [91], [92], . But almost none received no reply.--Samral (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear META. They violated general principles of Wikipedia, and it is constantly going on. Vandalism is legal, and you do nothing? I still have to wait? Is it true that you never look at my complaint? I want to believe that you will defend the principles of Wikipedia, albeit belatedly. --Idin Mammadof 9:39, 23 September 2015 2015 (UTC)
The users also blocked indefinitely. Without any reason: [94], [95], [96] --Idin Mammadof 17:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The second account you mention was blocked for two weeks in 2014, with a reason given: Vikipediyadanın normal işinin pozulması; https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_m%C3%BCzakir%C9%99si%3A94.20.244.157&diff=2975193&oldid=2975188 - the link goes to a discussion where the impending block was made perfectly clear - they now edit quite a lot, apparently without a problem. Rich Farmbrough 17:46 10 January 2016 (GMT).
Time has passed 14 days, another year has passed. He's still on the block. The reason for the above is completely false. He did not break any rules. --Idin Mammadof 18:34 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Knowledge Engine - a post by Lila Tretikov

There has recently been a good deal of discussion on the Wikimedia-L email list and elsewhere about the Knowledge Engine, a project that has not been well known outside the Wikimedia Foundation staff until recently. Foundation Executive Director recently posted a message about it. Worth discussing at Talk:Knowledge Engine. -Pete F (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2016-01&oldid=24955964"