- There was a three month block of a user without prior block record, and with Talk page access cut off. Normally, Talk page would not be cut off unless a Talk page were being seriously abused, or the user was banned, in which case a 3 month block doesn't make sense.
- There was apparent wheel warring between you and the blocking administrator.
- The user was allowed a few days to appeal, and did, permanent link.
- The request was filed by IP, the user being blocked, then confirmed by the user while temporarily unblocked. The "starting time" for the request is then a bit unclear. The original edit was at 16:01, 28 June 2011, but this wasn't a complete request. The last edit of the editor, completing the request, was at 23:33, 29 June. No user had responded before the last edit. Given that the user has three days to file a request, and a certification by the user is required, the last edit should apply, not the first. But the Regulations are not clear, as far as I can tell.
- The request page was moved to an archive, then the open discussion was copied to the active request page. This process makes it harder to disentangle edit history. Further, a user who is watching the request page will then be watching, not the request page, but an archive. This will reduce visibility.
- The same administrator who archived the page then established the filing date as 28th June 2011, at 16:01, and signed this at 16:18, 2nd July 2011.
- Thus the 7 day period might end 7 days from the completion of the request (which is how I'd read the Regulation), or 7 days from the expiration of the three day period for modification, which would be from the date of first edit, so it would indeed be from the date as this administrator stated, 16:01 1 July, 2011, giving a minimum term ending 16:01 8 July, 2011.
- The same administrator then argued for an increased block length, signed 09:41, 8 July 2011. At this point, that administrator might be the only user watching the page!
- Another administrator supported the block, signed 15:11, 8 July 2011.
- You, also an administrator, then acknowledged that SavoRastko had made mistakes, but argued for a reduced block, essentially to the "time served." You signed this 17:47, 8 July 2011.
- Another administrator (?) suggested as well that the block was excessive, signing at 22:28, 8 July 2011.
- An administrator struck both comments opposing the block, with , and writing (Google translation), "Two admins who like to complain about the lack of respect for the rules have just violated virtually the only rule on this site: 'For any application filed on this site for at least two administrators will respond within 7 days.'
- The Regulations do not appear to prohibit comment beyond 7 days. In this case, there was no comment from anyone on the substance until a few hours before the expiration of seven days. All four comments (before the admin who struck two comments showed up) took place within less than 8 hours.
- The admin striking the comments allowed his comment, however, added July 9, which was even later.
- The interpretation of the 7 day period as a maximum period is senseless, given the way that wikis work.
- The close, July 12, was by the same administrator who disqualified comments from other administrators, with which the administrator obviously disagreed. This was not a neutral close. It would normally be within the discretion of the closer to decide what comments are legitimate, but here we have the same admin acting preferentially during the process and later deciding as closer.
- If consensus is desired, this is absolutely not the way to do this. While I certainly have no clear evidence, it could look like the timing of the archiving and the comments were designed to suppress comment and notice until the request was almost closed.
- To convert an obvious no-consensus into a unanimous confirmation of an administrative action, by arbitrary, wikilawyered, and non-neutral disqualification of comments is odious. For someone who has commented, as the striking admin did, showing a clear position, to then close, is violation of the principles of neutrality.
It seems that I can thus confirm your comments that there may be some excessive administrative action on hr.wikipedia.
The blocked user was clearly not experienced and argued in ways that the user should learn not to do, and I have always advised users to never raise issues of administrative abuse when requesting unblock, it almost never works. However, it happens with naive users, and more common wiki practice, which works, is slowly escalating blocks with periods of negotiation, on the talk page, for unblock. When the user agrees to reasonable restrictions to prevent problems, an admin will unblock. If the user violates this, it's best if the unblocking administrator reblock, if possible, continuing negotiations. The user is more likely to trust an administrator who tried to help and who maintains a positive attitude.
I'm sorry to see that you have a problem on hr.wikipedia. I can't personally help, for I cannot get involved there because of language difficulties, but I can certainly see some issues. If the users of hr.wikipedia don't take action to deal with administrative excess or error, the problem is very likely to get worse. I'm not an administrator here, but I do understand how meta works, and might be able to assist, a little, if it becomes appropriate to bring something here. Good luck, it is up to your community, but your community may be in need of some leadership. --Abd 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)