Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

I'm sorry for having to say the following but the situation is asking for this. There are extreme abuses taking place at the Romanian Wikipedia.

In short, I was blocked forever (permanent ban) for saving two articles from deletion. The justification was that I broke my self-imposed topic ban - not to add references of any kind in articles. I considered that by making such an exception, it will be seen as a common sense exception. Not only that I was acting in good faith, but my actions were beneficial for the Romanian Wikipedia. One administrator invited me to try to save such articles from deletion (Ionutzmovie) - although he later tried to hide his invitation, and the other one (Silenzio76) decided that my actions were beneficial and he decided to preserve those articles, instead of deleting them. And this was the first exception concerning my self-imposed topic ban, and I even said I won't make such exceptions anymore if they don't like such a beneficial exception. The exception was positive, yet they blocked me for that, and not any kind of blocking - I was blocked forever, for actually improving Wikipedia. These are the words of Victor Blacus: "Ark25 broke his promise to stop the introduction of inappropriate material". How is the material inappropriate if the other admin - Silenzio76 decided to preserve two articles, based on that very material, and by doing that he certified that the material added by me was beneficial?!? How can the material be certified as appropriate and beneficial but in the same time inappropriate in the very same context? It is probably not just a simple coincidence that a Romanian person invented the absurd theatre (en:Eugène Ionesco).

The root of the conflict is in my historic actions of adding a lot of external links into articles and in the talk pages, for later use. Two and a half years ago, Silenzio76 blocked me for "trolling" because I dared to answer to his accusations, his decision was reverted by another admin, then he left Wikipedia in anger but after that he came back, and since then he launched a personal and total war against me. In 2015, he managed to block me for three months, but that's obviously not good enough for him. Others joined him, and this team is tirelessly inventing all kind of stunning, false and ridiculous accusations, in order to have a pretext to block me. They shamelessly resort to personal attacks, staggering abuses and mind-boggling absurd accusations. When I dared to notice that their accusations were based on false statements and absurd interpretations of the rules, they accuse me for "personal attacks" and "maintaining conflicts". They installed with impunity an atmosphere where, whatever they say is 100% true, and whoever dares to disagree, is guilty of all kind of things and must be squashed like a bug, for being "toxic". If they accuse you, then you are automatically guilty. If you ask them to support their accusations with reality facts, they refuse to do so, and they launch more baseless attacks, and in the same time you are a troll, of course. If you disagree with them, you are even more guilty, for wasting their time. And so on.

The admins who created this situation are Silenzio76, Pafsanias, Accipiter Q. Gentilis, Dan Mihai Pitea and Victor Blacus, aided by the user Turbojet. The admin Ionutzmovie is closely following suit (false statement: continuing to do so after a policy change was enforced). From all of them, Pafsanias clearly stands out with his enormous appetite to invent things and to talk from above, with an insulting attitude of a deeply wise and superior man talking to a catastrophically ignorant person, resorting to cynicism, disdain, despise and defiance almost every single time he talks. In the way he talks, he constantly tries to show something like "I keep trying to explain to you, patiently, how things work, but you clearly don't have the capacity to understand", inviting the community to block the people who are consuming his energy by abusing his "patience".

Prior to my self-imposed topic ban, there was a recent conflict where I was blocked for edits I made almost one year before! Facing such a puzzling abuse, I decided to self-impose myself a topic ban on adding references, since they were so unhappy with my edits. The block came as a response to my answers in a conversation where their "arguments" were cursing and screaming. The specialist (Turbojet) cursed: "the damn with your source - PriceWaterhouseCoopers". And when I asked him "why is World Bank a better source than PriceWaterhouseCoopers?", the admin Accipiter Q. Gentilis started to scream like "how can you dare to talk with someone with more education than you? If we continue like this, what kind of things can happen tomorrow?". I was really disgusted about such reactions and I answered with a mockery, saying that "the whole Universe will collapse, what else?". As a revenge for my mockery, after 11 minutes, Dan Mihai Pitea "regretfully" banned me for a week, for edits that I made with almost one year before! If he can ban people for edits made an year ago, then where is the limit? Can he ban users for edits made 2 years ago? Or 5 years? Maybe 10 years? How about 15 years ago? Because there is no rule to specify such limits and there is no precedent for banning someone for edits made with years or months before.

I was asking them to let me create a restricted user, just for doing minor edits. I can agree with one edit per month. Yet, even that they have plenty of time to follow my edits at English Wikipedia and even at Wikia, checking one edit per month is a time sink for them. The absurdity never ends.

And no, the Romanian culture is not that different to the Western culture. What is considered an abuse in the West is also considered an abuse in Romania. It's just that in Romania, the people are more used to abuses and have a large tolerance for them. This can be easily explained by the fact that the Romanian people being occupied and abused by various empires, and therefore Romania has a very short history of democracy and independence. Other than that, the Romanian judgement is almost the same with the Western judgement. In fact, the Romanian culture is strikingly similar with the Irish culture. Also the Romanian Wikipedia rules are mostly copied from the English Wikipedia, with a few local adaptations, based on the particular experience at that Wikipedia.

Sorry for writing all the above, but I think that such staggering abuses should not be simply buried and forgotten. By the contrary, such actions should serve as an example for how not to run a Wikipedia and as a warning that the current rules of total non-interference at smaller Wikipedias is not really a good idea. In my view, the editors should have at least the opportunity to create a restricted user (or corrector) for doing minor edits, at least for correcting misspellings. Otherwise, the claim that "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that aims to allow anyone to edit articles" is really questionable.

At very least, this report should be useful for other users facing such abuses, from the above mentioned admins, so they will know that they are not the only users subjected to such abuses, and they will have more courage to defend their position. It will limit the abuses of this group of admins who treat Romanian Wikipedia like their own property.

I've collected some samples of abuses and absurd behavior of those admins in the following collapsed box:

Examples of abusive or absurd behavior[edit]

Pafsanias inventing things
Dan Mihai Pitea
  • He has no problem to block someone for edits made years ago (see above).
  • He doesn't understand the difference between the sections "Published works" and "Bibliography/References" (e.g. the article en:Adam Smith contains both sections). In the article Institutul Diplomatic Român (Wikia copy) I've created the section "Published works" (which contains references), but Dan Mihai Pitea shows himself really angry because I've added references to the "References" section - gosh, there are 22 exclamation marks! And such an insightful and patient person is adminstrator - it's clear now that the Romanian Wikipedia is in good hands..
  • In another talk page, he complains that I dared to show him what the "References" section means. He is getting angry if you dare to explain him anything.
  • Here I am guilty because I didn't know that someone filled a complaint about me (nobody bothered to send me a notice), and therefore I should be blocked!
  • Somewhere else (I can't find the discussion) he complained that I was adding references to the disambiguation pages (example of such disambig page: ro:Nicolae Ionescu). Well, the references prove that the red links exist, that they have due weight and notability and the references can be used to develop the future article. What's the big deal with it?
Accipiter Q. Gentilis
Victor Blacus
  • Users must be blocked for adding "inappropriate content", after the content was certified to be appropriate (see above)
  • I was asking to close the discussion but he claims that I am the troll.
  • Before giving me a permanent ban, he banned me for a week, based on "escalating the trolling in continued form, using personal attacks". To have anything in continued form, you need to have at least two of those thing. I was complaining to another user that these admins are constantly "pouring trash over my head". If this is a personal attack, then the question is where is the other personal attack, to make it two, to prove that there was a "continued form", or at least to prove that it was "attacks'", instead of "attack".
  • Double standard. Silenzio76 made personal attacks, in continued form - in a single conversation, but that wasn't a problem. If I dared to complain once, that was "personal attacks" (plural), and that was a big problem.

They do follow my activity everywhere else than Romanian Wikipedia[edit]

After pouring trash on someone's head, they claim that they are tired of all this, and they can't waste their time anymore with endless conflicts. Yet they always have plenty of time available to follow my activity everywhere else.

