Talk:Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Croatian projects

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

January 2018 updates[edit]

Hi, User:Kubura, can you review the updates you made that I reverted, some of these users appear to still have the permissions you marked as former. Examples: Special:CentralAuth/Dalibor_Bosits and Special:CentralAuth/Joy are still listed as +sysop on hrwiki. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 20:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux, thank You for the information. Nice from You.
Maybe they are still listed as +sysop on hrwiki, but the community voted to desysop them.
It is the community whose attitude makes someone (or not) the sysop, not the tools that someone holds or not.
To avoid all the unproductive unecessary arguing about the nanodetails that simply protract the clearly stated opinion of the community (both votes and consensus), I additionally made all those moves (implicitly required) to eliminate all the remarks (told by stewards and affected power user), no matter how hyperbureaucratical or funny these remarks seem.
Currently, I won't revert Your moves, because we both do not need any loss of time with unecessary multiple revert actions (and any unecessary discussion that might follow). I'll wait for the end of the prolonged voting and discussion about desysopping rules.
I still stand by the attitude that these three users are not admins and bureaucrats anymore, because the community explicitly said that, and the stewards must obey to the will of the community (rule for stewards "don't override consensus, even if You disagree" is stronger than m:AAR; m:AAR is solely for the small projects with a small activity and a small active community, where the long inactivity of the power users exposes the project to the risk of the account hijacking and the damage that alienated sysop account can do - and is not such a community). Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, if there was a community de-flagging authorization, please follow up on the steward's request page (Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access) to have the change completed. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 00:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: would take a look at this and see if it needs any more attention when you have a moment please? — xaosflux Talk 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've placed this page under page protection to stop the edit warring pending a reply. Any admin or steward is welcome to remove the protection at their discretion. — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless some steward miraculously approves Kubura's attempt of cherry-picking certain inactive administrators to desysop while intentionally leaving two others behind, I ask that the list not be 'updated'. Also, the 'consensus' part is questionable. Kubura started the process of desysopping people, and only about ten or so people participated in an actual !vote -- no rationale provided for why they agreed; they just plonked an 'aye' !vote -- most of whom were sysops. In the section where you're allowed to comment, people have complained about the cherry-picking and were generally unhappy with the whole process -- but apparently nobody gives a flying fuck about that. How does ten people, mostly admins mind you, literally voting represent the consensus of the entire community with over dozens of active users who didn't even participate? Given the previous abuses of power (some admins mentioned here even !voted in this botched request for desysopping), I wouldn't be surprised that they didn't want to dissent out of fear of being blocked or harassed in some way. [Side note: What ever happened to that RfC? The state of things over there is not that much different nowadays.] Bear in mind that one of the admins Kubura tried to desysop posted about it on the administrators' noticeboard expressing concerns over the way the process was started and how Kubura single-handedly decided to shorten the '!voting' process in the middle of it (Kubura later rather laughably claimed that typing out an entirely different month was somehow a 'typo'), but because only administrators are allowed to participate there and only the people who !voted 'aye' participated in it -- including Kubura himself, inexplicably -- not much came out of it; instead of annulling the entire process, the '!voting' period was merely extended. I don't know what Kubura's goal is here, but if he really cares about relinquishing the advanced permissions of people who have not used them in a while, there must be a better way to do it -- or better yet -- just wait for the people to be caught by the global inactivity policy. --User: 12:28, 12 February 2018

