Talk:Requests for comment/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Does this work at all?[edit]

Does this page have any purpose? My request has been ignored for a week now. --Дарко Максимовић 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it works. Maybe nobody has something to say to your request. --Thogo (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Common grammar would suggest that the non-plural "comment" is more correct, or, at least, less unwieldy, than "comments". I have conducted the move. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

GOK god only knows[edit]

Moved to Wikimedia Forum#GOK god only knows. Vapmachado 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How am I doing?[edit]

I wonder if you could honor me with some advice. I have been "cleaning up" and closing the Requests for comment. I reviewed all the old requests up to those closed from 2008. Before proceeding to the more recent ones I want to be sure that my procedures are correct, and that there is no conflict with some decisions made elsewhere that put in place different practices.


Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Open requests from before 2010[edit]

We're now 10 months into 2010. I note we still have open requests from previous years. It's probably time to start closing some as resolved or stale while flagging others as still relevant. --A. B. (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started to work on this a bit. Stale RfCs do more harm than good. They dilute attention that might be provided to open RfCs. In addition, what are really RfCs on an individual user are often presented as if they were general issues, with an obvious goal being to make a decision on a general issue in order to sanction an individual user, then, under a new "policy." These discussions, if not proceeding from a discussion on the relevant policy page, and then failure to find consensus there, can result in warped appearances. Further, there are quite a number of RfCs which attempt to address behaviors, individual or collective ("abusive administrators"), on individual wikis, and those discussions are misplaced at meta, and they are often unintelligible here, as meta users may not be familiar with the local issues. --Abd 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attck on individual[edit]

With due respect I would like you to interfere the personal attack on me Subhashish Panigrahi. Two of the other Wikipedians of Odia Wikipedia, ସମ୍ବିଧାନ ମହାନ୍ତି and Jyoti Prasad Pattnaik are consistently opposing each of my contributions instead of taking part in any constructive contribution. As the Odia Wikipedia is in its infancy such individual attack and opposition is deeply regretted and hurts. Please consider this and take necessary action. ସୁଭ ପା (Subhashish Panigrahi) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Open requests as early as 2008[edit]

How can it be so that there are requests still open from as early as 2008?

