The following request for comments
is closed. Projects are not closed for such reasons. Please assume good faith, be more neutral, don't come to conclusions and open a new request for comments about specific lacks of policies or bad application of existing policies (e.g. with regard to relevance of corporations and respect of the law), without unnecessary emphasis or personal attacks. (See also January 2 update.)
A Lithuanian wikipedia is hijacked by 9 administrators. A few others have joined them.
I reported and corrected 2 corrupt pages. They started abuse and corruption themselves. 
I tried to discuss their abuse on the page dedicated for complaints here:
I complained about these 3 administrators:
2 of them - Homo and Snooker - keep removing my complaint about themselves from the page of complaints.
So, other administrators do not see it.
This is an abuse in itself.
The administrator Lazdynas so far has not tried to hush up criticism of himself. Maybe because the other 2 vandal-administrators do it for him already.
His abuse was that he protects 2 wiki articles, which I reported as a worthless self advertisement of authors, or simply as corrupt.
They were located here:
This was my initial grievance.
At first, administrator Lazdynas simply engaged in an editing war with me. I restored my comment. He restored the original corrupt content of the articles.
Later Snooker made a public proposal to move one article to wikibooks.
Thus they acknowledged that it was inappropriate at least in wikipedia.
But he did not even wait for a discussion of his own proposal. He simply moved the article to books. That's because otherwise his participation in the war of editing would be exposed.
He also locked the page of comments (discussion) on his profile. So, he tries to prevent people posting criticism of him there.
I always gave arguments, and started discussions. They kept deleting everything without giving any justification.
All 3 persons (or perhaps 1 person under disguise of the 3) participated both in protection of the corrupt articles.
2 of them now obstruct a complaint about their behavior.
As long as they have the right of administrator, discussion of their removal will be impossible.
That is why I request to immediately revoke their rights of administrator. They would be able to apply for it later, if they manage to prove innocent.
Related pages, and contacts 
Please see the history and discussion of each wiki article below.
Contentious articles 
Concealed advertisement of a conglomerate of private comanies:
Remains with content and discussion removed. Some remainder of the discussion is still there.
Moved from wikipedia.
See the funny voting in discussion there. 1 culprit of abuse votes for his own abuse (the article) to remain in wikipedia (wikibooks). Please also consult the pages on "Special actions" for the discussion. You will see that the administrator Matasg deleted previous content of the discussion, and cleaned it from all history. So that nobody can see what was said there.
Duplication of content of a dubious project by bureaucrats:
Related profiles 
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojas:Lazdynas - administrator
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojas:Homo - administrator
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojas:Snooker - administrator (also registered as Tomreves).
Page of complaints about bad administrators:
Note how the administrators simply delete complaints about themselves. They also lock the page occasionally. This defeats the very purpose of this page: to compain about them. This is nonsense. This should not be allowed ever.
Section about "savivalė" (abuse) of the same main page of complaints:
contains justification of deletion without consultation by administrators (Snooker), and demands to conduct consultation before deletion of content, if it is someone else (Nomad demands this of Hugo). I mention this hypocrisy in a section below.
Snooker, and Nomad intimidate the user Hugo for merely replying to me on his personal page: http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojo_aptarimas:Hugo.arg
See the sections named "Ispėjimas" (means a warning). They intend to limit free speech. This is not a mere threat. They did put a block on him. See the page of complaints above; section about "savivalė" (abuse).
Public comment on organization by name of LDB - the authors of the 2 corrupt articles:
http://andrew.konferencijos.lt - English
http://andrius.konferencijos.lt/LDB - Lithuanian
You may send all your comments to the e-mail address, which you find on the latter pages. The keeper of those 2 sites will let me know, and will assist you in your attempt to restrain, and restrict the mentioned 3 bad administrators, and the other 6, who joined them later. They all protect each other, and themselves.
They need the greatest number of junk as articles. So, they could justify the existence of wikipedia itself. 
To avoid its closure. They simulate activity. With this aim in mind there's no bad article that they could not place. They grab just anything that "falls" their way.
They hide history of articles. They delete it. Now nobody can tell what my changes to the articles were.
How are they going to justify themselves by something that nobody can see anymore? The answer is that they were not going to justify themselves. They presumed impunity.
Because they are administrators... Nobody would bother to remove them. Nobody can remove them in Lithuanian wikipedia.
Users are mentally disabled, subservient. So, nobody would think of asking so in the upper domain - meta wikimedia - , or the owner wikimedia foundation.
I am the only one to have asked for removal of those administrators here.
Others pervert the logic to the extent that they even justify evil, while condemning it. I mention this below about the user Tired_time.
Administrator Matasg grew so insolent and arrogant as to boast that wikipedia is based abroad, so jurisdiction of Lithuanian laws supposedly does not apply. (!)
Administrators are also hiding and deleting my writings from discussions.
They have even removed a discussion of their own question to me. They asked the question, but never wanted to hear any reply.
I reminded them about their question here:
I wrote that they asked the question, and deleted it without even reading the reply.
Earlier they claimed that nobody can hide history from administrators by deleting it. I asked them: if that's the case, then prove it - restore my reply, and show it to readers.
Administrator Dirgela deleted this reminder too:
Why then he asked me the question?.. Why he lies and pretends that administrators can't hide content from one another? He protects the offenders.
Note in the same history of "Discussion" of user Dirgela how other administrators - Homo and Snooker - removed my notes from it many times. Snooker even locked ("užrakino" in Lithuanian) the discussion. He locked a discussion of another person. Isn't that too bad?
Bad administrators make bad influence on other users 
Here is one user, who initially supported my complaint about administrators deleting criticism of themselves:
Here the same user complains that I am urging him to act against bad administrators:
He writes that capitulating to the bad people, and allowing them to rule is the norm. (!)
Then he deleted my reply to him:
He too does not want to read any answers.
They want no discussion 
They only want to speak.
What's the use of such wikipedia?
They are always deleting my criticism of themselves. - Anything and anywhere, which is unpleasant to them, they just remove without answering, without comments.
Administrators commit abuse, but demand conscience of others. 
They prohibit others from doing the same bad things, which they do themselves. It is curious that the same administrators (Snooker, and Nomad) complain, when someone else deletes their junk writing without explanation:
The same Snooker justifies a bad administrator for deleting, and blocking content without consultation:
Instead he urges the abused user - the victim - to seek consultation on the abuse by the administrator post factum, after it is already done, rather than before.
Corruption means that wikipedia does not exist, and is harmful. 
If discussion of articles and actions of administrators is banned, then this means that wikipedia as a whole does not exist. You have to close it.
If the whole of wikipedia is corrupt, then its content is corrupt. Because the aim of corruption is to produce corruption. It is the only its product.
If content is corrupt, then wikipedia is harmful to society.
Harm comes from both: the bad content, and the bad example the administrators serve to other people.
Conclusion: Close lt.wikipedia and lt.wikibooks 
Because they have hijacked the system, the only 2 ways to stop them interfering with freedom of speech is to
- close each system down.
- revoke the rights of administrator of each person involved.
I may perform this job of policing for you.
If this is not done, then the bad publicity will ensue, and reputation of wikipedia will be damaged.
Their interference means that the quality of articles on lt.wikipedia and lt.wikibooks is not guaranteed to be any good too. They might have concealed, and deleted lots of other useful stuff.
This page is not final. I will expand it later.
A few other administrators joined this gang.
Instead of keeping order, they ignore offenses the other mentioned administrators commit.
I will write about that later.
Voting will come only after discussion.
- Discard this request for grievances about administrators are no reason to close a project. es:Drini 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- This childish war won't work. —I-20the highway 02:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)