Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Give a reason to block

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. Nothing to do here. --MF-W 16:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue

edit

Please provide a valid reason for blocking me and why my nomination was removed from the admin. Again, let Pirzhanov Nurlan explain why he protected the discussion page. I was an admin, but why is my voting history disabled on the admin page? Who gave the right to defend the bureaucratic election page and oppose the voting of others? here are the previous admin requirements. look here it is written insultingly that if you do not fulfill the new requirement, no one will vote for you. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Рахман3 (talk)

Очивидно здесь произошло конфликт меж собой, считаю (Википедия свободная зона где каждый может редактировать) но по мнение моего здесь играет роль который гласить злоутрепление власти без причиный есть конфидициальность удалить из выбор администратора голосование. Участие выбарах администратора. Явно видно. По мнение ни кто не может властвовать на википедии потому он свободный любой участник может добавиь, но для статьи нужен источник который доказывающий без нарушение авторских прав, Прошу стюард Мета или администрации решить этот вопрос как так здесь видно злоутрепление власти, и нацизмский хамство который пишут ответ. QRNKS (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • @PirjanovNurlan Can you prove that I violated Wikipedia's rules as a reason to block me? (Рахман3 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    What is your purpose? @Рахман3 PirjanovNurlan (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell the truth! Did the journalism students block me and ask the administration to withdraw my candidacy? If I'm an admin, I can delete their plagiarized articles, so they asked me to be removed? (Рахман3 (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    I am asking what is the reason for your blocking? (Рахман3 (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    Then why did you write offensive words in Telegram groups? Did you send me abusive messages too? PirjanovNurlan (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Show proof, show proof as a reason for blocking, you haven't provided proof yet. I asked you if the journalism students asked you to block me, and you didn't answer. Therefore, this opinion shows that it is close to the truth. If you don't have proof, we can end the discussion. (Рахман3 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    Do you deny that you wrote offensive words? PirjanovNurlan (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    look here Give a reason for blocking? look The fact that you removed my candidacy from the election of the administrator is a clear obstacle to my becoming an administrator, and it is an abuse of the rights of the administrator. look You also protected the bureaucrat's election page, this was done to prevent people from voting for me. look You have protected your talk page so that users don't complain that you blocked me. this is proof that you have established a monarchy on Wikipedia. Рахман3 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to protect wikipedia from people like you. @Inosham @Qaraqalpaqpan these people are admin too. I have no affinity for them. Last month, 200 edits were required to become an admin. You do not meet this requirement. You haven't edited in 6 years. There are many people like you. He does not write or edit articles. Wants to be an admin but. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this requirement have to do with my blocking? I have no objection if that demand was discussed in the forum and agreed with the participants. Рахман3 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If such a rule was adopted, why did you not impose such a requirement on the user named QRNKS? Рахман3 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to protect Wikipedia from people like you. Saying these words as an administrator is a proof of how you treat ordinary users. Рахман3 (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there proof? Show proof before blaming. Look The fact that Inosham blocked himself and indicated that he had deleted the articles as the reason for his blocking is also proof of the pressure exerted by journalism students. (Рахман3 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    She deleted articles without reading them. I told him he was wrong. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am waiting for you to prove the reason for blocking. (Рахман3 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    Your insulting messages are on the phone. This is the reason. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me what rules I broke on Wikipedia. Рахман3 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you know he deleted the articles without seeing them? Articles can be restored. Why is he an admin if he doesn't know how to restore articles? This shows that you are lying. Рахман3 (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When Inosham was unblocked, the word ``we need you was used, which means that there was some controversy that we didn't know about, and there were allegations that articles were being deleted. If the articles were unknowingly deleted, why didn't you try to restore them yourself? Рахман3 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is fine now. Articles have been restored PirjanovNurlan (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not answer my questions. I expect you to show the reason and proof of your block. Рахман3 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, calm down, otherwise it becomes difficult to discuss all together and it becomes an argument between you. I'm still trying to understand why PirjanovNurlan has blocked Рахман3. Please, PirjanovNurlan, could you please explain clearly why you blocked Рахман3 and deleted their RfA? Could you also clearly explain the protection of RfB page and the actions on your talk (as already asked above)? Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday there were some self-righteous admins taking over Wikipedia. Therefore, an experienced administrator should be. Isn't it strange that he wrote it like this? [1] PirjanovNurlan (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I even wrote that sentence, you defended the bureaucracy election page, isn't that weird? Рахман3 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm, sorry, but I'm probably not getting the point! What is the clear reason behind the block? Superpes15 (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good day! I am also an administrator of Kaawikipedia. The chief reason for blocking is accuesing new talented admins of inexperience and badmouthing them in various telegram groups without seeing them in person. Of course, it is true that @Рахман3 has an experience for many years, however he did editions only in 2016. After that he has not worked properly. So, after 5-6 years, there existed so many experienced youngsters who want to develop Kaawiki. But, we don't want to give an administratorship or bureacracy to such kind of people who don't work properly on time, who abuse the people in various telegram groups etc. I fully agree with @PirjanovNurlan's opinions. Because, @PirjanovNurlan is a programmist, he knows everything in detail and the main thing is that he has also translated interfaces, tools from English into Karakalpak. So, I think @PirjanovNurlan has a lot of experience and fully deserves to be an administrator. Inosham () 12:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask for proof, Inosham. Allah knows that you and Nurlan agreed together. Рахман3 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inosham look here, You accused me of monopolizing Wikipedia with baseless insults. So can you show proof? If you can't prove your claims, I suggest removing you from admin. There is an answer to insulting me for no reason, inshallah! Рахман3 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Men sag'an realno ko'riskende sebebin aytqanman ne ushin olay degenimnin'.. Solay eken ol haqqinda uliwma awiz da ashpayaqqoy! Adminlikten alsa alsin, odan alg'anda da qilatug'in isimdi qilip jurmen.. Inosham () 13:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be Blocked for insulting me. Рахман3 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that in one of Kaawiki's Telegram groups, I asked the admins to delete plagiarized articles. there were journalism students in that group and the users who wrote the plagiarized articles were those students and they protested the removal of their articles and they conspired against me and may have asked PirjanovNurlan to do something against me and block me. Рахман3 (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PirzhanovNurlan, answer my questions without diverting the conversation. Рахман3 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PirzhanovNurlan, you blocked me, but you did not give a specific reason and did not give proof as a reason for blocking. I'm still waiting for proof. Рахман3 (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Qanday adamsań. Telegram gruppalarda jazılǵan xabarlar dálil. Jáne maǵanda jazǵan 5 hárip ǵapleriń. Soytip qudaydı qosasań. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Men seni sóylesip alıwǵa shaqırdım sen yaq/awa dep jazbadıń. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide evidence. I did not insult anyone. You are obviously conspiring with others to block me. Рахман3 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nan ustap turıp ayta alasanba? PirjanovNurlan (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean So, who did I insult? Рахман3 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I'm very sorry that there are such people in Karakalpak wikipedia.PirjanovNurlan (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You said the reason for the blocking was ``for actions against the development of Karakalpak Wikipedia in social networks.... Рахман3 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So my final decision here is that dear Mr @BRPever and others, if Рахман3 is going to be removed from the block, please take an administratorship from my condidacy and I will leave Kaawiki forever. Because I cannot work with such kind of bad-mannered people like Рахман3. If this issue is solved with a positive side, I will continue working on Kaawiki. Please live in peace and be optimistic! Inosham
    I don't need to work with people like that. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very touching words, I'm crying right now 😭😭😭 NurlanPirzhanov, are you mentally healthy? You have banned a user for life who has not violated any Wikipedia rules. Рахман3 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The same question for you: Are you mentally healthy too? Why don't you stop acting like that? Your words show your real behaviour Inosham () 15:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank God I am healthy! What should I do now? should i dance because i got blocked for no reason? Рахман3 (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a criminal never admits he is a criminal, you do not want to admit your guilt. Рахман3 (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Рахман3 and PirjanovNurlan: You both have crossed the line of personal insults. At the next contribution of this kind I will proceed with an immediate block on meta-wiki if some other sysop doesn't intend to proceed now. Please stop --Superpes15 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I'm trying to summarize what I understand and I avoid mentioning the unedifying comments I see above, since an administrator should at least set an example, and here I don't see any positive examples. Let's try to discuss correctly and with the right tones:
    • First of all, Рахман3 was a sysop on kaawiki in 2015 for about 5 months, after which they resigned and no longer held the sysop rights there;
    • Kaawiki has currently no bureaucrats, so rights are granted and removed by the stewards, after a discussion;
    • Рахман3, after an inactivity period, opened a RfB on 5 December 2022. The RfB had 6 support votes and 4 oppose. Some support and some opposing vote came from users with no experience on kaawiki and this is a bit strange to me (one of them, with 0 contributions, also signed with a username that doesn't exist on kaawiki);
    • After 2 days PirjanovNurlan full-protected the page but my translator can't understand the reason;
    • Рахман3 started a RfA on 20 December;
    • On 25 December PirjanovNurlan blocked Рахман3 but i can't translate the block comment (It would seem for insults on social media). Then they deleted the RfA without any comment. The RFA had 3 votes in support.
    • PirjanovNurlan also deleted and protected their own talk page (restoring it the next day and removing the protection).
    Now, please don't digress and argue among yourselves, but answer the questions directly:
    1. PirjanovNurlan: Why did you protect the RfB page on 7 December?
    2.  PirjanovNurlan: Why did you block Рахман3 on 25 December?
    3.  PirjanovNurlan: Why did you protect and delete your talk page?
    Thanks for your reply.
    I also would thank Inosham for their comment and, if you want, can you please help me understand better? If I understood correctly, you don't agree that Рахман3 becomes an administrator/bureaucrat, and this is actually your opinion on it. But what do you think about the block? Have you seen these bad words by Рахман3 about new administrators in social media? Were these comments posted only in a telegram/discord/facebook group or also on wiki? Also, isn't it better to end a RfB procedure with "no consensus to promote" than with a full protection (I'm talking about the protection made by PirjanovNurlan on 7 December)? Many thanks for your attention and help --Superpes15 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    here is group on that telegram messenger, where there was an argument with journalism students about their articles, and I didn't say anything to the admins. Рахман3 (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inosham wrote the following in this group.....
