Jump to content

Meta:Requests for comment/Meta admin ~riley is abusing power

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following request for comments is closed. No consensus that this was abuse of power. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I shall add I am not expecting anyone to dare to do anything on this conflict because it includes too many admins, bureaucrats and patrols from the Wikipedia. I am even expecting to be banned from the site and this thread of mine to be closed immediately as the admins are trying to silence me as they have been deleting/closing the pages I have written on this issue. However I still want to to open this thread, if the abusers want to further abuse their power let them do it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruhubelent (talk)

INDICTMENT

[edit]

Turkish wikipedia admins/bureaucrats (@Vikiçizer:, @Sakhalinio:) had blocked me for no reason due to me getting engaged in a conflict against a patrol usernamed @Pragdon:, the conflict was solved in my favour in two seperate wikis, en.wiki and tr.wiki. More in-depth information about this conflict can be seen here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Request_for_comment/Political_bias,_nespotism,_abuse_and_mob-rule_at_tr.wiki&oldid=19985311


Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey at the moment I opened that threat. On the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey meta admin @~riley: closed my thread immediately. I tried to reason with him, explaining Wikimedia does not have a regulation concerning closure of a page applicable to my page. Nor does Wikimedia have a regulation like an admin can close an RFC page anytime he wishes to close. As far as I know, The only regulation about closing RFC pages is to close it if it is inactive for 2 years, if it not edited by anyone in the last two years. My was was not even a 1 year old yet, Turkish Wikipedia did not have many users at the time my page was left open and on the day more users could have joined the conflict the admin just closed my page.


I explained him all of these in our dialogue: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Request_for_comment/Political_bias,_nespotism,_abuse_and_mob-rule_at_tr.wiki&oldid=20006501 but he seems unreasonable. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruhubelent (talk)

Conclusion

[edit]

One thing is clear: What he did is an abuse. Wikimedia regulations are binding here, not the opinions or thoughts of an admin. Wikipedia is now not blocked in Turkey, this was the time I could have persuaded some independant Turkish speaking users to spectate and commentate on the conflict but unfortunately @~riley: is preventing the possible discussion of the abuse of power of tr.wiki. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruhubelent (talk)

Discuss

[edit]