These people have an extreme interest in following my activity, pretty much everywhere. —  Ark25  (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC) —  Ark25  (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Notified parties[edit]

Copied and pasted below content from Ark25's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Have you notified involved parties and the community of Romanian Wikipedia about this RfC? --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes, I was using the template {{u}} when mentioning their names. That template is sending them a notification. When I open an English Wikipedia article, I can see such notifications from Romanian Wikipedia for example, so they must have seen my notification too. I've seen they noticed my complaint, as they quickly reacted at the Administrator's noticeboard here: ro:Wikipedia:Afișierul administratorilor#Apel. —  Ark25  (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
As for the community of Romanian Wikipedia, I have no idea how can I send a message to all the community since I am banned there. But since they reacted at ro:Wikipedia:Afișierul administratorilor#Apel, that means the community is already notified. —  Ark25  (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Copied and pasted above content from Ark25's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Ark25. Let's continue at this RFC subpage then and await their statements. --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In that case, we are in for a very long wait. In the page ro:Wikipedia:Afișierul administratorilor#Apel, the admin Silenzio76 is asking the others to ignore this request for comment, and the admin Accipiter Q. Gentilis says he agree. They do know very well that, if they would have any reaction, they will make the same errors they made until now, and that in front of a larger and well established community, they have no chance whatsoever to defend their position. I have no hopes whatsoever to solve my own situation at RO.WP with this complaint, but I'm just trying to help building a better resistance against such errors in the future. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Re-pinging User:Silenzio76 and User:Accipiter Q. Gentilis as the prior pings wouldn't work if no pings were made at initial posting. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This person (Silenzio76) made a defaming note about you and accused you of committing libel in my talk page. I asked Beeblebrox about handling that comment. here. BTW, why not using Romanian language? Response? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC); amended. 21:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Silenzio76 refuses to participate in this RfC, so I must abide by his/her decision. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a he. Of course, he has good reasons to refuse to answer my request for comment: I will twist everything he says and I will manage to turn all the Wikimedians against him. Because I'm so good in switching everyone's brains on and off. Only the before-mentioned admins from Romanian Wikipedia managed to somehow build an immunity against my supernatural powers. This is irony of course but what else can I say? He and his partners always seem to have very good reasons to refuse to come with evidence in order to support the large numbers of repeated accusations. And why to bother if they can simply resort to personal attacks, cursing and screaming in order to "prove" that they are right? They always did that and now, when they are invited to defend their views in a larger and well established community, all of them are already too tired about all this. All, in the same (right) moment. What a surprising and convenient coincidence!
As for the real reason for blocking me, I did stop the activities that he complains about (the flood of external links in the talk pages), as soon as there was a community consensus against me. That was in 2015. It's not my fault that it took him years to convince the community to support his views. Later, after one year, I've even imposed a topic ban on myself (I declared that I won't add references from newspapers anymore), in anticipation of their predictable and incoming consensus and decision. This time they were not happy with me adding references in articles. I'm not sure how many other Wikipedians had the honesty and good faith to put a topic ban on themselves. And it is true that my activity was exaggerated (especially the flood of external links, that I stopped in 2015), and I declared myself that Wikipedia is not the best place for such experiments and edits (the pages I am editing look like "work in progress" and more like chronicles than encyclopedic articles), and I "faded", preparing to "die" at Wikipedia and I moved to "parallel universes" (Wikia). But that's just not good enough for them. They invested too much time into chasing me, so they wanted their prize. And they aim for the best: the best prize. And banning me forever simply hits the spot.
Yes, they filled a complaint against me (you know, soon after blocking me for edits I made almost an year before that, which is probably unprecedented in all Wikimedia projects), but they stopped when I could prove that I did respected their consensus, every single time they had a clear consensus against me. I could prove that it doesn't make sense to block me in such a context. After that, they used the first exception from the self-imposed topic ban that I made, in order to block me forever (their complaint was stopped but not closed yet). They clearly stated in their decision that they banned me for breaking my self-imposed ban - the exception that they themselves invited me to do and that they certified as beneficial. This is not about stopping me, because I did stop, but in reality it's about their desired revenge. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the most recent example of the kind of errors they make when arguing. They got to the point where almost everything they say is actually evidence against their own position. It works for them in a small community where nobody cares about the issues and where they can do whatever they want, but not here, and they know that very well. So they prefer to pretend that "they are too tired of all this" and to have no reaction. —  Ark25  (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
For those curious, here's the complete discussion: en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Wikipedia is not a forum. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about this comment, Ark25? --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, Mr. Silenzio76 fails to admit that he made an error. It wasn't a big deal anyways, but that's typical for him. I had no problems to admit that I was wrong or that I exaggerated, when that was the case. But these people act like they are never wrong. Later edit: It might be because of my formidable twisting powers - they make all those errors because of my negative vibrations that have a strong effect on their brains, and therefore whenever they make errors, it must be my fault. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ark25, may you contact any one of the native Romanian speakers, so we can get the bottom of this? I thought about notifying one of them, but I think you can find someone you would trust. Right? --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Sorry for the delayed reply. They was so much shouting and noise about the "Ark25 problem", pouring a big amount of accusations, that the other Wikipedia users could not even waste their time to read about it. The result is that now the majority of the users think that "there must be a problem with this guy - Ark25". In other words, I'm the villain. There are four admins that are most balanced: Gutza, Rsocol, Strainu and Mihai Andrei - but the fact that they said nothing about all this conflict is completely telling. Their silence shows to me, beyond any doubt, that they considered that my removal from Romanian Wikipedia was necessary. I can understand that view, but the problem is in the way I was removed and the puzzling justifications, using such staggering abuses, which, in my view, makes Romanian Wikipedia and even Wikipedia as a whole look bad (sorry). Mr. Silenzio76 was showing to everyone on English Wikipedia that he doesn't have to respect the rules and he can interpret the rules in any way he wants - after all now he is an admin, and for him that means that now he actually is the law and his statements are automatically becoming new laws - he is way above the level where he has to respect the rules - and that's the way he constantly acted in this conflict since years ago. Therefore, for me it's clear that I have extremely little chance to get any answer from them. I suggest leaving the {{ping}} I used for mentioning their names as an invitation for them to answer here about this issue. If they refuse to do so, I can contact them in say one or two weeks on their user talk pages here on Meta. I would like to mention that the admin Andrei Stroe is the most active user and very balanced and fair most of the time, however in this issue he preferred to lean on the side of the people who created this conflict - he deleted the talk pages where I was storing extra information, before I could have the chance to use them (on Wikia), even though I was trying to co-operate in this deleting process - en:User:Ark25/ROWP/Mesaje pentru administratori. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm pinging Erhfb (with ro-5, professional Romanian language) and Henriku (with ro-4, close to resembling native Romanian). Unsure about ones with "ro-3" indication. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

From Gutza[edit]

I'm rather uninvolved in the Romanian Wikipedia these days, so I can only offer a very personal, subjective account of what happened regarding Ark. As far as I can tell, he seems to have a peculiar penchant for consuming random bits of information from all over the net and collecting them. Which is quite a benign hobby – except that he wanted to combine this with his activity at Wikipedia. The first dispute I remember regarding Ark that I was involved in was related to his wish to collect lots and lots and lots of external links inside articles, or at least in the articles' discussion page. At the time I thought it benign, and since there were no guidelines against this behavior I thought we should discuss things before applying any administrative measure. Which I think could've gone over smoother than it did, except for Ark's inclination towards wikilawyering, which made everything worse – and, in the end, it's probably what broke the camel's back.

The gist of the issue is that he's writing these humongous pieces of text defending, explaining, and lawyering his approach to Wikipedia long after he's been told that his actions are encumbering other editors' efforts to write an encyclopedia, and even after a consensus is formed. At first people were merely annoyed, and tried to talk him out of it. Then a conflict arose; he kept at it. Then a decision was made against this type of editorial behavior, and he still kept at debating at length over whether he's doing the right thing or not. In the end the community decided that between the (questionable) value he was adding by providing those links and other data, and the (incontestable) value he was subtracting by keeping editors busy in debates that were by definition leading nowhere, the community would be better off without him. I had real sympathy for Ark's position in the beginning, when the few people who had encountered him more frequently were very biased against him because of this exasperating inclination towards wikilawyering; I still stand by my original assessment, in that new guidelines should be discussed by the community and a consensus needs to be reached before being enforced – but in the end it appears that the community did choose the right path in regards to Ark, seeing how he's still trying to wikilawyer and blackmail his way back even to this day.

Although it's very clear to me that Ark would've been happy to live with all abuses he's now clamoring against had he himself not been banned, I can't judge the rest of his accusations regarding other administrators. As accidents go, it appears I'm not on his black list, probably because I was originally sympathetic to his position; I'm sure he could've also found a few sins of mine, had he chosen to investigate my behavior as well. --Gutza (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about Ark25, Gutza. Ark25 told me he's not planning to return to or appeal the block at Romanian Wikipedia. I just want to hear all sides about this and want to make sure that issues about Romanian Wikipedia are cleared up. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the statements of Gutza:
  • When the consensus was clearly formed against my actions, I did stopped from adding external links in the talk pages. After I stopped, they kept accusing me, and I answered their accusations. Big mistake, my bad. Then I was blocked for three months but not for my edits, but simply because I dared to answer the accusations, as Gutza clearly explains. There were lots of accusations against me, and therefore I had to answer with "humongous pieces of text" in my defense. But that happened in 2015 and this is a closed issue.
  • He also avoids to admit that the editors time was consumed simply because it took them years to build a consensus against me. And he suggests that I should have stopped before the consensus was formed ("he's been told that..")—something that makes no sense to me—and therefore it's my fault for the time consumed with the debate. Because when those people start to tell you and to accuse you of all kind of fancy things, it's always your fault. When I was told to stop, Gutza was defending me, therefore his position was that I don't have to stop. Now he claims that I should have stopped. Therefore his own position is very confusing. So you tell someone not to stop when accused, then after a while you tell them that it's their fault because they didn't stop when accused. In plain English, this is called "double standard".
  • Gutza is defending the decisions of the other admins by bringing up an old issue and by simply discrediting me and painting me in negative colors: I am wikilawyering, I am blackmailing (quite a loaded word, how about some evidence for it?), I want to come back to Wikipedia (and to continue with a disruptive behavior I guess), and it's only an accident that I am not accusing him of anything. According to this line of logic, if you notice that something is wrong at the Romanian Wikipedia, then you are wikilawyering and you are blackmailing people. I am not trying to come back at Romanian Wikipedia as a regular user, I just wish to have a restricted user so I can make minor modifications. Is one edit per month too much? If yes, then how about one edit per year? I've already stated it very clearly that Wikia is a better place for my activity and that I am moving there - and I did that before being blocked forever, so this decision is not part of a new strategy adapted to the latest events. Sorry for being so disruptive by noticing the failure in the logic exposed by Gutza. It has to be something about "exasperating inclination towards wikilawyering", I guess.
  • Gutza suggests that I am randomly accusing everyone in a reckless frenzy and that it's only an accident that I'm not accusing him too. Well, I named only those who decided to block me, a decision based on those absurd arguments that anyone can check for themselves. Gutza was not participating in launching a massive amount of absurd accusations against me nor in the decision to block me. He admits himself that those accusations against me were biased. So this is not accident but basic and elementary logic - I was only naming those who participated into this "operation stomping". While Gutza can make such a clear judgement against me, some strange reason (or some powerful dark force?) is mysteriously preventing him from looking at the facts and judge my accusations against the other admins. Since I am so toxic that I can happily live with the clamored abuses (how poetic, I feel like I'm compared to a scary animal living in the sewage), then the thing preventing him to judge must be my gignormous and overwhelming negative energies - what else?
  • But the facts are still in place: I was blocked for edits made almost an year before. Their "arguments" were based on insults, cursing and screaming. I've placed a topic ban on myself. I made an exception from that topic ban, trying to save four articles from deletion - and they blocked me forever for making such an exception, claiming that my edits were disruptive while in the same time they themselves certified my edits as positive. Gutza is completely ignoring these (new, 2016) facts and he builds an entire case on an issue already solved in 2015 and on my "disruptive inclinations". Since 2015, any action against me is justified since I'm so despicable, I guess.
  • Continuing in this style, the next step will be to say: "See? Ark25 is defending himself. He answered to my accusations, now I'm also on his blacklist. Now everyone can see that he is blackmailing and wikilawyering". In this Romanian Wikipedia "logic", you are guilty for defending yourself, because you are consuming the time of those who accuse you. Forget about the time you have to consume to answer all kind of fancy accusations - that doesn't matter. Forget about respecting the rules and the consensus. Just don't be evil and stop answering the accusations against you and stop defending yourself. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • And sorry for answering so late, I haven't seen the reaction of Gutza until today, because he didn't place a notification like {{u|Ark25}}. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

From Tgeorgescu[edit]

I am neither for nor against Ark25. I was not bothered by his link collections. Others were and the consensus was formed that he should not do it. He did it again and he was blocked, then he did it again and in the end he was banned. I think that Ark25 saw himself as a savior against link rot (links preserved by him were seemingly archived by third parties). Most links were about factories being privatized and then going bankrupt. He saw the preservation of such evidence of capitalist corruption as his mission. Again, I did not have a problem with that, but others had. I guess that Ark25 should take the w:Wikipedia:Standard offer. Of course, this does not mean that obscure newspaper articles should be preserved through listing them inside Wikipedia (not my take, but it is the consensus in rowiki). I personally have no good arguments either for or against preserving such links, that's why my view weighed little in the forming of that consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My initial reasoning was this:

  • is it factually inaccurate? No.
  • is it something very stupid to say? No.
  • is it contrary to Wikipedia rules? No (this was the case, initially).

That's why I was not bothered by his edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: thanks for your reaction in this debate. Well, the external links issue was solved in 2015. I did stop adding external links in the talk pages, because I had to respect the consensus, but I was blocked for three months for defending myself against new accusations, because they had to enjoy the victory. Quickly, Accipiter Q. Gentilis blessed the community with a justification built on the science of gastronomical termodynamics of omelette preparation.
Right before I was banned forever in 2016, you claimed that I was actually adding unjustified (or disruptive - to use another word) references. I could not answer your claim since I was banned, so I will answer now: How can the references that I was adding be unjustified when they certified themselves that my edits were beneficial? How can you block someone forever for edits that you yourself certify as positive edits? Facts: ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/OPTIbluro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Biroul de CreditThe decision to block me, based on those beneficial edits. How can you invite someone to make some edits and then block them for making such edits? Fact: Invitation. Doesn't that sound like putting a trap?
Thanks for pointing to the w:Wikipedia:Standard offer, I had no idea that such things exist. However, I'm afraid that's not an option for me. It's impossible for me to promise that I'm not going to do beneficial/positive/constructive edits. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Does ArbCom exist there?[edit]

Does the Romanian Wikipedia have its own ArbCom? --George Ho (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. And if it would even exist, then the arbitration would be provided by the same people who blocked me. This is the problem on smaller Wikipedias: the communities are small, and the people have little time/energy/willing to involve into solving the community issues. It is my view that abuses are more frequent on smaller Wikipedias and they easily go un-noticed. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, each project makes its own rules. You can have a discussion here all you like, but this project cannot dictate anything to another project. If you believe they are violating the Terms of Use in some way that's something the Foundation itself would address, but the local community here has no authority over any other project, this is just a space for coordination. If the users there decide to ignore this proceeding, I'm afraid that's pretty much it, there's no way to force them to particpate or to accept any outcome arrived at here.
And as far as I can tell no, Romanian Wikipedia does not have an arbitration committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Violations of Terms of Use?[edit]

Can you prove that they violate the Terms of Use? If so, do it in the new section please. If not... well, there's nothing we can do. --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

They certified my edits as appropriate. And then they blocked me, claiming that the same edits are inappropriate. This is extremely absurd, and I think such extreme abuses should be forbidden in the Terms of Use, or at least in some general-purpose policies that all Wikipedia communities should respect. It should also contain a prescription period, to avoid situations where the administrators block users for edits made with one or more years before. In the existing Terms of Use, they broke the rule of Civility. Showing to the community that you feel free to randomly block the users for edits made years ago and declaring that the same edits are both appropriate and inappropriate in the same time (and blocking people for that) is a serious threat (Wiki-threat not real life threat though), creating a climate of fear, and that might be also assimilated with harassing. Having said all that, I must admit I feel sorry because the situation got so far.
In any case, thanks a lot for your kind efforts regarding this request for comments. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
.. and I prefer to leave it here. I don't want to try to open the door for everyone to claim that abuses against them are a violation of the Terms of Use. I think it might be a good idea to leave this request open for a while — just in case, if anyone feels like adding some comments. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

One user blocked in most Romanian-language projects[edit]

I found one user named BAICAN XXX (talk · contribs). Global lock on the user was attempted, and I found Silenzio76's comments there. Somehow, it didn't work, but the user was blocked in most Romanian-language projects, including Romanian Wikinews. The user was also mentioned at Wikimedia Forum, where Romanian Wikisource was discussed. The admin asked for stewards' help, which was turned down(?). They said that the community and activity of Romanian Wikisource is very... small. Still, I'm not sure how helpful the user is, whom I invited.

However, this RFC is about Romanian Wikipedia. I'm linking to BAICAN XXX's contributions. Ark25, may you help me please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. As far as I know, Baican XXX is a user that acts very strange. He is adding unreferenced content, unsupported claims, with a non-encyclopedic tone, and never stops when there is a consensus against him. Silenzio76 claimed that I'm like Baican XXX, and that's completely false. I am adding only referenced content, I respected the consensus and I even imposed a topic ban on myself, when I've seen how far they went in their abusive behavior.
There are others, who left Romanian Wikipedia or who reduced their contributions because of this admin team, SenatorulX might be one of them. —  Ark25  (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that SenatorulX is a good example. He posited some extreme nationalist position, behaved like a redneck when criticized, wikilawyered, refused to accept consensus, etc. I don't have a problem with people being nationalists in their off-wiki life, I have a problem with nationalist POV-pushing inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Second thoughts about this RFC[edit]

Moved from talk page --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ark25, another admin who declined my invitation said you drove everyone nuts at rowiki. Can you confirm or rebut this assertion? I wonder why you are pursuing this RFC. Do you want to re-edit Romanian Wikipedia? If not, why else doing this? I didn't ask to discredit you or something like that. I wonder whether this RFC is worth a trouble to have the WMF interfere. --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: no, not since June 2015. But they were getting increasingly nuts (or aggressive to use a better word), until June 2015, because I dared to defend myself and my defense was quite good. They were getting nuts because they could not build the community consensus against me. And I can actually prove that. Mr. Silenzio76 blocked me for trolling (that was before June 2015) simply because I dared to answer to his accusations. Then his decision was reverted by another admin and then he left Wikipedia - that's quite a clear sign that the situation (not me) was driving him nuts. I was adding a lot of extra information in the talk page of the articles, trying to signal useful things to add. I was adding information like this or like this or like this - more such examples are linked at en:User:Ark25#Statistics. It contained external links containing the useful information to add (I am only adding referenced information). Most of the time I was simply posting the external links, because the title of those links clearly indicated what is the useful information to add in the article. I simply had no time to add all that amount of info into the articles so I considered it's better to save in the talk page until later, when me or someone else would use it. They could not stop me by using logic, and in the end they decided that I have to stop by finally gathering consensus, after many years of efforts. In order to gather the support of the rest of the admins, they launched a massive amount of accusations against me, and when I tried to answer them, they accused me of trolling. In Romania we have a saying to describe that approach: "Putting your fist in the opponent's mouth" - something like this image. They banned me for three months in June 2015 and when I came back my activity was reduced to (rarely) editing articles and creating stubs.
Then Turbojet (the ex-admin with the complicated antisemitic statements and a long lasting blackmail threat) decided to make a scandal because I dared to touch a few articles in his area of expertise and I even created a stub about Thermal energy in Romania. The others quickly joined the stomping. First I got a block for a week for edits made almost an year ago. And then the rest followed.
Indeed, some of them were getting increasingly "nuts", until 2015, because they had no chance to do what they wanted by using logic. So they started to use increasingly more and more anti-logic and absurdity, which is at the apex today. Their "intelligent solution" for stopping me was to use "carped bombing". And now I'm the bad guy and they can block me forever, whenever they feel like, using heavy insults, curses and screaming. Chocked-full with absurd arguments, the kind of statements Silenzio76 recently made at the English Wikipedia.
And no, I was not driving them nuts since June 2015. They simply decided to launch another war. To flex their muscles and to show who is the boss.
Their strategy was always to launch a massive amount of attacks and to call me a troll if I dare to defend myself. And then they pretend to be the victims - "I am driving them nuts" whenever they feel like blocking me. They are getting nuts (and more aggressive) if you decide to defend yourself and if they can't convince the community that you are the bad guy, this is what they are actually doing.
And their claim that I was getting 'everyone' nuts is a copiously amusing "exaggeration". They were getting nuts exactly because they could not convince everyone that I'm the bad guy, so they could not gather the consensus against me. I just had a good laugh right now. That explains very well their silence - they know that almost whatever they would say now on this topic would make them look ridiculous and comical.
The question remains: can I be allowed to make one edit per month, only for correcting misspellings or other such minor edits? Or one edit per year, if that's too much for them. They can't agree with that because then I can prove that I am actually acting in good faith. And that's not exactly desirable for them. How can I be the perpetually evil guy if I am actually doing good things and if I respect the imposed limits?
Their lesson is that, if you make someone look bad, then you should never give them a chance to prove that they can actually do something good. Because that can hurt their PR campaign in which they invested so much energy.
Of course, since you involved into this issue, you have to check my good faith and my history - you are just doing what you have to do, this is nothing about discrediting. No matter what you decide to do, I have to say thanks for the energy you invested into this. And sorry if this issue is/was giving you headaches. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry... also. I just want to stay neutral and mediate. That's all. Hmm... We shall move this to the bottom of the "Content page", shan't we? --George Ho (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, as you wish. I think it's probably a good idea to do it after a while though - say three days maybe even a week or so. There is no rush. Since I'm the only one talking with you here, I can clearly have a bigger chance to convince you that the truth is on my side. More talk is usually more convincing than zero talk. They would also have a chance to intervene and protest against any of my above claims about them. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I see some people repeatedly telling me about Ark25, so I would be persuaded to stop assisting Ark25, i.e. stop contributing to this RFC. Therefore, if stopped, the RFC would go stale and nowhere without resolution. Earlier, I said that I would listen to all sides. I still am, but now I'm still hearing from one side that Ark25 is making frivolous complaints about others and from the other side that the community is against him. After further investigations about Romanian Wikipedia, however, something tells me that this local wiki might have major issues. The more I ask about Ark25, the more I hear claims that this RFC is a rehash of old issues. However, a lack of other proper venues is concerning, like no "Deletion review" process. --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Struck out my inaccuracies and poor predictions, especially per below findings and talk page. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: To answer this statement "The more I ask about Ark25, the more I hear claims that this RFC is a rehash of old issues." - This time they simply started a storm from out of the blue. This way they can always start a new conflict with me (and with anyone in fact) and claim that it's just a rehash of the old issues. It's like a "God mode" in video game. They found the magic "I win" button. Built on a dubious solution for the old issues. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

So I guess I can wait for my "friends" to come at the English Wikipedia and ask the community to block me permanently, based on some edits made years ago and claiming that their requirement to block me is "just a rehash of old issues". Must be very nice to have a permanent "I win" button in their pockets, I guess. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

At declined Phabricator task[edit]

Partial transcript from one declined Phabricator task:

(20 minutes after the task was declined)

--George Ho (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, why have you considered necessary to add this discussion over here? How is this relevant to Ark's claims, considering that the mentioned discussion is about adding a Cyrillic display option to the Romanian Wikipedia? I do not understand your actions, considering that Beeblebrox explained clearly above that: You can have a discussion here all you like, but this project cannot dictate anything to another project.
My nickname is mentioned and attacked here all over the places, with false statements, implying a false or an inaccurate character, and I cannot understand what is the final scope of this futile discussion?
I have mentioned that I do not wish to join this discussion, considering that everything what was meant to be discussed, was discussed already at But now I find myself harassed and pinged over and over again. What is the reason and the scope of this harassment?
Isn't obvious, considering the large number of names on Ark's black list, that there was a consensus against his activity? And that's not all of them. You could add Urzica, Mircea87, GEO, Strainu, Ionutzmovie, Giku, Gutza (as mentioned above) etc, almost the whole active Romanian community, please see the large amount of discussions. All of us are nuts, and Ark is right and abused? Let's be serious, and please stop this non-sense or at least please stop pinging me. --Silenzio76 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I won't ping you. And please, enough of your "harassment" accusations; I don't like being accused of harassing others. If you don't want to mention Ark25's activities, that's fine. If you don't want to re-summarize your attempts at English Wikipedia this year, that's fine. If you don't want comment here further, that's fine. I won't persuade you to participate further. Still, some other issues at Romanian Wikipedia are still unresolved, like very little participation at "Pages for deletion" process, which you and others have participated. Also, I don't want this RFC to be about merely about Ark25 vs. others, which doesn't tell me the whole big story. BTW, I added the above discussion not because of the Latin/Cyrillic thing but because... well, your Phabricator account would be deactivated if (as the other guy said) you continue to lack what is considered etiquette toward others. Also, I added this for others to see. Well... I didn't intend to paint you as a bad guy or anything like that. I just added the above also for others to see. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Struck out more comparisons between en.wp and ro.wp per talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I respect the rejection from ro.wikipedia's community members, but here are my points on Phabricator usages:
  1. No one, include You and Me, can have ability to do violence/gratuitous/pornography comments on coding works;
  2. Rejection is not meaning that I should entirely withdraw support on merging mo: back to ro:, rather per A-eng, we can just wait, wait for a good time (for every ro communities) to reopen that task;
  3. As Aklapper said again and again, Priority changing is the most sensitive action of task resolving/maintaining works, and should always reflect the reality, not just causing it (OMFG, this line is mostly violated by Cantonese users?!);
  4. Finally, can we make future "voting"s on slowvote application? This is an ideal way that makes voting as not evil. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Liuxinyu970226, I do respect coding, but before starting to code something some research shall be done to study the fundament of what is proposed to be coded.
In this particular case, please be aware that Romanian language is a language which is regulated by two academic bodies: Romanian Academy and Academy of Sciences of Moldova. As long as these two bodies specify that Romanian language shall be written using the Latin alphabet, then the Latin alphabet shall be used. does not belong to Romanians, Moldovans or to any other people from Transnistria or from anywhere else, but belongs to the Romanian language and to its speakers.
Even in Transnistria, which is a self-proclaimed state unrecognised by any United Nations member state, where majority of these supporters of Romanian written in Cyrillic are coming from, Romanian language is taught in the public schools using the Latin alphabet. By the way, in their constitution they are calling the language nor Romanian, nor Moldovan, but Moldovian. And let's admit that we will add an option to for Cyrillic, what Cyrillic will be used? Old Romanian Cyrillic, Moldovan Cyrillic or Russian Cyrillic?
In '90s, shortly after the young Republic of Moldova gather the independence from USSR, were some heated discussion regarding a Moldovan language, and the use of Cyrillic for this language, but all these discussions were declared non-sense, as so called Moldovan is purely Romanian, and cannot be branched and there were absolutely no arguments to demonstrate that is a different language. --Silenzio76 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ark25's activities[edit]

Postings of external links[edit]

Ark25, may you please explain some of your activities? I found them by searching.

It's okay. I won't get mad. Unsure whether to judge or criticize, but I'll listen. Also, if anything else helps, Internet Archive is your friend. :) --George Ho (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I was trying to signal useful information, contained in those links. Useful information for adding into the article. That was before June 2015. A part of the community was convinced that such edits were useful, that's why some the above mentioned admins were getting nuts (exasperation followed by getting more aggressive), because they could not convince the community to stop me. After some years, they finally managed to get a consensus against me, and I had to stop. They also blocked me for three months in June 2015, even though I stopped, for all kind of "reasons" - probably to enjoy the "victory".
Some of such articles are, indeed, archived at - However, since 2011, the site is not archiving as many news as before. I was using in order to archive articles manually.
In any case, I did stop doing that, since June 2015. Yet they blocked me in December 2016 again, and they blocked me forever this time, using the absurd justifications listed above. Once you punish a person for past actions, after serving their sentence, you can't punish them again, for the very same past actions. You can put someone in jail for say 2 years for a crime, but after serving their sentence, you can't put them again in jail, for the very same crime, because in such case, you can keep someone in jail forever for a minor crime they committed say 20 years ago. And that's exactly what they are doing now. They bring up this issue that was closed, in order to discredit me, pretending that they can block and keep someone blocked forever, for something that person did ages ago. At this moment, their justification is actually that they can block me whenever they want, for how long they want, for some actions that I was already punished in the past and I stopped doing - therefore my past actions make me so despicable (forever, that is).
For example here, Mr. Turbojet complains in October 2016 about an external link that I was adding before June 2015, when they decided that I have to stop and when I stopped and when I was banned for three months. Therefore he was re-igniting an old conflict. Finally, he got what he wanted. He got me banned forever - my past actions that I was punished for already make me so despicable and evil.
I wonder how it would be to put en:Martha Stewart for example in jail for six months again, randomly, whenever someone wants, for the very crime she committed and she was punished for in 2004. Is it OK to punish her again and again? Or to put her in jail forever? Can you keep a person in jail forever for such a crime? You can put Martha Stewart in jail for a while, for a minor crime. You can also think that she is evil and despicable - forever. But what you can not do is to put her in jail over and over, for the very same crime, whenever you feel like. This is the kind of alternate and fancy reality the above mentioned admins are actually implementing in this very Universe. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I found one of deleted subpages. I presume that it is one of your works, right? Seems as if it was removed from ro:Agenția Națională pentru Protecția Mediului (history). I'll provide more. BTW, ro:Star Wars Holiday Special was deleted as "Traducere automată, ininteligibilă", implying taken from en:Star Wars Holiday Special. --George Ho (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait... that should have been ro:Discuție:Agenția Națională pentru Protecția Mediului/Resurse or ro:Discuție:Agenția Națională pentru Protecția Mediului, both of which are deleted. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


Even more of them:

I don't know whether the Romanian AfD should be inspected. First, the issue brought by OP should be resolved before inspecting the AfD. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


I'll say, Ark25, that you were involved in AfD discussions, including ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Lista asociațiilor patronale și profesionale din România. I might find more discussions and then modify the above if related to the above. Otherwise, I will post more below. --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I found activities at ro:Discuție:Ion Antonescu (history, including this and removal). --George Ho (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This was discussed at admins' noticeboard, one month before Ark25's block was discussed. --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, all the information (mostly in the form of external links) that I was adding in the talk pages happened before June 2015. The community was not convinced that it's a bad thing, so it took them years to stop me - and after that, they even blocked me for three months. When I came back, I did stop adding external links in the talk pages, although it is possible that I made a few exceptions - maximum 3 links or so, which is pretty much - nothing. But this was not the reason to block me again. The reason to block me again was that I made an exception from my self-imposed topic ban. Mr. Dan Mihai Pitea blocked me for a week for edits made almost one year ago (because I dared to answer to the curses of Turbojet and screaming of Accipiter Q. Gentilis), and when I noticed that such an abuse is accepted, I decided to impose a topic ban on myself. After that, I made an exception fro my self-imposed topic ban, trying to save some four articles from deletion - I considered such an exception to be common sense. They certified themselves that my edits were beneficial, yet they blocked forever me for the very same edits. If you will try to call them to participate into this debate, they will probably tell you how much they are sick and tired of my activity of adding external links into the talk page - which is not the reason why they blocked me forever in December 2016. They always did that - they always refused to support their claims with evidence. Their solution was to declare that I'm a troll simply because I dared to answer to their accusations. At this moment they can't accuse me that I'm a troll for simply defending myself, so they refuse to answer. But this is very much the same thing: they always refused to come with evidence to support their accusations. The best thing that they can do now is to tell you in private how sick and tired and disgusted are about my past actions that I was already punished for in 2015. Because they can't come with anything else. The might
In the link you supplied - admins' noticeboard - it's about the fact that I've added the name of a book in the talk page of an article. There was no such a restriction - for me or for anyone else - to mention books in the talk pages, and I think it would be absurd to put such a restriction, on any Wikipedia.
Anyways, the question remains: how can you certify that some edits were positive and beneficial, and then block someone forever for making the very same edits?
If they are so sick and tired and disgusted of me adding links in the talk pages, then where is the evidence of me doing that after June 2015 and why they didn't block me for that? The answer is: because there was no such issue since June 2015. So the best thing that they can do now is to complain about an old issue that was already fixed. —  Ark25  (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
To make an analogy: if Mr. Silenzio76 would be an admin here on meta, he would block you simply because you dared to defend me and therefore to disagree with him. He will claim that you are trolling, wikilawyering, wasting his energy and he will claim that you are resorting to "personal attacks" simply because you notice that his accusations are absurd and his statements are false and because you dare to ask for evidence. You are only allowed to say positive things about his accusations, by the way. He will block you for three months, now in 2017. And then, you come back and start contributing again, but after one or two years (say in 2019), he will block you again (with a permanent block this time), for some utterly absurd reason - like doing some useful edits. When the AdminX would try to ask him why he did that, he will refuse to participate in the mediation process, claiming that he is so sick and tired about your past actions that he already blocked you in 2017. This is what is he doing today. Now you can replace "meta — 2017 — 2019 — George Ho — AdminX" with "RO:WP — 2015 — 2016 — Ark25 — George Ho". —  Ark25  (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Participation in AfD discussion[edit]

December 2016:

I'll add more above below but sooner or later. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC); modified, 08:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

rest of 2016 (selected):

--George Ho (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

--George Ho (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Ark25's further activities[edit]

Taken from ro:Wikipedia:Colecții de legături externe în pagini de discuție RFC (history) with tweaks

De-a lungul timpului a existat o dispută privind acțiunile lui Ark25 prin care adaugă legături externe în pagini de discuție.

Disputa este destul de amplă și s-a lungit foarte mult.

Aici se poate consulta un rezumat al discuțiilor anterioare pe această temă:

Discuții anterioare pe tema legăturilor externe

Discuții punctuale

Disputa din iunie 2014

Discuții punctuale pe tema legăturilor externe
Discuții în englezește


Discuții "personale"

Vezi și

--George Ho (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC); fixed, 08:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ark25's past adminship[edit]

I found out that Ark25 was promoted an administrator in 2009. He lost his adminship somewhere between that time and his second candidacy in 2014, which was dormant, i.e. lacking votes (no oppose or support or neutral; just.... nearly empty). --George Ho (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was admin, but unfortunately I had no time and energy for doing an admin's job. I didn't apply for it in 2009, but I also didn't refuse the offer. When I was demoted, someone suggested that I can become a candidate again, but I replied that there are no reasons for me to be admin again. —  Ark25  (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Found ro:Wikipedia:Destituiri/Ark25 and Steward requests/Permissions/2014-01#Ark25@ro.wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Turbojet's activities[edit]

Turbojet's participation in Pages for deletion process[edit]


--George Ho (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot, Pafsanias decided to ignore the "keep" arguments and delete the article. --George Ho (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

2016 (incomplete):

Ark25, what can you tell me about Turbojet's participation in the "Pages for deletion" process? I can provide some more links, but you may help me provide your perspective on this. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

After looking at some other discussions of that year, seems to me that Turbojet is a good contributor to the process, though (as said before) the participation in the process is small. Maybe I should not misjudge Turbojet and then try to look at all sides in people's perspectives, despite (some) people's insistences about Ark25. --George Ho (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

All of the above mentioned persons are good contributors. Turbojet is a specialist in mechanics, teacher at a respected university (IIRC). He can make errors of course, but usually his judgement about deleting pages is fine. Except when he has a problem with a certain person.
Their problem is in the attitude towards editors. —  Ark25  (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Size of Romanian Wikipedia community[edit]

Rearranged and then reformatted headers to put the threads together into one nest about the size of the Romanian Wikipedia community. --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Process of adminship candidacy[edit]

I don't understand the Romanian edition of the adminship candidacy. It also has process of promoting admins to bureaucrats. Somehow, the small Romanian Wikipedia community added some role of patrolling changes. Ark25, may you help me how past nominations were done? Also, are they run differently from the English RfA process? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it works like this: someone is suggesting that a user should have the admin status. If the user accepts it, it becomes a candidate. The other users and admins ask the candidate various questions about Wikipedia rules and how they should react in certain situations. If their answers are considered satisfactory, they are promoted to the admin status. I think it's pretty much the same as English Wikipedia. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ark25. Ours at English Wikipedia have the discretionary range standards. Previously, before December 2015, the range was 70~75%. If the percentage fell below 70%, the candidate won't become an admin. However, since then, the range changed to 65~75%. Does yours have that kind of range?

Also, I noticed that there have been almost no more than 20 voters in every Romanian RfA. At ours, there have been hundreds or a lot of voters (more or less than 100?). Mind if you can check every Romanian nomination please? Any RfA useful for this RFC? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, usually there are some 10, maximum 15 people talking in a candidacy, which is pretty healty, IMO. Example - ro:Wikipedia:Candidați/Patrulare/StoneJustice. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Currently, there are no bureaucrats. Is it defunct or something? Also, I noticed that the last person to be promoted a bureaucrat was April 2008. The last nomination was January 2016, but it was rejected. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why there are no bureaucrats and I don't know where to look for in order to find details about the situation - sorry. Most likely, there are no people having the time for that. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

But StoneJustice was running for patroller candidacy. May you tell me the purpose of the "Patroller" please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the new edits are marked as un-patrolled (not verified). When a user with Patrol status is checking such an edit, the edit becomes patrolled (verified). This way they try to make sure the new edits are verified. If a user is trusted their new edits are considered to be automatically verified - automatic patrol.
Therefore there are three categories of users: Patrols, Automatic Patrols and the rest - whose edits are supposed to be verified. —  Ark25  (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Like en:Wikipedia:Patrols, right? --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Romanian Wikipedia's Pages for deletion process[edit]

Originally "Romanian Wikipedia's Articles for deletion process"

While I was looking up and re-logging Ark25's activities, I noticed that participation in Romanian Wikipedia's Articles Pages for deletion (PfD) process has been very, very small and highly attended by (semi-)regulars. Also, Romanian Wikipedia doesn't have the "Proposed deletion" process counterpart but has criteria for speedy deletion, marked as a "guideline", not a "policy". Let's look at this year's AfD discussions, particularly January and June:

The May 2017 and June 2017 edits illustrate that.

Edited: Why not do the "Proposed deletion" process (PROD)? That's more convenient than utilizing CSD or AfD process. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC); modified, 23:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 14:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

See more about Ark25's participation in AfD discussions. Meanwhile, after Ark25 has been blocked, something unique happened at AfD discussions.