message above recovered from edit filter by request. — xaosflux Talk 13:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Side note: Kubura has posted about this whole thing claiming that he and the 'community' (ten people equals the entire community I suppose?) are the real victims here because the stewards are ignoring their decisions, and the reactions to it are amazing. Here are a few of my favourites:
  • El hombre said, 'Anyway, Wikipedia was founded by a person who got rich from pornography, yet the community doesn't call him out on that. There are plenty of articles that can (have to) be written or adjusted to the American way of thinking (and the way of thinking of their poltroons) because every other truth is unwelcome. The community is silent once again, but they'll pop up like those women from Hollywood who gained courage after 25 years. What the hell's the point of even organising a vote if it's not going to go through and it'll be annulled by the people who deny the existence of the Croatian language? el hombre has spoken.' [italics NOT mine]
  • MaGa said, 'So, the minority who [actually] works should be the hostage of the majority that doesn't give a s-it? That sort of thing didn't even happen in the Soviet Union. Nonsense.'
  • Zeljko, in response to Lasta's message that said that '[their community] had once again become a [target of] mockery, and that the rest of the people sneer at [it]' said, 'WHERE DID THEY SAY THAT we're THE TARGETS OF MOCKERY OF THE [entire WMF's*] COMMUNITY. They just said that they're going to retain their rights until they're removed by the people who are able to do so. AND UNTIL THEN, THOSE THREE ADMINS AND BUREAUCRATS REMAIN CONTRIBUTORS WITH 0 EDITS, which means that they're absolutely useless to our community.' [all-caps NOT mine]
That about sums up the ten or so people that are forcing the decisions under the guise of the entire community. -- 14:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC) (edited 19:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC))

What is this IP user talking about? These three users were desysopped because they were inactive so long that their inactivity equals with the neglecting and abandoning the project.
Second, don't lie with the content of the voting and discussion process. All those You have mentioned have voted for the desysopping. Everybody had chance to vote. We cannot push the users to vote. If they are not interested, they won't do it. They hate over a month of time. Even the voter that voted against was pro desysopping, but his only remark was that he wanted specific, not general rules for this case.
If You want that instead of 11 users (that actually voted), over 190.000 users of Croatian Wikipedia vote - You're wrong. If admins voted, the voting is more representative. "dozens of active users who didn't even participate"? What do You want, that admins don't vote, maybe the IP parachutist should decide how Croatian wiki would look like? The community had a sitenotice information, voting prolonged twice (over a month, although every voting on is 1 week), information in the Village pump. Some users also supported the desysopping, but they did not want to vote. Everybody was asked to express their opinion, but they did not want. That's it. We cannot push people.
You asked " How does ten people, mostly admins mind you, literally voting represent the consensus of the entire community with over dozens of active users who didn't even participate?"
First, the first two (now former admins and former bureaucrat) were not at all chosen by the community: 0 votes.
I'll put it this way: how does ten people, mostly admins, literally carry the burden of maintaining of the unpatrolled edits on project done by entire community, while these three haven't been participating at all, for over a decade (the third was less than a decade).
And yes, some admins voted, because they are a c t i v e.
The tools are for the active users. They are not something for enriching of CV and bragging around. They are not the toys.
Finally, it was proven that there were no abuses of power on at all. Those lies were the means used for the attempt of brutal (cyberbulling) hostile takeover of by neoyugoslavists. Stop that goebbelsian method of repeating the lie hundred times. Same words of denigration are pointed towards the actual Croatian president and government. We all know from which Moon shines the light. Kubura (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

'What is this IP user talking about?' I was merely showing the absurdity of cherry-picking certain administrators without any established criteria, and the fact that just ten people out of the dozens of active users represent the community somehow. I cannot comprehend why you seem to think that people not saying anything for a number of reasons seems to mean that they agree with you. Also, this sentiment isn't anything new -- the stewards share it as well, as you must've noticed from the fact that they're refusing to comply with your request. The 'reactions' bit was just too tinfoily/funny not to share. 'Don't lie with the content of the voting and discussion process.' What did I say that was factually inaccurate? Granted, I may have interpreted things differently as to why you did the things you did, but that doesn't constitute 'lying' by any stretch. You're free to dispute certain things, but a general statement like that doesn't mean much. I don't mean to be demeaning, but you remind me of those people that cry 'feyk noos' whenever they see something they don't like. 'If You [sic] want that instead of 11 users (that actually voted), over 190.000 [sic] users of Croatian Wikipedia vote - You're [sic] wrong.' I don't think anyone reasonable expects every single person out of the 190,000 you mentioned to voice their opinion -- that's just insane. What's being discussed here is the fact that about ten people seem to think that they're representing the entire community, and that's just flat out wrong, considering how many people were active in the past few months. Also, 'If admins voted, the voting is more representative' -- I think it's the exact opposite. There are more non-admins than admins, and why would the administrators' !votes hold more weight than a non-admins'? 'What do You [sic] want, that admins don't vote,' No. More people should express their opinion, and not just !vote. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. You're expected to engage in discussions and explain your rationale for doing something or agreeing/disagreeing with someone. I realise you're not exactly used to this on Croatian Wikipedia, but that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Side note, what the actual f-ck does 'IP parachutist' mean? The next bit of your message I actually agree with -- the tools are for active users, which is why it doesn't make sense that you cherry-picked certain administrators. E.coli and Saxum stopped being active before both Joy and Dalibor Bosits, yet they were not included. There's no set criteria for why the rights ought to be removed. If it's a vague 'inactivity' rationale, then E.coli and Saxum should have been included. Nobody is interested in your tinfoil theories about the ☭ 'neoyugoslavists'™ ☭ and how everyone is plotting against Croatian Wikipedia. By the way, there was a plethora of documented and very much real abuse in 2013. Your 'explanations' as to why you did all the shade sh-t that you did don't hold any water to any sane person reading the reported incidents. TL;DR: There was no criteria for stripping the rights away given 'inactivity'. If you want to pull that card, the best way would be to establish what constitutes inactivity and then hold a community discussion where everyone who'd be caught by it is included, i.e. E.coli and Saxum and try to get as many people as you can to participate in it.
P.S. 'how does ten people, mostly admins, literally carry the burden of maintaining of the unpatrolled edits on project done by entire community, while these three haven't been participating at all, for over a decade'. That tells me that either a) you need more patrollers, or b) you need to rethink your patrolling system. Peace out. -- 11:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop trolling and stop hiding behind the anonimity. Learn to respect the consensus and the choice of the community. 10:1 is more than enough. Especially since the two concerned users had 0 votes "pro" when the tools were given to them.
If You dislike the outcome, it's Your problem. You had more than a month for the discussion. You said no word on that page, but You now dare to engage in the editwarring.
The tools are for the ones that really intend to maintain the project. The tools are not for parading. Kubura (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

So, 'trolling' equals something I said that you disliked? Brilliant. Looks like I was spot on with that 'fake news' comparison from earlier. Also, people are allowed to contribute anonymously -- if you've got a problem with that, tough luck. But more importantly than your nonsensical opening 'critique' and the rest of your long-winded text -- both here and on Croatian Wikipedia's Village pump -- you keep glossing over what was said above about cherry-picking certain administrators, the lack of criteria for inactivity, and the very tiny amount of people allegedly representing the entire community. I agree with the latter part about the tools being there for people who intend to maintain a project, which is why I'm sure you'll gladly rush to define inactivity locally and then start the process of taking the advanced rights of ALL the users affected instead of just three. -- 23:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I rejected "private" approaches since this is not a personal matter, also I find so serious any "ethnic" bias here. I already wrote the reasons for denying that request (hint: the matter was discussed among stewards). Apart from lacking of policies, apart from one of the so-called inactive sysops being fairly active, the process seems to be unfair in choosing with sysops to remove. I hardly believe any steward will fulfill a request under these premises. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Vituzzu, nothing has to be "discussed among stewards". This is a matter of executing of the community's choice, not what "will stewards say". Stewards do not give their opinion, they are obliged to execute, even if they dislike the outcome; the rule is "Don't override consensus". If stewards want something to discuss, they have to discuss it with the concerned community on the Village pump of the concerned community.
"So-called inactive"? 14 years of inactivity on the concerned project? Few dozens of "parachuting edits" (mostly talk or bot edits) every two years do not change the thing (and no admin/bureucrat action at all!). You can put all their work in 14 years in the 500 edits view per page - and our project daily has 500 edits to be reviewed!
Our community discussed that matter about inactivity and (not)automated removal of tools, shall we submit to global m:AAR or have our inactivity policy.] [1]. Instead of encompassing rule, we chose the personalized, case-by-case approach, because the "deadline rule" might be too unfair and easily tricked by parachute edits. Therefore we discuss and vote for each case, if someone proposes the removal of tools (either because of inactivity and/or other reasons). Kubura (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Our comunity has voted, and we have a result. What are you waiting for? --Croq (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)