User talk:Revi C.
This page is a user talk for revi. Any comment except vandalism and harassment is welcome.
If you request something here, I will make an entry on my personal To-Do management system with a reference to your request, and handle it in first-in first-out basis. I do try to do things as soon as possible but there is no guarantee.
- Block appeals: on your talk page, with appropriate local process.
- Steward action enquiries: Steward requests - find a correct category on this page. | For steward attention that is not a request - this is better place than here since all stewards monitor the noticeboard. (Exception: Inquiry about the action I performed) Do not leave a message here. You will be ignored.
- Requesting closure of discussion/request is usually ignored, unless it requires my language skills or otherwise I think it is appropriate to do so.
If you came from other wikis pointing here as a discussion place, please leave a link to local page that caused you to come here. If you are here to complain about my Commons' action, go to Commons talk page.
Threads with no reply for one week will be automatically archived by bot.
- If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
- If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
- Please click here to leave me a new message.
- I generally do not ping you when I reply. It is your responsibility to monitor this page for new reply.
- You are in no way entitled to command/demand something to me. I will simply ignore you if I deem your tone inappropriate.
- As of the time when this page is edited or purged, my home is currently 02:26 AM. refresh the clock!
Reconsidering
[1] Opposing is one thing, attacking is the other thing. They were sanctioned because of the unbased accusations and insinuations, not because of the opposing. Returning after 6 years and to make such attacks. Please read the summaries. So please, restore the status before Your action. The community decides whether the status will be removed or not. Kubura (razgovor) 01:42, 19. studenoga 2020. (CET)
- Copied from hrwiki. — regards, Revi 00:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- @Kubura: Whatever case it is (which I don't really care), it is simply wrong to redo any admin action that is contested, and it is a valid reason for a steward to intervene. — regards, Revi 00:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- And yes, community is free to restore his permission, however, if he continues that wheel war (use the admin toolset to fight with other admins) after he gets his permission back, we will do the same thing once again. — regards, Revi 00:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- The users were blocked because of their insinuations and threats of reprisals from Stewards from Meta which was pasted on on the public forum board. The removal of the block by Ivi104 was unwarranted, he should have had a discussion with me instead of unilaterally placing a block. Both users have a history and tendency of dispensing personal insults and threats. If you are fair you should also take Ivi104 rights as well, not just mine. Vodomar (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- If you have a proof that Ivi undid the block after you placed it back, I will do same. Otherwise he doesn't need to be desysopped because he did not engage in the war. First block is fine, first unblock is also fine. The block after the first unblock becomes problem. — regards, Revi 01:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- The users were blocked because of their insinuations and threats of reprisals from Stewards from Meta which was pasted on on the public forum board. The removal of the block by Ivi104 was unwarranted, he should have had a discussion with me instead of unilaterally placing a block. Both users have a history and tendency of dispensing personal insults and threats. If you are fair you should also take Ivi104 rights as well, not just mine. Vodomar (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- This is how it went:
My Block
Evidencija blokiranja 07:39 Vodomar razgovor doprinosi је blokirao Kanikosen razgovor doprinosi na rok od 1 tjedan (onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa) (Neosnovane optuzbe)
Evidencija blokiranja 07:27 Vodomar razgovor doprinosi је blokirao Imbehind razgovor doprinosi na rok od 1 tjedan (onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa) (Neosnovane optuzbe)
De-blocking
Evidencija blokiranja 07:52 Ivi104 razgovor doprinosi je deblokirao Imbehind razgovor doprinosi (protivno mišljenje nije valjani razlog za blokadu) Evidencija blokiranja 07:52 Ivi104 razgovor doprinosi je deblokirao Kanikosen razgovor doprinosi (protivno mišljenje nije valjani razlog za blokadu)
My Block
Evidencija blokiranja 09:28 Vodomar razgovor doprinosi је blokirao Kanikosen razgovor doprinosi na rok od 1 tjedan (onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa) (Neosnovane optuzbe i insinuacije) Evidencija blokiranja 09:27 Vodomar razgovor doprinosi је blokirao Imbehind razgovor doprinosi na rok od 1 tjedan (onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa) (Neosnovane optuzbe i insinuacije)