I'll add more. --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I discovered that there are no separate deletion discussion processes for files, templates, categories, redirects, and others, especially due to presumably the size of the community. It's just one deletion process for pages of any namespace. Also, there are currently 24 nominations, yet still very little participation. --George Ho (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ark25, does Romanian Wikipedia have the Deletion review, like English Wikipedia does? I don't see one yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters#Cereri de recuperare a paginilor șterse. --Silenzio76 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As said at #The scope of the case, Romanian Wikipedia also doesn't have requests for undeletion as the English Wikipedia has. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My bad: There is deletion review process... Well, there is: ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de recuperat/Arhiva discuțiilor. --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I found out that Strainu has nominated 450+ articles within at least two hours and 40 minutes in one day. Some of the nompages were deleted, i.e. attempted second nominations, like second AfD nom on ro:Ioana Rostoș and second AfD nom on ro:Nawaf Salameh. Nothing critical about that(!) amount of work. Well, I haven't done that before, though... nah... I don't feel like discussing my AfD activities at the moment. Anyway, this illustrates that PROD process was absent in --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Struck out most of this section implying comparisons between en.wp and ro.wp. Consider it moot for now, though I hope ro.wp can adopt 7-day PROD system. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I figured that mentioning PROD is also comparing ro.wp to en.wp. However, I said it because participation at AfD/PfD is either very small or nil and because too many nominations take up space. ro.wp should adopt the use-only-one rule as well similar to en.wp's if it adopts the PROD system. It can be removed from the page but cannot be reinserted once removed, leaving PfD nomination as another one of available options. However, I also figured that good/potential content can be deleted in any way, but I've not seen yet complaints about bad content from ro.wp, like bias or propaganda. I won't say much further as the ro.wp community can discuss the proposal themselves at ro.wp. --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I could reverse the strikethrough on the whole section, but I don't think the stats can add anything about alleged admin conduct. Also, as I was told, Meta community or any other community cannot govern very much the ro.wp site. Therefore, I'll leave the ro.wp to decide for themselves how to handle the content matter... unless the level becomes similar to 2013's hr.wp discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the stats do as only the admins hold the tools to delete articles. However, as told before, there is the DRV process in ro.wp, making most of the stats less useful to this discussion. Therefore, I have to narrow down to specific discussions that have some participation, but that's too much work. Nevertheless, one admin nominating 450+ articles in one day seems.... intriguing to look at, but that's just stats talk. Sampling some discussions, Kurt Krapf and Yokko were deleted via AfD discussion, but Alexandru Munteanu (al lui Vasile), and Alexandru Podoleanu, and Andreea D were kept. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot of articles marked with issues and left there waiting for years. Strainu decided to bring them into the attention of the community and by requiring to either fix them or delete them. He did it automatically, using a bot, but the action required a lot of preparation before that. IMO he did a very good job, by doing that. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

What are the rules about talk pages?[edit]

Originally "No rules about talk pages?"

I suspect that Romanian Wikipedia doesn't have guidelines about talk pages as English Wikipedia and others have. Romanian Wikipedia has rules about external links, what a reliable source is, what Wikipedia is not, and user pages; it doesn't have rules about talk pages. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The equivalent of that is at ro:Wikipedia:Pagină de discuție. Simply because I dared to talk about the regulations in places like ro:Discuție Wikipedia:Pagină de discuție#Se aplică politica referitoare articolelor (trying to see if the accusations against me for breaking the rules are valid), I was blocked for "trolling". Also, they wanted to delete the page ro:Wikipedia:Colecții de legături externe în pagini de discuție RFC - where I made a RFC about my activity - because in that page I listed all the accusations against my activity. And that makes their "work" less efficient, since their strategy was to repeat the same accusations over and over, trying to look like there is a massive amount of different accusations against me. In reality, they were repeating the same accusations forever. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the misunderstandings. Seems that Wikidata query pages have some misplaced items in d:Q5641607 and d:Q4592157. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Other discussion venues[edit]

ro:Wikipedia:Afișierul administratorilor and ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea seem to be attended by almost the same people. Ark25, what can you tell me about those venues? --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a big community. Most of the users don't have the time or energy or the mood to participate, therefore only some 10-20 same people are participating. From those active people, a good part of them preferred to stay away from the "Ark25 issue", therefore the issue of blocking me was only discussed by those interested to block me. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Statistical analysis of articles[edit]

--George Ho (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

According to 2011 census of Romania, the total population is around 20 million. However, the daily viewership ranges from around 0.005% to 0.025%, very small ratio. Are most of Romanians aware of Wikipedia currently? --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC); See newer stats below. --George Ho (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that most of the above issues mentioned as "extreme abuses" are rather exaggerated, and especially this last one. How do you think it may constitute an “extreme abuse” the fact that there are not enough views of the Romanian articles (statistically)? --Pafsanias (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I discussed renaming the case, Pafsanias. Well... "Extreme abuses" was... extreme initially, though I never thought about it until now. Also, I pinged Ark25 about this. Also, I'm trying to figure out what to do with the scope of the case. See "Talk:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia#Rename the title?" --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The answer of Pafsanias is a very good example of the alternate reality that they are building at the Romanian Wikipedia. If banning users forever for minor and positive action is not extreme, then one can only wonder what kind of actions can be considered extreme in their view. To make an analogy with the judiciary system, it's like giving a life sentence to Martha Stewart for giving a glass of clean water to a thirsty person. And then, when asked about the reasons for such a decision, to complain about her actions that she was already punished for in 2004. —  Ark25  (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Pageviews analysis on Romanian Wikipedia's "ro:Pagina principală": July – Dec 2015; 2016; 2017. The daily views of's "Pagina principală" are from around to 0.25% to 0.45%.

Still less than 1% daily. Four to six million people speaking Romanian language live outside Romania. On a global scale, that would be around 0.3% to 0.35% of world population, but that's my estimate. --George Ho (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I noticed that numbers of viewers are declining this year from last year. I don't know what caused it, but if admin abuse is not the main cause or only cause, what are other factors contributing to the decline then? --George Ho (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess I was somewhat wrong. The overall stats of ro.wp has been around one million every day, i.e. 5% of Romanian speakers. Later this year, it decreased to around 600,000~800,000, i.e. 3~4%. --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Struck out most of the section as implicit comparison between ro.wp and en.wp, though stats from en.wp aren't used. Also, I guess Pafsanias was right; the stats don't add anything to this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No bureaucrats? Stewards granting permissions?[edit]

Stewards giving Dan Mihai Pitea local admin tools per successful candidacy is intriguing. I see more events from the same page:

--George Ho (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

More stewards activities at Meta-wiki. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Struck out comparisons per talk page. --George Ho (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of (very) active users[edit]

By analyzing the list of active users (excluding bots, flow bots, and admins), I found 29 registered users having done 100+ edits within the last 30 days (as of 13 August 2017), including two having done 1,000+ edits. Out of 12 active admins, seven admins within the last 30 days have done 100+ edits, including two who have done 1,000+ edits. Bots have done a lot of work. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a list of top 500 Romanian Wikipedia editors. Ooh... Ark25 is in the list, but it's grey-texted, meaning no longer active. Reasons for being grey-texted are that they are either blocked/banned or inactive for a long while. --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Tgeorgescu[edit]

Speaking for myself: if I am searching for a fact, I look for it in enwiki, not in rowiki, since enwiki is more mature, more comprehensive and generally more reliable. Many well-educated Romanians know English. I have translated articles from enwiki, which has made some editors call me "Anti-Christian", "propagandist of atheism", "apologist of the mainstream" or "alpha-male of globalism". There were some bizarre charges about my references such as w:Michael Coogan would be a Jew who is only interested in money, and that people like him, w:Bart Ehrman, and w:Christine Hayes want to debase religion. Eventually things settled, some left and the rest of antagonists agreed to disagree. I had no problems with admins. What I could complain about them is that they did not promptly stopped such name-calling, but to their credit in intricate debates about religion it was not immediately clear who's right (for someone who has never read w:higher criticism it does sound wacko, many Romanians perceive it as an attack upon the religion inherited from their ancestors and upon the unity of the nation). Basically I have therein defended the use of reliable academic sources about religion, such as Ehrman and Coogan, against stating Christian dogmas as objective truths. Now that those debates are over I hope they learned from them. "Academic learning about religion threatens our national being." — that's a totally moronic statement. Such statements create a toxic disruptiveness aimed against rendering verifiable information from reliable sources about religion. We are not here to reach compromises with bigoted trolls and other ignoramuses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You mean ro:Michael Coogan, ro:Bart D. Ehrman, ro:Isus din Nazaret, and ro:David Strauss? The w: defaults to a page from English Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I was not speaking about their articles from rowiki, I was speaking of how Michael2012ro called them as real persons (and scholars). He basically maintained that I quoted exclusively Anti-Christian scholars in order to perform atheistic propaganda (no, I am not atheist). E.g., at the quoted diff Michael2012ro stated "Strauss is anti-christ any way one would look at it, as are all who deny the divinity of Christ, according to the definition of antichristianism." Perhaps it sounds funny, but he did not mean being funny, not even for a jot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Who do I mean? I mean editors like:
  • Michael2012ro who claimed that several of my references were written by Antichristic Bible scholars (like w:David Strauss and presumably at least one of w:Michael Coogan and w:Bart Ehrman), see [1] and [2];
  • Mihaibarboi who accused me, among other editors, of writing historically (and "materialistically" — I'm not completely sure but I think he conflated the academic approach with materialism) about Christianity, see [3];
  • Valimali67 who accused me and several other editors of violating the Constitution of Romania for writing "Isus" instead of "Iisus", see [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Vladimir-Adrian who edit-warred for including pure w:evangelism preaching inside Wikipedia articles, see [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