I personally am expecting no one to inspect, commentate and talk the truth about an abuse of an admin supporting a random user that is not widely influential in the community. If I was well-known and influential, things would probably have been different. I am even expecting this page to be dropped very soon as... --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please stop re-litigating these issues on your talkpage and etc. I am tempted to close this, but I am afraid of Request for comment/ Meta admin Camouflaged Mirage is abusing power, hence I shall leave it open. As I had said on your talkpage, please contribute constructively to the projects you might be able to and that will be well. To be honest, what ~riley did is per the guidelines, there is nothing to discuss here. On meta, we don't discriminate based on your status as a normal user, a steward or etc, we want to see facts and good grounded arguments, having seen nothing and no one else agreeing on this, this is close to FORUMSHOPPING as you had taken this dispute to way more venues than is needed, this is disruptive. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am contributing to the projects I am able as much as I can, in my free times. However, Turkish Wikipedia authorities, @Sakhalinio:, @Pragdon:, @Vikiçizer: to name a few, have prevented me from contributing. You assert " what ~riley did is per the guidelines", I have asked him over and over again to point out if such a regulation exists, he has not. You can point out and I will drop the case + apologise. The fact is none of you are pointing out. As for grounded arguement, in both Wikis the conflict was solved in my favour, not to Pragdon's yet I was the one that was blocked on tr.wiki. I have never takes this dispute to anywhere unrelated. My userpage is about myself, that is the page that is supposed to display info about me and the conflict on my talk page used to display the information on why I was blocked. Likely, that too was deleted because it was about greater number of admins vs me alone. Now I guess you (not only you, talking about authorities in general) will block me globally and permanently --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, do not worry about possible Request for comment/ Meta admin Camouflaged Mirage is abusing power, even if you block me permanently and globally no one will care, be sure. Several admins have already violated my rights and no one cares. Just do it if you want, as long as I am alone there is nothing I will be able to do.
  • Admins have deleted a wiki-information about me from my page - nothing is done.
  • A patrol edit-warred me, the conflict was solved in my favour - then admins blocked me.
  • Turkish Wiki bureaucrat @Superyetkin: and a patrol changed a locak Wiki policy without community approval just to encounter my arguement - no one cares
  • An admin closed my RFC related to Turkish wiki just on the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey - no one cares.
I can list another similar multiple cases but no need: be rest assured, you may violate as much as you want and get out without any harm. Sincerely yours, --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, stop pinging people, that's won't help. ~riley closed the RFC due to a full 6 months without anyone commenting, it's per the RFC being unsuccessful, this is due to inclusion policy here that meta isn't an appeal court (my thinking) and 0 community participating (his rationale). As of your assertion of 2 years closure, it is for inactive RFC. Take note of unsuccessful vs inactive. For your information, we never deleted your userpage, it was just moved, per your talkpage. I am not an authority, I only function per consensus. So long as you did not do anything blockable/lockable, I won't block or ask for locks. Hope this explains.
As per your "Several admins have already violated my rights" - can we have some evidence and I hope you aren't casting aspersions. For the things you listed, please give proper diffs for us to understand, vauge descriptions go noway.
The date of closure is unfortunate, but I don't think ~riley did that close just on the day for the sake of reducing comments. Regards, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ping people does not have anything with "help." As far as I observed, there is no regulation like "will be closed in case not commented in 6 months." and the link you forwarded, Meta:Scope, does not have such regulation. But there is an even bigger problem: the date it was closed was not "full 6 months without anyone commenting." The page was launched on May 23rd - the 6 month limit was reached on the 23rd of November - if that 6 month was the reason to close then he would have closed it on November. If he counted the months from the last edit, then again 6 months was reached on December, not January 15th, the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey. Even if you say 7 or 8 months, then it would be either 23rd of January or 21st of January, not 15th. And my userpage was deleted, just go and check the history. Every edit I had done on the past has disappeared and still does not exist on my userpage's history. Hope you will understand now. --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will like you to see what we told you here. There is no deletion of your userpage. You had been told these userpage is not within the inclusion policy of meta, i.e. meta scope. It had been moved to your user-subpages. I will like to clarify the link I given is that these assertions, without concrete evidence of local resolution (like you had asked other admins to review and they all err from the policies) tried as well as good concrete edvidences, is against "meta is not an appeal court". Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, I did not appeal to Meta. I opened a request for comment page, and the only regulation (or at least as far as I know of) about closing an RFC page is in case it is in active in the last 2 years. I did not write anything on my userpage that is contradicting the Meta:Scope. If you want we can clarify each and every point covered in the Meta:Scope. I just put an information regarding why I am blocked, that is what userpages are about: You inform others of your Wiki activities, interests etc. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you wanting from the RFC? In addition, as pointed up above, the 2 years is for inactivity, it's not that all RFCs have to be opened for a full 2 years before it can be closed. As of your userpage, the exact reasons why you can't have those contents on your userpage is per it's out of scope. You may inform you are blocked, but not to complain about there being a block without the ability to substantiate, similiar to here, complaining ~riley is abusing power but having no grounds to substantiate those complains. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted it to be known so that the mob will not remain unknown and unchallenged. In addition, as pointed from eternity, the 2 years for inactivity is the only regulation concerning closure, it is not that admins can close any RFC at any time they want. I did not complain there, I informed there and nothing was without the ability to substantiate, similar to here as both you and ~riley is, so far, unable to substantiate the closure --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it isn't wrong that admins cannot close RFC anytime they want, 6 months w/o any comments closing it as unsuccessful isn't that unreasonable. ~riley had explain in depth in the RFC talkpage his rationale for closure. I just can't see why it is called an admin abuse. He also told you there is a difference between unsuccessful and inactive (which I did it too). This amount of substaination is adequate IMO. We are here to help you if there is a case, but then repeatedly airing the same issues at various pages without further edvidence or having a set goal and when no one agrees on it and then blaming the person will not help. Per ~riley on the talkpage on the RFC, I will not reply any further as it is clearly going nowhere. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6 months was reached on November (or December depending on criteria), not January. And even if you extend the deadline into 8 months instead of 6 then that would be 21st of January (or 23rd of January depending on your criteria), not 15th of January. And the `rational` -riley put forth is baseless, Wikimedia does not have such regulation. And there is no any basis for closing a RFC as "unsuccessful". Everything I said is based on evidence, a link is provided for each and everything I put forth whereas you and ~riley have been asserting to close page in 6 months without any evidence --Ruhubelent (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An admin decided it is, laid out the principles, and another reviewed, deemed fair. I will say this is within admin discretion to close an unsuccessful RFC with 0 participation around 6 months. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, I protest that "fair" part: 1) No such principle as closing it in 6 months due to non-participation, besides ~riley's own views. 2) As shared below, there were RFCs that are still open even though there was no edit for longer than my case. 3) Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey till the day ~riley closed it and the RFC was about a Turkish Wikipedia. The unblock era was the era I could find someone from tr.wiki who is independt from the mob. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the Turkish Wikipedia has a systematic problem with administrator abuse, the best way to pursue that is to create a global RfC (like this one) specifically laying out a case, with sufficient evidence, for your claims. Vermont (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did so, Vermont. The RFC page was closed on the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey. The admin that closed it stated "6 month no comment" - it was more than 6 months, it was almost 7 (since last edit) or 8 (since the launch) months but no matter 7 or 8, that 7th or 8th month would pass on 21st/23rd of January, not 15th. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