Both users have a history of personal abuse and incivility in their discussions and their approach to other users in the community. Also Kanikosen appeared after 6 years of absence, with minor micro-edits and mostly inciting bile, insinuations and threats. His commentary is that I will be prosecuted by Meta for whatever reason the two warring fractions have on the wiki. If you look at my history of approaching users as an admin, I am very tolerable - but slandering and threatening is not and should not be the modus operandi in any wiki. Also, if Ivi104 messaged me and we had a discussion, then the blocks would have been reduced. The users Imbehind and Kanikosen have been piling and tolling on the main forum and Ivi104 was one sided. My approach to a block from an admin it that i would not remove it without discussion and perform unilateral unblocking - if a admin would block again I would respect that decision as the user must have been unreasonable and insulting. Vodomar (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- The reason for the blocks was for hot heads to cool off with their messaging and like I said before, after looking at their history and considering the accusations/slander that they were spreading the only way to dampen this was to short-circuit this. To make it fair if my de-sysop is still there that you de-sysop Ivi as well as a fair, just and even handed measure. Vodomar (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
If you have a proof that Ivi undid the block after you placed it back, I will do same. Otherwise he doesn't need to be desysopped because he did not engage in the war. First block is fine, first unblock is also fine. The block after the first unblock becomes problem. — regards, Revi 01:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Read the underlines. I don't really see any point replying to the same argument without replying. — regards, Revi 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- As I said before, I find your intervention and removal of rights without the community decision over reaching and unjust without treating Ivi104 in the same way, because he did not conversate with me in any shape and form about my decision. The two actors in this case have a history of issues in their behavior. So even in a situation that something is justified and one person reverses a block without justification or discussion is something that can be tolerated. Then some admin can troll another admin all the way without any recourse? Vodomar (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- This is emergency desysop, it means I don't need to ask you or anyone from your community before I do something. Let me be clear: I don't care about the block rationale. That is not my concern. I only care that: 1. you blocked someone (fine) 2. Ivi unblocked them (not really ideal, yeah, but still fine) 3. You redo the block (you cross the line here). Your community is 100% fine to desysop Ivi for his unblock, but I am not going to fire at him because I don't see any further unblock activity from him after you reinstated the block. — regards, Revi 05:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Yes you didn't see that as he was openly rallying other admins to deblock the users in question
Da napomenem i ovdje, Vodomaru su oduzeta sva suradnička prava zbog vraćanja neopravdanog bloka koji sam uklonio, što konstituira ratovanje oruđima. Molim druge administratore da uklone blok suradnicima Imbehind i Kanikosen. Ivi104 (razgovor) 01:32, 19. studenoga 2020. (CET)
which is just a form of baiting. The emergency removal of sysop priviledges is a gross way of interfering in a community. There were many abuses of privileges in the past and you are just making an example of me. Which other person was emergency desysoped in the Croatian wikipedia space in the past years ? None. So, why are you making an example of me ? Vodomar (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Yes you didn't see that as he was openly rallying other admins to deblock the users in question
- This is emergency desysop, it means I don't need to ask you or anyone from your community before I do something. Let me be clear: I don't care about the block rationale. That is not my concern. I only care that: 1. you blocked someone (fine) 2. Ivi unblocked them (not really ideal, yeah, but still fine) 3. You redo the block (you cross the line here). Your community is 100% fine to desysop Ivi for his unblock, but I am not going to fire at him because I don't see any further unblock activity from him after you reinstated the block. — regards, Revi 05:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- As I said before, I find your intervention and removal of rights without the community decision over reaching and unjust without treating Ivi104 in the same way, because he did not conversate with me in any shape and form about my decision. The two actors in this case have a history of issues in their behavior. So even in a situation that something is justified and one person reverses a block without justification or discussion is something that can be tolerated. Then some admin can troll another admin all the way without any recourse? Vodomar (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Read the underlines. I don't really see any point replying to the same argument without replying. — regards, Revi 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
De-syoping
The users were blocked because of their insinuations and threats of reprisals from Stewards from Meta which was pasted on on the public forum board. The removal of the block by Ivi104 was unwarranted, he should have had a discussion with me instead of unilaterally placing a block. Both users have a history and tendency of dispensing personal insults and threats.
Your intervention in another wiki project without the consultation was not warranted, as you do not know the crux of the problem. Vodomar (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
- Copied from Wikidata. — regards, Revi 01:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply