Razgovor Wikipedija:Administratori/Prijedlozi za administratore/Neptune, the Mystic, Koreanovsky

Stranica ne postoji na drugim jezicima.
Izvor: Wikipedija
Ovo je stranica za razgovor za raspravu o stranici Wikipedija:Administratori/Prijedlozi za administratore/Neptune, the Mystic, Koreanovsky.
Rad na člancima


Budući da je stranica za glasovanje sada zaključana i da je mogu uređivati samo administratori, molim nekoga od istih da moj glas "protiv" Koreanovskoga samo prebaci iznad njegova odgovora drugom administratoru, s obzirom da mi je glas ostao izoliran (odvojen) od ostalih. --IvanOS 22:09, 24. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]


Zamolio bih nekog od admina da moje glasove promijeni u "neutralan". Zahvaljujem unaprijed. --Mateo K 01 (razgovor) 22:32, 24. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]

Komentar suradnika SpeedyGonsales

Ishod glasovanja je jasan, no ako je kandidatura nevaljana, onda je i glasovanje nevaljano. Demokracija se najčešće izjednačava s poštivanjem procedure, pa će tako biti i ovom prilikom: Wikipedija:Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora/Koreanovsky će donijeti pravorijek o valjanosti kandidature, te će glasovanje biti potvrđeno ili odbačeno ili odloženo za najmanje 3 mjeseca. SpeedyGonsales 22:32, 24. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]

Steward comment: Clarification of the result

Dear SpeedyGonsales, my name is Martin Urbanec, and I serve as a Wikimedia Steward. It has been brought to my attention that you closed Koreanovsky's request for adminship as unsuccessful, despite the policy states that a nominee with more than 1000 edits nominated by a nominator with more than 1000 edits is elected as an administrator, if 50 % of the voters supports that. In Koreanovsky's case, he has over 17k of edits, so the formal condition is satisfied with no doubt. He was also supported by 35 contributors and opposed by 17 contributors, which is 67 % (more than the required majority).

Despite those facts, you ruled that the result is clear, but that you have concerns about validity of the candidacy. I would like to ask you to explain why do you consider the candidacy invalid, as far as I can see, all formal conditions were resolved, and the candidate is clearly supported by the community.

You also submitted Wikipedija:Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora/Koreanovsky, where you say "if I block Koreanovsky, his candidacy will be void". I would like to ask you to explain that comment as well, as the policy doesn't mention blocks anywhere, and it is also apparently unfair to hold anything against the nominee that happened post-elections.

As a bureaucrat, you are a representative of the community, and have the responsibility to assess and enact community's consensus. However, you do not have the power to alter the consensus, that's far away from bureaucrat's responsibilities.

Sincerely, --Martin Urbanec (razgovor) 11:35, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]

I would also like to know if SG could cite a rule wihin hr.wiki that forbids once yellow carded users to be a candidate for admin role. Also, even if the rule exist (and it does not) it should have been invoked before the voting started, because now we have an admin, elected by the community, disputed by the bureaucrat clearly overstepping his authority. In my opinion, one or the other should be stripped of their roles. This whole situation reminds me of the current US president Trump trying to overrule the electoral vote by bogus legal claims. And he failed, it seems.
Hypothetically, If hr.wiki community comes to a decision to get rid of certain admins because of the i.e. meta talk in progress, it could be argued that numerous blocks by disputed admins on may talk page are in fact the badges of honor and that I'm just the perfect candidate for adminship. And what then? Opposing admins could then disqualify me on the same grounds for which I would be deemed preferable by the community. It would be a de facto dictatorship in disguise. Imbehind 16:51, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]
@Martin Urbanec, while You are here, I have some pleads for You. Please restore the admin tools to admin Vodomar. He was stripped of the tools not by the valid will of the community, but by the personal action of an steward. If the steward thought that that was the wheel war, then to my opinion, best solution was not to strip the tools to anyone at all, but to try to mediate with words. Unfortunately, steward took one side and took the tools off from only one involved admin. That is a biased gunmen solution, not the mediation. In the worst case, he had to strip off the tools to both for 1 week until the things WP:COOL down, although I find that stewards have no right to such action. Now our admin Vodomar has no tools and can not maintain the project.
Martin, Vodomar had a reason to block them. Isn't that suspicious that wikideadmen appear after 6 years of inactivity and, strangely, they know so much details? One of those wikideadmen were very rare active (mostly talkpages, promotion of political agenda [1] that denigrates Croatian Homeland War and Croatian judicial system) before that inactivity: however, they do dare to rudely trollishly accuse our former checkuser. Do You think that they can say calumny and get away with it just like that?
Second, Martin, You said that as a bureaucrat, that Speedy is a representative of the community, and has the responsibility to assess and enact community's consensus, and that he does not have the power to alter the consensus, because that's far away from bureaucrat's responsibilities. We have valid consensus of the community, and some inactive users seem to be immunized from the stripping off of the tools, although they are highly inactive and they game the system with alibi-edits. Also, we have an elected checkuser, still waiting to get the tools. Stewards must implement the valid community decision, although they may dislike it.
Further, I know what I and 37 other users have been accused. By mere match of 400 km wide geographical area and nothing more in cause of allegation (by user that does not write new articles), me and 37 articlewriters were condemned. Next time You visit Croatia in the area from Rab to Prevlaka and log on to wiki, consider Yourself suspicious.
One may say that "that steward found 'technical evidence'" blah blah. They will not convince me. I know who I am and I do not take credits of others' work. This reminds me on one epizode of Star Trek Chain of Command, when Cardassians captured captain Picard and held him prisoned, examined and tortured. The investigator showed his captive four bright lights, and demanded that Picard answer that there are five, inflicting intense pain on Picard if he does not agree. I recognize similar pattern here; of course, there is no inflicting of physical pain, but there are methods of pressure, allowing one side to do what they want (no matter how daring, presumptuous, reckless, contumelious, cynical and disrespective), while punishing the other whatever they do (and intimidating anywone who dares to agree with them). And of course, to blame, condemn and cancel Kubura (and 37 other users as collateral damage as a part of agenda of elimination of politically unwanted admin) by any means and to brainwash the community to believe in the allegation: i.e. to convince others that there are five lights. Kubura (razgovor) 21:24, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]
@Kubura: Hello Kubura. Let's please stay on topic here. I started this section to ask why Koreanovsky was not promoted, despite he met all the conditions, not to discuss any other hrwiki affairs. If you want to ask the stewards why they (did not) took any action, please use m:Stewards' noticeboard. Thank you, --Martin Urbanec (razgovor) 22:10, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]
I will refrain from commenting anything else apart from this "Isn't that suspicious that wikideadmen appear after 6 years of inactivity", because I feel implicated. Why would it be suspicious? Many people abandoned the project because of the events during the 2014. Now they heard, just as I have, what happened on meta and decided to come back hoping the problems will be resolved. So no, it is not at all suspicious. It is EXPECTED. Imbehind 22:23, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]

Kubura bušiš tamo gdje ne treba. -- 21:49, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]

Kubura haven't you learned anything? @Martin Urbanec, sorry to jump in. But it is more than obvious; my very strong feeling. Best --Mark7747 (razgovor) 22:08, 25. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]
Kubura You really have audacity to call me troll? [2] Your friend [Vodomar] cheated on check users inquest, and you still try to play same song, that I am troll, and that he is not a cheat? That is rich coming from a person that will be globally banned in a week for use of socks. And you never been Picard Kubura, all these years you where Gul Madred, like evidence on meta RFC proven not only to us, but to entire world. In any case name Kubura will live on in infamy for years to come, you did make your mark if anything else, for good or bad... Kanikosen (razgovor) 08:01, 26. studenoga 2020. (CET)Odgovor[odgovori]