Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2017-04

Addition to abusefilter

Would SKS please add "mihanblog.com" to Special:AbuseFilter/69. New spamming link. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done --Melos (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

continue sysop rights (lt:s + lt:q)

[1]

[2]

I want to continue maintain these rights. --Redagavimas (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You should post notices to the communities. Ruslik (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/68 making global

Would a steward please review Special:AbuseFilter/68 and consider it as a global flagging abuse filter. I know that there is some overlap with another filter, and not getting a big enough pool of messages relying on meta message pool. I would like to assess it against other filters to see if we are getting more with the filter than the overlap. If that is occurring then we can make some assessment of its value to stop other spambots. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute on test.wikipedia.org

Active edit war occurring here. I made some changes to the page which expanded the table and added colors - those changes were then reverted by LegoFan4000 without good reason. I reverted the revert becasue the revert had been done without reason, and things just escalated from there. 73.47.71.127 23:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I will stop now, but note that the IP used profane language on my UserPage there. Also note that the IP is banned from the EN Wikipedia. LegoFan4000 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This was handled by a local sysop. This kind of escalation was entirely unnecessary. I urge you (73.47.71.127) not to pursue it any further. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Though judging by the previous blocks on other wikimedia wikis, I'd suggest a global block on the IP. LegoFan4000 (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For goodness sake, it is a test wiki, you shouldn't need to be editing on user pages, and you shouldn't need to be having edit wars that need reporting to stewards. [Some people need to have a good hard look at themselves!]  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Test failed. --Amanojaku (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/69 adding domain

Status:    Done

To Special:AbuseFilter/69 could we please have added the domain "ampedpages.com", which is a free webhost and starting to be abused by spambots. Thanks.

Done, Linedwell ^[talk] 12:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

master list of projects with advanced permission holders?

Hello stewards. I am a member fo the oversight team on en.wp. We have an issue where users fairly regularly contact us about suppressing edits on other Wikipedias. Obviously we can't do anything with these requests except to try and point them to someone who can actually help with it. And that's where we sometimes run into a problem. The only way I am currently aware of to figure out if another project even has oversighters is to go to the page on oversight at en.wp and check the interwiki links in the sidebar to see if they project they need help on has the same page. There's about 25 links there, which is less than 10% of all Wikipedia projects. So we end up telling them we can't tell if that project has oversighters or not, which isn't so helpful, and if they can't figure it out to contact you guys. I feel like there has got to be a better way.

So, I'm hoping there maybe already is some central location that lists which projects have users with which advanced permissions and I'm just not aware of it. Failing that I would propose that such a page should exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: there is Oversight policy/Requests for oversight. Matiia (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. And it appears it really is as few projects as it appeared. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Older proposal closures

Some of the closure proposals at "Proposals for closing projects" need conclusion, like the Beta Wikiversity and Japanese Wikiversity. Also, I commented at Talk:Proposals for closing projects one month ago without receiving replies. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Those are community discussions outside of specific steward control (for scope, please see Stewards). If anyone has a role there it would be the Language committee.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Already pinged a few. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request

I read a request about deleting pih:MediaWiki:Sitenotice and rn:MediaWiki:Sitenotice and saw the response saying that a steward can delete those. The messages were created for the discussions that occurred in Meta and then were closed as rejected: (1) and (2). --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, for future reference global sysops also can edit those sitenotices.--HakanIST (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Global sysop wikis

GS says the following:

"By default, global sysops may use this global user group's permissions on wikis that meet one or both of the following criteria: fewer than ten administrators exist; or fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months. Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus."

However, there are quite a few wikis that qualify for being GS wikis (since they no longer have enough active admins), but have no known opt-out discussion. I know in the past there has been reluctance to add wikis to the set based on the < 10 total admins criterion, if not both criteria. IMHO the policy should be enforced, or a discussion should be had to change the criteria. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I remember having talked to MarcoAurelio about setting up some kind of table listing the community opt-outs which are known. This would surely reduce the reluctance to enforce this policy because it would be clearer which communities have already had discussions on this. --Vogone (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Like when we developed AAR to manage a fall into the void of missing admins and 'crats, there would seem to be a point in time where a community that has become moribund, for activity or for admin inactivity, should fall back to the default. I feel that an opt-out should only be maintained when the community and its administrators are clearly active.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my to-do list. No time currently & fetching the logs is a bit of a pain. So far I remember anwiki, anwiktionary, amwiktionary and some requests at Talk:Global_sysops/wiki_set. Starting building a table with such data would be easy and we can complete it as time goes by. —MarcoAurelio 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User group expiry coming soon

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T159416

In response to one of the top wishes on the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, the new "user group expiry" feature will be enabled on Monday. This will allow stewards, as well as local admins and bureaucrats, to add users to (local) user groups for a fixed period of time. It is anticipated that this will assist with the SRP process.