    Attention! That's right, we are supporters of writing quality articles. Dear students of the Faculty of Journalism of QMU, we @Karinform will not delete the articles written by your students. However, let your students leave the articles they have written for the class as Category:Karinform. Collecting all the articles in this category will allow you to review the articles (referring to the QMU teacher) and allow us not to temporarily delete the low-quality articles.
    If we delete the articles now, all the articles of a certain student may be deleted, and when the science is finished tomorrow, he will say which article you wrote (because we gave a late warning) and he will say that his hard work was wasted.
    I think it would be convenient for your teacher to check what article you wrote... Рахман3 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nurlan insulted me as a cow. Inosham was among those who saw him insulting me, but he is taking his side because he conspired with Nurlan. Рахман3 (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so I think now everything seems clear, there were discussions and also some alleged insults only on a telegram group (not on wiki), after which Рахман3 was blocked and their RfA was deleted. I don't see any conspiracy here. It seems that both of you, as is often the case in such discussions, have not done everything perfectly. My advice is to resolve the matter in a civilized way, limiting the interactions between you to what is strictly necessary for a longer or shorter period (it depends on you), and trying to continue contributing with respect for all the community. It's also better to avoid private contacts (on off-wiki channels you can also block each others and you don't have to interact necessarily). If I'm insulted by a user on telegram, I ask for them to be blocked on telegram, if I'm insulted by a user on wiki, I ask for a block on wiki (and I avoid blocking, unless I would be the only active sysop, because I'd probably give a more serious block than necessary), if a user after being blocked insults me via e-mail I also block the emails. While waiting for a foundation policy that defines behavior on unofficial/off-wiki channels, I'd say this is the situation. I don't think is the best solution for the health of the project to end this discussion with an infinite block, between contributors who can help a small project, due to disagreements on Telegram. Obviously you can't use tones like the ones above, words like "are you mentally healthy?" are enough for an immediate block as far as I'm concerned, are highly offensive towards those who receive them and can be a source of discomfort even for those who actually have real pathologies and read the discussion. So, I suggest PirjanovNurlan to remove the block because it doesn't concern any onwiki behavior, restoring the RfA and to remove the protection on RfB page, where every active user can still cast their vote (therefore it is not necessarily said that Рахман3 will be elected sysop/bureaucreaut also because some votes come from users who aren't active on kaawiki at all), and it should be clear that at the first insult on wiki the kaawiki community can immediate ask local sysops to block the users who committed the attacks. I also suggest that you avoid using sysop functions when you are directly or emotionally involved, and ask other administrators to evaluate the situation and take appropriate actions or to wait and think at least a day before taking them (if no one else can take these actions). We can all make mistakes, so there's nothing wrong with doing the wrong thing, just understand the mistake and try not to do it again. In this case it's not possible to block, because insults on unofficial WMF channels are currently not a reason to block on local projects, unless WMF intervenes in the matter. Being insulted is a very serious thing and I too have received insults outside wiki sometimes, so I can fully understand that, but as I said, in this case imho it's enough to limit interactions with Рахман3 off-wiki and, if you prefer, also onwiki. You can use only official channels to comunicate, so, If you are insulted on official channel, the kaawiki community can surely choose to block the user who attacked you. Рахман3, I can understand the "nervousness" about the block that you think is unfair, but insults and sarcastic comments like the ones I saw above in this page shouldn't exist, neither on wiki nor outside, you want to become an administrator but an administrator doesn't interacts with other users in this way in my humble view. So I would ask you from now on to interact properly with users and avoid any provocation. This is the most diplomatic solution that I personally think is best for the project and also for you! Thanks for your attentions and I hope you both also choose this diplomatic approach. Sorry for the length of the message! --Superpes15 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Rahman3 was blocked from the Karakalpak Developers group. The first administrator of the Karakalpak Wikipedia was in that group. He said insulting words to her. 2. He wrote a lot to girls in the wikipedia group he opened, so many girls blocked him from Telegram. 3. In the Uzbek Wikipedia group, Karakalpak wrote many complaints against Wikipedia administrators. Then the admins of the group also explained that it is not good to do so. When I tried to talk to him, he didn't say a word. After 1-2 days, he wrote me an abusive letter (male) organ. Is this good? PirjanovNurlan (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that good? Give the reason for Blocking. no one asked you what you did. Рахман3 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a disgusting person to accuse without reason if no one helps him. Maybe everything will change with time, but it's disgusting that Wikipedia is now dominated by corruption. Рахман3 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Рахман3 Prove that I received money from someone. After that I will unblock you. PirjanovNurlan (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PirjanovNurlan, as a user who hasn't been involved in this conflict, to put it simply, that's not how things work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR;
    QRNKS desysopped and banned away as an LTA. Lemonaka (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Give_a_reason_to_block&oldid=25250350"