Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Conduct

< Requests for comment | 2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia | Evidence

The following request for comments is closed. The information gathering period is over. Please see the main RfC page for more info.

Welcome!

On this page you may find submitted information bearing on allegations of questionable conduct of particular users toward others on Croatian Wikipedia. This page's fork maintained at Croatian Wikipedia contains much of the same information, and may still be open for new submissions.

Please visit the content page or its fork if you are looking for information related to the content of Croatian Wikipedia articles, or the process of editing them.

The process of gathering information and commenting on it are closed, along with the discussion of the process on the talk page.

Dobro došli!

Na ovoj stranici nalaze se podneseni podaci vezani uz moguće upitne postupke pojedinih suradnika prema ostalima na hrvatskoj Wikipediji. Ogranak ove stranice koji održava hrvatska Wikipedija također sadrži mnoge od ovih podataka, i moguće je da još prima nove podneske.

Molimo posjetite stranicu o sadržaju ili njezin ogranak ako tražite podatke vezane uz sadržaj članaka hrvatske Wikipedije, te uz postupak njihova uređivanja.

Postupak prikupljanja podataka i komentiranja su završeni, kao i rasprava o postupku na stranici za razgovor.

Instructions - Upute

edit
General instructions - Opće upute
Languages

These pages are bilingual, in English and Croatian. If you can, please enter your submissions and comments in English, so they are comprehensible to the wider Wikimedia community. However, if you are not sufficiently fluent in English, feel free to use Croatian or any Wikipedia language closely related to Croatian. Please use Latin script exclusively.

Identity

You are free to contribute anonymously. Please sign and date your contributions with your user name or IP address by using four tildes: ~~~~.

Sorted submissions

Every submission consists of

  1. a label indicating what is being documented (block, warning, abusive behavior);
  2. at least one piece of explicit supporting information (a link to a page version, a version diff, or a user block log);
  3. a brief description;
  4. user or IP address signature and date, as above.

Please feel free to use one of the outlines or existing submissions as a guide, simplifying it or elaborating it to fit your needs.

Please sort your submissions by user name, and add them to the appropriate subsections under "Sorted submissions". If a subsection with the appropriate user name does not exist, please feel free to create it.

Comments

Comments follow each submission in the "Sorted submissions" section.

The purpose of the comments is to gather a full range of opinions on the information submitted. It is a survey, not a vote. An example of a similar survey on English Wikipedia can be found here.

Feel free to comment on any submission, or to respond directly to an existing comment by indenting your reply just below it. Please keep in mind that brief, on-topic comments are the most informative.

Unsorted submissions

If you do not have explicit information about your submission, but have its description or a link to a media report you believe is relevant, please add it to the "Unsorted submissions" section. This section serves as a record of reports that could potentially lead to identifying specific instances of questionable conduct.

Request

The only page edits we will delete are outright vandalism. However, your contributions will be the most constructive if you hold to the basic guidelines of Wikipedia: assume good faith, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Many thanks!

Jezici

Ove stranice su dvojezične, na engleskom i hrvatskom. Ako možete, molimo Vas unosite podneske i komentare na engleskome, kako bi ih razumijela šira zajedica Wikimedije. Međutim, ako ne vladate engleskim jezikom u dovoljnoj mjeri, slobodno se koristite hrvatskim ili bilo kojim Wikipedijinim jezikom blisko srodnim hrvatskome. Molimo Vas koristite isključivo latinično pismo.

Identitet

Slobodno doprinosite ovoj stranici anonimno. Molimo potpišite Vaše doprinose suradničkim imenom ili IP adresom, te datumom, pomoću četiri tilde: ~~~~.

Razvrstani podnesci

Svaki podnesak treba sadržavati

  1. oznaku koja opisuje što se dokumentira (blokiranje, upozorenje, napadačko ponašanje);
  2. barem jedan konkretan popratni podatak (poveznica na inačicu stranice, na razliku između inačica, ili na evidenciju blokiranja suradnika);
  3. kratak opis;
  4. potpis suradnika ili IP adrese, s datumom, vidi gore.

Slobodno iskoristite skice ili postojeće podneske kao smjernice, te ih pojednostavite ili razradite po potrebi.

Molimo razvrstajte podneske po suradničkim imenima, te ih dodajte u odgovarajuće pododjeljke pod "Razvrstani podnesci". Ako pododjeljak s odgovarajućim suradničkim imenom ne postoji, slobodno ga započnite.

Komentari

Komentari slijede svaki podnesak u odjeljku "Razvrstani podnesci".

Svrha komentara je sakupljanje punog raspona mišljenja o podnesenim podacima. Ona je anketa, a ne glasovanje. Primjer slične ankete na engleskoj Wikipediji možete naći ovdje.

Slobodno komentirajte svaki podnesak, ili izravno odgovorite na postojeći komentar tako da umetnete odgovor odmah ispod njega. Molimo imajte na umu da su sažeti komentari koji se drže teme najinformativniji.

Nerazvrstani podnesci

Ako nemate konkretne podatke o Vašem podnesku, ali imate njegov opis ili poveznicu na napis u medijima koji smatrate bitnim, molim Vas dodajte ga u odjeljak "Nerazvrstani podnesci". Taj odjeljak služi kao spremište napisa koji bi mogli pomoći u identificiranju konkretnih primjera upitnih postupaka.

Molba

S ovih stranica brisat ćemo samo očigledan vandalizam. Međutim, Vaši doprinosi biti će najkonstruktivniji ako se držite osnovnih smjernica Wikipedije: pretpostavite dobru namjeru, Wikipedija nije govornica, Wikipedija nije bojište. Hvala lijepa!

Information about conduct - Podaci o postupanju
The purpose of information about conduct is to assist in evaluating the allegations that sysops on Croatian Wikipedia exercised their privileges in a counterproductive, unfair, or abusive manner. Such information may include:
  • Evidence of questionable blocks or warnings;
  • Evidence of alleged verbal pressure or abuse from sysops;
  • Evidence of alleged verbal pressure or abuse from other users that was not properly sanctioned;
  • Indications of pressure or abuse outside of Wikipedia.

If questionable conduct contributed to bias in article content, please also submit it to the content page.

Svrha podataka o postupanju jest da služe pri ocjeni navoda da su administratori na hrvatskoj Wikipediji obnašali svoje dužnosti na kontraproduktivan, nepravedan, ili napadački način. Takvi podaci npr. uključuju
  • Evidenciju upitnih blokiranja ili upozorenja;
  • Evidenciju mogućih verbalnih pritisaka ili napada od strane administratora;
  • Evidenciju mogućih verbalnih pritisaka ili napada od strane drugih korisnika koji nisu propisno kažnjeni;
  • Naznake pritisaka ili napada izvan Wikipedije.

Ako je upitno ponašanje doprinijelo pristranosti sadržaja članka, molimo to navedite također i na stranici o sadržaju.

Submission outlines - Skice podnesaka

edit
Please feel free to simplify or elaborate these outlines to fit your needs. Slobodno pojednostavite ili razradite ove skice prema potrebi.
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Sysop name - Ime admina; User name - Ime suradnika; Date of block - Datum blokiranja; Block period - Razdoblje blokiranja
Block record (diff or block log) - Zapis blokiranja (razlika između inačica ili evidencija); Reason for block - Razlog blokiranja
Description: (more information about the block, such as block log, what led to it, why it is questionable, and what followed afterward - dodatni podaci o blokiranju, npr. evidencija blokiranja, što je dovelo do njega, zašto je upitno, i što je uslijedilo)
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Name of alleged perpetrator - Ime navodnog izvršitelja; User name - Ime suradnika; Date - datum
Action evidence (diff) - Evidencija postupka (razlika između inačica)
Description: (more information about the action, such as what led to it, why it is questionable, and what followed afterward - dodatni podaci o postupku, npr. što je dovelo do njega, zašto je upitan, i što je uslijedilo)

Sorted submissions - Razvrstani podnesci

edit
This section contains claims of questionable conduct, supported by explicit information, and classified by sysop or user name. Ovaj odjeljak sadrži navode o upitnom postupanju, potkrijepljene konkretnim podacima, te razvrstane po imenu suradnika ili administratora.

