User talk:Revi C.

[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

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

For instance Ivi104 had permanently blocked a username "CroatianGuy" as an unacceptable username, which is a heavy handed measure. Ivi104 has been going through and "smashing" users who are trying to register and deeming who is acceptable or not acceptable and he has been on a huge drive block new users registering. Other usernames he has blocked as unacceptable: Negro1345 - Negro is a common surname in Croatia and Italy. He blocks the user Petar_tomislav indefinitely because he considers his edits unproductive as well as for Tugomericus. Vodomar (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Vodomar has, despite being a sysop for all these years, shown a remarkably poor understanding of our local rules about usernames. Quoting hr:WP:SI, section 1, bullet 4 (local hrwiki username policy): Suradničko ime ne smije biti zbunjujuće, nerazumljivo ili takvo da ometa rad zajednice, niti smije sadržavati nacionalna obilježja. (Usernames must not be confusing, non-uderstandable, or disruptive, nor must it contain national features.) Croatian is obviously a national feature, so the username was blocked. Negro is a dated, and depending on the part of the world, pejorative term for a person of black skin-colour. The name was blocked due to impropriety. Tugomericus and Petar_tomislav were disruptive editors who included pseudo-facts from a disruptive and biased source (Metapedia) to our articles, disputing the origin of the Croatian people. I stated in the block reason for Tugomericus: "unproductive editing: Metapedia and biased sources, peudoscience." I hope this clears up any issues. --Ivi104 (talk) 10:18, 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.

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

Hi,

I have evidence that Ivi104 was engaged in a similar thing you have blocked me for, despite the age of the offence he should have the same punishment as myself:

Evidence

Bock by Ivi104 1/11/2020

* 20:34, 1. studenoga 2020. Ivi104 razgovor doprinosi је blokirao Ceha razgovor doprinosi na rok od 5 dana (autoblok je onemogućen) (sijanje sukoba, ignoriranje argumenata)

Deblock by Kubura 2/11/2020 06:57, 2. studenoga 2020. Kubura razgovor doprinosi je deblokirao Ceha razgovor doprinosi (Ceha razgovara. Drugi suradnik perpeturira optuživačku atmosferu 8 mjeseci, pa ništa.)

Block by Ivi104 2/11/2020

14:39, 2. studenoga 2020. Ivi104 razgovor doprinosi је blokirao Ceha razgovor doprinosi na rok od 21:34, 5. studenoga 2020. (sijanje sukoba, ignoriranje argumenata)

This is not on, if I desysoped for this, then Ivi104 should be desysoped for the above. Vodomar (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Unlike Vodomar, I have talked with Kubura about the block before reapplying it. See here. Ceha's defending of Kubura's socks has become repetitive, he was ignoring all arguments that didn't suit him. I blocked him to encourage him to look at the evidence with a clear head. Kubura unblocked him, and I didn't reblock the user immediately, unlike Vodomar. I instead talked with Kubura, and justified my blocks. I hope this clears up any issues. --Ivi104 (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Well you didn't talk to me before unblocking. Vodomar (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

This kind of retaliation attempt is not how things work. Emergencies are for emergency. Incidents few weeks ago is NOT an emergency. It has to be today, or I am not going to act on it. Also, you are in no way entitled to command/demand something to me. — regards, Revi 10:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Really this show that you are biased and not even handed. This is not a command or demand this is something that shows that you are taking sides and that you are not handing justice in the way it should be handed. Rules are binary 1 or 0, this shows that you do not do your due dilligence and that you do not take into consideration what happens in a community wiki. So, in this case you have done wrong. Vodomar (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

The whole issue is why is it an emergency at all, who calls those shots? If a rule is broken now or two weeks before it is a broken rule. One rule for one person and another for someone else. I guess it depends who is quick on the trigger and what the end goal is. Vodomar (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Hi,

admin Lasta can engage in multiblocks ? Evidence:

admin Kubra blocks a users for sexist slurs and cyberbullying on 30/10/2020

11:30, 30. listopada 2020. Kubura razgovor doprinosi је blokirao ImJustThere razgovor doprinosi na rok od neograničeno (autoblok je onemogućen) (neproduktivno uređivanje: Nedopustivo uklanjanje primjera virtualnog nasilja. Virtualno_zlostavljanje diff 5654688 5654898)

admin Lasta deblocks on 4/11/2020

05:22, 4. studenoga 2020. Lasta razgovor doprinosi je deblokirao ImJustThere razgovor doprinosi (Suradnika je blokirao admin u sukobu interesa, vjerojatno i emocionalno uključen u temu spornog članka. Trajni blok je pretjeran.)

admin Kubura blocks again stating the same reasons 4/11/2020

06:12, 4. studenoga 2020. Kubura razgovor doprinosi је blokirao ImJustThere razgovor doprinosi na rok od neograničeno (onemogućeno otvaranje suradničkog računa, autoblok je onemogućen, bez uređivanja vlastite stranice za razgovor) (ne toleriram podupiranje cyberbullyinga)

admin Lasta deblocks the user refuting the reasons on 4/11/2020

07:34, 4. studenoga 2020. Lasta razgovor doprinosi je deblokirao ImJustThere razgovor doprinosi (Kakvo podipiranje cyberbulinga???)

There needs to be some even-handed way of dealing with issues. Vodomar (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Vodomar, if this is about "even-handedness" then Kubura would have to be immediately desysopped too, since he initiated the wheel war in the above example. Blablubbs (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Well why don't you then do that as well. Even rules for all Vodomar (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

What is classified as an emergency intervention and what rules do you use to evaluate this? What are the thresholds for this decision, a single e-mail from a concerned person and is that determined by yourself. What recourse does a person have in case if this emergency decision was done in haste and if a person was misled about the need for the emergency ? Vodomar (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Vodomar Stewards can unilaterally decide on emergency desysop based on their reading of whether the action needs emergency desysop. Recourse will be to start a local RFA and if the community agrees to give you back sysop, you can get back the access. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

thank you for letting me knowVodomar (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

• User pages with ignored display titles

• Noindexed pages