I have been blocked on a Wikipedia, an act which I consider unjustified and a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have been considering after numerous recommendations to lodge an RfC in here, but can I actually expect that my case will be reviewed and I'll be unblocked by the time my block actually expires? --SavoRastko 20:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is no concensus or solution, those remains open. But you can make your own request and let the people input their thoughts. But note that you shouldn´t expect some reactions as Wikipedia on croatian is leading with requests for comment. --WizardOfOz talk 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
My block is for three months (also lengthened for more than a week without any sort of explanation). Is this really the place where I can achieve my unblocking, should it be justified of course? --SavoRastko 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
To answer the user's question directly, no, you cannot expect to be locally unblocked based on a request here. You cannot expect review, even, from an RfC here, necessarily, unless it happens to inspire someone. That's not how the structure works. If there is an issue about the behavior of users here, or globally (many wikis), or about global rights or steward policy or global policies, etc., that may be appropriate here. It is possible that you can gain individual user attention here, advice, etc., but that is up to individual users, and what they can do may be limited. Stewards will not second-guess the local administrators. You'll need to work it out with them. If there is a truly abusive situation (involving many administrators) at a particular wiki, it will doubtless involve much more than you alone, but addressing it can be very difficult. If it is just your own individual situation, your best solution is to usually to negotiate with the blocking administrator(s). If you can convince them that unblocking you will not create problems, they will usually unblock. If you can convince enough local users to ask for a sysop's tools to be removed, and can document this on-wiki, showing a community consensus, you may then be able to convince a steward here to remove the tools. Alone, no. Can't be done, unless the abuse is so blatant that nobody could possibly miss it. Even then, unless the wiki only has one administrator, it can be awfully difficult. Stewards cannot run the individual wikis, the system depends on local control. --Abd 19:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem has just been enlarged to a significantly bigger magnitude. I have, almost immediately upon my return after the three-month periods' expiration, banned indefinitely from the Croatian Wikipedia by same administrator that has originally blocked me.
First of all, the incident of abuse of administration powers is indeed so blatant that nobody whatsoever could miss it. Second of all, from what I've heard over the past few months, the Croatian Wikipedia has got a heap of problems; some of the accusations are quite harsh - according to some, the Project has been kidnapped by a tyrannical few in power, who lawlessly spread their dictatorship on that particular Wikipedia for quite some time by now; the sole policy and/or guideline being the absolute and final word of the several dominating Administrators (who repeatedly sanction users for not obeying them and who, without any sort of revision or control, violate whatever so far written rule/guideline).
I do not know a lot about the mess is currently in, but it seems to me that there was recently a War of Administrators in which Admins, divided into two camps, frequently banned admins from the other group. I do not want to be drawn into something I am in no way a part of, but it seems to me that this personal conflict has resulted with that Wikipedia's ruination. Namely, in one final vote, they seem to have decided to disband their own Arbitration Committee, and have revoked the Admins' power to block other Administrators. The ArbCom seems to have been under the control of one of the two groups, while the group that was opposing it had eventually orchestrated the vote which eliminated the committee and implemented this rule. It now seems that the group that has, through the Wikipedia-wide vote, won this war, is now in basically undisputed and completely unsupervised control over the Wikipedia. The group behind the former committee seems to be in a minority and the only reason why they aren't blocked yet is probably due to the truce forcefully implemented by the removal of Administrators' powers to block other Admins. --SavoRastko 16:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There is one possible way to look at it: If it's such a mess, ask yourself "Why would I want to spend my time there?". After all, you're a volunteer. There comes a point when such politicking will be that wikipedia's own loss, not yours. Seb az86556 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
My intention was of noble cause. I think that the major cause of regional problems in the Balkans lies in the lack of communication. I have noticed that the three Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) are hoarded with unsourced propaganda, factual inaccuracies and completely POV data, especially when it comes to history. Over in the real life, I am a part of a project whose purpose is the pacification of the war-torn region of Former Yugoslavia, through historiographical and educational reform - for more information, you can refer to the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, I shall write no more, as this is getting far too private (if you are in any way interested, you can head over and read some of CDRSEE's books here).
Research shows that, apparently, an average internet user will look for its local Wikipedia to find information about the history of the other people, and is mostly interested exclusively in its own nation's version of history, without intentions to even try to consider the other side of coin. It is also a fact that mostly the young use this source of online information, and therefore the Wikipedia Project is, or actually recently has become, a significant factor in the education of the young, at least when it comes to the basic and general information. While this problem undoubtedly exists to its greatest extent when it comes to the Yugoslav Civil Wars of the 1990s, the same disease seems to be present basically throughout every single historically-related topic (which is a natural manifestation of politicized manipulation due to extremely nationalist and demagogic agenda).
My intention was to concentrate on the earliest periods of our regional national histories - the Early Middle Ages - for as farther from the recent wars it is, there is more chance to achieve some form of consensus and create at least somewhat objective articles, fulfilling the very basic requirements of NPOV - violation of which appears to be a symptom that contaminates all three Serbo-Croat Wikipedias. Of course, it would've been better that everyone was editing the Serbo-Croatian, since we all speak de facto the very same language anyway, but this is yet another reality that must be respected - this also does not mean that we know need to have three versions of exactly the same event - all Wikipedias must in the end strive to the direction of achieving as an objective presentation about a certain fact as possible.
While I would write about earliest Serbian national history over at the Croatian Wikipedia, a historian from Croatia would be engaged to write about Croatian over at the Serbian one, and then the whole idea would be brought over to the Bosnian. However, my permanent prevention of editing, through such completely unreasonable actions, seems to be an attempt of those forces that want to with every breath prevent the spread of objectivity and want to keep the Wikipedia as if their own private fief, and use it for the political purpose of spreading short-minded one-sided propaganda hiding behind a curtain of false patriotism.
Now, as the Croatian-language Wikipedia seems to be dysfunctional on a systematic level, and I am as I hear just one of many who has encountered this problem - and I ask this fully aware that local Wikipedias are autonomous and that the Stewerds do not run individual Wikipedias, as written slightly to the above - a question I pose: is it actually possible that the Stewards can actually permit such blatant misuse of the Wikimedia Project? --SavoRastko 20:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
In other words, obscure language Wikipedias are advancing obscure nationalist interests? Nothing new under the sun. See Requests for comment/POV in Chechen Wikipedia for a more obvious example. ASCIIn2Bme 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are there RFC/Us here?[edit]