All what these editors have in common is that they made no effort to conceal that their intent is to preach the Gospel through POV-pushing inside Wikipedia articles. Make no mistake: it is not even covert POV-pushing, it is abundantly clear that they dislike the NPOV policy, the reliable sourcing policy and push a religious POV accompanied or not by other bizarre religious fringe beliefs, like Christian occultism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would add:

  • Masahiro who pushed an extreme-right hate campaign against homosexuals through editing Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am quite biased against bigotry and against hate speech, that's why I was the lightning rod of rowiki. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The scope of this case[edit]

See Talk:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia#Rename the title?

Initially, Ark25 was claiming admin abuse. However, I dug deeper and realized that Romanian Wikipedia might need more resources or more venues or more admins or whatever. Stewards granting editors requested rights in absence of bureaucrats... Maybe the lack of sufficient resources would lead to admin abuse, or maybe there's more to something than just what the filer claims. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The current number of admins are able to keep the Romanian afloat in terms of maintenance - removing vandalism, pages deletion, etc. But of course they need more help. If there would be two or three times more active admins than today, the situation would be much better - in terms of how much work the active admins are doing. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ark25, I hate to say this. However, I believe that the "Pages for deletion" process is more problematic than just admins. There at Romanian Wikipedia, it lacks its venue counterparts, like Deletion review, Proposed deletion (PROD), and "requests for undeletion" (maybe... or maybe not?). --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC); corrected, 22:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No, there is a section for "requests for undeletion": ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters#Cereri de recuperare a paginilor șterse. There is also PROD - for example this page ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Lorin Fortuna - the deletion is discussed at lenghts. Another one: ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Listă de politicieni români implicați în scandaluri publice Ark25  (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but your two examples do not define our PROD. I don't see the seven-day deletion template thing, like en:Template:Proposed deletion. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Struck out more comparisons per talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The case is renamed to "2017 issues on Romanian Wikipedia" per talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC) struck, 01:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ark25, may we hold off your main issues with others and others' main issues with you for now and save them for the later time? Seems that the Romanian Wikipedia has more bigger issues than yours, like insufficient venues/resources, "pages for deletion" process, absence of other processes, absence of other permissions to use some other tools, etc. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC); struck more comparisons per talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, renaming this page was a mistake, the reason being that the Romanian community did not want to get involved to respond to Ark25's biased claims. I suggest to open a new case or talk page and I assure you that all your issues will be addressed. By starting accusing, without reasons, of abuse is not a way to open a discussion.
My advice is to close this discussion, as the extreme abuse was not proved, and to open a new topic to discussed about your issues, and we could address those point by point. Regards, --Silenzio76 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I support what Silenzio said.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed back to original title. As for the closing the case, Silenzio76 or Accipiter Q. Gentilis, you can ask one of the stewards at the noticeboard. I will be busy for 12 hours or so, but I might request closure; I promise that I'll create a newer RFC soon. --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

On a second thought, I believe that the original title is better as it's more inviting than a neutral title. Issues can be big or small - there are issues at other Wikipedias too. But the extreme issues are more inviting for fixing them.
As for the claims of Mr. Silenzio76, this is nothing new. He and his partners never bothered to provide evidence for all their accusations. When asked to provide evidence to support their accusations, their reaction was to refuse to do so and to launch even more attacks. When I was trying to defend myself, the blocked me for "trolling", "wikilawyering", "maintaining conflicts" (really??), "exhausting their energy" etc. He actually tried to answer to my claims, when he complained that they blocked me for adding external links, but he already forgot that. Also the community responded to my claims, by claiming you that I was driving everybody nuts. So what he claims above is not even true. Typical.
In his twisted view—to use a word introduced by Mr. Silenzio76 himself—if you dare to notice abuses, then you are automatically guilty and you do not deserve to get any answer. These admins are blocking users simply because those users dare to answer to accusations and to defend themselves. Their very actions prove that, not me. Anyone can check with their own eyes that Mr. Silenzio76 blocked me in 2014 for "trolling" simply because I dared to answer to his accusations. When his decision was reverted by another admin, he left Wikipedia in anger and then he came back after a few days, continuing in the same style.
Once again, they firmly maintain their position, suggesting they did absolutely nothing wrong, and showing that, in their view, you, the user, are only allowed to say good, positive and beautiful things about their claims and about their accusations against you. Because for them, respecting the rules has no meaning whatsoever, since they have the power. Having the power is like entering the "God mode" in a video game. Everything they say is automagically true. Therefore they never have to prove anything. For them, their claims are automatically proven by their very existence. Everything you say in your defense is actually trolling. Everything you say has no reason. And so on. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I was told not to compare en.wp to ro.wp. Therefore, I requested deletion on Requests for comment/2017 issues on Romanian Wikipedia, which are just comparisons between en.wp and ro.wp. --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

Other comments are welcome below, but please feel free to add any more sections or subsections above the header if you wish.

English Wikipedia has the WP:Requested moves process. So do some of others. Why not I could not find one in Romanian Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Previously part of subsection of one section. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see ro:Categorie:Articole de unit and ro:Categorie:Pagini de mutat. --Silenzio76 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not one namespace for draft articles. Not one info about them, similar to that of At least there is hr:Wikipedia:Articole de creat with some existing drafts. --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh... I found one story from a Romanian user at wmf:Stories, which is at the very bottom of the page. --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

From George: Whether to participate further[edit]

After newer findings, discussion with one person, strikethroughs, and request for speedy deletion on the other RFC, I wonder whether I can participate further. I thought ro.wp has bigger issues, but then that's just comparing en.wp with ro.wp. Without comparison, where does that leave me? Also, I didn't mean to imply taking sides. I have not taken sides because I wanted to know more about Romanian Wikipedia and its members. But then I guess both sides have proven themselves not willing to compromise with each other. Ark25 still claims abuse, some are too annoyed to mention Ark25, and some others jumped in to comment here. Still, the incident at the Phabricator (i.e. crosswiki communication) makes the RFC less about Ark25 vs. others and more about attitudes from ro.wp, but that doesn't imply that Silenzio76 is a bad guy like Ark25 claims.

I should have said earlier that the Phabricator incident gives readers their own decisions on whether to take one side, another side, or neither side of the parties involved in that incident. More likely about communication issue. I should have said further readers can decide whether the incident can sufficiently or insufficiently prove Ark25's point: alleged "extreme abuse" at ro.wp. Or maybe it proves another point, but I don't know.

I'm still a little disappointed that PROD system is missing from ro.wp and that there are still no bureaucrats, but that's just comparing en.wp to ro.wp. Therefore, I'm dropping those issues for now and letting the ro.wp community decide what to do for themselves without trying to govern them.

This leaves me with another question: should I participate in this RFC further? --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

More responses at my talk page were made. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Ark25. --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)