Talk:Request for comment/Political bias, nespotism, abuse and mob-rule at tr.wiki

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

6 months, not 2 years yet: "Requests for comment that are inactive for more than 2 years can be marked as closed due to inactivity."[edit]

Why was this closed? Wikipedia has just been opened from block in Turkey and people may join it. @~riley:, Please open it as the thread still has 1.5 years remaining. As Wikipedia is open in Turkey now I will ask some users to check the indictment and commentate on it. Kind regards, --Ruhubelent (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as unsuccessful, not as inactive. Closing statement is clearly outlined - there is no consensus for any action to be taken, with zero interest displayed by any member of the global community in a six month period. Your comments such as "Is that what what Wikipedia is?", "Wikimedia does not even supervise the event" and "let it be known Wikipedia is in no way a reliable place for information" have also not invited discussion. ~riley (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~riley, as far as I know there is no specified regulation or time period for closing an RFC as unsuccessful. Wikipedia was block in Turkey and had just been unblocked and your closing coincided with it, I will ask NEW Trwiki users who are interested in history to check this events, as the old ones were artificially selected ones that would not violate the mob. Please open it, you are doing something that is not found in regulations or rules. --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhubelent: Your RfC mentions that you were blocked and labeled as a sockpuppet, which your block log reflects. You claim that they dismissed your request to know which accounts you have allegedly used inappropriately. As you were blocked by a checkuser, you can consult the Ombudsman commission if you feel the checkuser right was abused and that your checkuser block is unjust. ~riley (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their ombudsman checkuser bureaucrat none of them is interested in anyone that violates their mob rule. Their guy, @Pragdon:, explicitly stated the following in a talk page of the bureaucrat @Vikiçizer: "I would not allow a change that would exalt Carter while diminishing Birand. I beg pardon for that." And even to that statements Vikiçizer did not reply even though that is a confession of bias, instead Vikiçizer blocked me. --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ombudsmann commission is an indepedent board that is non-biased, it has no connections to the wiki or the users you are discussing. ~riley (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I will contact them for the related issue @~riley:! The other issue has the priority and I kindly request you to open my RFC page as it still has time and there is no regulation like "closing if not responded in 6 months." Kind regards, --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, but I will not re-open the request for comment. It has been closed as unsuccessful, there is no consensus to suggest action or intervetion from the global community is needed. RFCs can be closed in as little as a few months. In this case, not a single other editor has commeted even when pinged. ~riley (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~riley, Wikipedia or Wikimedia or RFC's is not run by your opinions or thoughts, we are not here to obey your personal opinions. We are here to act according to the rules agreed and specified on the pages of Wikip/media, if there is a regulation like your statement here forward me that please if there is not then you have no right to close it. I kindly ask you to open it. Kind regards, --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ruhubelent; as previously indicated above, requests for comments can be closed even when they are not open for a two-year period of time. I have reverted your closure which was done in contention of the above discussion and protected the page. If the topic is still an issue, you are permitted to form a new RfC and carefully present your case. I do not recommend this, but it is your right. As the global community, including pinged individuals have taken no interest in this, it is evident that the case you have built either lacks evidence or is not strong enough to require action. ~riley (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi {U|~riley}}. If wikimedia has such a regulation, forward me please. As far as I saw there is no such regulation and your opinions are not binding unless they are some sort of a wikirule. Wikirules are explicit on it: 2 years. As for lack of attention, the page was closed on the day Wikipedia was unblocked in Turkey. New people with the native languahge of Turkish can attend it (or may be not as the mob may ban them as well) that is why it has to be opened. Kind regards, I kindly ask you to stop sabotaging my works. --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned by three editors (myself being one) - you are taking this to disruptive levels. A request for comment can be closed at any time, however, it can only be closed under the inactive clause after two years. Your RfC was closed as unsuccessful, not inactive, therefore your argument that it should have remained open for two years is unvalid. As I have offered you an alternative option, which would most likely result in a stronger case, there is no sabotage at play. I will not continue to respond. ~riley (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking it to disruptive level, ~riley. Wikimedia does not have a regularion like " The user ~riley can close A request for comment page at any time" o"rfc page can be closed at ny time." If there is, forward me. If no, your 'arguement' about it being can be closed at any time is a fiction and what you are doing is an abus, which is something I am trying to fight here. I will re-open a new page with the same content + a new one for your abuse of power.