I don't understand how people can be arguing RfC/Us here. For users, this is a remote backwater separated from most community input. For other language wiki users, moving the process here means that regardless of the language of their wiki, it's the English speakers who have the say. That just seems wrong to me. Besides, as pointed out above, these RfCs are not getting closed, but just fester for years. I think conduct-based RfCs on Meta should be limited to evaluations of entire small wikis, whether their administrators are doing a good job or acting as a clique, etc. which need some kind of Foundation-level reboot; or for evaluation of global bans of users who have earned a requisite number of active bans from individual projects. "Federal" stuff, in other words. This should not be a moot court for banned users to rag on random people in a sort of double jeopardy. Wnt 21:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I cannot file my RFC(u) on English Wikipedia because I am blocked there. Neither I got a dispute resolution, when I emailed to arbcom, or wait a minute, I did... they blocked me indefinitely on English wikipedia for filing the request at Meta :-) I know this request probably will not get users input, but IMO it is better to have it here than not to have it anywhere.--Mbz1 22:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This has been raised at Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. (Both my question and the RfC ultimately arise from w:User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Meta RfC) Wnt 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the case mentioned above, there is a need for editors to be able to escalate things to Meta. We have had issues where wikis drift away from the core Wikimedia values and so we need a process for people to escalate that here. But we need some safeguards that we don't currently seem to have, I suggest we should make Meta a final court of appeal for disputes where editors have:
  1. Only escalated matters here after exhausting the dispute resolution process on the local wiki.
  2. Before an RFC goes live here it needs some sort of endorsement process so that it isn't simply the action of one person, or of persons blocked on that wiki.
  3. The people criticised in the RFC need to be notified before it goes live. If the filer can't do that they need to find an endorser who can.
  4. The appeal needs to relate to structural or systematic issues and not an individual's block, ban or blocking.
WereSpielChequers 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There almost certainly should be more structure/validation in the process - I agree in principle with WereSpielChequers --Herby talk thyme 18:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The current process is open to abuse and can impugn reputations with callous disregard. There is a real need for reform to discuss scope and structure and to clearly have procedural fairness and a clear demonstration of natural justice. An RFC against a person should be a last resort and here it seemed to become a kangaroo court. billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any abuse of the RfC. What WereSpielChequers asks is already enforced when evaluating RfCs, with the only difference that RfC are open for discussion until closed. If users comment on useless RfCs or spread drama about them it's not te RfC's fault. Bringing here people who don't know Meta, cross-wiki issues and RfC system is usually the real problem. Nemo 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't like to hear any complaints about "bringing here people who don't know Meta". This wiki is a service project for people from outside, and nothing else. It is only natural that people from the various content-producing wikis come here only on rare occasions, to get some exceptional business done. Accommodating such people is the one and only purpose this project has. And if this project is to serve as a "court of appeal" for anything at all, how are you going to legitimize it if not through the participation of those outsiders? Are you really proposing that decisions should be made by the tiny group of self-selected regulars who have the privilege of "knowing the place"? Fut.Perf. 10:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know of any other way to get something discussed unless it is given as information to the community where it has an impact, and would feel it wrong to not to alert a community. If we alert the community this will pretty well bring in newbies. That then says is there a benefit to have a framework to assist responding to what needs to be known, rather than the current muttered "imported newbie" accusation. billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Well... that's basically what's been happening. Seb az86556 10:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What we actually want is that people that come to vote after they got info from external (with respect to Meta) sources understand what they vote for/against, and not just translate someone's opinion they heard. I have seen examples when a sensible initiative was being discussed here, with long arguments and corrections to the text, then suddenly a hundred users from English Wikipedia appeared with no previous contribution on Meta, voted it down without citing any arguments, and the initiative was instantly dead. As I mentioned in my remark on English Wikipedia, Meta is not a cabal, not a place for edit warring, it is a place where cross-project initiatives are discussed, and the idea is not to kill all of them just because they might potentially affect English Wikipedia in opinion of User XYZ who did not even care to read them properly but instead left a post somewhere, but to collaborate in creating sensible policies.--Ymblanter 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
As you may guess, I clicked my way over here from discussion at English Wikipedia. It is an unfortunate reality that the only way many people will discover Meta is during times like these. I have been watching and reading several discussions here about the subject and researching what goes on around Meta. I agree with everything in the post above by User:WereSpielChequers. From my perspective, what the post by User:Nemo_bis misses is that, by only addressing the propriety of bringing the claim at the close of the RFC, Meta would allow an editor's name to be dragged through the mud even if claims in the RFC have been repeatedly rebuffed by multiple levels of oversight at the local wiki. That concern is not just valid in the recent case (I have not been around Wikipedia long enough to know or care about anyone involved) but for the future as well. - UnbelievableError 04:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WSC's comment, especially the 4th point. See separate section below. SJ talk | translate   15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's quite incredible that a process that's supposed to be (according to some, anyway) a final appeal stop, has approximately zero process attached to it. No certification or qualification requirements, no guidelines on closure (not even a time limit!), no concept of linking with prior dispute resolution, not even a notification requirement of the home wiki. For something potentially (and at times perhaps actually) so important, it looks like something thought up on the back of a very small envelope. I can't even find any discussion in Meta archives that such a process was ever authorised through community discussion. It seems to have just materialised because somebody thought it was a good idea. Rd232 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The non-notification RfC's are indeed a problem. They often linger on for weeks and months without the discussed parties even knowing about it. Seb az86556 00:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The lingering RfC/Us would be less on an issue if they were excluded by default from search engine queries. Try googling for "dishonest and untruthful" and you'll see what I mean. Try it on bing too. In both engines I get the GG RfC on the first page of results. ASCIIn2Bme 01:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I don't see anything surprising. RfC is just a discussion venue for all sorts of Meta and cross-wiki issues and actions (which doesn't mean only "from Meta to elsewhere" but "from any wiki to another", where from just means done by users mainly active in etc.) by individuals and groups of individuals: it doesn't have any special power attached to it. For instance, the most powerful action which can happen after a RfC is probably a deflag from a steward: but that's still a steward action; it could be requested on SRP and it's placed here only for convenience, its legitimacy doesn't come from the RfC but from the mandate of the steward which judges it (of course a broad consensus manifested in a legitimate and trasparent way helps every action). I give more exmplaes of this in the next two sections.
We could write down some guidelines to help "outsiders" understand how some requests are usually dealt with (there's hardly something new being proposed), but it would perhaps best done with a community essay somewhere at most, in Meta's tradition of loose formality. An actual formalisation of RfC can happen only when it is the formal place to discuss some particular actions attached to it, for instance if a Global requests committee is created, with some powers and process for it. Nemo 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If it all comes down to a deflag from a steward, then there is no reason not to raise it at SRP. The raising of it via TLDR walls of text in Meta RFC is really the crux of this discussion. I think that the main objection here is that unfounded accusations can be misconstrued (via search engines) as the TRUTH. If the GRC, which is currently in RFC is required to discuss whether an RCF is needed to discuss the RFC....Heck, I don't even know where to go from there. - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC's should address structural and systematic issues[edit]

RFC's, particularly those involving individual user behavior, should focus on structural and systematic issues, not an individual's block or ban on any one project. (Though a structural or systematic issue can be highlighted by how one or a few individuals are treated.) I propose explicitly mentioning RfCs about users and user interactions - perhaps they should have a separate column - and adding a line about this constraint to the page description. SJ talk | translate  

  • I think for projects with broken dispute resolution system we should consider individual blocks as well - it of course a systemic problem, but the solution of this problem can take years, and an individual is blocked right now, and stewards can not unblock them without an RFC.--Ymblanter 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ymblanter is right. I think the issue should be framed in the opposite way: not the problem, but the solution should be systematic, if possible. This is why intervention "from outside" is usually accepted only if "in emergency". For instance, it's useless to desysop a single abusive admin if he's going to be re-sysoped out of process by a local crat when "Meta" is looking elsewhere. In such a case, either the desysop was wrong or it wasn't enough. All this is very hard to generalise, though. Nemo 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've considered this issue when drafting my proposal on refining the scope of RfC/Us conducted here. Alas, on very small wikis the two issues may be indistinguishable. An admin banning the ten or so other users from a tiny wiki, leaving practically just himself as the lone editor there is hard to discuss in impersonal terms, e.g. Requests for comment/ПешСай@mhr.wikipedia. There was a brief prior dialogue about this in the RfC on RfC/Us starting at timestamp 05:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC). I'd like to hear suggestions how to overcome this difficulty in practice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment about low-traffic wiki actions[edit]

This page can also be used for discussion of non-conversations on small wikis. For instance, places where outsiders (perhaps hardly proficient in the language of the wiki) are taking actions without having found editors on the relevant project to engage. This sometimes happens around bot implementation, interwikis, &c. SJ talk | translate   15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(moving an older comment from 2009 here to the talk page)
Of course (although this comment is not particularly clear I guess). As I said above, RfC can be used for all sorts of things and don't have any particular power atached to them. In your example, it would just be a way for some users to discuss how far they can go in their own actions on some wikis. If the bot policy asks for community consensus before some actions, but the local community doesn't reply, the bot owner could either claim to have local consensus or seek for some more discussion elsewhere. Nemo 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Internet, the commercial part.[edit]

The following question was inappropriate for the page, and was just removed as "spam," but it may not have been spam, but just what it purported to be. Instead of reverting it back, I am simply placing it in the archive. --Abd (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about this topic. My question is after the following short background.

The government path for the creation of the Internet is well known. The commercial path has mostly but not entirely been ignored since the early 1990s when all commercial Value Added Networks switched from other technology to use IP when they became ISPs instead of VANs. The commercial path is partially documented at:

See the rise of the Internet environment defined in the 1985 IBM Information Network Marketing Guide

See 1985 to 1988 announcemnts and news letters for the electronic highway activity before IP,

In an article called “What Is The Internet (And What Makes It Work) - December, 1999 By Robert E. Kahn and Vinton G. Cerf” they write:



"For a long time, the federal government did not allow organizations to connect to the Internet to carry out commercial activities. By 1988, it was becoming apparent, however, that the Internet's growth and use in the business sector might be seriously inhibited by this restriction."


It is clear that the developers if TCP/IP knew of the existing commercial business model when they adopted it in 1988. That is when Al Gore helped the Internet by working to get funding and getting government approval to enter and compete with the existing larger commercial public and business Value Added Netrwork. That is when IP began is's change from used just for closed government research networks to be used by open commercial network service providers as a preferred technology.

The commercial Internet Business Model was in place in 1985 as shown in the Marketing guide. The Business model, originated in 1980 was very simple. Back then, there were millions of users on tens of thousands of closed or private networks. Over 80% of computers were sold by IBM. When a computer owner needed software support, the IBM System Engineer or Program Support Representative would go to an IBM facility with online access to IBM’s networks. They would do research and load a fix on a tape. Then they would drive back to the customer location. Since the information was in electronic form, it could be delivered electronically if there were a connection between IBM and the customer. In 1980, I was an IBM Washington System Center Representative who worked in the Systems Management department and observed a customer satisfaction and productivity approach with long term broad significants. Provide electronic delivery instead instead of hand deliver to save time and expense. I wrote the Architecture and Strategy to electronically do business between and among all online computers users. It was based on one original statement:

If it can be recorded electronically, it can be delivered electronically.

That initiated the philosophy that any user on any network should be able to communicate with any user on any other network and should be able to access any application on any network when authorized. The architecture and strategy was an approach to deliver that vision.

The IBM Information Network formally embraced the ECS architecture and strategy in 1983. The approach is simple. Step 1, Many of IBM’s customers were also suppliers. Connecting both customers and suppliers made it a two way electronic business solution. That prime driver was the IBM support services delivered electronically. – Step 2, Once IBM’s customers and suppliers were connected to a common network for electronic business with IBM, those same customers and suppliers could use the same connection to perform their own electronic business with their customers and suppliers. Step two was a simple expansion of the IBM to many to allow any to any. The cost benefit work had been completed for communication with IBM. The subsequent business to business electronic communication was virtually cost free productivity gain. – Step 3, While step one and two concentrated primarily on IBM and it’s large and medium size customers and suppliers, step three went after other enterprises or smaller enterprises who might not be IBM customers or suppliers. A person who makes belts for a retailer might have just a PC. Their electronic business activity could also be conducted through the global network. – Step 4 consisted of the end customer who is the general public who purchased anything from any company. That leads to Step 5 which is the ultimate goal to allow the architect (and you) to communicate with those who he does business with as well as friends and family along with access to a myriad information sources, applications or users. One of my responsibilities at the IBM Global Network between 1983 and 1996 was being the owner of the Architecture and strategy.

That information and more can be found at the linked site. That information is an important part of history that will likely eventually become common knowledge. I maintain my site with the information but will not be able to indefinitely. To reduce the possible loss of that information and more, I believe it is important to have an article in WIKI.

Before I try to write it, I would like to know that it will be accepted. Perhaps, more important, I solicit support and writer who can freely use the information at my site. I have a couple of complete 1985 Marketing Guides showing the Internet Business Model included as the basis of the IBM Information Network Marketing approach. I can scan the complete document to share in WIKI,.

Will this article be welcome and will anybody who is versed in submitting stuff to WIKI help get it published before it is lost? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 613Don (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2012

This is not the place to ask this question, as is fairly obvious from the lack of response. Your original research might be deleted on any WMF wiki, except for Wikiversity, where it could be welcome, and where you may write with relative freedom. Go to en.wikiversity. You will have maximum freedom if you draft your essay or article in your own user space there. Say that you want to title the possible educational resource, "History of commercial internet." If you log in here, then go to v:User:613Don/History of commercial internet you may see a page creation screen. If you don't show up as a user on Wikiversity, logged in, create your account there, it may be the same name or different. Then go back to that page creation screen. Your page may, if appropriate, later be moved into mainspace. Ask for help or advice before doing that. Under this account, at least, you have only this edit in your contributions history, across all WMF wikis, so you are pretty likely to be clueless. Nothing wrong with that, most of us started there. If you had the information above placed there, it would be extremely unlikely to be deleted, and it would also not be deleted if placed directly in mainspace. It might be moved to a more appropriate location than you'd put it, perhaps. Just be cooperative and Wikiversity is a very safe place. We keep it that way.
I could, in fact, create that page there myself, but I'd rather you be in charge of, at first, your own creation. --Abd (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Skulduggery scheme detected on Bulgarian Wikipedia[edit]

Strange activity is recently detected on Bulgarian Wikipedia concerning articles about the History of Bulgaria and origin of Bulgarians. Many pages are abused from a couple of people namely : Jingiby (user), and the following administrators: Vodnokon4e, Izvora, Алиса Селезньова, Лорд Бъмбъри. The usual scheme is : if someone new starts to contribute to an article concerning Bulgarian history, the user Jingiby reverts his edits. Jingiby never writes anything, his sole activity on Wikipedia is to delete the contributions of other users. At some point one or two of the aforementioned administrators support Jingiby, the final outcome is that the article is locked and the poor new contributor to BG Wikipedia is blocked from editing. For example:

1. Article "Дуло" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Vodnokon4e helps him, finally the article is locked by Izvora :

2. Article " Прабългарски руни" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Vodnokon4e and Лорд Бъмбъри help him, finally the article is locked by Izvora :

3. Article " Утигури" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Izvora helps him, finally the article is locked by Лорд Бъмбъри  :

4. Article " Крум" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Алиса Селезньова helps him, finally the article is locked by Izvora:

5. Article "Омуртаг" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Vodnokon4e helps him, finally the article is locked by Izvora :

6. Article "Умор" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Vodnokon4e and Алиса Селезньова help him, finally the article is locked by Алиса Селезньова:

7. Article "Малая Перешчепина" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Алиса Селезньова helps him, finally the article is locked by Izvora:

8. Article "Савин" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Лорд Бъмбъри helps him, finally the article is locked by Izvora :

9. Article "Кубер" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Алиса Селезньова helps him, finally the article is locked by Izvora :

10. Article "Българи" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Лорд Бъмбъри and Vodnokon4e help him, finally the article is locked by Алиса Селезньова :

11. Article "Именник на българските ханове" : Jingiby is reverting the new edits, Лорд Бъмбъри helps him, finally the article is locked by Алиса Селезньова :

Following this scheme many articles ( some more are: "Произход на прабългарите", "Винех", "Кубрат", "Тервел", "Телец", "Плиска", "Българските земи под османско владичество", "Кан(титла)", "Битката при Върбишкия проход", "Аспарух", and probably many more ) are abused, vandalized and distorted. Personally I can speak about the article "Huns", in Bulgarian "Хуни" - I added some information on English Wikipedia about the origin of the Huns, article "Huns", section " Evidence against the link with Xiongnu" as a user The information was accepted very well in English Wikipedia and it is still on the article, it is supported by academic sources and world-wide renowned scientist. Basically it says that European Huns originated from the people known to the Chinese as Yuezhi, not from Xiongnu. I was greatly surprised when I was not able to add the same information in Bulgarian Wikipedia. The information was constantly deleted by Jingiby. I filed a complaint on administrators noticeboard that this user was removing information supported by academic sources without any reason, you can read the complaint here:

Nothing happened and my complaint was neglected, the user Jingiby continued to remove the information. Finally I received a message from the administrator Петър Петров that I should not add this information on the article. I asked why and pointed out that the same information is added on English Wikipedia. I didn't received any meaningful answer and finally I was blocked from editing. The problem, as I see it, is that the Bulgars who founded Bulgarian state were Huns, at least a branch of European Huns and their origin is in Central Asia and it is intimately related with the origin of the Huns. The topic is very controversial in Bulgaria, but such behavior from Wikipedia Administrators is unacceptable, to put it mildly.

The way these people distort articles clearly shows that they are of Turkic origin, there is a small Turk minority in Bulgaria. For example they don't use the phrase Turkic bondage referencing the period 15-19 centuries of our history, they used the euphemistic phrase Ottoman rule. They insist that proto-Bulgarians who founded Bulgarian state were of Turkic origin and foist this hypothesis on every article. Such hypothesis exist, but there are other hypothesis (actually they were of Hunnic origin - article Utigurs), but you cannot write them on the articles, you will be blocked for this. Many more examples can be stated but I will stop at this point. Wikipedia is not a place for political and nationalist agenda and someone should stop these people. Obviously they are organized group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015

Request for commennt & revision of blocking for Yahadzija[edit]

Dear Members of Unblock Review Team,

  1. The blocking campaign was conducted biased, especially by C3r4 (personal intolerance) and Wolverene (?!);
  2. You blocked two network servers with multiple users;
  3. Yahadzija was among the 10 most efficient users.

If you unblock me, I will respect all of your instructions!

Yahadzija —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesimisti (talk)