SpeedyGonsales

edit
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales blocked Suradnik:Koryaksky on 2013-09-17 for 3 months.
Description: After the negative texts about Croatian Wikipedia in the media, this incident happened: User:Koryaksky simply publicly asked administrators to declare themselves with regards to media accusations about fascism, but SpeedyGonsales blocked him for 3 months [1]. Explanation: "Administrators are volunteers, last week they went through a mud-campaign in the newspapers, and now someone asks administrators to go in line in 24 or 48 hours? That's not the Wiki-spirit, that is an aggressive personal attack that we never tolerated, and won't do so even today". --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opis: Nakon pojavljivanja negativnih tekstova o hrvatskoj wikipediji u masmedijima, suradnik Koryasky je javno upitao administratore da se očituju o medijskim optužbama za fašizam [2]. Speedy Gonzales je suradnika blokirao tri mjeseca [3] s objašnjenjem: " Administratori su volonteri, prošli tjedan su oklevetani u novinama, i sad će netko administratore pozivati na red u roku 24 ili 48 sati? To nije wikiduh, to je agresivni osobni napad kakve nikad nismo tolerirali, pa nećemo ni danas." (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Oppose Oppose Koryaksky se ponio krajnje nekolegijalno, nedolično, nepristojno. 10 godina ni jedna znanstvena ustanova nije nam prigovorila netočnost, pa ni mediji. A onda je izronila ova medijska hajka (prvo je bilo pljuvanje s Facebooka: zar Vam je to neutralni "znanstveni izvor"), a onda neki mediji. Admini su se jasno ogradili od kleveta.
Po čemu Koryaksky sebe smatra za bezgrješnog i nepristranog, a sve druge dosadašnje čitatelje i urednike u pristrane (+ini pogrdni epiteti)?
Ovakvi [4] komentari pripadaju inkviziciji: "jesi li vještica". Višestruka zapitkivanja već odgovorenih stvari - to je troliranje. Takva zapitkivanja (i još se zadaje rokove) sliče na sudnicu, policijsko saslušanje, zatvorsko saslušanje, Stanfordski zatvorski pokus (ovo sve sliči na "Jesi li to? Govori! Priznaj!" - a ovdje i piše "da bez daljnjeg izvrdavanja ...odgovorite na pitanja koje sam postavio " [5]) A Wikipedija nije mjesto gdje će netko sprovoditi svoje pokuse. Kubura (razgovor) 04:48, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST)
Kubura writes "For 10 years not a single scientific institution did not have a complaint against us, not even the media. And then this media lynch showed up (first we had spitting from Facebook: is that Your neutral "scientific source?"), and then some media. Admins clearly distanced themselves from libel."
Not true, H-Alter already complained about the texts in February 2012. If you had corrected all those articles mentioned there, there would not have been a second wave of criticism. Also, in 2007, Croatian Wikipedia only had 30,000 articles and probably did not have that much controversial content to begin with, anyway. The admin did not clearly distance himself. If he had, he would have simply responded to Koryansky and said that he is not biased in any way, that he is neutral. But when an admin block users for simply asking questions, then that is suspicious.
Kubura writes:"Why does Koryaksky consider himself to be immaculate and unbiased, and all other readers and editers biased?"
Koryaksky did not say everyone is biased, just certain administrators. Nor did he say he is perfect. He just asked a simple question.
Kubura writes: "These [6] comments belong to the Inquistion: "Are you a witch?". Numerous questioning of already anwsered topics - that is trolling. Such questioning (even with deadlines) remind of a court, police investigation, jail interrogation, Stanford prison experiment."
Why is it so hard for an admin to simply say: "I am unbiased and neutral"? Where did he already anwser the question? Koryaksky did not ask the same question for ten months, just once, and he never got a clear anwser from SpeedyGonsales.--Seiya (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura iznosi neistine. Nije istina da nije bilo prigovora 10 godina, vidi komentare na Meti o tome. Ovdje se uporno tumači da je "wikipediju napao Juutarnji list", a to je samo jedan od desetaka medija koji su pisali o nepravilnostima ovdje. Drugo, ne vidim da "Koryaksky sebe smatra za bezgrješnog i nepristranog", to je čisti slamnati argument od strane Kubure. --Argo Navis (razgovor) 08:28, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) :[reply]
  • Argo Navis iznosi neistine. Kubura je napisao 10 godina ni jedna znanstvena ustanova nije nam prigovorila netočnost, pa ni mediji. Hrvatskoj wikipediji nijedna znanstvena ustanova nije prigovorila netočnosti, a ako se u medijima nešto i komentiralo, komentiralo se u duhu naglašavanja da wikipedija ne može biti izvor za neki znanstveni rad zbog svoje biti, slobodne enciklopedije koju svatko može mijenjati, te ju se zapravo može rabiti samo kao polaznu točku u radu, iako u mnogim slučajevima najbolju dostupnu polaznu točku.
  • Nadalje, wikipediju nije napalo desetak medija, nego je Jutarnji list prenio hajku s Facebooka, a dio hrvatskih medija je prenio u većem ili manjem obimu navode Jutarnjega. Npr. HND je na svojim stranicama prenosilo članak s Tportala, koji je nedavno, nakon objavljivanja mog ispravka u Jutranjem listu uklonjen sa stranica HND-a.
  • Seiya također u najmanju ruku situaciju prikazuje krajnje izvitopereno, nije točno da suradnik Koryasky je javno upitao administratore, nego je točno da je suradnik (s koliko uređivanja?) napisao da se prozvani administratori trebaju (moraju?) izjasniti bez daljnjeg izvrdavanja. Ako Seiya (i Argo Navis) tu ne vide osobni napad i pritisak na administratore, koji ne rade na normu, ako ne vide tu pretpostavljanje loše namjere (pretpostavlja se da se netko "izvrdava", što god ta riječ značila), to samo znači da su suradnici Seiya i Argio Navis krajnje pristrani ili pak ne shvaćaju pravilo wikipedije o pretpostavljanju dobre namjere. Ako je ovo drugo, onda je svo njihovo pisanje po ovoj stranici ništavno i valja ga ukloniti, ako je ovo prvo, onda takva uređivanja valja tretirati kao kršenje jednog od pet osnovnih stupova wikipedije - wikipedija ima pravila ponašanja - Poštujte druge Wikipediste čak i kada se ne slažete s njima. Budite kulturni. Izbjegavajte osobne napade i pretjerane rasprave. Suradnik Koryaksky ne poštuje nijednog suradnika Wikipedije (jer nikome se ne smije napisati da mora nešto bez daljeg izvrdavanja), Seiya iskrivljava istinu, dok Argo Navis nekritički brani Koryakskyja i Seiyu, što znači da ne poštuje suradnike i podržava Seiyino iskrivljavanje istine. SpeedyGonsales 10:01, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) :[reply]
  • Prvo da se ispričam Željku jer sam obećao da ako me odblokira da više neću toliko raspravljati nego se više posvetiti člancima. Međutim, ja sam za to da se ove stvari rasčiste i da vrijeme utrošeno na rasčišćavanje ovih stvari nije bačeno vijeme. Također, ne bi htio da se bilo što što ću reći tumači kao nekakva provokacija, jer mi nije namjera da nekoga namjerno provociram ili da se s nekim svađam. Ova napomena posebno važi za Speedija, ali i za Željka jer vas dvojica imate običaj da benigne stvari izrečene u najboljoj namjeri protumačite kao nekakve osobne napade i općenito se prilično paranoidno pronašate. Ja vas molim da sad ne krenete sa prozivkama (i blokiranjima) jer sam vas "uvrijedio" time što smatram da ste paranoidni. To (1) nije nikakva uvreda nego je moje (2) osobno mišljenje i na kraju moje pravo (3), a na vama je, ako želite, da me razuvjerite. Sve ostalo što možete poduzeti (npr. blokiranje) bi bilo zloupotrebljavanje vaših ovlasti, a potvrdilo bi moju tezu.
Što se tiče korisnika Koryaksky, čitao sam njegove postove i koliko se sjećam, on nije nikoga uvrijedio. Tražio je da se prozvani admini očituju o situaciji što admini nisu napravili. Štoviše, tražio je očitovanje admina više puta i nije dobio odgovor. Ako su prozvani admini čitali što piše na kafiću (a po odgovorima na druge postove zaključujem da jesu) onda je neodgovraranje na njegovo pitanje zapravo izbjegavanje odgovaranja. U toj situaciji blokirati nekoga jer je upotrjebio riječ "izvrdavanje" umjesto "izbjegavanje" je po meni krajnje neprimjereno! Pogotovo jer je blokiranje izrečeno na 3 mjeseca. Nije mi jasno ni to odakle ti Speedy izvlačiš da je Koryaksky napisao "da mora nešto bez daljeg izvrdavanja"? Ne sjećam se točno detalja jer je prošlo dosta vremena, ali sam prililčno siguran da je napisao nešto tipa da vi admini ne morate odgovoriti ali da je i to odgovor (uz to da je neodgovaranje izvrdavanje). Pozivam nekog od admina da čovjeka odblokira (ako je uopće tu više) pa neka sam raspravi. Speedy, smatram da bi taj admin koji će ga odblokirati mogao biti baš ti :) Imbehind (razgovor) 21:40, 24. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) :[reply]
[7] Imbehinde, nisi nikad uređivao hr.wiki, ne znaš u koje situacije upadaju uređivači, još manje znaš s kojim se stvarima susreću ophoditelji i admini (koji ovdje godinama rade), a dolaziš ih kritizirati za nešto što nisi nikad radio niti uopće shvaćaš. Kao da netko bez dana kirurške škole ide govoriti iskusnim kirurzima kako će raditi. Kubura (razgovor) 23:05, 26. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) :[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It's a bit strange to oppose critic of your own decision, but if users who gave no or weak and misguided argumentation for their "vote" can use voting signs, I suppose I can use them to. This concern is also raised and addressed on hr wiki, which is clearly stated at the bottom of this very page, and can be checked here, if you understand Croatian language. I'll address this also here, as the best way to show that there is no real issues on Croatian language Wikipedia is to clearly show that everything is result of a pile of misinterpretations.
User Seiya wrote: After the negative texts about Croatian Wikipedia in the media, this incident happened:
User Seiya wrote: User:Koryaksky simply publicly asked administrators to declare themselves with regards to media accusations about fascism
  • User Seiya is misinterpreting facts. I wrote above that User:Koryaksky did not assume good faith, he actually asked admins to answer to his question(s) (or some question(s)) to him (or to community) without further hesitation and delay (da bez daljnjeg izvrdavanja). That in my book is presumption that somebody is hesitating and delaying.
User Seiya wrote: but SpeedyGonsales blocked him for 3 months [8]. Explanation: "Administrators are volunteers, last week they went through a mud-campaign in the newspapers, and now someone asks administrators to go in line in 24 or 48 hours? That's not the Wiki-spirit, that is an aggressive personal attack that we never tolerated, and won't do so even today".
  • Not 100% adequate translation on behalf of user Seiya, I'll try to give a better one: (first original: tako se nećemo razgovarati. Administratori su volonteri, prošli tjedan su oklevetani u novinama, i sad će netko administratore pozivati na red u roku 24 ili 48 sati? To nije wikiduh, to je agresivni osobni napad kakve nikad nismo tolerirali, pa nećemo ni danas.)
  • This is not the way. Administrators are volunteers, last week they were defamed and slandered in (some) newspapers, and now somebody will order to administrators that they have to answer to some question(s) in term of 24 or 48 hours? That is not Wiki-spirit, that is an aggressive personal attack that we never tolerated, so we will not tolerate them on this day.
  • What to say? If your project is under media attack, and you contacted attorney (I have), and then somebody orders you to report like orderly, is that wiki spirit? Is that good and friendly conduct expected of wiki users? Or is that just brazen extension of media attacks on wiki by user who thought that nobody will have the guts to block him in atmosphere of media attack?
  • At the end, user Seiya who misinterpreted way this block came to life have good reason to enact revenge, as out of 7 times he was blocked on hr wikipedia, I blocked him 3 times. One of his blocks is raised here, I'll write more about it a bit further down this page. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) :[reply]
Speedy, please, try to understand that I do not want to fight you. This is not my "revenge". I have nothing against you personally. Just for the record, I want to say that SpeedyGonsales is innocent of charges of "fascism". I know him and I can say that I am confident that he is nothing of that sort, what so ever. Some of the negative photoshop images of him were disgusting and in poor taste, and I am sad to hear that he has to even contact an attorney. This is a Wikipedia affair and should stay so, it should not spill over to someone's personal life.
But, Speedy, be honest and look what happened here: Koryansky asked all administrators to take a stance in the village pump with the question "Did the Croatian Wikipedia turn towards the right". He did not mention you specifically. Of, what, 17-18 (?) administrators, nobody reacted. Dalibor did not feel addressed. Sokac did not feel addressed. Maya did not feel addressed. Floppy did not feel addressed...Nobody of the admins felt addressed. You took the bait. It was a stupid move to reply in such a way. You could have a) decided not to react or b) simply say that you are neutral. By blocking a user because of that for 3 months, you just gave people more reason for rumors. Try to learn from your mistakes. Do not repeat them. You can still make a difference. I beg you to appologize to all the users for blocking them on this page and maybe you can still save you admin status. You changed. At times I get the impression as if this administrator position made that what the ring made out of Bilbo Baggins.--Seiya (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seiya, user Koryaksky did not ask, he ordered. Thank you for your concern for my wellbeing, but nevertheless, you are still misinterpreting the facts.
User Koryaksky did not ask, he ordered admins to do something at his command. Nobody on wiki is allowed to command to other users, and what is more important, nobody is allowed to ask direct personal questions which do not have anything to do with wikipedia, or Wikimedia projects. I answer all questions that users write on my talk page, but in my free time. I answer even brazen questions. But when somebody is assuming the role of Master of Universe (this is not violation of "Pretpostavite dobru namjeru/Assume good faith", this is just figure of speech to help you grasp the concept) on Wikipedia project, it is appropriate to either warn or block such user, depending on circumstances. This particular case warranted a block. Only thing open for discussion is length of a block, and having in mind all recent noise, I still think that block given is most appropriate reaction there could be. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he asked, Speedy. Read his initial question again, he said words like "I openly call admins to take stance about the way they intend to correct this state, or if they think everything is OK, to openly write that. I am ready to help as much as I can, and I am sure others are willing to help to" and "I do not support ad hominem attacks against anyone, not even against admins, but I wonder what went wrong these few years to allow the proliferation of so many biased texts". Sounds like a very polite and normal guy. He even wanted to help. You could have used this guy on your team to help correct the problematic articles. Instead you blocked him, without warning. I am reading his texts on the Village pump again and again and they do not show any bad intentions: "I humbly ask" and "If the admins do not intend to anwser my question, they have the right to do so, but that it also an anwser of sorts."
He asked if Croatian Wikipedia turned towards the right, if it is unbiased and if someone intends to correct any mistakes. He even said that admins can say "If there are biased articles, we intend to do this and this". Sounds like he actually wanted to help. That does not sound like the "Master of Universe". He is too weak for that. A "Master of Universe" can only be someone who has power and abuses for his own gains, like an admin who, let's say, blocks anyone who does not agree with him. At best you could have ignored him or told him to stop questioning.--Seiya (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If one doesn't know what a word means as evident here when one says "whatever that word meant" (pretpostavlja se da se netko "izvrdava", što god ta riječ značila), how may one punish some other person by making conclusions of no good faith assumed and that based solely on the presumption of what that specific word's meaning was in that specific context? --178.221.216.106 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear anonymous user 178.221.216.106, I translated message to my best knowledge. Nobody criticized my interpretation of that particular word. This RfC and Seiya's comment is actually ignoring my interpretation, but writing something what user Koryaksky did not write at all. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user SpeedyGonsales, if someone cannot grasp the point of one specific word in some specific context, understands it not and doesn't know what could it possibly mean, how can one even dare to think to translate it? They could only try and interpret its original meaning in some specific context, only interpret it, but it is very probable that they will miss this word's meaning not just in some specific context but in any given context. And therefore all but one interpretation of such a word, which are made by a person who doesn't know the meaning of that word, must be doomed as failures. And user SpeedyGonsales not only that they cling on one specific interpretation of this word (and of course that interpretation of this word is surely questionable since they don't know its meaning), but they based their very severe punitive actions towards other Wikipedian solely on this questionable interpretation of a word. Well, how wrong is that? Anyway, HJP (Hrvatski jezični portal) says this about "izvrdati": uspjeti što izbjeći, izvući se iz čega, spretnom radnjom umaknuti čemu, uspjeti prodrijeti s čim [9]. AFAICT, there is no mention of "oklijevanje" (hesitation) or "odgoda" (delay). --178.253.213.63 00:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Seiya, You have not answered on the hr.wiki, although this page has been transferred there. You are avoiding hr.wiki. You are avoiding local community. Why don't You write Your messages there, so everyone can see Your behaviour. Neka svi vide što pišeš. Ne skrivaj se od zajednice. Pokaži hrv. wikipedistima što si.
Further: Kubura wrote that "For 10 years not a single scientific institution did not have a complaint against us, not even the media." Seiya wrote: "Not true, H-Alter already complained about the texts in February 2012." H-Alter is a minor, marginal, unimportant portal, unimportant media for whose opinion noone cares. There are many such medias that are read only by their authors (David Icke also publishes books about Lizard People, so shall we consider such authors?)
On the other hand, all other medias used hr.wiki (and edited). They wrote "on Croatian Wikipedia says...", "Wikipedia says on this topic: + the content from hr.wiki"; many time I recognized the text from hr.wiki in media, uncited. But the most important is the science: scientific institutions never complained on hr.wiki for all these years. Kubura (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not until certain users became admins a few years ago.--Seiya (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura opet izmišlja H-alter je sve samo ne minoran. To što nije tabloid kao dnevno.hr koji se referencira na hr.wiki samo mu može biti plus. H-alter je proglašen u top 10 najboljih hrvatski medijski web portala 2006, 2008, 2009. Za H-alter pišu mnogi znanstvenici i cijenjeni autori. H-alter doniraju: ministarstvo kulture RH, Grad Zagreb, Balkan Trust For Democracy, Nacionalna zaklada za razvoj civilnoga društva, Veleposlanstvo Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, EU, Ured za ravnopravnost spolova Vlade Republike Hrvatske, Veleposlanstvo Kraljevine Nizozemske, Academy for Educational Development (USAID)... [10] Primjer članka iz 2012. u Jutarnjem listu o veličanju ideologa NDH i potpisniku rasnih zakona [11] Primjer znanstvene rasprave o problemima lažiranja povijesti: Rasprava "Suočavanje s prošlošću na internetskim portalima", konferencijska dvorana Filozofskog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 14. travnja 2011. [12]
Kubura cant stop lying. Now he invents that H-alter is minor portal. H-alter is not like tabloid dnevno.hr which is often referred on hr.wiki and can only be plus for it. H-Alter was named in the top 10 Croatian media web portals in 2006, 2008, 2009. Many scientists and respected authors writes for H-aletr . Listo of H-alter donators: Croatian Ministry of Culture, the City of Zagreb, Balkan Trust for Democracy, the National Foundation for Civil Society Development, Embassy of the United States, the EU, the Office for Gender Equality of the Croatian Government, the Royal Netherlands Embassy, the Academy for Educational Development (USAID) ... [13] Example article from the 2012th Jutarnji List (nationwide daily) criticized CW for praise NDH ideologist and brought racial laws [14] Example of scientific debate about the problems of falsifying history o web: Discussion "Dealing with the past on the web portals", conference hall, Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, 14 travnja 2011th [15] --DobarSkroz (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DobarSkroz, please stop with an insults. H-alter really is minor portal, that is the fact. I can grasp that it is kind of hype for some minority in Croatia, but we do not write here about minority attitudes, we create encyclopedia, therefore accuracy is important and POV writing should be avoided together with insults. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see insult again? When I say that he is lying again and give proof? You are acting like holy cow. And your evidence is bolding? What about other evidences, Jutarnji list is also "really minor"? Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb is also "really minor"?--DobarSkroz (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales,blocked Suradnik:DobarSkroz on 2013-07-23 for one week
Description: User:DobarSkroz tried to correct several POV articles, including en:Antifascism, where, among others, it stated that it is a "...developing genocide of profit knowledge, culturcide, genetically spiritual, moral and creative disorder, limiting all human rights". DobarSkroz deleted that particular line, but User:Croq reverted the edit, several times. DobarSkroz then went on to complain about that with these words on the talk page: "This is a wonderful Wikipedia when it considers a fact that antifascism is this: fight for communism, fight against capitalism, Titoism with Yugo-bolshevik genocide over opponents, developing genocide of profit knowledge, en:culturcide, genetically spiritual, moral and creative disorder, limiting all human rights...If this is not garbage from some extreme right-wing, I don't know what is?"[16]. SpeedyGonsales blocked him for a week. And the irony is - that line about antifascism being "culturcide, moral and spiritual disorder, etc." was deleted a month later, anyway,[17] and none appologized to DobarSkroz. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Kubura blocked me because of these changes. [18] Speedy only reaction was that he was sorry that he could not do it, "I'm sorry I have not been active, and personally blocked vandals" [19] Zeljko block me before that after Croq called me vandal after he deleted all my edits. [20] SD blocked me before that because of bad style, in biography where he deleted 20 years of Đuro Brodarac life [21] All my reactions after banns were deleted from my blocked user talk page. I saved them on my sh.wiki pager [22]--DobarSkroz (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Da si imalo dobronamjeran, ne bi nikako nazvao hrvatsku Wikipediju "Nezavisna Wikipedija Hrvatska". Nego bi pristojno razgovarao, a hrvatski projekt ne bi ocrnjivao. Na tvojoj stranici za razgovor na hr.wiki sve ti je objašnjeno. Blokiran si zbog uklanjanja referenciranog sadržaja, uklanjanje velikih količina teksta, laganje, troliranje, napadačkog ponašanja.[24][25] [26] (slučaj gdje je netko bio medijski ocrnjen i sud je sankcionirao medije zbog ocrnjivanja, a DobarSkroz to nije poštivao, napomenuto je DobromSkroz da nije nimalo bezazleno kad mediji uzurpiraju sudske i policijske ovlasti.) Osim toga, u gornjoj optužbi skrivaš ono što ti se prigovorilo.
  • Dalje je objašnjeno ovdje [27] (Uklanjanje izvora), [28] (Uklanjanje velikih količina teksta i laganje), [29] (Napadačko ponašanje i Wikipedija nije pljuvačnica). Kubura (razgovor) 04:55, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales (SG), intimidation/harassing of Suradnik:Aleksandar Kovac (AK), 2013-09-15, 2013-09-18
Description: This is an immediate continuation of DobarSkroz incident described in the previous submission. After DobarSkroz made the talk page comment quoted above ("This is a wonderful Wikipedia...", etc.), SG directly responded with "Proletarians of the world, unite!".[30] AK then responded to SG with the following: "Refrain from making snide [zajedljiv - could also be translated as "sarcastic"[31]] comments in this page. Since in this page you have vested interest as an editor, and you are also an administrator, a conflict of interest is unavoidable. Furthermore, I remind all administrators that biased comments in pages which they edit clearly violate administrators' rules of conduct[[32]].[URL quoted verbatim]". In response, SG asked AK three bulleted questions: "What makes you conclude that anything I wrote in this page is snide/sarcastic [zajedljivo]? What makes you conclude I have a vested interest in this page? What makes you think it is necessary to remind the administrators about the project's rules?"[33]. SG apparently insisted that his questions be answered: two minutes later, he posted a section in AK's talk page titled "Reminder", with a diff to his three questions.[34] Three days later, in the AK's talk page, SG adds: "In the Antifašizam talk page I asked you three questions, you replied to one of them (you did not properly substantiate your conclusion, but at least you gave an answer). I've just reminded you about the second one, and here is a reminder about the third question: What makes you think it is necessary to remind the administrators about the project's rules? Thank you in advance for your answers!"[35] I believe this is clear intimidation, made worse by the fact AK is a new editor (fewer than 50 edits at that time). Personally, I'd say that any administrator who non-jokingly asks an editor who has complained "What makes you think it is necessary to remind the administrators about the project's rules?" has effectively forfeited his adminship. GregorB (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. A je li Vaše spamiranje i ometanje Wikipedije cyber-bulling? Glasujete "slažem se" po partijskoj stezi, nikakvi argumenti. To je cyber-bulling, a potražite elemente mobbinga u Vašim reakcijama. Kubura (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DobarSkroz was neutral a couple of instances, I was neutral a couple of instances, so you cannot say people here vote "according to the Party's dictate". Arguments can be found, unlike here [36]--Seiya (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Same point is mentioned here twice, above is alleged pressure for 2013-09-15 and 2013-09-18, down is described whole September, so in interest of brevity I'll address everything one point down. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales (SG), incivility, biting the newcomers, misapplication of policy, intimidation, violation of WP:AGF against Suradnik:Aleksandar Kovac (AK), September 2013
Description: These events preceded the above described SG-AK incident and probably set the stage for it. In the light of the following, SG's actions described above may be seen as vindictive. On 13 September, in the administrators' page talk, AK posts a suggestion to expand the definition of the admin's role in Croatian Wikipedia, supplying a sizable text describing the admins' responsibilities, translated from en wiki.[37] SG then contacts AK in his talk page, saying essentially that the suggestion doesn't bring anything new, but wouldn't hurt either.[38] AK responds very politely in the same place (his own talk page), saying, among other things, the following "[...] the accent [of the suggestion] is on the compatibility and focus of the content of Croatian Wikipedia with the already established content of more mature Wikipedias [zrelijih Wikipedija]. As much as I'm able to ascertain with my modest grasp of foreign languages, German, Japanese, Spanish and English Wikipedias offer their users much more exhaustive descriptions of the administrators' role." [39]
SG replies: "You say 'I'm hoping for your answer'. How am I supposed to answer if I don't know I'm being asked a question? The rules of etiquette as well as the project's rules dictate that messages to editors should be left at their talk pages. You are leaving messages to other editors in your talk page. That's as if you'd left mail for other people in your own mailbox."[40] This strikes me as distinctly lacking in civility, doubly so because AK was a newcomer with less than 20 edits at that point. In the same edit, SG continues: "You say 'more mature Wikipedias'. The above wording is demeaning to this project. Which Wikipedias are more mature [than Croatian Wikipedia]? I'm not saying that projects with more articles and editors did not go through various problems, but I'm wondering if a new Croatian Wikipedia editor is able to correctly assess everything this project went through."
AK responds, in an otherwise super-polite and eloquent post: "[...] I assume that the current situation [Croatian Wikipedia controversy] has additionally antagonized your impression while reading my messages. [...] I'll assume that, at this moment, there is a degree of justifiable antagonism within you, understandably caused by the events [CW controversy]. [...] Regarding 'more mature Wikipedias' - it wasn't 'hr Wikipedia is immature' but 'more mature Wikipedias' - literally, some Wikipedias are indeed (in some aspects) more mature. Due to their longevity, larger communities, complexity of the problems, and topic breadth, they had more opportunities for dealing with the problems and gathering valuable experience. [...] In Croatian Wikipedia, facts clearly show that problems do exist and I believe this is a valid assessment."[41]
SG responds: "You say: 'I assume that the current situation has additionally antagonized your impression while reading my messages.' You are breaking the WP:AGF rule. Please do not make assumptions about editors' emotions in the future. You say: 'I'll assume that, at this moment, there is a degree of justifiable antagonism within you, understandably caused by the events.' You're breaking the WP:AGF rule for the second time in the same edit. This is your last warning."[42] This is a crude misinterpretation of WP:AGF. Neither the 870-word en:WP:AGF, nor its much shorter Croatian counterpart, say anything about making assumptions about other editors' emotions. It is unclear why saying one senses "antagonism" (let alone "justifiable antagonism") would be violating WP:AGF, as antagonism is morally neutral and does not imply bad faith. Also, warning an editor twice for the same edit makes no sense, because there was obviously no opportunity to heed the first warning. To me, this looks like deliberate intimidation. SG continues, in the same edit: "You still persist in using the expression 'more mature Wikipedias', although I asked and cautioned you not do to it. And above you break a Wikipedia rule. Why are you so persistent in denigrating this project?" Here, SG is under false impression that it is OK to harass editors for mildly unfavorable statements about Croatian Wikipedia.
AK responds with a long, very articulate, and above all super-polite post ending with: "It is not my intention to create conflict, it is exactly the opposite. I do not denigrate Wikipedia, I support it, and I believe I understand the effort of those who maintain it. [...] Before further discussion could I please have your agreement with my assertion that we both indeed do assume good faith? Do I have your agreement?"[43]
SG finally replies with the following: "I cannot give an a priori agreement on anything to anyone. [...] I can draw conclusions about your good faith only based on your words in this project's pages, and they thus far a priori demean [unižavaju] me personally, as well as this entire project, which is not a proof of your good intentions, but rather of unintentional or intentional bad intentions."[44] (Note: "unintentional or intentional bad intentions" makes as little sense in my English translation as it does in the original.) Note SG's apparent confusion about AGF: he thinks agreement on someone's good intentions can't be given a priori, which is nonsense, as all assumptions are necessarily a priori. So, while falsely accusing AK of violating WP:AGF, SG rapes WP:AGF with a broomstick. Sorry for the lengthy entry, the entire conversation is much longer. That's it, I rest my case here. GregorB (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opis: Dana 13. rujna suradnik Aleksandar Kovac postavlja na SZR administratora opširan tekst prijedloga proširenja definicije administratorskih ovlasti, koji opisuje odgovornost administratora. Tekst je preuzet s engleske wikipedije[45]. Speedy Gonzales tada stupa u kontakt s Aleksandrom Kovacom na njegovoj SZR s odgovorom koji u suštini kaže da prijedlog ne donosi ništa novo, ali ne može ni škoditi[46]. A.K. vrlo pristojno odgovara na svojoj SZR, stavljajući naglasak na slijedeće: " naglasak je na suglasju i fokusiranosti sadržaja hrvatske Wikipedije sa već uvriježenim sadržajem zrelijih Wikipedija poduhvata na ovu temu. Koliko skromnim mogućnostima baratanjem jezicima mogu iščitati, njemačka, japanska, španjolska te engleska wikipedija nude korisnicima znatno iscrpniju mogućnost tumačenja administratorske uloge. Engleska se stranica sa ovom temom doimlje najartikuliranijom i, složit ćete se, najprovjerenijom u svojoj dvanaestogodišnjoj praksi, stoga je prijevod sa engleskog ponuđen kao najbogatiji u smislu unaprijeđenja Wikipedije na hrvatskome jeziku."[47]
S.G. odgovara da ne može odgovoriti na pitanje ako ne zna da mu je pitanje postavljeno, pošto je A.K. pisao na svojoj SZR[48]. Ovo ukazuje na manjak pristojnosti, pošto je A.K. novi suradnik s manje od 20 uređivanja u tom trenutku, te je vjerojatno da ne poznaje pravila wikipedije. S.G. nastavlja: "Gornja formulacija je ponižavajuća za ovaj projekt. Koje su to wikipedije zrelije? Ne kažem da projekti s većim brojem članaka i većim brojem suradnika nisu prošli kroz razne probleme, no pitam se koliko novi suradnik hrvatske wikipedije može valjano ocijeniti sve ono kroz što je prošao ovaj projekt."
A.K. odgovara vrlo pomirljivom tonom: "[...] SpeedyGonsales, dotakli ste se svih poteškoća koje i sam uočavam. Pretpostavljam da je trenutna situacija dodatno antagonizirala dojam pri čitanju mojih poruka. [...] Povodom "zrelije wikipedije" - nije rečeno "hr.wikipedija je nezrela" nego - "zrelije wikipedije" - doslovno, neke su wikipedije doista (u nekim aspektima) zrelije. Zbog svoje su dugotrajnosti, brojnosti zajednice, složenosti problema i opsega obrađenih tema imale više mogućnosti za suočavanje sa poteškoćama i stjecanje vrijednog iskustva. Baš kako ste rekli. Njihove poteškoće nisu istovjetne poteškoćama na hr.wikipediji, ali njihovo iskustvo jest vrijedno. Stoga, prenošenje teksta sa zrelijih wikipedija, prenosi i nešto od njihove zrelosti k nama te čini i hr.wikipediju zrelijom. To nikako nije ponižavajuće prema hr.wikipediji, nego naprotiv, čini hr.wikipediju mudrijom jer uči čak i na tuđim greškama. Slažete li se?[...] Činjenice na hr.wikipediji jasno ukazuju da problemi postoje i vjerujem da je prosudba na mjestu."[49]
S.G. odgovara:" Pišete: "Pretpostavljam da je trenutna situacija dodatno antagonizirala dojam pri čitanju mojih poruka." YKršite pravilo Wikipedija:Pretpostavite dobru namjeru. Molim bez pretpostavki emocija drugih suradnika ubuduće. Pišete: "pretpostaviti ću i da u vama trenutno postoji i doza opravdanog antagonizma razumljivo uvjetovanog događajima." Kršite pravilo Wikipedija:Pretpostavite dobru namjeru po drugi put u istom uređivanju. Ovo Vam je zadnja opomena."[50] Ovo je otvorena kriva interpretacija pretpostavljanja dobre namjere. Nigdje u engleskoj ili hrvatskoj inačici pravola pretpostavljanja dobre namjere ne postoji išta o pretpostavkama kako se drugi suradnici osjećaju. Nejasno je zašto se pretpostavlja loša namjera ako netko kaže da suradnik osjeća "opravdani antagonizam", pošto je je antagonizam moralno neutralan i ne implicira lošu namjeru. Isto tako, dvaput upozoriti suradnika da ne rabi neki izraz u jedn te istom tekstu nema smisla, pošto suradnik nije u mogućnosti ispraviti izraz nakon prvog upozorenja. To izgleda kao namjerno maltretiranje. S.G. dalje nastavlja: "I nadalje dosljedno rabite izraz "zrelije wikipedije" iako sam Vas zamolio i upozorio da to ne činite. A gore kršite pravilo wikipedije. Zašto tako uporno omalovažavate ovaj projekt?" S.G. ovdje smatra da je u redu maltretirati suradnika zbog blago sročene, ali konstruktivne kritike o hevatskoj wikipediji.
A.K. piše vrlo dug i pristojan odgovor koji završava rečenicom: "Nije mi namjera stvaranja sukoba, nego upravo suprotno. Ne omalovažavam wikipediju, podržavam je, a mislim da razumijem i trud onih koji je održavaju. No, u svjetlu upozorenja koje ste mi izrekli, prije daljnjeg razgovora volio bih vašu suglasnost u mojoj tvrdnji da obojica doista pretpostavljamo dobru namjeru. Imam li vašu suglasnost?"[51]
S.G. naposlijetku odgovara: "A priori suglasnost na išta ne mogu nikome dati. Administratori su dužni postupati na temelju činjenica, uređivanja drugih suradnika, ne vlastitih emocija ili percipiranih emocija drugih suradnika. To isto su dužni svi suradnici, ali administratorima se u praksi tolerira manje nego "običnim" suradnicima. Vaše riječi (moj pretpostavljeni antagonizam) prejudicira moje emocije ili moj stav, zašto? Otkud Vam pravo prejudicirati išta o meni? To nije u skladu s već navedenim pravilom Wikipedija:Pretpostavite dobru namjeru. Ja mogu zaključivati o Vašoj dobroj namjeri samo na temelju Vaših riječi napisanih na stranicama ovoga projekta, a one do sada a priori unižavaju mene osobno kao i ovaj cijeli projekt, što nije dokaz Vaše dobre namjere, već prije nenamjerna ili namjerna loša namjera."[52] Obratite pažnju na Speedyjevu prividnu zbunjenost glede pretpostavljanja dobre namjere: on misli da se suglasnost oko dobre namjere ne može dati a priori, što je besmisleno, Sve su pretpostavke nužno a priori. Lažno optužujuće A.K. za pretpostavljanje loše namjere, S.G. je u biti silovao samo pravilo pretpostavljanja dobre namjere. (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Also note that "I cannot give an a priori agreement on anything to anyone" amounts to an admission that the SG is violating WP:AGF as a matter of principle. Miranche (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aleksandar Kovac nikad nije blokiran.[53] U čemu je onda problem? Malo je čudno da neki "novak" želi određivati pravila zajednici koja se uhodala i 10 godina stabilno radila. Mora se poštovati rad svih dosadašnjih hrv. wikipedista. Ako netko želi sprovoditi šeme s nekih projekata, mora znati općenito pravilo: što negdje funkcionira, drugdje može izazvati štetu. A što nije pokvareno, ne treba popravljati.
  • Jedna bitna stvar. Kovac je napisao "u kontekstu oko nesporazuma oko načina vođenja hrvatske Wikipedije...". Kakvo "vođenje Wikipedije"? U krajnjem slučaju, svi ju vode.
  • Kad je netko bezobrazan, nepristojan, vandalizira, ne poštuje tuđi rad, trolira, onda drugi suradnici uklone takva štetna uređivanja, a administratori imaju još neke dodatne alate za stati na kraj zlonamjernicima. Administratori rade dragovoljno, besplatno i koliko dospiju. Nisu ničiji robovi, niti roboti koji izvršavaju zapovijedi pritiskom na gumb.
  • Kako bi neki suradnik, da je prijatelj Aleksandra Kovaca, reagirao da netko objavi njegove osjetljive privatne podatke na Wikipediji? Samo to pročitao i čekao da naiđu administratori kojih možda u tom trenutku nema jer imaju obveze u stvarnom životu, izvan Wikipedije? Zar bi njih krivio? Razumna reakcija bi bila: ne bi čekao, nego bi SAM TO UKLONIO. Nema se tu šta kriviti admine.
  • Bespredmetno je ovo spominjati kao primjer "pritiska" ili "povrjede". Nitko od prozvanih hrvatskih Wikipedista nije objavio fotografiju Aleksandra Kovaca ili GregoraB na Facebooku, etiketirao ga ustaškim, ekstremistom i potom još te optužbe plasirao u novine.
  • A poslije ovakvih medijskog linča protiv hrv. wikipedije, nedolično je uopće govoriti o "pritiscima" ili "povrjedama". Kubura (razgovor) 04:55, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose In bullets, downward:
  • Start of description of GregorB is pretty accurate:On 13 September, on administrators' page talk AK posted a suggestion to expand the definition of the admin's role in Croatian Wikipedia, supplying a sizable text describing the admins' responsibilities, translated from en wiki. I contacted AK on his talk page, saying essentially that the suggestion doesn't bring anything new (as it doesn't), but wouldn't hurt either, and I essentially welcomed his effort for trying to help.
  • Then GregorB started misinterpreting the facts, he mentioned above This strikes me as distinctly lacking in civility, for my message where I warned the user that is strange and futile to expect my answer if you write on YOUR talk page, not mine. That message was not lacking in civility, it just showed my confusion if somebody is leaving his message at his desk and wishes that somebody else read it. From AK's attitude is pretty much obvious although he had low number of edits on hr wiki, but he knew everything and every rule of en wiki, so he is no newcomer to Wikimedia or wikipedia, and biting the newcomers which was mentioned above is simply not applicable, firstly because nobody bitten AK, secondly because he's obviously no newcomer.
  • Further misinterpretation of GregorB became almost teatrical: AK responds, in an otherwise super-polite and eloquent post, yeah right. Post of user AK is polite, up to the point where becames obvious that he is assuming psychic state/condition of other user. Is that super-polite? Or is that super passive-aggressive? In my opinion, the second. But, I did not block user for this passive-aggressive tactic, but I politely warned him that he is violating rules of Croatian wikipedia by his aforementioned edit. And by politely, I mean that, that was not polite as GregorB interprets polite.
  • GregorB further continues To me, this looks like deliberate intimidation. Well, I do not agree. Users should talk about content of articles, they can talk to some point about motives of somebody if there is possible conflict of interest, but to delve what is somebody thinking and feeling and to reach on base of such assumptions to some conclusions is not civil, correct or in any way decent. If GregorB does not see that, his perception of Assume good faith and connected rules is a bit lacking, in my eyes.
  • Furtermore, GregorB above wrote: Note SG's apparent confusion about AGF: he thinks .... Well, you can write on wiki for somebody "he thinks", if that is just an figure of speech, and if it can be swapped by "he wrote" and that sentence is still true. But if that swap can not be made, but if user is assuming what somebody is thinking, that is violation of AGF. Simply, I feel (I write this in my own name, to avoid any misintepretation) that AK and GregorB is possible crosswiki sockpuppet, based on style, similar (mis)interpretation of facts on both projects, and surplus of awe (usage of adjectives like super-polite and eloquent). I feel that so strongly that I do not feel any need to further describe that this alleged pressure on user AK is utter nonsense. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was obvious why your initial comment was "lacking in civility", but to you it's apparently not so let me explain. It is common knowledge that wiki talk interface is counter-intuitive and crude. Answering in the wrong place - one's own talk page - is a common error of beginners and even experienced editors. (Some editors in fact indicate that they prefer answering in their own TP.) So, equating a rather common error with an extremely stupid and clueless act of leaving mail for other people in one's own mailbox - which is what you did - is rather offensive and gauche.
  • You warned AK twice for the same edit, which doesn't make sense. Then you cautioned him against saying that there are Wikipedias more mature than hr wiki. That's exerting pressure in an undue way. You're free to argue why do you think this statement is false or even impermissible (I really hoped you would), but you've skipped that bit here - maybe that's because you don't like being a fish in the barrel. Browbeating newcomers is much, much easier.
  • I've read what was apparently your counter-argument regarding AGF, but I couldn't understand it.
  • Finally, I've never edited any wiki under a username other than GregorB. Your "hunch" is rather odd: my style in Croatian is very unlike AK's, which hr Wikipedians will soon be able to find out. And, if there's a doubt on whether AK's post is "super-polite" and "eloquent" or not, I invite everyone to read it and decide for themselves. GregorB (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: SpeedyGonsales blocks user Smjalić12 for asking about the Croatian Wikipedia affair.
Description: After the affair involving the Croatian Wikipedia, user Smajlić12 on 3 october 2013 asks on the Croatian Village Pump this: "I wonder in what ways did you decide to resolve the problem of current admins on Croatian Wikipedia who destroyed the credibility of Croatian Internet encyclopedia and brought the whole project in doubt through their disasterous management?" SpeedyGonsales replies: "Be a little bit more precise, on the above question one can anwser only like this: what kind of critics, that kind of problems, that kind of solutions".[54]
Smajlić12 then goes on to say: "I think my question was more than precise - I can only repeat it in another form: with its pro-Croatian ideology, the admins allowed that articles exist on our Internet encyclopedia with extremely questionable content...What do you intend to do with the admins who, with their conduct, practically irevocably destroyed the credibility of a beautiful project and hobby? Thanks".[55]
SpeedyGonsales then blocks him for a day with the explanation: "If I remember correctly, the users are free to write what bothers them and what exactly bothers them. But nobody has the right to write that something bothers them, without any evidence that something that bothers them exists on this project. Since you are accusing unknown admins for systematic bias without a shred of evidence, then I must remind you that it is not the Wiki-spirit, and since this is the anwser to my question then that is not accidental, so I will remind you to the above with a 24 hour block."[56]. (By the way, I hope Speedy will drop by over here to see the amount of evidence he cannot find)--Seiya (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opis: Nakon afere u novinama, suradnik Smajlić12 u Kafiću 3. listopada 2013. postavlja ovo pitanje: "Zanima me na koji način se odlučio riješiti problem dosadašnjih administratora hrvatske Wikipedije koji su svojim katastrofalnim vodstvom praktički uništili vjerodostojnost i kredibilitet hrvatske internetske enciklopedije i kompletan projekt doveli u pitanje?" SpeedyGonsales mu odgovara: "Budi malo precizniji, na pitanja gornjeg tipa je moguće odgovoriti samo ovako: kakvi kritičari, takvi problemi, takva rješenja".[57]
Smajlić potom piše: "Mislim da je moje pitanje bilo više nego precizno - mogu ga još jedanput ponoviti u drugom obliku: svojom prohrvatskom ideologijom administratori su dopustili da na našoj internetskoj enciklopediji postoje članci izrazito upitnog sadržaja. Također postoje pisani dokazi na nekim stranicama za razgovor u samim člancima, a pogotovo u razgovorima s drugim suradnicima da su neki od suradnika dobivali žute i crvene kartone i bio im je striktno zabranjen rad na Wikipediji i po nekoliko mjeseci u slučajevima kada su željeli napisati nešto što je administratorima, zbog njihove zatrovane, trule i potpuno neobjektivne ideologije, bilo neprihvatljivo. Što se namjerava poduzeti po pitanju takvih administratora koji su svojim djelovanjem gotovo nepovratno uništili kredibilitet jednog lijepog projekta i hobija? Hvala".[58]
SpeedyGonsales ga potom blokira na jedan dan uz objašnjenje: "Ako se dobro sjećam na ovom projektu suradnici su slobodni ako im nešto ne paše napisati što im to točno ne paše. Ali nitko nema pravo napisati da im nešto ne paše, ali bez dokaza da to što njima ne paše zaista postoji na ovome projektu. Kako optužuješ neimenovane administratore za sustavnu pristranost bez ijednog tračka dokaza za isto, onda moram podsjetiti da to nije wikiduh, a kako je to odgovor na moje pitanje to onda nije slučajno, pa ću na gornje podsjetiti blokom od 24 sata. Postoji sloboda govora, ali ako se nekoga napada potrebno je biti konstruktivan, dato konkretne dokaze - što nekome ne paše, koje konkretno uređivanje (ili uređivanja). "[59] (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Block - Blokiranje
Info: Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales blocks user Seiya for pointing out how some articles on Croatian Wikipedia were copied from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.
Description: User Seiya went from Croatian to Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia and started writing articles in the latter. User Kosmetic started to regularly copy Seiya's articles and transfer them to Croatian Wikipedia. During the election for the anniversary 130.000th article on Croatian Wikipedia on 26 February 2013, Seiya notices that among the candidate articles there are ten of them he initially wrote on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, and which were copied to Croatian Wikipedia. He votes for each of those ten articles, with the comment: "If it is from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, then I am for it.:-)".[60] SpeedyGonsales then blocks him for a month with the explanation: "I reverted your edit which I consider demeaning for this project...Please realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not someone's personal project.".[61]--Seiya (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

No, as of today, there is still no explanation given on hr wiki. The comments section is empty for this:[62].--Seiya (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: SpeedyGonsales blocks user Binx indefinitely because of a letter "š/s".
Description: User Binx complains that whenever he writes the word "sport" it is corrected by Kubura into "šport".[63] [64] (to clarify, Croatian language used the term "sport", until under Tuđman they tried to "Croatize" it by calling it "šport" in the 1990s, though that term did not manage to take roots in use). Binx then corrected the article Ministry of Science, Education and Sports because its official name is "ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i sporta", not "športa".[65] After his edits were reverted again and again, he complains to SpeedyGonsales because the Ministry should be called by its official name, "sporta", not "športa".[66]
After Speedy warns him and gives him a yellow card, Binx then complains:"In Croatia, there is only 1 (with words: one) official orthography! You want to frame me, by giving me yellow cards and threats, with what you yourself did...Block me for a year, or forever, I don't care!".[67]. Speedy then indeed blocks him indefinitely under the pretext that Blinx is "mocking the project" and should "learn how to communicate politely".[68]
This is to me the funniest block of all times: because of one letter! And the irony is, the Ministry is now called "Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i sporta" on Croatian Wikipedia, anyway, and none appologized to Blinx.--Seiya (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

A second lie, this example was also not explained on hr wiki.--Seiya (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: SpeedyGonsales blocks user Ribele indefinitely.
Description: New user Ribele writes about his hometown Lička Jesenica and that the vehicle registration there is "OG" (Ogulin), but Kubura reverts his edit and insists that the vehicle registration is actually "KA" (Karlovac).[70] Ribele then protests: "How is it possible that someone is deleting true and reliable data with sources and links, but that same someone does not even know anything about the place, not even the vehicle registration there? That is not only rude but also illiterate."[71]
The "OG" plate stays, but Kubura then goes on to correct several other data, like that the village was not settled by Serbs in 1609, but by Vlachs, without sources.[72] Ribele then protests: "I would like an explanation to such arogant behavior and self-rightousness that break the laws of an encyclopedia. If I give all my sources, the reason for my writing, how can somebody delete that without an explanation or a reason?".[73] SpeedyGonsales then comes to the rescue of his pal Kubura and they use the same old tactic: first Kubura angers and provoks Ribele, saying that Serbs did not exist 350 years ago, but only Vlachs (no source given),[74] causing him to say harsher and harsher protests.[75] [76] Both Kubura[77][78] and Ribele use harsh words, but SpeedyGonsales only blocks Ribele indefinitely[79].--Seiya (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Kubura replied: [81] Regarding the Vlach question, to be fair, Kubura gave his source here, where a certain Mirko Valentic says "that present day Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically do not make part of the Serb nation". However, there are other sources that contradict his claim: here, for instance where it says that Vlachs were assimilated by Serbs and Croats, Bulgarians and others. Here it says: "the majority of the Vlachs were, however, assimilated by the Serbs (mainly) and Croats in the 18th and 19th centuries"[82] and here pages 99-100. That is something completely different. Vlachs who found themselves among Serbs, adopted their customs and became Serbs, while others became Croats. Does that mean that Croats did not exist 350 years ago? Of course not. It would be as if someone would say that today's Americans have descendents from Croats, so all Americans are Croats. Far from it. If Valentic's thesis is found to be scientifically reliable (maybe someone here knows something more about him?), as an encyclopedia, both sources should be mentioned.--Seiya (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [83] Seiyo, kakve "harsh words"? Ako je ona druga osoba pretvorio hr.wiki u zid za grafitiranje, onda to tako treba i nazvati.
  • DobriSkroz, ajde to što si napisao napiši na hrvatskom. " that only Slavs were numbered in Dalmatia by the end of 19st. and that the Croats did not exist until than can be only aswerd like not NPOV". Da svi znaju s kime imamo posla i tko nas kleveta.
  • Doseljavanje Vlaha u hrvatske krajeve nije nikakva novost. Niti je išta novo kako su se nacionalno formirali. Jedino što netkom smeta šta se dirnulo u tabu temu.
  • ArgoNavise, pročitaj više jednom literaturu koju se citira. Barem ti imaš povijest ignoriranja citiranih akademskih izvora. Uzalud drugi (satima) traže po literaturi, trude se pronaći točni redak za ti objasnit i dokazat, ti to sve ignoriraš. Kubura (razgovor) 06:35, 21. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are attacking the personality of someone who is reporting, not what he is reporting. I gave you two sources above that contradict Valentić's claim that Serbs did not exist 350 years ago in Croatia. So why was Ribele blocked?--Seiya (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: SpeedyGonsales blocks user Xeinos indefinitely for writing that Judith A. Reisman is controversial.
Description: New user Xeinos adds that Judith A. Reisman is a controversial writer[85], but Kubura keeps reverting his edit. Xeinos then asks him to stop reverting that, because even English Wikipedia calls her controversial[86]. Others keep deleting the word "controversial", so he keeps bringing it back[87]. Xeinos protests to SpeedyGonsales that the article was locked in accordance with Kubura's version and calls administrators biased[88]. Finally, Xeinos complains that Croatian Wikipedia is biased and not objective thanks to several administrators.[89] At 01:35 AM, SpeedyGonsales then first blocks him only for a month - but then changes his mind at 01:41, six minutes later - and then blocks him indefinitely[90] for "unproductive editing" and "personal attacks".--Seiya (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Novi suradnik Xeinos je dodao riječ "kontroverzna" u početni opis aktivistkinje i pisca Judith Reisman [91], ali Kubura ubrzo poništava ovo uređivanje. Xeinos ga tad pita da ne poništava njegova uređivanja jer je i engleska wikipedija tako naziva [92]. Drugi su suradnici sustavno brisali riječ "kontroverzna", a Xeinos ju je uvijek vraćao.[93]. Žalio se Speedy Gonzalesu što je članak zaključan na Kuburinoj inačici, te je nazvao administratore pristranim [94]. Xeinos se na poslijetku žalio da je hrvatska wikipedija postala pristrana i neobjektivna djelovanjem administratora.[95] U 01:35 AM, SpeedyGonsales ga blokira na mjesec dana, ali šest minuta kasnije mijenja mišljenje te ga blokira na neograničeno [96] za "neproduktivna uređivanja" i "osobne napade". Nakn što je ovaj slučaj prikazan na FB stranici kritičara administratora hrvatske wikipedije, mnogi su pokušali dodati riječ "kontroverzna" desetak puta te konačna inačica sad sadrži tu riječ u opisu ove ličnosti. Suradnik Xeinos i dalje ostaje trajno blokiran i nitko mu se za to nije ispričao. (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • A po čemu ste vi NPOV, a drugi "pristrani"? Zato što ste vi to tako rekli? Odakle Vam pravo tako nazivati neistomišljenike?
  • To što negdje drugdje autoricu Judith A. Reisman nazivaju ovakvom ili onakvom, ne mora značiti da je drugdje po defaultu točno, a da je hr.wiki po defaultu u krivu. Ne povodite se za medijskim hajkama i linčevima. Hr.wiki se ne povodi za medijskim harangama. I ne želimo se srozavati na razinu nekih hrvatskih medija i nevladinih udruga koji su Reismanovu izvrijeđali besramnim uvrjedama (besramno su ju nazvali poricateljicom /banalizirateljicom holokausta), niti na razinu uličnih bukača koji su se onako nepristojno i neakademski ponašali na njenom predavanju na jednom fakultetu. Kubura (razgovor) 06:35, 21. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: SpeedyGonsales [98] Suradnik:DobarSkroz on 23. 07. 2013. because DobarSkroz wrote to him that he "didn't say a true fact" SpeedyGonsales blocked him for a week
Description: Editing in article about Đuro Brodarac was removed and SG justified the removal by stating that listed references and websites are blogs and that one reference was deleted. [3]
The truth is that not a single one reference was removed. The extensively used reference "victimology" [99] was used three times in the article. It was removed only in a sentence that was clearly a conspiracy theory not supported by any evidence other than a hysterical blog written by europhob and chemist: "He died in 2011 in Osijek prison as a result of abuse, a victim of Chapter 23, closing of which and successful completion of the pre-accession negotiations for Croatia's accession was celebrated in pompe by Croatian political elite with European officials under EU flag." [100] The same essay was an attempt to whitewash a person indicted for war crimes as victim solely on the fact that he died in prison, was handcuffed. The same material was used two more times and it was left as a reference regardless of the fact that it is biased. Text on wikipedia was cleaned from ornate epithets that do not belong in encyclopedic article.
No blog was used as a source for the attempt to contribute by addition of data on biography, which was missing for the 1971-1995 period. However the blogs were used as sources of data for the other parts of that non-.encyclopedic and generally biased article. Instead the sources used were "Večernji list" newspaper, "Nacional" (the top selling magazine in the country at that time), and finally Politopedia, encyclopedia of Croatian politicians. DobarSkroz duly listed the reference sources in "Vanjske veze/Websites".[101]
In the conversation/talk DobarSkroz presented the facts to SpeedyGonzales and asked that his contributions/editions be restored while SpeedyGonzales maintained that the victimology was deleted. DobarSkroz replied to that by pointing that victimology remained in the article. SpeedyGonzales refused to restore edits, to which DobarSkroz replied with "you are not telling the truth and I can prove it" to be banned by SpeedyGonzales on grounds of "Communications". [102]
Opis: Uklonjena su uređivanja članka o Đuri Brodarcu [103] a kao razlog su navedeni brisanje izvora i navođenje blogova kao izvora [104].
Istina je da niti jedan izvor nije izbrisan, Izvor "viktimologija" [105] se tri puta referencirao u članku i izbrisao samo kad je bio u sklopu jedne rečenice koja je bila očita teorija zavjere bez ikakva dokaza osim eurofobičnog bloga dipl. kemičara. :"Umro je 2011. u osječkom zatvoru kao posljedica zlostavljanja, kao žrtva poglavlja 23., čije je zatvaranje i uspješan završetak pred pristupnih pregovora za ulazak Republike Hrvatsku hrvatska politička elita zajedno sa europskim činovnicima pod zastavom EU pompozno veličala". [106] Isti esej koji od optuženog za ratni zločin radi žrtvu jer je umro u zatvoru i imao je lisice na rukama je korišten još dva puta i u tim odlomcima je ostala ta referenca koliko god pristrana bila a tekst je oslobođen od kićenih epiteta suvišnih za enciklopedijski članak.
U nadogradnji biografije u kojoj je nedostajalo razdoblje od 1971. do 1995. nije korišten niti jedan blog kao što je korišten u ostatku jako pristranog i neenciklopedijskog teksta već ulomci navedeni u nacionalnom dnevnom listu: Večernji list, nekoć najprodavanijem tjedniku: Nacional i enciklopediji hrvatskih političiara: Politopediji. Kako je i navedeno u "Vanjskim vezama" [107]
U razgovoru između SG i DS, DS je pokušao objasniti SG sve navedeno i tražio da se vrate njegove izmjene no SG je ponavljao da je viktimologija izbrisana a DS mu pokazivao da je i dalje stala u članku. SG je odbio vratiti doprinose DS na što mu je DS napisao "ne govoriš istinu za što imam i dokaz" za što je dobio ban od SGa zbog "Komunikacije" [108]--Tomislav Patarčić (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Oppose Oppose Patarčić je napisao "eurofobičnog bloga dipl. kemičara". Hoćemo li možda uvažiti huškačke izjave kroatofobnih političara i blogera? Tvrdnja da je taj kemičar eurofob tvoja je pristrana točka gledišta, Tomislave. Otkud ne znaš da taj autor nije možda zapravo oprezan, da nije EU-euforičar?
Izjava "DobrogSkroz" [109] u kojoj je napisao "ulazi u standarde Nezavisne Wikipedije Hrvatske.", Reductio ad Hitlerum. To je napadačko pisanje. Mržnja i defamiranje usmjereno protiv hrvatskih Wikipedista i hr.wiki.
Zar DobarSkroz smatra da je u redu citirati ovakve izjave [110][111]? Pa oni tekstovi su teško nacionalno samomrzje. Zar takve tekstove tamo nekog novinara DobarSkroz smatra dobrim "relevantnim izvorom"? Kritike neprimjerenosti tih tekstova imate elaborirane ovdje. [112]. Kubura (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moj komentar na stranici se desio mjesec danan nakon gornjeg bloka i dalje stojim iza njega no ne može imati nikave veze s ovim blokom. Eurofobija i nehumanost dotičnog autora je očigledna iz svih njegovih tekstova. Po njemu je osuđenik za ratni zločin žrtva, a krivca nalazi u teoriji zavjere koju može smisliti samo neki eurofob. I da ljudska prava su mi bitnija od nečije plemenske pripadnosti i ponosim se s tim.
My comment on the site took place a month after this block case and I still stand behind him, but it can not have nothing to do with this block. Europhobia and inhumanity of the respective author is evident in all his writings. According to him, a person indicted for war crimes is victim, and he finds guilt in EU conspiracy theory that only eurofob can think of. And yes, human rights are more important to me than someone's tribal affiliation and I am proud of the that.--DobarSkroz (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of checkuser privileges - Zloupotreba provjeriteljskih ovlasti
Info: SpeedyGonsales misuses checkuser privileges and defends sockpuppets.
Description: User Argo Navis (former admin) has warned user Croq against misuse of sockpuppets (User:Kosmetic) for voting. Few hours later, Argo Navis received a message from admin SpeedyGonsales (also a checkuser) with claim that two accounts are checked and ranges are "different". However, same account has been checked two days ago (12 November 2013) and other checkuser has proved Croq has indeed used Kosmetic as sockpuppet, along with nine other accounts (he's now banned for 2 years). His multiple votes against desysopping is secondary issue comparing to obivous manipulations of checkuser privileges by SpeedyGonsales. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

It's remarkable that he doesn't seem to get it that the proof already emerged when it was established that Croq=Kosmetic. Either the CU tools are useless and unreliable (which I doubt, considering that they work on other Wikipedias and were not abolished), or SpeedyGonsales does not know how to use them or he was protecting Croq. It would be useful if SpeedyGonsales would upload a screenshot of his result of the first check on Croq, which were negative. Until that, or a more convincing explentation, I have no choice but to vote for this, as well (P.S. several users were blocked on Cro Wiki after they demanded an explanaetion on this CU incident on the Willage Pump).--Seiya (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the administrator Ex13 has blocked following accounts:
  1. hr:Suradnik:Kaj-man
  2. hr:Suradnik:Pustine
  3. hr:Suradnik:Sitting-full
  4. hr:Suradnik:Zing
  5. hr:Suradnik:A-ciha
  6. hr:Suradnik:Ming
  7. hr:Suradnik:Pong
  8. hr:Suradnik:Playmen
  9. hr:Suradnik:Sayya
  10. hr:Suradnik:Kosmetic
at the time every account have is different autoblock. --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SpeedyGonsales was very vague in answering the question regarding the Croq-Kosmetic case, and so was Ex13 when I asked him.[113] SG has deliberately subverted the CU check, I don't see any other explanation. It's all part of an elaborate tag-team operation. GregorB (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse - Povreda
Info: SpeedyGonsales working against community consensus, possible missusing the bot
Description: In croatian language, there are two words used for english word geography: "zemljopis" and "geografija". "Zemljopis" is favored by language purist, who consider "geografija" to be srbism, while some other prefer "geografija", which is closer to original greek word (γεωγραφία). Maybe is not that simple, but the point here is that community had very long discussion about this issue long time ago (hr:Razgovor:Zemljopis/Zemljopis vs. geografija, and the conclusion was to use "geografija". Despite that, someone obviously forgot to clean up the hr:Category:Zemljopis, so hr:user:Mladifilozof changed last 15 entries in superfluous hr:Category:Zemljopis to already accepted hr:Category:Geografija. After some time, Croq's sockpuppet hr:user:Playman tried to revert it, but finnaly hr:User:Argo Navis reverted it to "Geografija", with explanation in summary. hr:User:Argo Navis also proposed hr:Category:Zemljopis for deletion, with [https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Razgovor_o_kategoriji%3AZemljopis&diff=4194800&oldid=1655006 comment on talk page, and on Nov 30, admin hr:user:Man Usk finally deleted it. But, ther same day, SpeedyGonsales' bot with admin rights hr:user:SpeedyBotA undeleted the category, but not the entire history, but only 78 versions of it, obviously not wanting to return versions of hr:User:Argo Navis, where deletion was proposed (see see deletion log). I'm not aware that it can be done by delete.py, so it might mean that Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales was manually logged as bot in order to avoid being noticed. This can easily be checked by checkuser, since bot and browsers show different user agents in CU results. SpeedyBotA made 4 more changes that day where he changed "zemljopis" to "geografija", with false summary "lektura" (proofreading), while he was actually starting to overturn long-time agreement about croatian translation for "geography". --Argo Navis (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the contributions of SpeedyBotA and I found multiple proofs that he works with this bot directly from the browser. I found some examples [114], [115], [116], too slow for bot, looks like browser work. I also found proofs that he patroled some articles with bot account: Staglišće patrol log (includes at tleast 2 patrols by this bot). This behaviour is against Bot policy.

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support This looks like display of power after recent events, i.e. something to do with his furstration with unobedient admins. I believe his ego took power over his reason.
    Regardsing messing with his admin bot account (where he personally gave bot and admin flags to his own bot account), he didn't really missuse it to do something really bad (until Nov 30, see above), but this example shows mindset of a person who don't really cares about rules and consider wikipedia to be his private playground where he, the ultimate boss, is not oblidged to follow the rules. I can't even begin the understand the mindset of a person who, instead of logging in with his regular account, chooses to break the rules and decides to edit wikipedia as an admin bot, just for the fun of it. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support It (undelete) definitely wasn't something a bot should do, avoiding any kind of discussion and virtually hiding it from recent changes. Bot undeleted it not an hour after another administrator deleted a then empty category [117]. Also, as a hr.wiki admin, I can confirm that only 78 of 79 revisions were undeleted - one remaining is Argo's proposal for deletion. Also, I'm not aware of any kind of discussion for granting SpeedyBotA administrator rights. --MayaSimFan (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Suradnik:SpeedyGonsales blocked Boris Godunov on 2012-11-04 for 1 year.
Description: Boris Godunov was editting Gvozd (willage in Croatia that Serbs call "Vrginmost") and discussing on its talk page. He made cca 30 edits on Oct 30 and Nov 1st 2012. He was discussing it decently, without insulting anyone (at least I don't find any insults, but feel free to check). I must admit I don't make any sense on SpedyGonsales' comment related to block, so I might be missing some information. From what I see, block doesn't make any sense. --Argo Navis (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Comment I've reviewed BG's Gvozd-related edits. His approach seems to be generally constructive, although he oftentimes veers off-topic in the discussion, and while that doesn't help with controversial issues, it is not an offense. There is a personal attack, though, calling an editor a "provocateur", and I believe SG's comment describes this particular edit.[118] What is strange, though, is that SG's rationale: "Kad sam vidio spominjanje Korduna, četnika, baba i djedova, prvo sam pomislio na trajni blok" - is merely mentioning Chetniks grounds for an indef ban? "Zazivanje ratnih zločinaca iz 2. svjetskog rata ne toleriramo" - here the problem is that SG is either: 1) lacking in reading comprehension or 2) deliberately misconstruing BG's edit as an endorsement of war criminals, so that he can righteously ban him for 1 year, although there's nothing that would warrant such a harsh ban. SG is a smart guy, so I'd say it's #2. And this is not random, of course, there is a obvious pattern. GregorB (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeljko

edit
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Suradnik:Zeljko blocked Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (1700 edits) on 2013-09-17 for 3 months
Reason: "attacking behavior and spreading of hate" in this
Description: Looks like she was blocked for expressing her opinion. Not sure if it the block is in place because of her posting the NoFascistHrWikipedia userbox, or because of her comment from 2 days earlier on the current state of Croatian Wikipedia. Miranche (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Croatian Wikipedia, w:hr:User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf has copied this userbox from English Wikipedia that says "This user supports exposing pro-fascist bias on hr.wikipedia", and put it on her user page. Afterwerds she invited in the local Village pump for everyone else to do the same, to explicitly "distance themselves from the fascist bias". This userbox was very soon deleted by the admin-in-charge User:SpeedGonsales (the one that was called out in the media by name as supporting fascism and Ustashi ideology)[119] with "vandalism" as deletion summary, and immediately after User:Zeljko has issued a 3-month block[120] with "attack on the project" as an explanation. --Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • This was a troubling block. If everyone who is unhappy about the current debates is blocked, then the resulting discussions on hr:wp will be quite one-sided. –SJ talk  08:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support You cannot block someone for expressing her opinion in a neutral way.--Seiya (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support It is important to understand a nuance here. In certain Wikipedias, including the English one, userboxes with overtly political messages (e.g. "I (don't) support Obama") are undesirable, because they are seen as divisive and potentially inflammatory, while not serving a legitimate wiki-related purpose (i.e. whether one supports Obama or not is completely irrelevant in the process of creating an encyclopedia). On the other hand, userboxes that spell out a user's position on wiki philosophy or policy (e.g. "I am (not) a deletionist") are perfectly legitimate: although they may appear divisive or inflammatory in certain cases (inclusionism/deletionism debates tend to be highly polarized), they are "on topic". All opinions should be protected, not just pleasant-to-hear ones. GregorB (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support this block is normal for "ur-fascism" society where "Disagreement Is Treason"--DobarSkroz (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suradnica Maria Sieglinda je u Kafiću komentirala novonastalo stanje nakon medijskog pisanja o pristranim člancima na hr.wiki., osuđujući pritom rad administratora i predlažeći njihovu smjenu [121]. Postavlja na svoju suradničku stranicu okvirić kopiran sa engleske wikipedije u kojem piše: "Ne fašističkoj hrvatskoj wikipediji" [122]. U kafiću potom predlaže da se svi pristrani članci, koje ona naziva fašistoidnim i s nacionalističkom intonacijom, označe odgovarajučim predloškom i da se krene njih prve ispravljati. [123] Željko je zbog toga kažnjava tromjesečnim blokom radi, kako je to on definirao "napadačkog ponašanja i govora mržnje". Suradnica je, dakle, blokirana tri mjeseca jer je riječima i okvirićem iznesla svoje mišljenje, svoju oštru kritiku sadašnjeg administriranja, kao i moguća riješenja. --Dean72 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deane72, neka Maria Sieglinda ovo napiše [124] pod svojim pravim imenom i prezimenom. I neka to objavi u svim hrvatskim medijima, tiskanim, internetskim i radiotelevizijskim. "Na Wiktionaryju već je odavno ukinuta mogućnost unosa na hr., bs. ili sr., te se pokušaji unosa na tim varijacijama automatski konvertiraju u sh. Dakle, Meta-Wiki već je pokazao što misli. Jasna je i daljnja njihova strategija, Jimbo ju je netom najavio: merging svačetiri južnoslavenska wikiprojekta. Treba prije svega smijeniti birokrate i administratore koji servisiraju tu defektnu strukturu - i najbolje što bi hr.wikizajednica mogla učiniti za vlastiti opstanak jest da smjenu izvede sama ne čekajući befel od Meta-Wiki."
  • Na en.wječniku to je napravljeno zaslugom nekih pristranih osoba koje su drsko ignorirale hrvatsku zajednicu. I Kongresnu knjižnicu SAD-a. To nije mišljenje Meta-Wiki, nego točno određenih osoba koje to guraju. Pitaj Ivana Štambuka. Kad bi netko spojio na silu hr. i sr.wiki, zakopao bi wikiprojekt zauvijek.
  • Povjerenje bi se zauvijek izgubilo. Ignorirati hrvatsku posebnost - sjeti se kako je prošla Praktična žena zbog jedne duplerice, 2-3 godine prije Domovinskog. Gubitak tržišta u Hrvatskoj.
  • Em bi wikiprojekt bojkotirali wikipedisti i wikičitatelji, em bi takav čin nasilnog spajanja bio izrugivanje svim hrvatskim i srpskim znanstvenicima i književnicima (kako je Desanka Maksimović hvalila Hrvate što tako vole i njeguju svoj hrvatski jezik?) koji su razvijali svoje jezike.
  • "da će nam opet netko izvana morati promijeniti pelenu jer sami nismo kadri." Nemamo mi što mijenjati. Čisti smo. Niti nam trebaju tutori. Mi smo samostalni, formirani narod, i sve što nam se nametne od vanka neprijateljski je čin, čin okupacije. Tražiti vanjsku intervenciju u najmanju je ruku ropsko razmišljanje, razmišljanje roba koji uvijek želi gospodara. Ili militantne manjine koja u stvarnom životu nikad ne dobije potporu zajednice, pa na vlast jedino zna doći nasilnim mijenjanjem legalno izabranih organa, prije svega uz inozemnu pomoć. A zadnji koji su došli na vlast hrvatskom narodu, nametnutim putem, uz pomoć vanjskih sila bili su 1941. godine. Kubura (razgovor) 06:35, 21. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taj suradnički okvir nije nikakvo "izražavanje mišljenja". To je podjarivanje na napad, ocrnjivanje neistomišljenika. Izravni napad na sve suradnike hr.wiki. Taj suradnički okvir sugerira postojanje nekakvog fantomskog, navodnog "profašističke pristranosti".
  • Takva retorika pripada vremenima jugokomunizma, kad su kroatofobi na taj način defamirali svakog hrvatskog protivnika odnosno svaku hrvatsku oporbu ("ustaše, fašisti, nacisti"), kadgod je Hrvatska dizala glas za svoja prava. Razlog te ocrnjivačke antihrvatske retorike bio je držati Hrvatsku u poniženom, podređenom, submisivnom položaju.
  • Drugi razlog te ocrnjivačke retorike kod kroatofoba je taj što su u klevetnici na taj način opravdavali svoja radna mjesta, pa su izmišljali nepostojeće ustaše, fašizam, nacizam i što sve ne. Takvi probisvijeti su ocrnjivali i bližu rodbinu, radi prosperiranja na društvenoj ljestvici. Nešto slično činila je DR Njemačka, Staljinov SSSR i Albanija Envera Hoxhe.
  • Istu praksu činila je velikosrpska hegemonistička klika u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji, jugounitaristi, centralisti i svi oni koji su prosperirali na račun podjarmljene Hrvatske. S time što je onda najbolja defamativna etiketa bila "komunisti", pa su Hrvate optuživali za komunizam.
  • Vlado Gotovac to je najbolje oslikao u ovom intervjuu za švedsku televiziju 1977. godine: Evo snimke [125] a evo i transkripta iz Hrvatske revije [126]:
  • "Prema tome, ono što Hrvatska traži u okviru Europe... nije nikakvo provincijsko pitanje, nije nikakvo pitanje kod kojega treba odmahnuti rukom, a najmanje je to razlog, da se nekakve sulude brbljarije o nama pričaju; ja zbilja ne mogu drukčije to nazvati, i da nas se difamira, da nas se pokuša ušutkati time, da nam se kaže, da smo fašisti, da smo ustaše. Svi narodi na svijetu, ako se pogledaju iskreno, imaju svojih crnih točaka, kad su bili slabi; imaju pojedinaca, većih ili manjih grupa, kojima se ne ponose, kojih zlo ne priznaju. I mi priznamo, da postoje ljudi koji su činili zio i nama i drugima, ali ne vjerujemo, da bi takve činjenice smjele da igraju bilo kakvu ulogu, kad se raspravija o sudbini naroda, o pitanjima slobode, o pitanjima pravde, ...".
  • I ono što je onda pripisano Vladi Gotovcu i proljećarima, i Hrvatskoj tijekom Jugoslavija, pa za doba Domovinskog rata, a danas što je pripisano hrvatskim Wikipedistima, spada u okvir onih uobičajenih besramnih defamatorskih napada na Hrvate. Kubura (razgovor) 05:06, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Čitam ovu zadnju Kuburinu rečenicu i ne mogu vjerovati. Sav ovaj skandal koji je izbio oko hr:wikipedije nije napad na SVE hrvatske wikipediste i na Hrvate općenito (?!), o čemu mi pričamo? Ovo je napad na one wikipediste koji su unosili ekstremno desne djelove teksta u članke i na neke administratore koji su to uredno označavali pregledanim i sprječavali njihovo ispravljanje. Ovo je kritika pojedinaca, a ne kritika hr:wikipedije kao projekta. A ako neki administratori misle da je napad na njihov rad, napad na wikipediju onda je to još više zabrinjavajuće. Grozim se same pomisli stati u stroj jednoumlja iza nekog ili nekih vođa i nekritički ih podržavati po svaku cijenu, jer sam dijelom jedne grupe/projekta. Zato sam pred mjesec dana i napisao da ovakva kakva je sada, ovo nije moja wikipedija i dobio mailove pune kritika. Suradnici wikipedije i administratori bi morali shvatiti da ovi medijski napadi nisu neka elementarna nepogoda koja se desila ni iz čega, nisu ni ničim izazvana zavjera jugokomunista i udbaša, ovi su medijski napadi isključivo posljedica desno pristranog uređivanja i prakse zaštite takvih suradnika od strane nekih administratora. Ovakvim se administriranjem učinila daleko veća, nepopravljiva šteta ovom projektu od svih "jugokomunističkih" napada koje si neki zamišljaju.
Marijin je potez s okvirićem bio jak, izazivački, možda i neprimjeren, ali njime je pogodila u sridu. Time što je predložila da se članci označe i da se krene s ispravljanjem pokazala je barem djelomično namjeru da konstruktivno pridonese ovom projektu, pa barem savjetom. Ako se ide na blokadu svakog neistomišljenika to će stvoriti jednoumlje, a smrt pluralizma je ono najgore što netko ovdje može učiniti. Ovaj je blok bio potpuno neopravdan. Ako se ima imalo dobre volje, trebalo bi Mariju odblokirati i pozvati je da iznese svoje mišljenje pristojnim i pomirljivim tonom, pa ako se uistinu pokaže destruktivnom i bezobraznom tada će i blok koji će dobiti biti stvarno opravdan.--Dean72 (razgovor) 01:56, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Da te podsjetim što je Močilac napisao na svojoj suradničkoj stranici [127]? Što se tiče okvirića, to je djetinjasto i smiješno. Stavljanje okvirića na svoju suradničku stranicu je neka ozbiljna stvar? Manje ili više ozbiljna od nedjelovanja? Ako se ti slažeš s konstatacijom da je ovo fašistička wikipedija (kako su je mnogi u medijima, a i među samim suradnicima prozvali) što još radiš na njoj? Ili ne misliš, kao neki drugi suradnici.--MaGa 10:35, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deane72. Jedno je biti protiv fašizma, nacizma, komunizma i svih inih totalitarizama. I to je u redu. Ali ne smije se samovoljno defamirati druge.
  • Etiketirati jedan projekt (u ovom slučaju: naš) na onakav način - to je bezobrazno, zlonamjerno i neodgovorno. Jer tako se stvara zlonamjerna lažna slika: kao da fašističko postoji samo na hrvatskoj, a drugdje ne, da su svi drugi ružice (a drugdje ima blata ohoho; pokušaj samo ući s ovakvim logotipom [128] na majici u Mađarsku). ::* ::* Predložak je ista ona demagogija svih onih kroatofoba (i samomrzećih Hrvata) koji vječno Hrvatskoj i Hrvatima nabijaju stigmu fašizma (za novce ili iz ideološke opčinjenosti); prije drugog svjetskog rata Hrvate su etiketirali kao komuniste. Poslije rata to više nije bilo unosno, pa su našli novi epitet.
  • Ako si negdje vidio nešto što nezgodno izgleda, zvuči, što je nepotpuno, što daje na fašizam, mogao si to ispraviti. Zašto nisi? Što si čekao?
  • Vidim da u Istri imate problema s fašizmom oće li Kajin spriječiti da 16. kolovoza na komemoraciji u Puli bude umirovljeni general Mazzarolli, ekstremni načelnik Pule u egzilu? i Fini u Puli točno na dan Mussolinijeva posjeta ("Iako se Fini, bivši čelnik neofašističkih stranaka, deklarativno odrekao fašizma i "Mussolinija, najvećeg političara svih vremena", upravo je njegov nekadašnji idol Duce prvi i jedini put posjetio Pulu prije 90 godina, i to baš 21. rujna. "Vjerujem da je datum pomno odabran i da je riječ o političkoj provokaciji" kaže povjesničar Darko Dukovski, stručnjak za povijest Istre: – Vuk dlaku mijenja, ali ćud ne. Fini se može izdavati kao desni centar, no u duši ostaje ono što je bio.") A o ovakvim stvarima da ne govorim: Na dan Oluje fašistički grafiti u Poreču ("Na porečkoj su šetnici uz kukaste križeve i Ducea i grafiti Parenzo Fascista te Istria Italia, a u Červaru četiri C i potpora Karadžiću"). Kod nas takvi neofašisti ne prolaze. Mi ih na hr.wiki ne veličamo, nego oštro osuđujemo takve. Kubura (razgovor) 06:35, 21. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Zeljko blocked Pavlemocilac (350 edits) on 2013-09-07, permanently, diff leading to block
Description: "permanently blocked for hate speech" - reverted & blocked for returning after a 2-year gap to update user page explaining why they left. The edit said in part '[my] effort was in vain, hr:wp is probably permanently ruined [because of] fascists, chauvinists and nationalists'
This was certainly a provocative edit. But blocking, let along permanently, seems like overkill. –SJ talk  08:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • A šta bi komentatori htjeli? Da napadnuti dokazuje da nije kriv, a da pljuvač može dotad pisati što hoće? I to napadač koji piše podjarujuće defamirajuće poruke po Facebooku na račun hrvatske Wikipedije? Koji zaziva uznemiravanje suradnika Wikipedije u njihovom privatnom životu, koji huška na zadiranje u privatnost? Koji onako etiketira i defamira hrvatske Wikipediste, po receptu po kojem su jugounitaristi i velikosrbi defamirali 1971. borce za hrvatska prava te 1991. borce za hrvatsku neovisnost? Kubura (razgovor) 05:06, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Komentar Pavla Močilca je svakako bio neprimjeren, bezobrazan i zaslužio je blokadu, ali ne i trajnu. Ovo je pretjerivanje. Na ovom sam projektu vidio dva slična komentara, iako puno blaža i kažnjena su dvotjednom i trodnevnom blokadom. Pošto je vidim običaj odgovaranja na kritike postavljanje protupitanja, postavio bi i ja jedno pitanje: ako Pavle etiketira neke hrvatske administratore klerofašistima, šovinistima i nacionalistima i zato dobije trajni blok, kakvu bi kaznu morali dobiti oni koji SVE kritičare ovakvog stanja na hr:wiki etiketiraju s epitetima jugokomunista, orjunaša, velikosrba i udbaša? Evo, čisto onako...--Dean72 (razgovor) 02:12, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Zeljko blocked Mladifilozof on 2013-10-09 for 1 week
Reason: "unproductive edit: ignore the instructions and arrogance" ("neproduktivno uređivanje: ignoriranje uputa i drskost").
Description: The administrator has blocked me for categorizing articles on Wikipedia. Before that, he warned me: "Without boosting contributions inserting unnecessary category in all sorts of terms" (Bez bildanja doprinosa ubacivanjeima nepotrebnih kategorija na kojekakve pojmove). As you may know, there are ongoing elections on hr wiki. I was working to gain my right to vote. First, he warned me to stop. And then he blocked me. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Your third lie, as of today, this is still unexplained on hr wiki.--Seiya (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seiya, I think he meant his comment on the submission below -- both are about Mladifilozof. Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Zeljko; Date - datum
[129]
Description: Željko warned Mladifilozof that he might be banned for alleged legal threats. Mladifilozof wrote to Roberta: ...Btw, I do not think You are especially guilty, after examining how some articles brought in terrible condition. In the matter of fact, nobody is especially guilty, as I You could see from given examples. You delete a unreferenced content, Speedy leaves a unreferenced content, it is all legitimate. But, by time some articles became terribly biased.So biased that they offend some people, so biased that publishing them in some countries might trigger legal consequences... -- Bojan  Talk  07:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support It is very clear that Mladifilozof's post does not contain any legal threats. I don't think it is possible to misinterpret it in good faith, so this looks like a deliberate misapplication of policy for purpose of harassment. Note also Zeljko's wording: "We won't tolerate hostile conduct and attacks against Croatian Wikipedia" - a common theme in which criticism of Croatian Wikipedia is deemed "hostility" and "attack". GregorB (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support this ban can be only explained with admin xenophobia. --DobarSkroz (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Might as well block him for assassinating Lincoln, too.--Seiya (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vidim da bi neki sa srpske wikipedije htjeli kontrolirati hrvatsku wikipediju uz pomoć nekih naših domaćih ulizica. A što se tiče blokiranja, večinu sam sam blokirao, a one koje nisam nego su ih drugi blokirali (Roberta, Kubura ili Spidi), učinili su to na moj nagovor. Tako da znate. Na ovu wikipediju je svako dobrodošao ako joj ne kopa rupu, nego je došao surađivati ,a takvih i imamo fala bogu.
Čitao sam što pišete o nama po fejsbuku ( na primjer taj Močilac) i kakvim imenima nas nazivate. Šta to ne stavite tu. Mislim da ovo i ne čita niko drugi osim nekoliko vas hatersa pa nije ni potrebno pisati na engleskom. Svi vi jako dobro razumijete hrvatski, i slobodno me mrzite koliko god želite. --Zeljko (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Željko, bilo bi konstruktivno ako biste mogli odgovoriti na ovdje navedene konkretne primjere. Narednih dana ćemo ih prevesti ih kako bi Vam se to olakšalo. Miranche (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Netreba meni prevađat sa engleskoga. A šta budem htio napisat na en. napisat ću sam. Ja razumijem da bi Srbi htjeli da mi pišemo šta oni hoće. Ne razumijem ove naše koje im pomažu. A da malo pogledamo kakve su druge wikipedije, ni gore ni lošije od naše. Bunite se protiv, engleske ruske ili srpske, i oni imaju svačega. --Zeljko (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the comments above, one of the accused sysops User:Zeljko is making troubling accusations, calling the non-Croatian participants of this discussion instruments of Serbian Wikipedians who ultimately "want us [the Croatia Wikipedia] write what they [the Serbian Wikipedia] want". Once again, the whole issue is being reduced to ethnic denominator. The comment is indicative of the Croatian Wikipedia sysops mindset, who apparently perceive no real issues with their actions, and see this page as yet another "attack" on CW. Instead of acknowledging mistakes, some of which are glaringly obvious, all of the evidence is promptly dismissed, not because of its nature, but because who submitted it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zeljko: "Bunite se protiv, engleske ruske ili srpske, i oni imaju svačega (Rebel against English, Russian or Serbian Wikipedia, they have all sorts of things, too)"
This says a lot. At least he admitted the problem for the first time.--Seiya (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to forget that Željko is/was keeping image of a fascist on his Facebook profile in same album with images related to Hajduk FC (Željko is their big fan) -- Bojan  Talk  22:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • BokiceK, ti se bavi svojim uklanjanjem tvrdnja da Arkan nije ratni zločinac.[130] I da Srbija nije napala Hrvatsku.[131] Pa ćemo dalje o tvojoj nepristranosti i o izvanwikipedijskim stvarima.
  • GregoreB, iz tvojih dosadašnjih pisanja vidljivo je da ti svaku adminsku komunikaciju s nekim smatraš napadom, pa bio to savjet, prijekor, upozorenje, sankcija, naputak ili pozdrav. Spamiraš.
  • DobarSkroz, ova kleveta s ksenofobijom je besramna. Ako ne znaš značenje te riječi, ne rabi ju. Tolike smo inozemne suradnike tako toplo dočekali na hr.wiki. A sad da nas poslije tolikih toplih dočeka netko poput tebe ocrnjuje? Kolegu Zeljka koji je ljubavlju sastavio malu enciklopediju na hr.wiki o Indijancima, ti ga tako ocrnjuješ? Kako te nije sram.
  • DobarSkroz, ti se agresivno ponašaš, nisi niti tri mjeseca nazočan, a već tako teško optužuješ. To nije konstruktivno ponašanje. I kolikogod da ti se objasnilo gdje si griješio, ti još gori.
  • Dalje, DobarSkroz, Wikipedija nije sudnica niti policijsko ispitivanje niti simulacija ispitivanja zarobljenika u logoru, u na kojem ćeš šikanirati osobu na koju si se okomio.
  • Sad ću o kolegi koga si ocrnio: kao što kolega Zeljko znade blokirati, tako i običava sam odblokirati, u kratkom roku, a da ga nitko na to ne mora nagovoriti.[132] Na taj način šalje diskretnu poruku da ne trpi neka nepoželjna izražavanja, a sankcioniranom daje drugu šansu.
  • U drugim okolnostima vrlo vjerojatno bi Zeljko drukčije postupio k Mladomfilozofu, no kad se zajednica suočila s onakvim bezočnim i nečasnim medijskim klevetama, hajkama, linčem, 'lovu na vještice' i kad se prepoznalo kako su na wikiprojektima najednom izronili brojni mrzitelji Hrvata, onda neke izjave i ponašanja djeluju sasvim drukčije. Tko se priključi linču i još podjaruje hajku, taj pripada srednjem vijeku.
  • Mladifilozof je upao u neki stroj, možda ga zavedoše nekakvim pričama, ali kolegu Mladogfilozofa cijenimo, njegove riječi drukčije shvaćamo, priznajemo njegov dosadašnji trud, način ophođenja, prijateljski ga savjetujemo ([133][134] i dr. poruke) i zbog toga ga kolega nije ni sankcionirao teškom mjerom (1 tjedan [135]).
  • Zeljko je napisao Mladomfilozofu "moračeš promijenit način ophođenj. Drsko i bahato razgovaraš kao ovdje sada. A znaš kako kažu ljudi, lijepa riječ svaka vrata otvara. Ja sam ti dao mogućnost da biraš. Ako čemo pristojno komunicirati, maknuću ti blok. A ti biraj....U buduće bez bahatih izjava i napada da netko pravi štetu." [136] Kubura (razgovor) 05:13, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Zeljko bullies Dean72
Description: On the 18 June 2013 Dean72 copies two medical articles ("Hemodialysis" and "Peritoneal dialysis") from Bosnian Wikipedia to Croatian Wikipedia, adding in the short preview "copied from Bosnian Wiki". Shortly after, he gets a message from admin Zeljko on his talk page: "Did you come here to write and cooperate or transfer other stuff, so what you find." [137]. Dean72 replies that he does not understand the above sentence and does not see a problem if he copies from other Wikipedias.[138] He gets an anwser that can only be described as admin abuse and intimidation: "I asked you if you came to write or to transfer other one's stuff. We did not have such a practice and there are thousands of our articles on their Wikipedias. You are demolishing our reputation. Transfering articles from other Wikipedias (Serbian, Bosnian) is not cooperation but something else, don't let me say it." [139]. By the way, thousands of articles from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia were copied to Croatian Wikipedia as well (Kosmetic, for instance, copies exclusively), but the policy there is to "hide" copying by "not mentioning it in the Show preview box".--Seiya (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opis: Dana 18. 06. 2013. suradnik Dean72 prebacuje dva medicinska članka "Hemodijaliza" i "Peritonejska dijaliza" sa bosanske na hrvatsku wikipediju navodeći pritom podrijetlo članka u sažetku. Ubrzo nakon toga dobije poruku administratora Željka na svojoj SZR: "Jesi li ti došao pisati ovdje i surađuvat ili prebacivat tuđe, pa šta nađeš." [140]. Dean72 mu odgovara da ne razumije gornju rečenicu i ne vidi u čemu je problem ako prebacuje članke s drugih wikiprojekata.[141] na što dobija odgovor koji se može okarakterizirati kao maltretiranje suradnika: "Pitao sam jesi li došao pisati ili prebacivati samno tuđe. Mi baš niasmo imali takvu praksu a naših članaka je na tisuće po njihovim wikipedijama. Rušiš nam ovime ugled. Ne uzimanje tuđeg i preseljavanje to nije suradnja nego nešto drugo, da ne imenujem šta." [142] (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Current CW sysops like to uncritically praise themselves and to point that Serbocroatian Wikipedia is built copying articles from Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian Wikipedias. That is partially true; full truth is there are/were many articles on subjects that those three Wikipedias didn't/don't have and editors of Serbian, Serbocoratian, Bosnian and Croatian regularly borrow articles on non-controversial topics, because it is easier than writing own articles or translating from a foreign language if translation to similar/same language already exists. I found many articles taken to Croatian Wikipedia from Serbocroatian (eg. by Aradic-es, Kosmetic), Serbian (by AugustDominus). Even a sysop manually copied (I can't explain otherwise so many spelling errors that originates from Serbocroatian Wikipedia) thousandsof articles (compare w:sh:Acton (Kalifornija) (original) vs. w:hr:Acton (Kalifornija). Hiding fact that something is copied, keeping it on their Wikipedia and attacking others is pure hypocrisy. -- Bojan  Talk  23:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support copying articles is not problem here but admin xenophobia towards the SerboCroatian language --DobarSkroz (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nije to zlostavljanje, nego u najgorem slučaju administratorov prigovor. Admini ne čitaju misli. Možda mu je prigovorio, jer često nam nalete suradnici koji beskritično kopiraju sadržaje sa susjednih južnoslavenskih Wikipedija, a nisu ih preveli kako treba na hrvatski, te stoga ne udovoljavaju kriterijima. I ako se pojavio još jedan takav suradnik, to kod admina budi sumnju. Admin ne čita misli pa da može znati misli li suradnik dobro (prevest će poslije) ili loše (kad nekritičnim kopiranjem ne poštuje jezik hr.wiki, nego zalijepi nešto i otiđe).
  • Admin i jest zato za podsjetiti dobronamjernog suradnika ako se malo zaboravi. Ili da zlonamjerniku dade do znanja da ga se prati.Kubura (razgovor) 05:23, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation was "Nije to zlostavljanje, nego u najgorem slučaju administratorov prigovor. (It's not bullying, at worst it is admin's complain)". This explanation itself requires explanation. What exactly did Dean72 do wrong here to incite such a rersponse from Zeljko? He just wrote that he copied an article from Bosnian Wikipedia.--Seiya (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kuburo, molim te, ne koristi argument slamnatog, jer ako si to namjerno učinio, to je vrlo nepristojno. Željkova reakcija protiv mene nije imala veze s jezičnom problematikom, između ostalog i zato što u mojim prebačenim člancima nije bilo traga neprevedenog teksta. Ja sam prebacio nekoliko desetaka članaka sa srpskohrvatske, bosanske i srpske wikipedije i svakog sam pomno pregledao, rečenicu po rečenicu, prije nego sam ga prenijeo na hr:wiki. To sam učinio i s izuzetno velikim člancima od 50-70 000 bajtova, ponekad mi je trebalo i dva dana da sve pregledam. Željkova reakcija je bila nešto drugo. On je mene napao zbog samog čina kopiranja članaka i nije spominjao jezik, pogledaj ono što je napisao: "...jesi došao surađivati ili prebacivati tuđe, pa šta nađeš?", "...preseljavanje, to nije suradnja nego nešto drugo, da ne imenujem šta." Primijeti da nikad nije tako reagirao protiv drugih suradnika koji čine isto (Kosmetic, Karamelo Lončarek i drugi). Optužio me da ovom praksom rušim ugled projekta, da se to ne može definirati suradnjom, te je insinuirao da se bavim "krađom članaka". Ovo je jednostavno i izravno maltretiranje suradnika od strane administratora drukčije se ne može definirati, jer nisam prekršio ikakvo pravilo, već sam naprotiv učinio nešto pozitivno za ovaj projekt i za širenje znanja općenito.--Dean72 (razgovor) 01:16, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Da si se mrvu potrudio otići i pogledati detaljnije stranicu za razgovor suradnika Kosmetica, vidio bi koliko je administratora i drugih suradnika reagiralo na njegove doprinose. Nije reagirao Željko, ali su reagirali mnogi drugi. Što se tiče suradnika Karamela, očito je da nisi vidio npr. ovo. Koliko je meni poznato, do dana današnjega, nema odgovora stewarda s Mete.--MaGa 10:35, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Zeljko against lesbian choir Le Zbor
Description: The chronology: user Veky66 writes an article about her music band in the lesbian choir "Le Zbor", while user Catchy completes it. Administrator Roberta F. suggests that the article should be deleted citing the rule that only music bands with a published album by a distinguished music record can have an article on Wikipedia. [143] Administrator Zeljko accepts the suggestion on the talk page. Catchy tries to reason with Zeljku by pointing out how Le Zbor published an album by the recognized music record Dirty old records [144], upon Zeljko replies sarcastically that he is not familiar with it "because he only listens to ojkalice (old Croatian music)" [145], and posts a link of one to her [146].
He uses Catchy's mistake in spelling the correct name of the music record to deny her request to save the article with another demeaning comment: "So, start singin' and dancin' something instead of writting articles." [147].
Catchy now realizes her mistake and spells the correct name: Dirty old label, after which administrator Saxum deletes the "delete tag" [148] and gives an explanation on the talk page that the music band now meets the criteria for an article on Wikipedia because its album was published [149]. Half an hour later, Zeljko then places another "Delete tag" with the explanation that he does not see anything "significant in the music band" [150]. Saxum reverts Zeljko's edit, reasoning that personal impressions cannot be a criteria for deleting an article [151]. An edit war follows between Zeljka and Saxum. After other admins express their opinion that the article should indeed be kept, Zeljko backs off, but resents Saxum for reverting his tags and accuses him of "admin vandalism" [152].--Seiya (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opis: Slijed događaja: Suradnica Veky66 piše članak o svom glazbenom sastavu lezbijskom zboru "Le Zbor", a suradnica Catchy ga nadopunjuje. Administratorica Roberta F. predlaže članak za brisanje pozivajući se na pravilo da samo sastavi s objavljenim albumom od uvažene diskografske kuće mogu imati članak na wikipediji.[153]. Administrator Željko prihvaća sugestiju na SZR. Catchy pokušava obrazložiti Željku da su Le Zbor objavili album od priznate izdavačke kuće Dirty old records [154], a Željko joj sarkastično odgovara da se on ne razumije u to "jer sluša samo ojkalice" [155], te joj postavlja link na jednu [156].
Koristi Catchynu grešku u navođenju točnog imena izdavačke kuće da odbije njen zahtjev za očuvanje članka s još jednim demotivirajućim komentarom: "Znači počnite pjevat i svirat umjesto što pišete članke." [157].
Catchy tada uviđa grešku i navodi točno ime izdavačke kuće: Dirty old label, nakon čega administrator Saxum briše predložak da je članak za brisanje [158] i daje obrazloženje na SZR da glazbeni sastav ispunjava uvjete za postojanje članka na wikipediji jer je izdao album od strane uvažene diskografske kuće [159]. Željko nakon oko pola sata postavlja predložak da je članak za brisanje s obrazloženjem da on ne vidi ništa značajno u ovom glazbenom sastavu [160] iako su svi kriteriji za postojanje članka ispunjeni. Saxum reverta Željkovo uređivanje s obrazloženjem da osobni dojmovi suradnika ne mogu biti kriterij za brisanje članka [161]. Slijedi niz revertova između Željka s jedne strane koji uporno želi da se članak obriše na temelju svog subjektivnog dojma o važnosti članka i Saxuma i Šokca s druge strane koji pokušavaju sačuvati članak pozivajući se na objektivne kriterije. Nakon izraženog mišljenja više administratora da članak treba sačuvati, Željko popušta zamjerajući Saxumu što je micao njegove predloške i radi toga ga optužuje za administratorski vandalizam [162]. (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Uopće niste pretpostavili Zeljkovu dobru namjeru.
Nije vam palo na pamet da je pazio na kriterije? A to što se vama čini, to je vaš pristrani stav.
Ovdje je bio problem samoreklamiranja nebitnog sastava, koji je bio samo kandidat za članak Hrvatski demo sastavi. Kao da sad Dean72 i ja osnujemo sastav, zabijemo se u garažu, udremo dva akorda u gitaru, šutnemo kantu (=bubanj), snimimo to na neki nosač zvuka, onda preko nekog servisa za brzo osnivanje poduzeća osnujemo "izdavačku kuću" s osnivačkim kapitalom od dvije kune i onda sami sebi objavimo album i tako se proglasimo za "mjerodavnim za ulazak u Wikipediju". Googleov test "Dirty+old+records" za onu "izdavačku kuću". Ta dajte, ljudi, uozbiljite se. Ne povezujte ovo s LGBTIQ temama, nije svatko tko zasvira dva akorda odmah novi Freddy Mercury, Holly Johnson, Boy George.
Tko o čemu, a vi o pravilima, sarkazmu i omalovažavanju. Ma tko ste vi da govorite o omalovažavanju? I to još da spočitavate Zeljku? Kubura (razgovor) 06:54, 21. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Zeljko; Date - datum: Nov 2 2013
please add link to FM block log
Description: Frano Milić voted to de-sysop 3 admins, and only 20 minutes later Zeljko blocked him forever without any explanation. See here. --Argo Navis (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Abuse of admin rights - Zloupotreba administratorskih ovlasti
Info: Zeljko; Date - datum: Nov 5 2013
[164], [165]
Description: Zeljko reverted referenced claims of Ante Pavelić being fascist leader, and locked the page in version he favors. --Argo Navis (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Kubura

edit

Block - Blokiranje

Info: Kubura blocks Tritomex (a handful of edits) on 2012-11-09 indefinitely
Reason: uklanjanje sadržaja stranica: Od prvih uređivanja. "Argumentiranje" neg. etiketiranjem cijele zajednice. == page content removal: starting with the first edits. "Argumentation" through negative labelling of the entire community.
Description: This was the most recent user who tried to remove the right-wing talking point rants from hr:Ustaše, the same ones that later got lambasted in the recent Jutarnji list article, that brought this whole kerfuffle to the spotlight. I looked this up only because of that, and otherwise have no idea who this Tritomex user is. They said that they were a long-time editor on en:, I checked now and I see that their block log on en: is clean - not necessarily indicative, but not a red flag either. In any case, their removals had these edit summaries:
  • Cjeli tekst je bez refernci, pun rasističkih komentara neprimjeren Vikipediji, koja strogo sankcionira veličanje rasizma, ksenofobije, antisemitizma i nacizma == The whole text is without references, full of racist comments inappropriate for Wikipedia, which harshly punishes the praising of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and nazism
  • Subjektivne ocjene bez referenci, osobno viđenje stvarnosti nisu u domenu Vikipedije == Subjective assessments without references, personal view of reality (are) not in Wikipedia's purview
And so forth. Their basic assertion, that they were removing a dubious unreferenced rant, was indeed true. The entire batch of edits they made, http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usta%C5%A1e&diff=3744241&oldid=3432227 clearly doesn't remove any text with inline references. To say that this was heavy-handed might be accurate, but to say that the removed text must stay just because the removal is heavy-handed, should be dubious at best - especially in such a controversial historical article. The removed parts had statements that would hardly last a day on en: - I'm pretty sure there'd be gobs of editors who'd have none of those assertions like how the assessments of the Ustaše in Britain and France are based on cliches, how the Peasant Party could have ruled NDH, numerous hypotheticals about Western betrayal, how racial laws were the fault of the Nazis and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, how the Serbs rebelled in 1941 before anyone even started exterminating them, and then how the Ustaše were similar to Milošević and Karadžić, how Croatian historians all failed in some respect when describing the Ustaše, and it goes on and on and on. What happened next was that several users on hr: accused this Tritomex person of vandalism, there was no meaningful discussion between them as they insisted on harping the same point, and three days later, Kubura came in and blocked Tritomex indefinitely with a self-righteous rant that was completely off base - accusing this user not only of heavy-handedness but how they used ad hominems (which they didn't), how they didn't use sources (which the removed text didn't), how they were a disrespectful egotistic destructionist that was "already recognized as such by other projects" (?!), etc. This looks awfully like this administrator was treating Wikipedia as a turf that needs to be protected - it's ridiculous. Full disclosure: I had a few run-ins on en: with the user Kubura, where they also advocated some right-wing Croatian POV and insisted that I submit to that. I don't recall the details but I do recall that it was pretty embarrassing. Also, last week I tried talking about this particular problem with SpeedyGonsales, but he was entirely convinced that there's nothing seriously wrong with this kind of behavior. IMHO that makes them both unfit to be Wikipedia administrators. --Joy (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Prvo, Joye, Tritomex je bio blokiran 05:19, 9. studenog 2012. To je skoro prije godinu dana. Zašto TEK sad prigovaraš? Kako to baš sad? Što si dosad čekao? Zašto izbjegavaš komunicirati sa mnom? Mogao si mi DAVNO VEĆ pisati, reći "ja bih ga odblokirao, molim te daj mu šansu, krivo se ponio, pogriješio je u pristupu". Poštujem stavove i drugih kolega.
  • Kao što sam Rjecini2 skratio blok (zapravo odmah odblokirao) i za to napisao obrazloženje, napravio bih to i za druge, samo da mi se lijepim riječima i pristojno obrazložilo.
  • Joye, pretpostavi dobru namjeru.
  • Što se tiče bloka: [166] Obrazloženje je dobio [167]. Blokiran je zbog destruktivnog ponašanja i vrijeđanja, a ne zbog neslaganja u sadržaju. Kad netko i to kao "novak" obriše 14.000 bajtova teksta [168][169][170], u prvima uređivanjima, bez obrazloženja na razgovoru (što je čest običaj starih vandala), uz napadačku poruku u sažetku, a to su mu jedina uređivanja, onda je stvar jasna. Da je obrazložio na razgovoru, naputio u sažetku, "vidi razgovor", "ovo je problem zbog ovog, ovog i ovog", "nedostaje izvor, ovo treba dopuniti", sve bi prošlo drukčije. Ovako se samo vidi gomila obrisanog teksta, a admini svakodnevno imaju probleme s osornim vandalima ("nemam ja šta tebi objašnjavati, izvoli traži gdje ne valja") koji uklone desetke tisuća bajtova teksta i u sažetku kao obrazloženje napišu svakakve pogrde. Kad bi admini pustili takav način uređivanja, vandali bi u vrlo malo vremena mogli pobrisati sadržaj svih Wikimedijinih projekata. Na kraju, mogli ste i vi: Joye, Seiyo ili Edgare sami ispraviti i u obrazloženju navesti što je ondje krivo. Kubura (razgovor) 05:29, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joy bi trebao pretpostaviti tvoju dobru namjeru jer si ti blokirao suradnika na neograničeno? A s obzirom da je u međuvremenu članak ustaše uređen gotovo identično kao Tritomexov edit[171], u kojem je uklonio osobna mišljenja kojih je bilo previše, njegova intervencija se pokazala točnom, ne vandalskom. Stoga, očekujemo njegovo odblokiranje.--Seiya (razgovor) 21:20, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[172] S obzirom na veliku količinu uklonjenog teksta (-20.298) [173] i na vremensku usklađenost s medijskim linčem, kao i na to da nije obrazložio na razgovoru [174] na razgovoru, ovo mi daje na očitu provokaciju. Wikipedija nije sama sebi izvor, tako da stanje jednog članka ne definira točnost drugog članka.
O Timbouctouu već imam određeno mišljenje, a ovo [175] mi daje na to o kome se radi. Timbouctou je u ovoj seriji uređivanja obrisao gomilu sadržaja.
Joy mora pretpostaviti moju dobru namjeru. Admin je, sam zna što adminima sve izgovore.
Seiyo, biti administrator nije ono što ti zamišljaš da jest. Novi suradnici moraju se držati reda. Wikipedija nije psihijatrijska ustanova gdje će administratori, ophoditelji i kvalitetni suradnici trpiti izljeve bijesa i osobnih frustracija uređivača kojima sadržaj nije po volji.
I ne skrivaj se, Seiyo, iza neodređene mase "očekujeMO njegovo odblokiranje". Koji to "mi"? Niti si ti taj koji određuje. Za onoliko obrisanog teksta mora se obrazložiti. A ne obrisati 20.000 bajtova teksta i onda "ne moram ja tebi ništa obrazlagati, točno je samo zato što sam ja to tako rekao". Inače bi svaki zafrkant mogao tako doći na hr.wiki, obrisati 20.000 bajtova teksta, bez obrazloženja, u sažetku pisati pogrde, masakrirati tako svaki veliki članak, a onda da mi se nađe neki Seiya koji će kazati "intervencija se pokazala točnom".
Stoga, ako smatraš da ono nije točno, moraš obrazložiti gdje nešto nije točno, a ako je stilski bliže eseju, slobodno izvoli ispraviti na enciklopedijski stil. Koliko vidim, još nisi obrazložio. [176]
Tritomex je mogao napisati na svojoj stranici za razgovor uljudnu molbu da ga se odblokira. Lijepa riječ svaka vrata otvara. Ako mu je stranica zaključana, mogao je uljudno zamoliti admina da ga odblokira. Tako smo izašli u susret Velimiru Ivanoviću. Ako već vjeruje Joyu, mogao je zamoliti Joya na en.wiki, ako nije na hr.wiki. Zašto to dosad nije učinio? Zar misliš da ne bi uvažio molbu kolege administratora, ophoditelja ili iskusnog suradnika "čovjek nije mislio loše, porazgovarali smo, djeluje mi ozbiljan, ja bih da ga odblokiramo, dajmo mu prigodu". Zašto Joy dosad nije mi pisao o tom slučaju? Kubura (razgovor) 03:53, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tritomex je uklonio osobna mišljenja iz članka i dao objašnjenje "Osobna promišljanja bez referenci storgo su zabranjena na Vikipediji." A uklonjeni tekst bile su rečenice tipa: "Je li ipak Ustaški pokret svijesno desno-radikalan, rasistički, možda i totalitaran? Odgovor na to je niječan" i "Stoga se i za realističnije ocijenjeni ustaški pokret može reći da je i dalje demoniziran i prikazivan u crno-bijeloj tehnici povijesnih prosudbi." U međuvremenu je taj tekst doista izbačen. Stoga te jasno pitam, Kubura: da li danas priznaješ da je Tritomex bio u pravu ili nije? Jer ako nije, da li ćeš onda vratiti članak u prvotno stanje?
Ovo postaje pomalo neobičan obrazac: čak i kad se ispostavi da je suradnik u sporu bio u pravu, ostaje blokiran jer je prejako prosvjedovao da je bio u pravu. Kao da se više gleda kako a ne što je netko napravio.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support The article was indeed far-right POV garbage, though that comes as no surprise given that it was written by User:Mir Harven. Kubura's "explanation" contains nothing of value. This is a clear example of Kubura abusing sysop buttons to permanently ban editors having opinions representative of the other end of political spectrum. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: User:Kubura talks to Suradnik:Absol in a condescending and offensive manner. (July 2010)
Description: Kubura enters the following in Absol's talk page: "Absol, how things are going? You are so smart and intelligent. It's only your second day on hr wiki, and you already know your way around categories. Common editors master that after 2 months, and you grasped it in two days."[177] He follows it with "Whoa, you're such a genius! On your first day you started using user subpages! Here many editors discover it only after a year."[178] This is an obvious sarcasm, it is offensive, and is clearly no way to talk to an editor. That it comes from an admin only makes it worse. GregorB (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Unworthy of an admin. Demeaning comments without any dignity from Kubura.--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Between the lines, I can detect User:Kubura's projection of others being sockpuppets. That's because User:Kubura and his friends use many sockpuppets to rig votes, to make reverts (typical example: account makes hundreds of trivial edits on e.g. villages in Vojvodina, and suddenly reverts edits in content disputes on some completely unrelated articles that happen to be discussed), as well as promote hate speech (note that the most vociferous accounts are always "sleeper" accounts like User:Chvrka, who don't make edits for months but suddenly "activate" in big disputes, while the master sysop accounts tend to ignore discussions, like they did on RfC). They project their fears of others using the same means, and that's why they are so abrasive against new wiki users who seem have some kind of former experience, and why no one is making a "clean start" via a new account. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--DobarSkroz (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Što se tiče Absola, ona je poruka test, kao sa šljivom i košpicom. Pravi novak obraduje se što ga admin hvali što je odmah sve shvatio, jer mu ne mora dalje objašnjavati, jer je adminu uštedio vrijeme, poštedio ga suvišnog posla. Koji se novi radnik ne obraduje kad ga šef prvog dana pohvali za dobro obavljeni posao, koje se dijete ne raduje kad ga učitelj prvog dana pohvali? Kod ginjole je drukčije - koga srbi, taj se češe.
  • Štambukove optužbe o ginjolama i namještanjima ispod su svake razine. Najbolji primjer za to je taj što nije bila rijetkost kad sam se ja i neke kolege na glasovanjima za neke teme (ili za admina) našao u manjini koja je preglasovana. Kubura (razgovor) 05:29, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ovo bi se možda čak i moglo objasniti, izuzev tvoje opaske "Uoala šta si genijalan!" koja ne drži vodu.--Seiya (razgovor) 21:20, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kažem ti, košpica i šljiva. Kubura (razgovor) 06:30, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje

Info: User:Kubura blocks user TheCrnoGlav indefinitely for writting in Serbian
Description: New user TheCrnoglav writes only six edits, three of which had words in Serbian. Kubura then blocks him indefinitely. [179] A more moderate move towards a new user would have been far more fitting. TheCrnoglav could have been warned again, or at best blocked for a week if he continued to write in Serbian, but after only six minor edits, this kind of a block is inexplicable.--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC) (I concede this point, insufficient evidence)--Seiya (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • [181] TheCrnoglav je uklonio podatak da je Momčilo Đujić ratni zločinac. Seiyo, je li ti zato smeta što ga se blokiralo?
TheCrnoglav je k tome, pisao pravopisno neredno (gomilanje velikih slova), bez kvačica. Nije nebitno ni to što je izmijenio tekst neposredno ispred oznake za referenciju, koja je govorila jedno, a Crnoglav je to uklonio [182] i unio drugo. A referencija se odnosila na uklonjeni podatak. Abolira li to tko četnike? Kubura (razgovor) 06:04, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meni ne smeta što si ga blokirao, nego što si ga blokirao neograničeno. Suradnik ima samo šest izmjena, nisi mu dao nikakvu priliku da se ispravi i pokaje. Da si mu dao blok tjedan dana i upozorenje, ne bi bilo problema. Da je on recimo potom nastavio dalje i nakon 60 izmjena, već bi bilo povoda. Ovako ga nema baš. Ovo je predrastično. Abolira li to netko ljudima pravo da se poprave?--Seiya (razgovor) 21:20, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: User:Kubura blocks user Maja Orani indefinitely for no visible reason
Description: New user Maja Orani makes one edit, adding that Marin Bukvic made a career after the show Hrvatska traži zvijezdu [183]. Kubura then blocks her indefinitely.[184] No explanation or apparent reason given.--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Ondašnji rezultati Googleovog testa "marin+bukvić" nisu davali ništa, a ni danas nije puno bolje, pa je pitanje udovoljava li kriterijima. "zapaženiju pjevačku karijeru ostvarili su" - nije bio slučaj. Ni sada. Bile su samo neke stranice kao ovo [185], forumske poruke i slično, a kamoli "značajnu karijeru". Izgledalo je kao slučaj samoreklamiranja ili ubacivanja nepostojećih osoba. Takvih šaljivčina imaš često, pa ubacuju svoja imena za se samoreklamirati, imena svojih prijatelja ili susjeda s kojima se šale ili žele rugati (jer neki se ljudi osramote na tim emisijama koje traže talente) ili ubace nepostojeću osobu.
Osobito admin bude nepovjerljiv kad se autori uređivanja od početka ne trude napisati č ili ć u imenu. Ta su slova na različitim mjestima na tipkovnici, pa se ne može pripisati da je krivo otipkao. Zafrkanti često tako ubace tekst bez dijakritika. Na izvorima navedenim u članku, Bukvića ovdje nitko ne spominje [186] (jedini dostupni izvor od navedenih). Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, explained and confirmed that you blocked a user indefinitely after only one wrong edit.--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Znači nije sporno da si blokirao suradnicu na neograničeno nakon samo jedne izmjene. Dobro, primljeno k znanju.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Kubura's claim that Google search for "Marin Bukvić" gave 0 hits at the time (August 2013) is untrue. One of the top Google hits is a rather informative June 2010 forum.hr post.[187] In the search results I also see two Bukvić's YouTube videos uploaded in May 2013 and December 2012 respectively. There is a Vimeo video of Bukvić's performance in a music festival, uploaded in January 2011. (Even without such obvious evidence it is clear that Kubura's claim is implausible, since reality show contestants tend to show up in Google results almost immediately after they appear on television for the first time, being discussed in various forums, social networks, etc.) So, with 15 seconds of effort it was possible to establish "Marin Bukvić" could be reasonably described by the sentence in question, and was not a random name. (Whether that was actually a good edit or not is an entirely different issue.) Since the addition was therefore not vandalism, but was apparently made in good faith, this is a bad error on Kubura's part. (Made even worse by rather unconvincing attempts to explain it away, if I might add.) GregorB (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Kubura blocks new user Losenpert indefinitely for wrong spelling after only one edit
Description: New user Losenpert makes one edit, adding external links on the article Yun Chi-ho, but with the wrong spelling "Korea" instead of Croatian "Koreja"[188]. Kubura then blocks him indefinitely.[189] No explanation or apparent reason given for such a harsh and aggressive block.--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

[190] Pročitaj sažetak. "neproduktivno uređivanje: strojni prijevodi, namjerno neuredno uređivanje od početka". Jedno mu je uređivanje vidljivo, možda ne vidiš ona obrisana. Evo ti primjera:
" 10:25, 25. srpnja 2013. . . Philip Jaisohn (Nova stranica: Philip Jaisohn i Philip Jason(7. siječnja 1864 - 5. siječnja 1951) je korejski neovisnost aktivist i političar, Anatomija liječnik, novin...)"
" 11:14, 25. srpnja 2013. . .(Park Jung-yang(koreja:박중양; hanja:朴重陽, 3. svibnja 1872 - 23. travnja 1959) je korejski dužnosnici i političari, reformski akti.."
Shvaćaš li o čemu se radi? Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, explained and confirmed that you blocked a user indefinitely after only three wrong edits.--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vidi se samo jedna izmjena suradnika. Znači blokiran je na neograničeno zbog tri izmjene?--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Kubura blocks new user SusanneZ indefinitely for two words in English after only five edits
Description: New user SusanneZ makes five edits, but mistakenly puts actress Marija Omaljev-Grbić and actor Miraj Grbić under "category:Actor" (in English, not Croatian) [191] [192]. Kubura then blocks her indefinitely.[193] No prior warning, no second chance given to correct her editing, nothing.--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Pročitaj opasku "Uklanjanje sadržaja, razgodka, unošenje gomile teksta na engleskom.".
Pogledaj [194] Uklanja jednu kategoriju, a ubacuje kategorije na engleskom, uklanja podatak o suprugovom prezimenu. To je već nagrđivanje sadržaja. Kvalitetni suradnik nikad ti ne će ubacivati malo jedan jezik, pa malo drugi jezik u kategorije. Zafrkanti pak rado miješaju sve i svašta. Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, explained and confirmed that you blocked a user indefinitely after only five wrong edits.--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Znači nije sporno da je blokirana neograničeno nakon samo pet izmjena. Primljeno k znanju.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Kubura blocks new user Bokisanisa indefinitely for mistakenly putting an infobox in English after only one edits
Description: New user Bokisanisa makes her first edit - probably not knowing better, she puts the Infobox settlement for Dalmatia in English [195]. Kubura then blocks her indefinitely.[196] No prior warning, no second chance given to correct her editing, nothing.--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Pa sve je ubacio na engleskom. [197] Sam si dao obrazloženje. Zar ćemo pustiti svakom tko dođe da šara po hr.wiki engleskim tekstovima? Ovo je wiki na hrvatskom. Neka odmah shvati kako treba raditi. Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, explained and confirmed that you blocked a user indefinitely after only one wrong edit.--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Znači nije sporno da je suradnik blokiran na neograničeno jer je zabunom ubacio englesku infokutiju nakon samo jedne izmjene. Primljeno k znanju.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ovo me posjeća na moje blokiranje na enwjecnik sjecate se one borbe za hrvatski jezik kad sam samo s jednim doprinosom blokiran svi smo se zgrozili nad time. Međutim nakon par dana to je vidio drugi administrator i odblokirao me sad sam i autopatroliran tamo. Da se nije išlo ovako na silu neka odmah shvati sta treba raditi mozda bi sada i suradnik Bokisanisa bio autopatroliran, šansu nije dobio.--Šokac ℗ 13:18, 20. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sokče, taj se en.wječnika nema fiksaciju na tebe. Još ne. I mene je kolega s en.wječnika odblokirao, a onda me je Ivan Štambuk opet blokirao.
Seiyo, molim te ne brani i ne ohrabruj zafrkante što dolaze ubacivati takve predloške po hr.wiki. Nije to jedan "kojem se eto, slučajno dogodilo". Da im se dogodilo slučajno, odmah bi ispravili. Da se je to tebi bilo tako dogodilo, ne bih te sankcionirao, jer znam da si stalni suradnik i da se tako ne zafrkavaš.
A kad ophodiš, onda primjećuješ obrazac ponašanja višekratnih i jednokratnih trolova, vandala i inih destruktivaca (pr., imaš onih šta tako naprave, nestanu na dvije godine, pa se opet pojave i onda nekom suradniku opsuju mater i to im budu jedina uređivanja). Kubura (razgovor) 07:19, 21. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: User:Kubura blocks new user Papir indefinitely for mistakenly putting a category after only seven edits
Description: New user Papir makes his first edits - probably not knowing better, he puts the article Jiroemon Kimura in the category "Oldest people in the world" inside a category [198], but corrects it[199]. Kubura then blocks him indefinitely, anway.[200]--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Upozoren je 3. travnja, a nastavio je i dalje s unošenjem besmislenog sadržaja. Uređivao je kao da se zafrkava [201][202][203][204]. Upozorili su ga BlackArrow, pa Roberta F., a nastavio je i poslije, čime je ometao održavanje.
Osim toga, ukrcao je uređivanja koje smo mu obrisali [205], jer je pisao tekstove ne poštujući hrvatski jezik. Evo ti primjeri:
  • 21:46, 3. svibnja 2013. . . Besse Cooper (Nova stranica: Besi je rođena 1896. godine u državi Tenesi. Ona se 1924. godine udala za Lutera, sa kojim je imala četvoro dece. Besi je radi...)
  • 21:38, 3. svibnja 2013. . . Predložak:Биографија (Nova stranica: Besse Cooper {{Biografija |datum rođenja=26. kolovoza. 1896 |datum smrti=4. ...)
Ni jedan normalni suradnik nije počeo onakvim zafrkavanjem. A na hr.wiki došle su tisuće suradnika. Kreativni, kvalitetni nikad ne počinju onako. Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, explained and confirmed that you blocked a user indefinitely after only seven wrong edits.--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Koliko se vidi, pošto je suradnik nov (sedam izmjena), može biti da je jednostavno krivo stavio kategoriju "Najstariji ljudi na svijetu" i nije znao bolje ju formatirati. U najboljem slučaju, ne vidim povod za blok veći od tjedan dana.--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: User:Kubura blocks new user Sharingham indefinitely for speaking out against the artificial Croatian Wikipedia title "Gender ideology"
Description: New user Sharingham makes his first edit. He complains about renaming "Gender studies" into "Gender ideology": "This article is simply a pointless propaganda nonsense (and no, that's not a too harsh of a word), from its title ("ideology") up until its end. There is no sense is trying to edit it, as much as there is no sense in trying to explain to those who wrote it, think it is all right and try to keep it like that with all their forces what is an encylcopedia or objectivity...But the funniest thing is that anyone who speaks a foreign language will go to read the article in English, French, German...and inform himself anyway and realize what of all this is true and what you are doing here". [206]. Kubura then blocks him indefinitely, just in case.[207]--Seiya (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Ovo su preoštre riječi za jednog novaka.[208] Ovako govoriti o neistomišljenicima [209] nikako nije u redu. Tako se ne razgovara s kolegama. Sasvim je u redu što se ne slaže, ali ako jednom "novaku" u početku dopustiš onako oštro izražavanje, vremenom će to biti sve grublje i oštrije. Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kako ti znaš kako će svaka osoba reagirati u budućnosti ako joj dopustiš? Suradnik se usprotivio naslovu koju je jedini različit od 40 jezičnih preostalih wikipedija. Pitanje je da li ste probali postići neki kompromis s njim i izašli mu ususret? Ili ga samo izolirali i ignorirali zbog čega se naljutio?--Seiya (razgovor) 10:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term mistreatment of geographers - Dugoročno maltretiranje geografa
Info: User:Kubura does not accept the word "geografija" ("geography") and abuses anyone who uses it.
Description: Few cases. User:Orijentolog (known for excellent geography-related articles) inserts terminological explanation about fhytogeography, refering to all four major Croatian encyclopedias and dictionaries [210]. Kubura simply reverted it with no explanation [211]. Reason? As you can see on Kubura's bottom-left userpage, he "doesn't recognize geografija but only zemljopis". In Croatia, all dictionaries, encyclopedias and institutions without any exception calls geography as geografija, while zemljopis was used as an alternative name only in elementary schools during 1990's and early 2000's (not any more). Unfortunately, ultra-nationalist Kubura has connected it with political changes so he strongly believes geografija is a "foreign word", a "Serbian word", or "imposed on Croats by Yugoslav communists" (ironically, Yugoslav elementary schools have also used term zemljopis in 1950's!). Beside fhytogeography reverting case, you can see similar edit-war on article economic geography [212], and Kubura's politicization at talkpage [213]. His arguments for forcing syntagma non-existent in Croatian scienfitic literature are "jail abuses by Yugoslav officers", "freedom", "protecting Croatian culture, language and working places". When Orijentolog has tried to explain him about scientific terminology, Kubura answered that all those academics who use geografija "got their PhD at Sutjeska and Neretva" [214] (Yugoslav partisan battles). Some may found such charlatanism as funny, but problem lies with the fact that Kubura is an active administrator and ultra-nationalist bigot who doesn't accept explanations, so he has abused tens of old and new editors who have tried to contribute in geography-related articles. New editors mostly get welcome template called "please use Croatian language or chose another language project" just if they put geografija into text, and here's example of maltreating old users: "I don't know what geography is, please speak Croatian" [215]. User:Vitek, who contributed on hundreds of geography-related articles, also had similar expierences. Thanks to Kubura, no one is contributing on geographic science any more because in past 3-4 years all newcomers get abused just of using scientific terminology. Even today, main article about geography (Geografija, comprehensive featured and named after community census) has template "translation needed" because Kubura still believes [216][217] it's a "foreign", "anti-Croatian", "Serbian" word. --NoParking (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS!" Reminds me of that grammar psycho from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Doesn't he have more important things to do?--Seiya (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seiya, it actually has little to do with grammar, just his ignorance. Kubura has replied at Croatian Wikipedia [218], first he accused me of being "sock". Indeed dear Kubura Čvorović, I confess everything, I'm paid, organized and preparing great anti-Croatian actions. Then he advised me to find who's Ratimir Kalmeta. First of all, he doesn't need to teach me about geography because I'm professional geographer myself so I'm familiar that there's no any Kalmeta in Croatian geographical science or geografska znanost (not zemljopisna znanost, because even between 1992-2008 Croatian university students learnt geografija at universities, while only elementary pupils learnt zemljopis). This guy has been described by Kubura as "giant of Croatian geography" [219] despite the fact anthropogeography was just one of three fields during his studying (among etnology and historiography) and he got PhD at University of economy. He was also a trained pedagogue and worked in elementary schools, so it's logical he insisted on using easy words for kids. However, that doesn't make him a "linguist" (as described in Kubura's article). Also, inventor? Just because he tried to register two school-tools as patents makes him "inventor"? Laughable. Considering only USA, there's over 8,000,000 registred patents with more then million names there, but it doesn't make them "inventors". Writing for newspapers and political magazines like Bulletin of HDZ (conservative party) doesn't make him scientist of geography, but journalist. There are hundreds of teachers and university professors like Kalmeta in Croatia, but most of them doesn't deserve encyclopedic article. My works has been cited in four international geographical magazines, so do I deserve article dear Kubura? Kalmeta has zero (0). He has article just because Kubura thinks he has been "under attack of Communists, anationalists and Serbs" (last sentence [220]). This praise comes from Kubura's misunderstanding his goal - this person didn't even insisted on replacing geografija with zemljopis, just using them as synonym (in elementary schools!). Perhaps Kubura wants to convince us that "Great Croatian patriots" have only elementary education? No need, we're well aware of that. --NoParking (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoParking, piši pod pravim suradničkim imenom, ne napadaj skrivećki. Vitek može i drukčije komunicirati sa mnom.[221] Ako te ova tema zanima, malkice se zainteresiraj tko je Ratimir Kalmeta u hrvatskoj zemljopisnoj znanosti. A o ovoj se je temi govorilo na brojnim stranicama za razgovor po hr.wiki.
  • "Doesn't he have more important things to do?" podcjenjivački je i omalovažavajući. Kad netkom prigovaraš, promisli opisuješ li sebe. Seiyo, Kubura je admin. I ne skriva se iza tekstova na engleskom, nego piše na hrvatskom. Ti pišeš tako da umanjuješ hrvatske žrtve u velikosrpskoj agresiji na BiH. [222] I poznat si po tome što si ignorirao sugovornike koji su ti stvari dokazivali do u nanodetalje, a ti, kad ti se nije sviđalo, samo si revertao?[223][224][225]. Kubura (razgovor) 05:57, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see your explanation that "zemljopis" and "geografija" can be used both ("da su ti pojmi istoznačnice"). So you do admit that it was wrong to attack the word "geografija" and insist only on "zemljopis"?--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tako skoknemo sa geografije na rat u Bosni. Neuvjerljiv način pokušaja diskreditiranja suradnika. I još je zanimljivije kad bi mi netko objasnio kakve veze ima tvrdnja da je rat u Bosni počeo 1992., a ne 1991., sa "umanjivanjem hrvatskih žrtava"? A od cijelog ovog teksta, koliko se odnosi na suštinu problema - da je svatko tko koristi riječ "geografija" odmah pod paljbom? Pa ta se riječ koristi u hrvatskim školama. Pogledati stranicu Geografija.hr.--Seiya (razgovor) 21:20, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seiyo, neki skrivaju da je hrvatsko selo u BiH napadnuto prije Sarajeva. Što se tiče "geografije", dobili smo još prvih godina hr.wiki pismo sa fakulteta u Zadru (donio ga je Andrej, ima u arhivima) gdje kažu da su ti pojmi istoznačnice. Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support This was ongoing while I was still active at hrwiki. Kubura has a habit to promote the "purified" Croatian which is generally associated with political far-right, which perceive such behavior as an act of "defense" of their language against "foreign" words. He also likes to make up new words that absolutely nobody uses, like trošci, which he then tends to use in articles to make them as different as possible from their equivalents at Serbian Wikipedia. Which is often funny, because his rather incomplete knowledge of Serbo-Croatian causes him to often make silly mistakes, like forcing standard Serbo-Croatian syntax and case endings onto his dialectal words which he intentionally uses in order to make his speech more "ethnically Croatian". zemljopis and geografija mean completely different things, and the only sin of geografija is its Ancient Greek origin, and not Slavic. All of Kubura's elaborate theories of imaginary suppression of the word zemljopis by some anti-Croatian forces are ridiculous nationalist rhetoric designed to push his purist agenda. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evo sadržaja pisma u Kafiću:[226]
Poslano je g. Faričiću, onda znanstvenom novaku na Sveučilištu u Zadru na Odsjeku za Geografiju. Inače taj odsjek vodio je onda g Damir Magaš.

--- Original Message ---

From: "enona" <enona@net.hr>
To: <jfaricic@unizd.hr>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:43 PM
Subject: Geografija vs. zemljopis

Poštovani
Oprostite na gnjavaži ali molim Vas za jedno objašnjenje.

Evo preko mjesec dana pokušavamo na wikipediji na hrvatskom jeziku ustanoviti koji je pravi izraz Zemljopis ili Geografija.

  • jesu li pojmovi geografija i zemljopis istoznačnice
  • ako nisu kada se upotrebljava geografija a kada zemljopis
  • koja je definicija geografije a koja zemljopisa ako se razlikuju
  • da li je Geografija vršni pojam u koji spada i Zemljopis
  • govorimo li o zemljopisu ili o geografiji neke države, općine, grada i sl.
  • da li članak o nekoj rijeci, moru, kontinentu i sl. spada pod geografiju ili zemljopis

S poštovanjem,
Andrej Šalov
enona@net.hr

Za: <enona@net.hr>
Naslov: Re: Geografija vs. zemljopis
Datum: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:10:49 +0100

Poštovani,
ne čudi me što dvojite oko naziva geografija i zemljopis. Oko toga dvoji i sama struka. Višedesetljetna prepucavanja otprilike su završila sljedećim epilogom: geografija se kao pojam koristi u znanosti te sveučilišnoj nastavi na geografskim studijima u Zagrebu i Zadru, dok se zemljopis koristi za naziv nastavnog predmeta u svim osnovnim i nekim srednjim školama. U tom su nastavnom predmetu pretočena osnovna znanja pojedinih geografskih znanstvenih disciplina. Jezično, geografija i zemljopis jesu sinonimi. Vaš prijedlog upotrebe tih dvaju pojmova čini mi se oportunim riješenjem i slobodan sam ga podržati. Dakle, geografija nije "nadređena" zemljopisu već su pojmovi istoga "ranga". Činjenica je da se u hrvatskom jeziku pojam zemljopis počeo koristiti od 19. st., i preuzet je iz nekih drugih slavenskih jezika (českog i dr.) dok se pojam geografija u Hrvatskoj koristi od renesanse, dakako u tekstovima koji su bili uglavnom pisani na latinskom i talijanskom jeziku.
Za definiciju pojma geografija/zemljopis prenosim tekst iz "Geografskog rječnika" autora Alfonsa Cvitanovića (Zadar, 2002.: str 151): "Geografija ili zemljopis je prirodno-društvena znanost o predmetima (objektima), pojavama i procesima u geosferi (na Zemljinoj površini - op JF) i njihovoj međuzavisnosti te o funkcionalnom uređenju prostora i odnosu čovjeka i okoliša. Cilj joj je istražiti, opisati i protumačiti sve pojave i procese, koji su uzročno-posljedično i funkcionalno međusobno povezani i isprepleteni, stvorili današnju stvarnost na Zemlji..." Inače, taj bi Vam leksikografski priručnik s oko 9000 pojmova iz geografije i geografiji srodnih disciplina na 700 stranica teksta mogao dobro doći prilikom priređivanja hrvatske inačice Wikipedije. Možete ga naručiti kod nas u Hrvatskom geografskom društvu - Zadar za 200,00 kn.
Srdačan pozdrav!
Josip Faričić

Iz teksta se vidi da ta "geografija" nije nadređena "zemljopisu", nego je istoga ranga. Kubura (razgovor) 04:16, 10. studenog 2013. (CET) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Kubura blocks User:Mmarre (3 days) because he forgot to replace dots by commas.
Description: User:Mmarre is probably the most productive user on Croatian Wikipedia: over 1000 articles, most over 10k, only complicated science and technology topics. Only sin by this old engineer is that he separated decimal numbers by dots, not by commas (which is relatively new rule), so he get warned by Kubura. Mmarre answered he'll do his best to follow it, but it's problem to him because he got use to insert dots since it's common in math and physics (it's true, it can be check in old literature on googlebooks and elsewhere). However, in one of his next articles he used dots instead of commas again, so Kubura blocked him for three days [227]. Kubura also described his statement about math and physics as "insolent lie", he also assumed bad faith calling such productive user as "or lazy, or ignorant, or mocker". --NoParking (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Very similar to SpeedyGonsales' block of Binx because of the "š" and "s" trivia.--Seiya (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, you can see here Kubura defends his actions [228] and still claims Mmmare told him a lie. No he did not, using dots for decimal numbers really is common in math [229][230][231]. Even if Croatian orthography favors commas instead of dots for decimal numbers, three-day block for user who made two such mistakes in 20kb article [232] is simply outrageous. Such small marks are even hard to notice, especially for older people like Mmarre. On other Wikipedias there are many bots and thousands of users who're correcting grammar and spelling mistakes without even incommoding productive users (one remark on talkpage is enough). Unfortunatelly, not at Croatian Wikipedia. Instead of fastly correcting two marks (240,000 & 445,000), Kubura rather assumed he's "lazy", "ignorant", "mocker" or "even worse" (read: anti-Croatian Yugoslav agent) and blocked him for three days [233]. At the end of his reply, Kubura complains about this report [234], describing it as an "encouragement of anarchism and idling", impling "destructive intentions". I'll repeat again - Mmarre is one of the most productive users on Croatian Wikipedia: over 1000 articles, most over 10k, only complicated science and technology topics. Not enought for "knight protectors of Croatian dignity" like Kubura, because among millions of contributed letters and symbols, he made two dot/comma mistakes. Very lazy, mocking, destructive and anti-Croatian indeed, if he lived in early 1940's Kubura would execute him for treason. Personally I found Kubura as destructive, not just for Croatian Wikipedia but also for Croatian language and country in general. --NoParking (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. Nikakvo zlostavljanje. Tko o čemu, NoParking o ljubavi prema hrvatskom jeziku. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, explained and confirmed that you blocked a user just for writing "1.6" and not "1,6".--Seiya (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dobro je da je od 12 incidenata Kubura barem našao objašnjenje na njih pet. Znači nije sporno da je Mmarre opomenut i kasnije blokiran jer je napisao "1.6" umjesto "1,6"? Primljeno k znanju.--Seiya (razgovor) 21:20, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nije mu se to zalomilo jednom, nego više puta. Ljudski je pogriješiti, ali to se previše puta ponavljalo, unatoč naputcima. Potrebno ga je podsjetiti - kad se drugi trude biti ispravni, pa neka i kolega bude. Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Kubura's comment above, as taken from hrwiki (where he copied this entire discussion in a failed attempt to sidetrack it) has made me reconsider this. He claims (translating from above) "it didn't happened once, but on multiple occasions. It happened too often, and he needed a reminder." Giving pre-block warnings (which yellow cards on hrwiki essentially are) is too much for such trivial, good-faith mistakes Actually I was wrong, User:Mmarre was blocked for three days. Even worse! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Refusal to cooperate with other editors apparently based on anti-Serb bigotry[238] (2010-02-18)
Description: In an editor's talk page, Kubura writes: "You have managed what no other editor has: you wrote to me in Serbian and I replied. Otherwise, when someone writes to me in Serbian I reject them flatly. You have this privilege because you have unmasked the Greater Serbianists. I respect that." Several points here. First, Kubura's refusal to reply is clearly deliberate, which he quite openly admits. Second, Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible to a rather high degree, so "not understanding the message" or "Croatian is the official language here" are not reasonable explanations. (Ironically, Kubura wrote these very words in vernacular, rather than standard Croatian; if "Croatian" is construed in this context as "the language one writes articles in", then what Kubura uses is not Croatian either.) Third, the "privilege" of replying to a message is linked to "unmasking the Greater Serbianists", leading to a conclusion that Kubura chooses whether to respond or not based on the particular editor's political stance, which is impermissible. Fourth, Kubura has a history of both introducing anti-Serb POV to articles and communicating with Serbian-speaking editors in a harsh way, so general anti-Serb sentiment is a plausible explanation for his conduct. All in all, such behavior is completely against the wiki spirit and absolutely unbecoming of an administrator. GregorB (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support Odd. Croatian and Serbian are 90 per cent identical, so there should be no reason for a Croatian speaker not to understand or reply to a question by a Serbian speaker. Assume good faith, anybody? It would be similar to an English Wikipedia administrator saying that he never replies to someone asking in Scottish English.--Seiya (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GregoreB, lažeš. Na ovim se primjerima vidi da je svaki suradnik koji je došao pisati na srpskom dobio odgovor. Prvo, sama stranica za razgovor s Mladimfilozofom.[239] [240][241]
I nije ga se tjeralo.
Tebi za informaciju, što tražim od drugih, i sam se držim toga. Ako od kolega koji dođu pisati na srpskom pitam ih zašto ne pišu hrvatskim, ja na srpskoj wikipediji pišem na srpskom. I na ćirilici.[242] ("Видим да си активан бирократа [5], па те обавјештавам да имаш предмет на Захтјевима за преузимање корисничког имена (Single User Login) [6]. Поздрав") Kubura (razgovor) 06:22, 18. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the hr.wiki page, Kubura accuses me of "lying", saying that all editors who wrote to him in Serbian received a response, giving several diffs in support. If that's the case, Kubura, why did you write "You have managed what no other editor has: you wrote to me in Serbian and I replied. Otherwise, when someone writes to me in Serbian I reject them flatly.", as I quoted you above? Because that and what you just said cannot both be true. So, I'm not lying, I'm just quoting your exact words. GregorB (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support LOL. Kubura claims not to understand Serbian (which is 100% mutually intelligible with Croatian, since both of them are simply varieties of a single Serbo-Croatian language), and yet he replies in a dialect which most Croatians don't understand. Additionally, his comments smacks of discriminating undertones - telling the interlocutor that the only reasons why he has the "honor" of Kubura replying to him (normally he claims to ignore Serbian) is because he apparently helped to unmask some velikosrbe. velikosrb is Kubura's neologism, a word derived from Velika Srbija, literally meaning "Greater Serbia", one of the more extreme ideologies of Serbian nationalists, which is however today very often used by Croatian nationalists as a justification for their own crimes and atrocities. Kubura apparently sees Greater Serbianists in every corner, within every edit that does not conform with his political views - unfortunately that is pure projection on his part. His conduct and choice of words is shameful, inflammatory, non-cooperative and so... un-wiki. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Kubura blocks new user Missandlordoflove indefinitely for correcting an article about One Direction's album
Description: New user Missandlordoflove makes nine edits. He corrects the One Direction article by inserting a correct infobox about musicians [243]. He also corrects a spelling mistake [244]. Since an article about One Direction's album, Up All Night, is tagged to be deleted, Missandlordoflove corrects it and asks for the article to be restored from the talk page [245]. He also tries to save the article Take Me Home[246]. Inexplicably, Kubura then deletes the article [247] and blocks the user indefinitely for "ignoring isntructions" and "incredibly wrong contribution"[248]. Very mysterious.--Seiya (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Suradnik:MaGa

edit
Block - Blokiranje
Info: User:MaGa blocks User:Orijentolog for three days for re-categorizing articles, and then indefinitely after rebelling
Description: I've deceided to indefinitely leave the project after being mistreated by same administrator (MaGa) three times. First time he gave me warning (yellow card) because he wrongly assumed copyright violations[249]. He also deleted image and removed it from article, without any previous conversation. I've explained him that he made mistake[250], but he didn't accept it and he even insulted me (You're alone against the World, I feel sorry for you)[251] Second time was his complain about reorganization of observances[252], I've explained that I was in the middle of work and nothing was finished yet[253], but he still continuted with arrogant behavior and said: Seems to me your declaration as Roman Catholics on user page is fraud[254]. On all other Wikipedias users get permanently banned for such personal attacks, but on Croatian Wikipedia it comes from admins. Third and last time happened half year ago when he started to attacking me about some issues regarding categorization of articles without any valid arguments, insulting my contributions as "escapades"[255].
He ignored my valid explanations and continued with insults and arrogant threats (I have plenty of cards), and finally banned me for three days (red card, plus some rustic poverb). From that moment Croatian Wikipedia became dead to me, because I'm not willing to tolerate primitive egoism, especially when it comes from user who hasn't even one big or featured article and who contribute only about songs or third-rated priests. I changed language project immediately, and for the end on my talkpage I left message in edit summary: "deal with frustrations with your wife" (deleted)[256]. I don't regret about it, it was honest response to his actions and I stand behind my words. All users know I've always been very transparent and I acknowledged others about disliking conversations by emails or IRC[257], I even left my full name and surname on user page headline. It's basic difference between me, Ivan Štambuk and other alleged "anti-Croatian conspirators" on one side, and self-proclaimed "Big Catholic Croats" hiding behind nicknames on other[258].
Regarding Kubura who defended actions above by his colleague MaGa[259], long time I tolerated his paranoid purist anti-Serbian hunts and nonsensical attacks against terminology. I can accept that someone is uninformed or even a little bit stubborn, but after this case he has lost all of credibility: I've spent a lot of time for explaning him that one word isn't Serbian[260][261] and in my presence he pretends to "accept" explanation, but after I sent greetings to users from far travel to another continent[262] he immediately jumps to article and ruin it with some gibberish[263]. A cheap mountebank. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Two lies from you. First one: you are not blocked indefinitely for re-categorizing articles (as you wrote on the top of this). Your block log [265] is very clear: first block (3 days) was for ignoring instructions (wrong recategorizing) (22:26, 8. svibnja 2013. MaGa (Razgovor | doprinosi | blokiraj) Blokiran je "Orijentolog (Razgovor | doprinosi)" na rok 3 dana (Onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa) (ignoriranje uputa) (deblokiraj | promijeni blokiranje)). So, first block was on May, 8th 2013, at 22:26. Your talk page was not locked for your comments. Four minutes after that, at 22:30 you removed my message with red card [266] (although the content of talk pages should not be removed) with summary "svoje komplekse liječi na svojoj ružnoj ženi, majmune jedan". That is real edit summary and it is very different from what you wrote here ("deal with frustrations with your wife"), and that is your second lie. After that you have been blocked indefinitely (22:31, 8. svibnja 2013. MaGa (Razgovor | doprinosi | blokiraj) promijenjene postavke blokiranja za Orijentolog (Razgovor | doprinosi) na rok od neograničeno (Onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa, e-pošta je blokirana, bez uređivanja vlastite stranice za razgovor) (osobni napadi (ili napadačko ponašanje): ignoriranje uputa) (deblokiraj | promijeni blokiranje)), at 22:31.
Post scriptum: which one of this priests are third-rated priests (as you wrote): [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274]? Pick one, please. --MaGa (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fist of all, I didn't make this description[275], it was rearranged by Seiya[276]. I've deceided to change project at 22:27 precisely. Regarding edit summary it isn't a "lie" at all, just incomplete - it's deleted half year ago so it's hard to remember full sentence. Pity, it should be restored. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny: you can remember time of your decision to change the project (at 22:27 precisely), but you can't remember vandal edit summary on your talk page? Veeeery funny...--MaGa (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can remember thousands precise dates of your edits. The same goes for other editors, for example I can remember that first edit by User:Nesmir Kudilovic was at September 16, but last night it was changed to February 7 so with this false increased activity he got allowed to vote [277]. --Orijentolog (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MaGa, can you clarify why Orijentolog was blocked for three days in the first place? What "wrong recategorizing" are we talking about?--Seiya (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support User:Orijentolog has written hundreds of high-quality articles (many even better then on enwiki, because he intensively researched them). While I understand that he might have made an inappropriate remark on a talk page (which we cannot see because the edit is hidden), simply raising an infinite block seems to me a bit too harsh, particularly when you consider the continual drift of editors from hrwiki. On the other hand, User:MaGa's comments reek of arrogance and "holier than thou" attitude, and I can't escape the conclusion that this block has more to do with personal relations, than unsolicited mass recategorization of articles. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta F.

edit

Misapplication of policy - Pogrešna primjena pravila

Info: Roberta F. admonishes an editor for using inline template hr:Predložak:Nedostaje izvor (equivalent of en:Template:Citation needed) and continues with seriously misguided advice about using it. (12 August 2010)
Description:: Roberta F. writes the following: "Absol, please don't add templates such as Nedostaje izvor without a mandatory explanation in the talk page, and I'd recommend that, if a claim is in doubt, you try to find a source for it yourself. If you don't find it, and the article is an obvious translation from en wiki, it would be nice to add such template to en wiki too. It is desirable to cite sources, it's sometimes even mandatory, but if a certain piece of information is easily found by Google search or on official pages of an institution, a club... which is mentioned in the article, then the template is in fact unnecessary, and instead of making Wikipedia better it is made worse, because "someone has to search for this claim and substantiate it or remove the offending sentence", which happens very rarely."[278] This is a howler. First, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to make the talk page explanation mandatory, and while it is not mandatory anymore, it was back in 2010. (This is not Roberta's fault here, though.) Second, the idea that adding the inline template is "unnecessary" or that it somehow makes Wikipedia "worse" is seriously wrong and harmful. As opposed to doing nothing, it is NEVER, EVER (I can't stress it strongly enough) wrong to add a "citation needed" template if a claim is suspect and unreferenced. Admonishing editors for using it is mind-bogglingly wrong, and shows serious lack of understanding of basic policies and principles, as well as common sense. Apart from that, I suspect wikihounding here, together with Kubura - a number of complaints and warnings in the user talk, seemingly over trivial matters, within a very short time frame. GregorB (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • Support Support It's surprising that an admin does not have a minimun of education of conduct on the project she is in charge off.--Seiya (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support The reason why sysops enforce such lax policy on citations is because otherwise the articles on some important topics which are biased and written from an extremist right-wing Catholic perspective would then have to be tagged as well - and not only that, a bunch of contentious statements would have to be removed because there are no reliable sources backing them up. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a nice example of how editors who challenge (or, God forbid, delete) unsourced information are forced to jump through hoops, while large amount of questionable unsourced content is inserted without as much as a word of caution. This is a systemic failure of hr wiki, and a major contributing factor to the current article content controversy. GregorB (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Explained on hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the nature of my remarks. You said Roberta F. was gentle, but I did not claim otherwise. If you consult e.g. thefreedictionary.com - a matter of seconds, really - you'll find that "admonish" means "1. To reprove gently but earnestly. 2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution. 3. To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility."[280] (emphasis mine), which is precisely what she did. But that in itself is not the problem: the problem is that she was motivated by completely wrong reasons, and that she proceeded to give completely wrong advice. And I don't mean "wrong" in a sense she simply made an error, it is "wrong" as in "completely misguided". Her advice runs contrary to the essence of verifiability, one of the core Wikipedia policies, which is something admins can't afford to do. This perhaps wouldn't be noteworthy if verifiability was not one of hr.wiki's biggest problems. GregorB (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Block - Blokiranje
Info: On 12 November 2013, Roberta F blocks Seiya for "inciting conflict". The user has since been unblocked by another administrator.
Description: Seiya discusses with SpeedyGonsales his opposition to the block of Suradnik:Koryaksky. SpeedyGonsales responds with pressure (which merits an analysis in its own right, repeatedly violating WP:AGF), but Seiya does not relent. Roberta F. warns Seiya, basically, to work more and talk less. When this doesn't happen, she blocks him for six months.
It seems that Seiya had been blocked for refusing to relent under pressure from SpeedyGonsales, instead insisting on a reasoned conversation between equals. Miranche (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Ex13

edit
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Ex13 blocks Rječina indefinitely for voting to de-sysop Zeljko, Kubura and SpeedyGonsales.
Description: Rječina had two accounts, Rječina and Rječina2. He used the Rječina2 account from 2009. On the 9 October 2013 he said farewell to Cro Wiki, accusing it of bias and nationalism[281]. Zeljko blocked him indefinitely. However, on 1 November 2013 Rječina still voted to de-sysop Zeljko, SpeedyGonsales and Kubura thanks to his Rječina1 account[282]. 10 days later, Ex13 blocks him indefinitely for "misabuse of secondary account". This is bizarre because Rječina did not vote twice, but only once, and only used the Rječina1 account because the Rječina2 was unfairly blocked.--Seiya (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Map of Vlastimirović dynasty extending to areas of Croatia and Montenegro
Block - Blokiranje
Info: Ex13 blocks SavoRastko for 3 months for writing "propaganda".
Description: Ex13 warns SavoRastko, probably a Serb, for "adding unnecessary categories" (specifically, SavoRastko added en:Vlastimirović dynasty in the category "History of Croatia" and "History of Montenegro",[283] since it covered a part of those areas in the 10th century). But Ex13 even disputes putting the Vlastimirović dynasty under "category:Vlastimirović dynasty"[284] and then deletes the category! Ex13 blocks SavoRastko for "propaganda"[285]. SavoRastko writes that he is sorry if he did something wrong, since he is new to Wikipedia and can make mistakes, but admits that he does not understand Ex13's arguments and asks for clarification of the block [286]. Ex13 replies "I do not buy your story" and "I want to believe in your good faith, so you will return in 3 months and continue writing on Cro Wiki in a more neutral way".[287] SavoRastko again begs for an explanation of what he did wrong, using words like "rest assured that I did not want to decieve you in any way" and "my words are honest and sincere". He again asks Ex13 to "back-up the claim (of writing propaganda) with facts".[288] Ex13's anwser? "Wikipedia is not a forum"
It is also interesting that Ex13 did not give him a red warning, but just a text that he is blocked.[289] Also, Floppy wrote to SavoRastko and said that the "3 month block is too much".[290] On the 28 June 2011, Floppy deblocked SavoRastko, and there is a wheel war with Ex13 who wants to block him again. On the 29 June 2011, Ex13 even writes in the summary "Floppy is incompetent to apply the rules".[291] A request for admin opinion leads nowhere[292].--Seiya (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Abuse of checkuser privileges
Info: CU Ex13 refuses to check if JohnnyXaver is Croq's 11th sockpuppet.
Description: Checkuser Ex13 confirmed that Croq had ten sockpuppet accounts[293]. Croq is blocked for two years. Two weeks later, a new account is created, JohnnyXaver, who comments, has identical political views and protects Croq's old articles[294]. Having had enough of Croq's mocking of Cro Wiki, Man Usk asks CU Ex13 to check if JohnnyXaver is Croq's 11th sockpuppet[295]. Ex13 hesitates, using strange excuses like "This is one request, we will not play around, the second request is just a copy/paste of the previous one"[296] and "If it is so obvious [that JohnnyXaver=Croq] then a CU tool is not necessary, just an admin tool"[297]. Man Usk repeats his request, reasoning that if Croq had 10 sockpuppets, he might have had one or two more. Man Usk says that he will block JohnnyXaver if a check is not performed[298]. Finally, Ex13 refuses to check those two accounts. Checkusers are by now unreliable on Cro Wiki since they seem to be under pressure to protect certain users.--Seiya (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Incidents including multiple admins

edit
Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Multiple admins tried to stop legitimate voting to de-sysop 3 admins.
Involved admins:
'Description:!
I will just copy the text I submitted at Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia on 2 November 2013:
In the last few months, Croatian Wikipedia was the stage of controversies, which resulted with a Request for Comment on Metapedia: Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia. After that RFC became suffocated with discussion pages without concrete evidence, the next step took place, the process of collecting evidence of irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia: Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence.
The administrators mentioned in the evidence section refused to even take part of discussion on Meta, until admin Kubura transferred the page on the 19 October on Cro Wiki and made comments on the alleged evidence. Other users took this as a call to discuss and comment the page, but when admin SpeedyGonsales gave his response, he referred to only one single incident out of many incidents in which he was identified and accused of irregularities and he used such a tone (calling two users "highly biased", that their "writing is null and should be removed" and they "do not respect other users") that it is hard to interpreted in a way other than as a threat to anyone who thinks different. After that, the discussion succumbed after only three days.
On the 26 October, 7 days after Kubura transferred the page with evidence, user Frano Milić, arguing that a consensus is impossible and that further free discussion is impossible due to atmosphere of intimidation by SpeedyGonsales, thinking all other options were exhausted, starts a vote to desysop the powers of three admins who collected the most complains of irregularities on meta (SpeedyGonsales, Kubura, Zeljko).
During the course of the next few days, the admins SpeedyGonsales, Jure Grm and Bracodbk (and some other admins in smaller extent) actively worked on disrupting the voting, and Roberta F. called the vote "against guidelines and rules of Wikipedia", with some intimidating comments about Frano Milić.
Course of events after voting started
  1. admins SpeedyGonsales, Jure Grm and Bracodbk actively disrupt the voting. SpeedyGonsales locks the voting page several times [299], [300], [301] under the pretext that the vote is illegal and Frano Milić did "not give any reason" and that the "media were creating an atmosphere of lynch" [302]. Other editors had to step in and unlock the page and allow the Cro Wiki community to have free acess to the vote like admin Dalibor Bosits and admin Sokac121. Dalibor Bosits reopens the vote on grounds of its perfect legality. Later on the Village Pump he points out that in fact it is SpeedyGonsales who is in a serious conflict of interest, since he is himself accused. SpeedyGonsales responds by accusing Dalibor Bosits of "avoiding the Wiki procedure". SpeedyGonsales also says that he "superficially looked at the complains" about himself and concluded that they are "more or less unfounded". SpeedyGonsales admits that a vote can be started if an admin did something wrong, but says "As far as I can see, it was not established that any admin did anything wrong". He denies the vote because "many users were blocked and now seek revenge".[303]
  2. after other admins unlock the voting page, SpeedyGonsales goes from admin to admin and complains about them: he says to Sokac121 "Why do you allow the breach of procedure?"; he says to Flopy "I do not see any evidence or arguments to start the vote" and "I see only (unfounded) complains on Meta".
  3. in the same day, SpeedyGonsales removes the site notice that the vote is under way[304]
  4. that evening, SpeedyGonsales goes to the Village pump and publicly lists all six users who voted against him, Kubura and Zeljko. He disputes all those six votes by calling all the users inactive or lacking arguments, warning "If we allow an illegal vote against admins this time, we will also allow them in the future".[305]
  5. User DTom calls the vote "laughable", admin Roberta calls the vote "against guidelines and rules of Wikipedia", Croq says "It is simply pointless to start any vote without prior discussion" and admin MaGa writes that the move of Frano Milić "...does not have anything logical". SpeedyGonsales collects all those quotes on the Village pump and uses them to again try to cancel the vote.[306]
  6. after admin Saxum reverts the edit and allow for the vote to continue, SpeedyGonsales contacts him and asks "What kind of an excess is this?"
  7. en:User:GregorB (unlogged) asks "If the current vote is illegal, what conditions have to be met to make a future vote legal?" No anwser is given.
  8. the next day, on the 27 October, SpeedyGonsales creates the page Request for admin opinion where he lists admins Flopy, Dalibor and Saxum and accuses them of "not respecting the majority opinion of admins who say that the vote is illegal". Flopy points out how there is no majority because -- if SpeedyGonsales, Kubura and Zeljko are excluded on the grounds them being subject to vote -- "there are 7:8 admins in favor of commencing the vote".
  9. after the vote is unlocked again, SpeedyGonsales again goes from admin to admin and advises them to stop interfering.[307][308] He says to Flopy I reverted your move because I was defending Kubura and Zeljko from unfounded attacks"
  10. On the 28 October, admin Vodomar started messing up the votes, even removing de-sysop vote of Marko Jurčić under the pretext that he has less then 100 edits, while he realy has 974 edits in main namespace. A little bit later, he even returns the "keep adminship" vote of hr:user:Ljubuski78 who doesn't satisfy voting conditions
  11. Admin Ex13 also tries to remove sitenotice on October 28th.
  12. after the vote is continued, on the 29 October user Croq starts a second desysop vote, which includes five admins who opposed SpeedyGonsales and wanted for the vote to commence. The five admins are Lasta, Dalibor Bosits, Mario Žamić, Saxum and MayaSimFan. No reason is given, except that they are "inactive", ignoring the fact that some of them have been active even in recent weeks before the scandal, and ignoring all admins who are truly inactive. Even though he called the first vote illegal, SpeedyGonsales votes here among the first for removing their admin status[309][310][311] Kubura and Zeljko also vote exactly like SpeedyGonsales[312][313]
  13. the first vote continues in spite of the obstructions. On the 31 October user/admin Bracodbk starts a third desysop vote, now aimed against Flopy and Sokac121 who unlocked the voting page [314]. Even though he calls his own de-sysop voting illegal, SpeedyGonsales is among the first to vote to remove the admin status of Flopy and Sokac121 [315]. Kubura and Zeljko follow suit.[316][317]
  14. On November 2nd, Frano Milić votes to de-sysop SpeedyGonsales, Kubura and Zeljko and gets permanently blocked by Zeljko only 20 minutes later, without any explanation.
This is just a short summary of events, many of these admins made a lot of inappropriate comments in village pump. This information might be added later.
The obstructions of Cro Wiki community to have a free vote, counter-attack votes initiated without a reason (the seven admins have not been mentioned even a single time on Meta evidence page) in the atmosphere of aggression, intimidation, conflict of interest, ignoring the evidence on Meta, cherry-picking Wiki guidelines and attempts of manipulations of opinion. A judgement from a third party is very much needed.
We urge Stewards to review the conduct of admins:
Since, out of 5 checkusers on hr wiki, 3 are mentioned here, Dtom also took side in this conflict, and E.coli is inactive, we can safely conclude that these checkusers do not have consensual support of the community. So, I ask You to consider revoking their checkuser privileges, at least temporarely. Stewarts should take over checkuser tasks and check for possible usage of sockpuppets in recent votings. I, and possibly some other users, will provide you a list of possible sockpuppets that I believe should be checked. --Argo Navis (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: Multiple admins tried to stop legitimate discussion where a user asked for explanation of checkuser results discrepancy related to Croq's sockpuppets
Involved admins:
Description:: [First-person narrative by user:Argo Navis, feel free to change it to third-person]: In 2007 and 2008, at the time when admins were involved in little or no confclicts (at least not publicly), there was some issues on German wikipedia, where lot of us felt that we have to fix some content there. The main focus was on Međugorje article, our arguments were eventually accepted, but that's not the subject here. Anyway, to make communication easier, user:SpeedyGonsales opened a secret mailing list, where all of us could discuss and plan our actions together. Among others, m-list included user:SpeedyGonsales (admin, cu), user:Roberta F. (admin, beurocrat), user:Kubura (admin since 2009), user:Vodomar (admin, now CU), user:Croq and some others de-wiki users, mostly innactive on CW. Croq was often bragging about having sockpuppets and in one e-mail specified that de:user:Kosmetic was one of his account, together with de:user:Perun (inactive on hr wiki). When I found that hr:user:Kosmetic voted (against) in the same admin proposal poll as user:Croq, I decided to check my gmail archive, and I found the proof of Kosmetic being Croq's sockpuppet. I asked user:Lasta to block him immediately, but instead, he sent emails to checkusers Vodomar, Dtom and E.coli. None of them replied, so he sent another mail to user:SpeedyGonsales, and he replied that he found nothing suspicious. CU Ex13 was not involved in this issue in this phase. After some more time, I decided to publicly appeal to hr:user:Croq to mark his sockpuppet as his, without asking any punishment for this behaviour. I also mentioned that SpeedyGonsales, hr:user:suradnik:Roberta F., hr:user:Kubura and hr:user:Vodomar can find this information in their inbox, hoping that they might persuade him to do what I suggested, and they will not see my comment as baseless attack. Croq ignored my comment, but SpeedyGonsales reacted on my talk page asking me not to talk about private email. After some obvious confussion about what mailing list I'm talking about, I explained him the details, but I had to stop talking about it, because of obvious pressure from his side. In the discussion, SpeedyGonsales clearly said he found no proofs of Croq being Kosmetic.
A few days later (Nov 5 2013), admin Sokac121 also made CU request to check Croq agains hr:user:Kosmetic, hr:user:Tomec, hr:user:Damping, hr:user:Playmen, hr:user:Sayya, who all (except Playman) voted against desysoping of SpeedyGonsales (but most of their votes were deleted because of low editcount). Ex13 replied on Nov 11, finding as much as 10 (ten!) of Croq's sockpuppets.
User:GregorB tried to get some answers from Ex13, but he replied with non-answer basicaly saying "if other CU said what he said, than why doubt him" (ako je drugi provjeritelj napisao to što je napisao, onda ne vidim čemu sumnja.).
On Nov 22, after SG ignored obvious discrepancy for 11 days, hr:User:Imbehind asked in willage pump (later change to archive link: here)) for explanation, without explicitely blaming SpeedyGonsales for any wrongdoings. Noone reacted for 2 days, and then Zeljko replied to him that SG already replied to that question, which was not true. Zeljko also blocked Imbehind, using his polite question to Roberta F. 3 days before the block (about blocking of Dean72) as an excuse. Some users tried to explain to Zeljko that SG didn't reply as Zeljko said, but Zeljko showed no sign that he accepted that fact, nor he changed his attitude. In following days, a few other users Argo Navis, Dean72 asked for explanation, but these polite questions were met with very aggresive ad hominem attacks, especially from admins Dtom and Bracodbk. SG also replied, but very vague, trying to downplay the incident and refusing to give any meaningfull explanation of obvious discrepancies, and later started off-topic rant about conspiracy involving Jutarnji list newspapers and facebok group.
On Nov 25, admin Sokac121 created local RFC page asking CUs for more details. None of CU-admins gave any of requasted details on ckecks made by SG (noone adked for any private details of Croq) and all of SG´s supporters refuse to even consider the evidence, calling thisissue part of constanr atttacks on SG.
On Nov 26, Zeljko blocked Argo Navis (see user statistics) for 2 years for alledged disturbing the community, accussing him for lazyness in the main naimspace in the process, despite the fact the he had edits+patrols in last month. In next few hours, 4 other admins tried to unblock Argo Navis (see Argo Navis block log) trying to Zeljko that he made the mistake in the process. At the end, despite the fact that Zeljko had 4 admins on the other side, he insisted on block, and SpeedyGonsales even gave some "yellow cards" to admins trying to oppose Zeljko's block [318][319][320]. user:Argo Navis request for comment from admins is here: User:Argo Navis/ZZMA. There You might find link to real page when it's submitted to CW. --Argo Navis (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Questionable block and auto-patrol policy - Upitna politika blokiranja i samoprovjeravanja
Info: Comparison of main indicators of policies on Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia, originally compiled by user BokicaK.
Involved admins:
Description: On 6 October 2013, user BokicaK posted an analysis on his home page on Croatian Wikipedia, comparing it with Serbian Wikipedia along several indicators. He concluded that blocks on Croatian Wikipedia are significantly more frequent than on Serbian Wikipedia, which holds especially for permanent blocks of IP addresses. Moreover, the list of auto-patrolled users on Croatian Wikipedia is much narrower, and does not include regular editors of other Wikipedias. The analysis was addressed to users SpeedyGonsales an Zeljko. Zeljko was the only one to respond, but did not address any of the specific points raised by BokicaK, calling him instead to work rather than attack other users. BokicaK responded by reiterating his opinion that the "entire system" at hr.wiki is faulty, after which Zeljko blocked BokicaK permanently.
Translation of pertinent paragraphs from BokicaK's analysis follows.
Let us talk about blocks now. For starters, let's compare the frequency of blocks on hr.wiki and sr.wiki before all this [media attention] started. From 11 to 31 August ~46 blocks took place on hr.wiki, and on sr.wiki ~22 from 12 to 31 August (+~27 blocks of one and the same idiot). We can take any other month any other year, there always are several times more blocks on hr.wiki (if you ignore the aforementioned ape, although I see he also visited [hr.wiki]). Now I see that Fraxinus blocked an IP address permanently after (I presume) only one vandalism. Let's comapre permanent blocks:
On sr.wiki, the last permanently blocked IP address was from 3 August 2008, by a steward from Meta. Before then, it was 23 September 2007. [At hr.wiki] this is a regular occurrence (I excuse proxies). If these addresses are dynamic, someone innocent will suffer. The point of all this is to demonstrate how much blocking [on hr.wiki] happens hastily, too strictly, and inexpertly.
Let's go on, patroling. On sr.wiki I think there are 2 or 3 times more automatically patrolled users, and among them there are editors from hr, bs, sl, mk, and de.wikipedias, while [at hr.wiki] there's noone for whom hr.wiki isn't the home site. From that I conclude that paranoia reigns supreme [on hr.wiki]. In spite of this paranoia, news-bar.hr [a satirical site] slipped through [as an article source]. Twice.
The information posted in this brief analysis indeed bears out a significant difference between the two Wikipedias, and exhibits worrying tendencies on hr.wiki. Miranche (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

Abuse or pressure - Povreda ili pritisak
Info: SpeedyGonsales and Zeljko doing all the blocks
Description:: Since all this affair started, 3 admins were singled out as violating wikipedia rules and spirit tho most - SpeedyGonsales, Zeljko and Kubura. The wiki spirit commands that they should refrain from warning and blocking people for criticism related to the affair, since they are personally involved. But, not only they do block people for that, but are the only admins who do that (I'm not sure about Kubura, but SG and Zeljko are all over the place)! Any decent admin accused of so much violations would let the other admins take care of user criticism and decide if someone is criticizing according to the rules or just making personal attacks. But, instead, they just do it themselves! This also shows their mindset. --Argo Navis (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentari - Comments:

  • See for example the interaction with Aleksandar Kovac above: a innocuous (and trivially true) statement that there are Wikipedias "more mature" than CW is taken as an attack and an insult. An admin with good judgment would recuse himself from dealing with any topics he is/was personally involved with. This particular case is only a tip of the iceberg, though - the three you mention are absolutely unfit to be admins, for numerous reasons. GregorB (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is info on blocks imposed by the three admins mentioned above: SpeedyGonsales Zeljko Kubura. Zeljko has by far the most, even not counting IP addresses, then Speedy, then Kubura. Latest is the permanent block of User:BokicaK for this comment, which, while rough, presents a well-argumented case of why block and patrol policies of Croatian Wikipedia are problematic. Miranche (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • O kršenju wikipedijskih pravila - tko o čemu.
ArgoNavise, ako je netko jedini na terenu, onda taj i obavlja posao, pa po potrebi blokira. Admini od papira koji izbjegavaju posao taj posao i ne čine.
ArgoNavise, imaj odgovornosti. Nije bezazleno kad netko na jednoj huškačkoj stranici na internetu (Facebook) na kojoj se sprovodi OUTING i HARASS, neka osoba koja se predstavlja pod imenom našeg bivšeg admina govori o napadnutim kolegama kao zatucanima, ograničenima, da su previše wikipediju doživjeli "wikipedija to sam ja" i slično.
Dehumanizirajuće govoriti (lagati!) u onakvom okružju podjaruje atmosferu i to nije bezazleno.
Defamiranje -> dehumanizacija -> + podjarivanje -> psihologija mase -> distribucija odgovornosti -> nedjelo.
Jesi li svjestan što znači medijski linč?
Ta koliko se puta ArgoNavisu podastrlo neki izvor ili razl s wiki? Kao da to ArgoNavis zaboravlja ili ignorira.
Na hr.Wikipediji se ArgaNavisa nije tjeralo, nego ako se nije slagalo s njime kao adminom, sve isto ga se pozvalo raditi (sjećaš li ArgoNavise moje Ante, dobrodošao među obične suradnike![323]). A ti, ArgoNavise na Meti zazivaš ni manje ni više zabranu rada četvorici kolega. "There are at least 4 admins who should definitively be banned forever, like user:SpeedyGonsales, user:Roberta F., user:Kubura and user:Zeljko. These are hopeless cases." 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [324]
Poslije stotina tisuća članaka koje su te kolege napisale, ispatrolirale, tolike dopusnice pribavile, ti tako pišeš o kolegama? Pa tko ovdje narušava Wikipediju?
ArgoNavise, nisi kolegijalan. BokicaK nije se ponio kolegijalno. U trenutcima medijskog linča, onako pisati. Miranche, ovo [325] što je napisao BokicaK sadrži elemente troliranja, a njuškanje po nečijoj privatnosti također nije pristojno. BokicaK kojem Arkan nije ratni zločinac [326] i po kojem Srbija nije napala Hrvatsku [327], a kojem se i ovakvo izražavanje oprostilo [328].
Vrlo je nedolično onako pogrdno govoriti protiv projekta hr.wiki, projekta o kojem nitko 10 godina nije rekao riječi protiv. Kubura (razgovor) 07:40, 19. listopada 2013. (CEST) (preneseno s ogranka stranice o postupanju - copied from the Conduct page fork) Miranche (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted submissions - Nerazvrstani podnesci

edit
This section contains information on reports of questionable conduct, such as media stories, for which explicit details have yet to be found. Ovaj odjeljak sadrži podatke o izvješćima o upitnom postupanju, kao što su napisi u medijima, za koje konkretne detalje tek treba pronaći.

Discussion on Jimbo's talk page, 13-22 September 2013

edit

Many specific allegations of questionable conduct were voiced in this discussion. Miranche (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hr:Srbi u Hrvatskoj

edit
  • In 2008, an IP user made an edit, adding several sentences of unreferenced prose to the article's intro.[329]
  • The edit is reverted 1 minute later by hr:Suradnik:Roberta F., an administrator, without a particular edit summary. The revert seems legitimate, as the added prose was unsourced, biased and unencyclopedic in tone, and did not belong in the intro.
  • In 2010, hr:Suradnik:Kubura, an administrator, adds an unreferenced claim that most Croatian Serbs are descendants of Vlachs.[330]
  • In the 18 September 2013 E-novine article "Holocaust deniers on Croatian Wikipedia" ("Poricatelji genocida na hrvatskoj Wikipediji"), the author refers to the above mentioned anonymous edit, notes that it was reverted within one minute, concluding ironically that "from this example it is clear how Wikipedia administrators are not responsible for article content, which is '"freely edited by the users'". Also notes that Kubura's edit survives to this day.
  • While a single incident can't be deemed a proof, the fact that an unsourced edit with a pro-Serb bias is reverted instantly, while an unsourced edit with an anti-Serb bias stays for years may be seen as indicative. That's why I'm provisionally posting it here, under "Conduct". GregorB (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: User:Kubura repeatedly used as source book written by w:Mladen Lorković. -- Bojan  Talk  07:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [331]. Kubura (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring fair use policy - hr:File:Pisanice_hrv_grb.png

edit

Hr.wiki has custom to mark every religious and state holiday. Sysop Speedy Gonzales uploaded copyrighted image of Easter eggs with Croatian COA. The photo was/is used exclusively on their Village Pump. Speedy's rationale is: Is assume she [author of the photo] will not mind (pretpostavljam da se neće ljutiti)

Also there are many images of living people, landscapes and archeological sites that was sent by various sysops under fair use. But one more thing is very odd: image descriptions say that those pictures are copyrighted and used under fair use, but hr.wiki has permissions to use them. I don't know does such permission have legal sense, but it clear that sysops do not follow or understand policy which they adopted-- Bojan  Talk  06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data from Facebook posts

edit

Conduct-related data extracted from posts on the Facebook group "Razotkrivanje sramotne hr.wikipedije" (Exposing the shameful hr.wikipedia).

To do: Date & document article content info independently of the POV context of the group. The posts whose claims have been evaluated & documented in the #Sorted submissions - Razvrstani podnesci section are marked with template Done. Those found irrelevant are striken through.

Photo Stream

edit
Started by Miranche (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Entered to 2013-09-22. Miranche (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erased direct Facebook links. Miranche (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Entered through October 2013. Miranche (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Entered through November 2013. Miranche (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Entered through today. Miranche (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
October 2013
  • 2013-10-02. Suradnik:BokicaK blocked (for 3 days, later permanently) after recommending to hr.wiki admins to reconsider their blocking policy.
  • 2013-10-22. hr:Ubojstva u Pakračkoj Poljani (Murders in Pakračka Poljana, massacres of Serbs in 1991-1992). Most content commented out by an admin so as to "not hurt people who have been freed by the court". Edit war ensued, the article got limited to editing by admins for a month, and as of Feb 2014 it is still a stub.
November 2013
January 2014
  • 2014-01-07. Link to this discussion on Meta, about an admin (a) blocking a political opponent user for "trolling" while tolerating much worse behavior from a political supporter, and (b) barring another user for a year from editing the article about Ante Pavelić, the Croatian Axis collaborator, for calling the article subject (long dead and widely recognized as criminal) a "cretin".
  • 2014-01-07. A user is blocked for playful banter about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • 2014-01-27. A quote from 2006. by a now admin, denying the notability of Srbi u NDH: Broj žrtava ("Serbs in NDH: the number of victims", interwiki to World War II persecution of Serbs). Circumstantial but worrying.
Comments

RfC from 2010

edit

This RfC got posted in the newest hr.wiki administrator election. The decisions therein are probably out of date, but the RfC contains info on conduct issues at the time. Miranche (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hr:Wikipedija:Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora

edit

Admin RfC. A goldmine. GregorB (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binx and Boris Godunov

edit

for (almost) no reason. Check their last edits. --89.164.166.185 05:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [334]. Kubura (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of users possibly harrased by admins

edit

I did some superficial check of people that have been in conflict with admins lately. This list is very broad and some of these people might have been blocked for a good reason, but this is a good place to start:

Some of these people probably did break some wikipedia rules, so if You think it's inconclusive, just add comment "not clear, better skip" or something like that, like I did in the example after Absol. --89.164.166.185 05:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this looks very useful. If someone is familiar with details, please provide pointers... GregorB (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [338]. Kubura (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina2...

edit

...says goodbye,[339], but Zeljko deletes his message and gives him a 1-year block.[340][341] GregorB (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

four administrators before me have blocked his account, well... reasons? --Zeljko (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I will translate his message. GregorB (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Zeljko, the September discussions in the Croatian Wikipedia Village pump (Kafić) have seen 10x worse political insults and attacks than what Rjecina2 has written, yet no one has been blocked. Why this hypocrisy? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zeljko, how come that You, SpeedyGonsales, Croq and Mir Harven can freely discard all criticism as some kind of leftist conspiracy and label users as "yugo-nostalgic", "neo-communist" etc, and then dare to block other people for - brace yourself for this one - assuming bad faith!!! If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what it is. --Argo Navis (talk)
Tko o čemu, Ivan Štambuk o pristojnosti.
Argo Navise, ti si poznat po tome što si često branio zafrkante, a omalovažavao kvalitetne suradnike koji su reagirali na zafrkantske bezobrazluke. Ne jednom si ignorirao citirane izvore, a svoje "opće znanje" stavljao iznad citiranog akademskog materijala.
"Pretpostavi dobru namjeru" ne znači "budi naivna budala". Ako netko pljuje po Hrvatskoj, ako netko ocrnjuje Domovinski rat i u isto vrijeme idolizira Jugoslaviju svjesno prešućujući sve nepravde koje je Hrvatima ta država nanijela, ako netko pisanjima vrijeđa religije judeo-kršćanske tradicije, onda ne možeš takve suradnike nazvati dobronamjernima, ne možeš ne reći ono što jesu. Kubura (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I happen to think nothing good of the very notion of nation-states (obsolete 19th century construct that should be abolished), institutionalized religion financed by taxpayers such as the Croatian Catholic Church (pure theft), and the so-called Homeland war which was nothing but genocide and war profiteering on all three sides involved. According to you, I couldn't possibly be good-faith editor simply because of my opinions on these topics. This is why you and your associates are unfit to be admins Kubura - it is not up to you to make such judgments, nor to evaluate the intentions of editors on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. You imagine yourself to be some protector of Croatdom - but in fact you're an extremist, far-right POV-pusher whose attitudes are considered backwards and primitive by the civilized men of the 21st century. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mladifilozof is banned...

edit

...shorty after being admonished by Roberta F.[343] for this perfectly valid edit.[344] GregorB (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [345]. Kubura (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A ban prohibits an editor from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, either temporarily or permanently.
So, Kubura, before using harsh words you could have spent 30 seconds to inform yourself what "ban" means. GregorB (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignoring the instructions"

edit

Block logs (such as those listed in the previous section) often cite "ignoring the instructions" (ignoriranje uputa) as the reason. While some of these blocks may be perfectly legitimate, I find them suspicious, as administrators do not have (well, should not have) the authority to issue instructions that must be obeyed; as already noted by Miranche I believe, they are merely editors with the ability to do certain actions. Editors may be sanctioned for ignoring either policies or consensus, not for ignoring "instructions". GregorB (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vitek affair

edit

Requests_for_comment/Vitek - needs to be looked into. GregorB (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [347]. Kubura (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [348]. Sokac121 (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Komentar na ogranku - comment at the forked page: [349]. Kubura (talk) povezao/la - linked by Miranche (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zeljko

edit

This is not the way to talk to an editor.[350] GregorB (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 26 desysopping vote

edit

The "fun" has continued today on hr:, with a desysopping proposal at hr:Wikipedija:Administratori/Prijedlozi za ukidanje ovlasti/SpeedyGonsales, Kubura i Zeljko. Unlike most !votes on en:, this is an actual vote, where there aren't many rationales being posted, just many bare votes. On the other hand, SpeedyGonsales has responded by saying there's no proof of any admin misconduct [351] and protecting the page from all non-admin edits, twice [352][353]. On en:, that behavior alone would have been seen as a gross violation of en:WP:INVOLVED and en:WP:OWN. One thing is clear - things seriously aren't right on hr:. --Joy (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops in question (particularly Speedy and Kubura) discuss who vote(s/d) against them rather then addressing the real problems (disputed blocks, copyright violation, misuses of admin privileges). Sad, but nothing new on hr.wiki. -- Bojan  Talk  10:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out, four administrators (Flopy, Sokac121, Saxum, Dalibor Bosits) are trying to keep desysopping proposal in sitenotice, but SpeedyGonzales reverts everything. Ndh:wiki "democracy". --Rasturbebazvečka (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ndh:wiki "democracy". Rasturabebazvečka, to što si napisao napad je vrste reductio ad Hitlerum. Napadačko pisanje. To nije nikakva dobronamjernost. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone blocked and harassed out of the project voted, the number of support votes would be twice as large. Aggressive behavior exhibited by User:SpeedyGonsales and User:Kubura (see the Kafić discussions) in an attempt to shut down or discredit the vote are merely self-preservation instincts kicking in. If the three of them had a modicum of dignity left, they would've resigned on their own two months ago. Their response on this vote alone is enough evidence that they are not fit to be sysops. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tko o čemu, Ivan Štambuk o blokiranju i zlostavljanju i o tome tko nije za admina. Kubura (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura, this (sugesting that Ivan shouldn't talk about blocks and harassment) was very nice example of ad hominem attack on Ivan Štambuk. --Argo Navis (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is just fine. Voting is proved that nobody would believe SpeedyGonsales, Kubura and Zeljko. --Kolega2357 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since votings started, SpeedyGonsales and the cabal proveded a goldmine of evidence of wrongdoings. Also, some other admins, like user:Jure Grm, got involved. This should also be included here, as evidence. --Argo Navis (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. After a month of ignoring this page altogether, User:Kubura finally decided to get involved here as well. (Reminds me User:Vodomar's sudden "resurrection" since the vote started, after being dormant for a month feigning a wikibreak). However, his tactics include deliberately not writing in English language and attempting to sidetrack the discussion by redirecting it to hrwiki, where he explains exactly nothing, despite claiming otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just 48 hours before the end of the vote, just when Speedy, Kubura and Zeljko were losing the confidence of the community, Braco DB unilaterally once again disrupts the vote by trying to cancel it [354] because it is "not legitimite". Lame. Of course, he can not quote any regulation because no regulation on Wikipedia says that administrators have to stay administrators for life. Maybe Kubura told him to stop the vote in the name of democracy? Or to stop freedom of speech of Wiki users in the name of freedom?--Seiya (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to moving this discussion to the talk page? It'd be helpful if we could keep the evidence page to evidence submissions. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can move the tangential discussion, yes, but what I said initially unambiguously refers to improper user conduct and is a piece of evidence as relevant as any other. Even if we set aside the impropriety of the whole idea of outright voting on Wikipedia, the perpetual admin edit war is evidence of a dysfunctional admin community. --Joy (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I understood your first post, but then the discussion went on tangent. Moving the section to "Unsorted submissions" for now. Miranche (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the talk page

edit

Komentari s ogranka - Comments from the forked page

edit

Nekoliko komentara na ogranku ne pristaje u oblik ove stranice. Započeo poseban odlomak na stranici za razgovor. Miranche (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (archived 18:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Several comments on the forked page do not fit this page format. Created a separate section on the talk page. Miranche (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (archived 18:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Inciting Croatian war veterans to attack the critics

edit

Moved to talk page archive. Miranche (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is local wiki issue

edit

Moved to talk page archive. Miranche (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (archived 23:01, 21 January 2014)[reply]

October 28 desysopping vote by Croq

edit

Moved to talk page archive. Miranche (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (archived 23:01, 21 January 2014)[reply]

Manipulating with first edits for increasing number of votes

edit

Moved to talk page archive. Miranche (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (archived 23:01, 21 January 2014)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia/Evidence/Conduct&oldid=27281184"