Brief documentation is available at mw:Help:User rights and groups#Assigning and revoking user groups, and if you have advanced rights at the Beta Cluster, you can test out this feature there, as it has been enabled there for some time.

One feature that is currently missing is notification to users in advance of the expiry of their rights. Unfortunately the infrastructure is not set up to allow this type of notification to be sent. To make matters more complicated, a closely related task has been earmarked for use in development outreach programs, which has the effect of creating uncertainty in the development process. I hope to be able to get these notifications working before the end of the year, but I can make no promises, because it depends on so many external factors, and I am only a volunteer developer. Perhaps stewards will have to continue to issue notifications manually, according to the current process.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me (a ping would be appreciated). Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a reasonable temporary workaround for the lack of notification is to build a list of users per expiry period, and use massmessage once a month to notify the person and/or community that an expiry is approaching. @This, that and the other: nice development!  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome news! Users not getting notification in advance is not a big problem. AFAIK we don't usually warn users before their rights will expire. It should be users' business to keep in mind when their rights will expire, though it's not prohibited to warn them in advance. Stryn (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, Looks like removal won't be logged as it's already mentioned as temp in the approval log. This might be little confusing when looking at the logs but should be ok IMO.--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that, until we've verified that everything works as expected, we keep listing people on SRAT so we can verify if the system is working properly or not. —MarcoAurelio 09:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, Stryn, MarcoAurelio, and Shanmugamp7: Will any of you be around during the SWAT deployment window from 1300 to 1400 UTC today? It'd be useful to have one of you on board while we deploy user group expiry, to make sure the feature works correctly. I can ask WMF staff to perform tests if need be, but they are likely to be busy with other things during the SWAT window... If around from 1300 today, it'd be great if you could come into #wikimedia-operations on IRC. This, that and the other (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mostly I will be available on IRC during this time, you can ping me if you want us to test something--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 12:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This has now been Deployed. Thanks to hashar for deploying and Shanmugamp7 for his testing. There are two caveats in addition to the one I mentioned above:

• The task phab:T163691 was filed after the deployment. This is a bit annoying, but given that temporary rights are usually assigned for a long period of time (months rather than minutes) it shouldn't cause trouble in the near future. I'll wait for opinions from the WMF Performance Team before taking any action on that task.
• There is a temporary issue with Echo notifications when the user group expiry date is altered: see my comment at phab:T159416#3206157. This will be resolved by the end of the week.

Other than that, please feel free to assign temporary user groups as you see fit. This, that and the other (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Just came in my mind, and wondering what will happen when a user with temporary user rights is renamed? At least the user rights log will link to old user name as before. Is this causing some troubles for user rights, or notifications? Stryn (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The user rights system will behave exactly as before with respect to renamed users. I don't really know what the situation is, but I can tell you that there will be no change. This, that and the other (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Another question: I see this only affects local user groups, is it coming to global rights anytime? Stryn (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is phab:T153815 to track this work. I'm not working on this currently, but with luck I will find time to do this in the next few months (unless someone else does it first). This, that and the other (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Exception for all kind of spam in a special designated page at each wiki?

In pages like "Administrators noticeboard" in local wikis, there sometimes comes complaints that "I cannot add my link bla bla". One difficulty is that beginners and even often experienced users fail to write down the link in a way that it can be discussed in a fair manner. Could a page like sv:Wikipedia:Begäran om åtgärder (and its subpages) be whitelisted for all kind of spam? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: There is no way around local/global blacklists beyond posting a link without the http(s): component. I would have thought that your local version of sv:Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist would be the ideal place to get a discussion (and to seek a location to whitelist with it being system and generic), and if you were thinking that the page should be excluded from the blacklist, then it would be a phabricator: request.

Re the user and the link, have you looked at sv:Special:Log/spamblacklist as that will show the hits (both local and global, though not which). Also look at template:LinkSummary if you want to see some of the locally linked tools to check where things are blacklisted and when so.

To note that the blacklist is maintained by meta administrators and stewards, so having the discussion here will only get part of that audience. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. Talk:Spam blacklist is the ideal place to request removal or amendments to global spam blacklist, noting that there is also no global blacklist log, they are all local.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: This was supposed to be a proposal for a new feature, not mainly a question about how things already works. If we could allow spamlinks on pages like Administrators Noticeboard, the discussions would not be so filled by frustrations from newbies who think they cannot even propose an exception to the local whitelist. Experienced users (hopefully) already know how to handle this, the new do not. The Administrators Noticeboards are often well watched and a misuse of such an exception would quickly be handled. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: Then it probably should either be a phabricator: ticket, or an RFC, it is not particularly in scope for stewards compared to something the broad community needs.

Your community has the ability to whitelist, and has the ability to manage its blacklist hit messages, or assist improve those that currently exist and to educate your community about how to respond to blacklist hits. I would think that all of these steps are among those required, as well as a good process for reporting problematic blacklist hits back to metawiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

SRG might have a troll

This ip 2602:306:36D5:5690:ADD7:9362:B1DD:5708

and the entire range. The person has been requesting locks for random accounts. Some of them are valid accounts, but a few are too old for a steward to likely act on. Also, doing this to his own range.

Also, some stuff to note. The entire range is blocked on enwiki here.

MechQuester (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute on test.wikipedia.org

WP:DENY
Active edit war occurring here. I made some changes to the page which expanded the table and added colors - those changes were then reverted by LegoFan4000 without good reason. I reverted the revert becasue the revert had been done without reason, and things just escalated from there. 73.47.71.127 23:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I will stop now, but note that the IP used profane language on my UserPage there. Also note that the IP is banned from the EN Wikipedia. LegoFan4000 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) This was handled by a local sysop. This kind of escalation was entirely unnecessary. I urge you (73.47.71.127) not to pursue it any further. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Though judging by the previous blocks on other wikimedia wikis, I'd suggest a global block on the IP. LegoFan4000 (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC) For goodness sake, it is a test wiki, you shouldn't need to be editing on user pages, and you shouldn't need to be having edit wars that need reporting to stewards. [Some people need to have a good hard look at themselves!]  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Test failed. --Amanojaku (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC) (Update May 2017) It's happening again. The same user is now socking as MacFan4000. Someone please block both LegoFan4000 and MacFan4000 before this escalates again. 24.62.73.192 00:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC) No he is not. Why else why I be autopatrolled on MediaWiki.org and have been renamed once. Also I have had this account for a while. MacFan4000 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC) I could be mistaken, but judging by the behavioral evidence, User:MacFan4000 is the same user as User:LegoFan4000. There's also evidence that I'd rather not disclose on-wiki, but will supply if any steward considers it necessary (IMHO the username similarity should be enough). If you (singular or plural) would just leave the page alone, we wouldn't be here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the page revision that is currently visible. Additionally, your initial reason for reverting is invalid unless you can point me to a local and/or global policy that explicitly states "all contributions made by globally locked users will be reverted after they are locked, even if the contributions are not vandalism". 24.62.73.192 00:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Had you any sense you would have checked the logs to see that LegoFan4000 was renamed to MacFan4000. I'm doing nothing wrong. MacFan4000 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Okay, fine, a global rename only proves further that you are the same person, just not a sockpuppet. And yes, you are doing something wrong. You are reverting the page for no reason other than "edited by globally locked user". As noted above, your reason for reverting is invalid unless you can point me to a local and/or global policy that explicitly states "all contributions made by globally locked users will be reverted after they are locked, even if the contributions are not vandalism". Also, please remember to indent post replies. 24.62.73.192 00:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Seriously, just leave the page alone. There is nothing wrong with it. 24.62.73.192 01:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC) You still are evading your countless blocks which is not appreciated. MacFan4000 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC) I am not evading any blocks. Oshwah is mistaken and I will be appealing shortly. 24.62.73.192 01:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) I am sorry for an extremely unhelpful, off-topic and perhaps even a tad offensive for involved parties comment, but 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😁😂😂😂, really, a content dispute on testwiki. I do not think I've seen more fun thing onwiki in a looong while. Mhm, yeah. --Base (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC) We wouldn't be having this discussion if MacFan4000 just stopped reverting the page for no valid reason. This is completely triggered by him and I am just trying to retain content that is perfectly acceptable (yes I'm evading the block on Test Wikipedia that Oshwah placed, but you can't completely stop me because I have VPN networks that are not globally blocked). 160.202.163.73 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Honestly I think the best way to resolve this at this point would be a nuclear ban hammer. Basically, block all of my IP addresses (I'll disclose them privately), but at the same time block MacFan4000 and any sockpuppets of that account that may exist. Additionally, I think that temporary page protection of the disputed page may be included in the ban hammer. This way everyone gets the same treatment. 160.202.163.73 01:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC) An edit war. On testwiki. Being brought to SN. I've seen everything now. — Gestrid (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC) This was delt with by a local admin. MacFan4000 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

False positive report

Hi! I have been recently appointed OTRS agent for the queue infos-fr. I am supposed to verify identities and often use some OTRS templates on frwiki (like this one or this one).
The problem is I am always triggering filter 105 (see the log). Some users find this suspicious (see this message for instance).
Can you create an exception with filter 105 ? This issue has been discussed on the OTRS wiki and this solution has been proposed. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The template used on frwiki is Identité vérifiée and the global filter 105 has nothing to do with it. You are triggering a local filter. Matiia (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And this is not actually a false positive as you are not in OTRS_members global group. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect to OTRS template, can't you create another template (or maybe a redirect)? it doesn't make much sense to exclude a single user in a global filter in order to add a template in a single wiki. Matiia (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: Easiest way to get out of the bind would be to have your community to approach the OTRS team to have you receive the OTRS permission right. There may be some to'ing and fro'ing on the condition for the specifics to get the right, however, as the right is only an indicator, not granting permissions, it seems best to put the emphasis back to OTRS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Xoser@diq.wikipedia

Hello, dear Wikipedia administration. I’m a founder of the Zazaki Wikipedia page and was/am one of the admins. I have been sick for two years now. Thus, I wasn't able to take care of the page. Fortunately, I have recovered and can look after the page again. Therefore, as the founder of this page I would like to get my admin rights back. Meanwhile, the discussion process was too short, there was no policy that made in Zazaki Wikipedia in this way. I’ll be more careful in the future. Best Regards. Xoser (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Important note: This local discussion only has four votes. Three people (Xarpêtıj, Megatronom, Gulenherzan) are sockpuppets of Erdemaslancan. They have been pointed out now and banned. The other (Otrox62) is a new user (for 3 months). Therefore, the voting is not fair. Xoser (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-steward comment) I am not sure this request should have been fulfilled. The accounts listed had very few edits and nearly all of them were to that desysop request. --Rschen7754 00:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you understand the subject perfectly? I complain about the accounts listed. They are sockpuppets. I would like to get my admin rights back. Xoser (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that I do not think your rights should have been removed. However, as I am no longer a steward, I unfortunately cannot do anything about it. --Rschen7754 01:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I got it wrong. Thank you. What else can I do? Xoser (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xoser: Sysop flag restored but you have to become active again because you meet the AAR inactivity criteria. --Melos (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Melos: Thank you very much. I will be more active. Xoser (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Xoser is racist against Armenian people. He says this page is an Armenian propaganda and he deleted the Armenian word from the article, he says 'are you Armenian' to sysop Asmen and he again deletes the Armenian word from article, he says all you are Armenian. A sysop must be respectful and tolerant to all people, all nations. Xoser is not enoughly respectful. Vuzorg (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunately true that Xoser yesterday made Armenophobic comments against me just with the reason I added with historical correctness that the area called today Northern Kurdistan is historically a part of Western Armenia. His comments without any attest were "this is an Armenian propaganda" (like Turkish nationalist use this kind of arguments against Kurdish patriots) and "Have you become Armenian now?!!". He tries to insult and discredit me but he should aware of the political incorrectness of his arguments as a sysop and that to his colleague! His friends claimed with Xoser the preservation of political balance in Zazaki Wikipedia. But a person with Armenophobic ressentiments and as a Kurdish patriot cannot handle objective and his place as sysop is out of place. User:Asmen 09:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• In the article, titled "Kurdıstanê Tırkiya" (Turkish Kurdistan), the user Asmen did not give any resources for his claims that this region is part of “Western Armenia”. This shows that he is not objective. Moreover, we did a content discussion over there, it’s not a proper place to discuss it here. It seems that he cunningly aims to turn the discussion into a political-ideological one. Wikipedia should be scientific. Period. But there is not a single resource in the afore mentioned article. Asmen claims that most of Kurdistan’s part belongs to Armenia without delivering any proof. In this case we have a discussion about the reliability of his claim. He should show a resource. There is no need to bring discussions over here. Also, he attempted to show the famous writer Yasar Kemal as Armenian, but another user asked the relability of that info to Agos, the well-known Armenian newspaper published in Turkey, and the newspaper answered that Yasar Kemal is not Armenian but Kurdish. From these experiences it seems that Asmen is a Kurdphobic. I ask that every article should have reliable resources and be scientific. Thanks. Xoser (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Attention: It was reported in local discussion: "Memedaga is a sock of User:Asmen. It's proved by steward User:Matiia. You can read here" Xoser (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User Xoser@diq.wikipedia