but the admin closed it on the 15th of January, not 21st/23rd of January. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, this is a childish tirade against a reasonable RFC close. Close this entire RFC down; this is absolutely preposterous and I don't think I've seen anything as ridiculous as this before. Hiàn (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is preposterous here? An admin closing an RFC without any basis is not preposterous, an admin closing an RFC related to Turkish Wiki on the day Wikipedia is unblocked in Turkey is not preposterous but announcing it is preposterous and `childish`? --Ruhubelent (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're choosing to fly in the face of everything laid out on the table before you. Screaming abuse at everything does not make your perception the correct one. If this RFC, or the one you just started with regards to Billinghurst's frankly reasonable partial block, is any indication, it's that you're unable to edit here constructively. Drop the stick and move on. Distorting the truth intentionally does no one a service. Hiàn (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are choosing to fly in the face of everything laid out on the table before you. Screaming "baseless" at the everything I put forth with citations does not make your perception the correct one. Any RFC I did is an indication that they are unable to edit here constructively and all they do is an abuse. Be a brave, be a man. Getting blocked by abusers is better than an 'honour' achieved by serving their abuse by siding with them. Distorting the truth intentionally does no one a service. --Ruhubelent (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, your complaint is that Request for comment/Political bias, nespotism, abuse and mob-rule at tr.wiki was closed because nobody participated in it? What is the goal you want to achieve with this RFC? Do you want it reopened? Do you desire actions against Riley? --MF-W 20:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am choosing to fly against baseless regulations by those who have power. Commentating on my personality rather than the event or indictment does not make me or my case the incorrect one. If that block is reasonable, I have been asking for that reason, so far no one has put forth something: Why am I prevented from putting an info on my user page about a certian in-wiki event related to me? I could agree that it is irrational or unreasonable if I was writing about my sex life or if I was putting infos about my private life unrelated to wiki. I was not even promoting my business. All I did was to write a in-wiki event that involved me and suddenly I am told I am breaching meta:scope or meta-civility. What is there that breaches anything? --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has nothing to do with "nobody participated". But yes, the page should remain open as the admin closed it without any basis on the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey. He and Camouflaged Miracle asserts "it is ok for an admin to close an RFC in case no one commented within 6 months" (which is also baseless). but the problem with this assertion is 6 months since the launch was reached on November and 6 months since the last edit was reached on December. Even if we extend the period into 8 or 7 months then the deadline would come on 23rd or 21st of January, not 15th. --Ruhubelent (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15th of January was the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey and it does not coincide with 30th day for either 7 or 8 months. --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, I am "partially blocked" for 1 month, allegedly for "breaching" Meta:Civility. I do not know which action of mine `breached` it and no action of mine `breaches` what statue was pointed out to me. I may no longer be able to respond :)) --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, why is this page named "meta admin ~riley is abusing power"? Such an inflammatory title will certainly not get you what you want. Also it's misleading since you just want one action of his reverted. A whole RFC "about him" is an unnecessary escalation, same as creating yet another user-related rfc at Meta:Requests for comment/Admin Billinghurst is abusing power - limiting editing my userpage for no reason. It would be much more useful to limit the discussion about the closure of the RFC to one place, like WM:RFH or the RFC's talk page. --MF-W 15:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I assert, that is to abuse - that can not be disputed in any way. Wikimedia does not have such regulation, he is doing something he is not authorised to do. Full Stop. Nothing can be disputed here. And what I want is not just a revertion, I want such cases to be known and heard. From the beginning of the first RFC (which riley closed) I knew nothing can be done but my main objective was to expose an abuse. I explained riley that Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey, that I could find independent Turkish speaker Wikipedians but ignoring everything he just did his own choice leaning on the power he has. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As expected, no one can point out a base for an admin's action and just bury their head when an admin is abusing his/her power. Now it should be certified that Not only Turkish Wikipedia is a mob rule but Wikipedia itself is a mob rule. An admin closes a page related to Turkish wiki on the day Wikipedia is unblocked in Turkey and no one does something, probably if I had large number of frank friends that would side with me then everything could have been different. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I think nobody bothers if an inactive RFC is being closed. RFCs aren't really governed by a fixed set of rules anyway. I also don't understand why you keep going on about how this was the day "when Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey". Did you expect a high number of people to come afterwards to comment on it? They could still have expressed their desire to discuss the question. They or you could even start a new RFC. On the other hand, there is no point in having an open RFC without participation. --MF-W 23:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it does not matter even if I thought "no one will come after the block is lifted." Someone comes or not, the point has to be the admin immediately closing my page on the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey. It does not matter if someone participates or not, admins should have no room for such abuse.
I don't get it. What is the relation to that day of unblocking then? --MF-W 13:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis of closing at the first place even if it did not *coincide* with the day of unblocking? Nothing other than .... --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look below, there are pages that were not edited in the last 14 (fourteen months) and they were still not closed. 6 months were not problem for those pages.
Another admin was saying "Meta is not an arbitration committee. Local community decides" etc but when Azerbaijni Wikipedia was accused, admins interfered ignoring local community. What a double standard what a mob rule. --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with some other RFCs

[edit]


Ok, it might be said "but others have participated in this conflict." but then who knows someone could participate in my page as well in case it is left open for 14 months without any activity like other RFCs + in my case Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey. I explained all of these to ~riley, he just dismissed everything. Why the page of others can remain open even if it is not edited for 14 months but when it comes to my page it is closed randomly on the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey? --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_comment/Meta_admin_~riley_is_abusing_power&oldid=20274274"