Meta:Requests for comment/Admin Billinghurst is abusing power - limiting editing my userpage for no reason

The following request for comments is closed. With zero participation from community, I don't see any consensus that this was abuse of power. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki admin Billinghurst has prevented my from editing my userpage without stating any regulation to do so.

I have placed information on my userpage about why I was blocked, Admin @Billinghurst: kept on deleting my userpage stating "keep your user page within meta:scope" I have been asking him (and other admins) what specific case of Meta:Scope I am contradicting but none of them so far pointed out anything. Here is the link of the discussion: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruhubelent&oldid=20015601#User_pages

Unless someone tells me what critera of Meta:Scope I am contradicting by putting information about my block on my userpage, this is an abuse. Wikimedia does not restrict anyone from putting information on their userpage about why they are blocked.

What I wrote there was not something about my sex life, it was not about how many goals I scored in Pes, it was not about my political views. It was wiki-related information and it was about me.

I know I will soon be blocked from the site instead of doing something against all these admins. The best case scenario is other admins will come and pressurise to close this page if not they close it immediately--Ruhubelent (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I realised I neglected it. He told me to read Meta:Civility but then there is nothing there that prohibits me from sharing an information on my userpage about my Wiki-history, my Wiki-actions. --Ruhubelent (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, I am "partially blocked" by the same admin for 1 month. :)) --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STILL NO ANY BASIS IS PROVIDED AND @Billinghurst: IS STILL HARASSING MY USERPAGE. HE/SHE HAS STILL NOT POINTED OUT ANY ARTICLE OF WHICH I AM ACCUSED OF BREACHING BUT HE MAINTAINS HARASSING MY USERPAGE. AND WIKIMEDIA DOES NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Billinghurst[edit]

Your claim of "no reason" could not be further from the truth. We have been through this conversation on your talk page on a number of occasions. So I gave you reasons, now you may not agree with, or you may dislike, my reasons, that is obviously a matter for debate. It is totally within your right to take it to the community for conversation, and I will always welcome the opportunity to explain my actions. If you choose to dispute my authority to act in the role, to which I was elected ten years ago, then typically such a conversation should take place, rather than you repeating similar editing for the fourth time. Similarly, as you are a person who was held advanced rights, I do not believe that you are unaware of the approach of consensus on a WMF wiki to issue resolution.

As I said on your talk page at the time of taking my actions, I would refer it to Meta admins for review, I am not afraid of such a review. I do make errors, and maybe this is one. Sometimes I argue a losing argument, sometimes I argue a winning argument, in the end, I operate to what I believe is the consensus view of the community, and whether it is in my favour or not, is just how it is, I trust the consensus view process. No skin off my nose.

For transparency it would have been great if you had pointed to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ruhubelent

so the pages that we determined were problematic which you have previously had as your user pages, and the edits from the past day which I undid.

I reverted edits that I saw to be out of the scope of a meta user page, as I interpret our approach. You are spoiling for a fight, and picking fights, rather than looking to participate in productive editing. There has been a stream of edits by you accusing many of doing things for no reason and abusing their power. So maybe it is time for this to come to a head.

To summarise I don't see my actions as abuse of my role, they are within the scope of usage of the tools, and they are open to the community to reverse or to confirm. I was open, I had communications with you, and nothing was a surprise to you, you said that yourself. I did the minimum actions; actions that are reversible, and visible, and impact your ability to edit on one page only. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am not writing to wrong section. What I meant by "no reason" was that it is baseless. Ok, let us say it was my bad wording. What I object to, as I had been doing in the past, is it is an information about me and it is wiki related. I was not writing something alien to wiki, I was not writing about the partners I dated, I was not bragging of something unrealted to Wiki, it was completely from in-Wiki events. I see users who even declare their love for their favourite football club on their userpage, I am not objecting to any of them. What I object to is, as I had stated over and over again in the past: it is about me and my in-wiki history. I should be able to put it in my page as I was not only once but twice asked on Meta about why I was blocked --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My actions are neither without reason nor baseless, there is a conversation on your page that addresses this from two administrators; so, again, it is that you have a different opinion. Where you are having SCOPE and CIVILITY issues, the editing process is not to keep adding the same or similar content, but to have that discussion with the community, as one of us is not comprehending what the community has expressed. And I will repeat … I provided options to address this.

On your sidenote, if you believe that other user pages are problematic, you can civilly address it with the user on their talk page; if unsuccessful, then please nominate them for editing or deletion at Meta:Requests for deletion, I will not be sidetracked into addressing those here. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing me from editing my talk page for putting information about my block IS baseless as Wikimedia, as far as I know and asked you, does not have any such restriction[s]. I am not keeping to add the same or similar content, you are deleting the only content I put there, it is not putting something over and over again. As far as Wikimedia does not have restriction on putting information on your userpage about your block, what you did is both abuse and baseless. And as expected, no one dares to side against an admin --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comment[edit]

Still, Billinghurst (or anyone else) has not pointed out any rule or anything he has blocked me for `breaching` and yet no one does something. It is an abuse and there is nothing you can do when you are abused as long as the abuser has the power. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has pointed out anything from Wikimedia restricting sharing information on your block, I will never obey this abuse of Billinghurst. After the current abuse period of 1 month expires I will revert admin's harassment of my userpage. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not leave it here, I know if admins want they will further abuse their power to silence me and block me completely but still either I will be deleted from Wikimedia or I will keep fighting the abusers. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]