Hello, we have been waiting for sysop removal of access for Xoser of Zazaki Wikipedia since almost two week. Xoser used three sock puppets for local dicussion (Neribij, Kirmanciye and Azadi) although we stated that Zazaki Wikipedia is so small and a third sysop is needless and so there is a consensus about remove Xoser's sysop access. When will we receive answer? [3]

1. This user is not continuously active 2017, 2014 and 2010.
2. This user does nothing about stewardship of Zazaki Wikipedia.
3. There are three active users on Zazaki Wikipedia. Two of them are already sysops and Zazaki Wikipedia is a small wikipedia, consisted by only three users, it doesn't need another sysop, three sysops are unnecessary.
4. Asmen and Mirzali are two admins of Zazaki Wikipedia. They also demand removal of Xoser's sysop acces. Zazaki wikipedia is very small, so it doesn't need another admin. It's redundant to have another sysop on this small wiki.
5. Azadi Kirmanciye, Neribij and Xoser all their contribution pasts are same, 2014 and 2017. Azadi Kirmanciye and Neribij came here to vote for Xoser. They are sock puppets of Xoser.

The problem is that a third sysop is needless for Zazaki Wikipedia. There are only 3 permanent active users on Zazaki Wikipedia. Two of the Mirzali and Asmen are sysops and I'm other third active user. Vuzorg (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Vuzorg. After three years of absence, Xoser arrives with a contradictory objection, and strangely enough, with him, all the Kurds and Kurdists appear again. Their polemic objections make our work in the project unnecessarily difficult. We need no troublemaker and certainly not an idle third admin. -- Mirzali (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

On local discussion Xoser used sock puppets named as Kirmanciye, Azadi, Neribij and Asmen34 (he refers to sysop Asmen here).

Look at to our contribution's past. Our contributions are permanent:

1. My contribution past
2. Mirzali's contributions past (sysop) and
3. Asmen's contribution past (sysop)

And look at to Xoser and his sock puppet's Kirmanciye, Azadi, Neribij, Asmen34 contributions:

1. Xoser's contribution past 2017-2014
2. Xoser's sock puppet Neribij's contribution past 2017-2014
3. Xoser's sock puppet Kirmanciye's contribution past 2017-2014
4. Xoser's sock puppet Asmen34's contribution past 2017

This is local discussion on Zazaki Wikipeida. As you see Xoser used his 4 sock puppets for vote against removal of his sysop acces.

There are only 3 regular active users on Zazaki Wikipedia, I, Mirzali (sysop) and Asmen (sysop). And we agreed on removal of Xoser's sysop access, because he uses sock puppets and he manipulates local discussion by this way and he is not an active user and he does nothing about sysopship of Zazaki Wikipedia Vuzorg (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Like Vuzorg proves. Pls look at their contributions. So please don't make us wait for the answer and action. Best regards. --asmên 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that those three accounts are socket puppets of Xoser. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Evidences for you:

• All they was active between 2014-2017,
• All their writing system are same,
• All their votes are same ,
• All they are aganist to removal of Xoser's sysop access.

Enough? Vuzorg (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And what? Ruslik (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not a sock puppet of anyone (But I'm not sure about Vuzorg). I'm active in Zazaki Wikipedia and Turkish wikipedia too. Vuzorg (and Mirzali) want using wikipedia as his personal blog. He was prevented many people in wikipedia zazaki without cause. Therefore he taken from the sysop, three-four years ago. I and many people have been away from wikipedia, sometimes, because of Vuzorg/Mirzali's (and Mirzali's team) interventions and inhibitions. Xoser is a balance for everyone can write on wikipedia and he is a fair sysop in my opinion.

In addition, I have to make some corrections. Also, I have contribution in 2015 see. I was also here before the vote. before the vote; see. But especially in 2016, Vuzorg (with the support of Mirzali) repeatedly took back my and other user's contributions (for example, see). They changed the orthography and the alphabets in the articles, many articles were distorted. This situation has many people keep away from the wikipedia. It's like a waste of time. You're writing, he's breaking it. That's why few people write it. Xoser is a balancing factor. When he goes, wikipedia Zazaki turns into a personal blog. Let's not let that happen. Let's develop together Wikipedia Zazaki. Neribij (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How come that you can claim these things Neribij? What's your reference? What can verify your these claims? You made only 4 changes on 2015, in all 12 months, 365 days of the year. Is this credible? or reasonable? Is this can verify your attacks on us? I think no.

On the other hand, all dear stewards,

We agreed and we (I, Asmen and Mirzali) changed the orthography and the alphabet because there were only 3 active users (I, Asmen and Mirzali) on Zazaki Wikipedia. If you were active on Zazaki Wikipedia, you would say your opinion too dear Neribij, Xoser, Gomada and etc.. Nobody prevented you from this. After all, you're coming and you're complaining us to stewards. Is this really realistic? I don't think so. We changed some alphabetical mistakes by using academic and scientific ways.

• This is academic study of philologist (scholar) Asmen (who is also sysop of Zazaki Wikipedia) guided us to correct alphabetical mistakes

I think that (I'm sure of that) Xoser called people you Neribij, Kirmanciye, Azadi, Asmen34 and from another wikipedia Gomada to get support. Even these account's activities and contributions are not permanent, year by year. Is this fair consider their votes valid? On the other hand, Gomada is sysop of another, apart wikipedia, he is sysop of Kurdish Wikipedia. I do not understand why he interferes Zazaki Wikipedia's own problem? Maybe because of that he shares same political (anti-Armenian, anti-Turkish, anti-Zaza and pro-Kurdist) and religious (Islamist) views with Xoser? Is this moral that Gomada meddle Zazaki Wikipedia's own problem from another wikipedia? If I meddle English wikipedia's or another wikipedia's own problem, would it be fair?

I think that these accounts don't want to removal of Xoser's sysop acces because of that we (I, Asmen and Mirzali) are secular, we use scientific ways, we are objective and open-minded (you can see from the articles we create) so we do not support their Islamist and racist destructions on Zazaki Wikipedia. And these accounts have same racist (anti-Armenian, anti-Turkish, anti-Zaza, pro-Kurdist) and Islamist views and Xoser permits them to spread these sickly ideologies. I'm sorry but we do not want a sysop such as this. This is Wikipedia, this is science, this is a scientific library, this is not a political or Islamist platform. Vuzorg (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the infighting on diqwiki I wonder if they should have administrators at all. --Rschen7754 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That all he says is slander and deceit. It's not worth answering. For exmaple: I’m a founder of the Zazaki Wikipedia page. How can I be anti-Zaza? :) He does not know what he says. All he says is personal attack. He does not know me. It seems that he cunningly aims to turn the discussion into a political-ideological one. Unacceptable.
Attention: It was reported in local discussion: "Memedaga is a sock of User:Asmen. It's proved by steward User:Matiia. You can read here" No comment. Xoser (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder that what's dear Xoser's comment on his there racist actions:

1. He says this page is an Armenian propaganda and he deleted all the Armenian word from the article
2. He says 'are you Armenian' to sysop Asmen and he again deletes the Armenian word from article
3. He says all you are Armenian to us
4. He attacks and insults Asmen, as you see he says Asmen you totally missed the point here again. You are so out of touch. Anyways, I read an article about your connections with Armenian nationalists. That was a very illuminating. I also heard that you are a very successful womanizer. But anyways, you are so irrelevant now. Vuzorg (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

These three examples are only a small fraction of Xoser's inappropriate, racist actions. There are a lot of racist and Islamist actions of Xoser and his team (Kirmanciye, Neribij, Azadi etc..) A sysop must be respectful and tolerant to all people, all nations. Xoser is not enoughly respectful.

On the other hand I wonder what's dear Xoser's comment on Gomada's this racist action (who is sysop of Kurdish wikipedia, and support him):

You can see that Gomada changed all 'Zaza' words as Kurdish. Why he made these changes? Maybe because of that he is racist just like Xoser? As I said Gomada is sysop of Kurdish Wikipedia and he does not have right to interfere Zazaki Wikipedia's own problem.

Can Xoser give a reasonable answer to his and his friend Gomada's these inappropriate actions? Or can Xoser again say that I am cunningly aiming to turn the discussion into a political-ideological one? As I say, a sysop must be respectful and tolerant to all people, all nations. Xoser is not enoughly respectful, Xoser is not a continuous user (was not active between 2014-2017), Xoser called his friends to vote and manipulate the local discussion on Zazaki Wikipedia. Best regards. Vuzorg (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

So it is, like Vuzorg says... Asmen 3:20 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• In the article, titled "Kurdıstanê Tırkiya" (Turkish Kurdistan), the user Asmen did not give any resources for his claims that this region is part of “Western Armenia”. This shows that he is not objective. Moreover, we did a content discussion over there, it’s not a proper place to discuss it here. It seems that he cunningly aims to turn the discussion into a political-ideological one. Wikipedia should be scientific. Period. But there is not a single resource in the afore mentioned article. Asmen claims that most of Kurdistan’s part belongs to Armenia without delivering any proof. In this case we have a discussion about the reliability of his claim. He should show a resource. There is no need to bring discussions over here. Also, he attempted to show the famous writer Yasar Kemal as Armenian, but another user asked the relability of that info to Agos, the well-known Armenian newspaper published in Turkey, and the newspaper answered that Yasar Kemal is not Armenian but Kurdish. From these experiences it seems that Asmen is a Kurdphobic. I ask that every article should have reliable resources and be scientific.

Dear @Vuzorg and @Asmen, I don't care what you are. I didn't call you Armenian or an Armenian propagandist. The mentioned content was unfounded and contained thesis of Armenian nationalism like "there is no Kurdistan, it is part of western Armenia". That is the meaning behind the phrase "Armenian nationalist", since you were previously known as a Zaza nationalist ("Zazacı"). Your ideas may have changed, I respect that. There is no blame for that. Or how else can Kurdistan be called a part of Western Armenia (and furthermore Yaşar Kemal be made an Armenian)? Instead of discussing this with me, show me the source in the respective articles.

Important note: Don't use sock puppet! Xoser (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Xoser, you attacked us by using your racist words, you said us:

• All you are Armenian,
• Are you Armenian?,
• You've deleted all the Armenian words from the article,
• You said womanizer to Asmen,
• Your supporter Gomada changed all ~the 'Zaza' words as Kurdish
• You was not active for 3 years (2013-2017)
• You did not make even a tiny change or contribution to Zazaki wikipedia for 3 years

Now are we racist or are you? You are not an appropriate user for being sysop.

Resource for you English Wikipedia's article about Western Armenia region, states Also some Kurds refer to the southern parts of region (Western Armenia) as Bakurê Kurdistanê (Northern Kurdistan), Northen Kurdistan = Turkish Kurdistan.

• source for you, as you see Western Armenia includes northern Kurdistan region.
• 1736 map
• 1836 map
• Six Armenian province of Western Armenia (today's Northern Armenia)

Asmen stated that Northern Kurdistan is also includes Western Armenia on the Kurdıstanê Tırkiya article. What's wrong with this? On the other hand Asmen stated the same statement on Zazaistan article. If we were Armenian propagandist, Kurdophobic or Zaza nationalist like you claims, we would not make these changes. Best regards. Vuzorg (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't lie. I didn't call you Armenian. That doesn't interest me at all. As I explained above, these statements do not belong here, you should discuss/change it on the article. Why don't you try to add resources tothe article instead of fighting with me over this? The other issue is an old and closed conversation between me and the other user. Regards. Xoser (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment diq administrator community sounds dysfunctional. As was suggested previously it might be easier to start with a clean administration base and let the community look to discuss adminship in a year. That there is geo-political squabbling boundaries when we are just talking about the language of the wiki is not a good sign, and one that would seem to disqualify all participants. All the participants really need to have a good hard look at themselves as from the outside it looks like a total embarrassment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Xoser creates problems in Zazaki Wikipedia, he was not an active user for years, he does nothing useful, beneficial to Zazaki Wikipedia, he is a dysfunctional sysop so we demanded removal of his sysopship, he can be a normal user, contributor. What's wrong with that? But he does not want to leave sysopship. We demonstrated some of his countless, numerous inappropriate actions above. As a sysop, he is unneeded, needless for Zazaki Wikipedia. Vuzorg (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)