User talk:GregorB

Engleska Wikipedija

Da li mora na engleskoj Wikipediji samo na engleskom pricati izmedju sebe? Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia

I am really tired about this and I do not see point because meta will do nothing.--Rjecina2 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ajde kaži ti meni kao administratoru koji želi pravilama zabraniti kopiranje tekstova o komunizmu s hr na sh wikipediju kakva je poanta svega toga kada oni isti korisnici koji se ovdje javno križaju zbog glorifikacije fašizma i ponižavanja komunizma (ili kako ćemo te već nazvati) na sh wikipediji zauzimaju stajalište da apsolutna zabrana ne dolazi u obzir jer na hrvatskoj wikipediji postoje dobri i pošteni tekstovi o komunizmu (tu nemaš pravo glasa jer nisi aktivan na sh wikipediji) ??

Na kraju se moram složiti s nekim dečkima na hr wiki da dosta korisnika ovdje piše iz bijesa što su s nje izbačeni, a ne jer stvarno misle da hr wiki pišu neofašističke gluposti.--Rjecina2 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Content

Mogu li staviti ovde na popis sve clanke na koje naletim da su pristrasni? --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Zabavljanje

Pošto se zabavljaš s ovim ajde da ti dam ono što sam prije napisao,a ti onda razmisli kako to posložiti u davanju primjera koje je navodno podržano od Jimba.

2010. godine WizardofOz je bio po meta presudi ilegalno blokiran od Kubure koji biva kažnjen 6mjesečnim oduzimanjem administratorskih ovlasti. Također je bilo pokrenuto pitanje čarapka na hr wikipediji. [1]

nakon toga u cilju "rješavanja konflikta" WizardofOz je koordinirano odblokiran od administratora Vodomara samo da bi 7 minute kasnije bio blokiran od administratora Ex13. [2]

Taj slučaj je po meni najbolji jer dokazuje zajednički nastup administratorske zajednice na hr wiki da ilegalno (po meta odluci) blokira suradnika.

Kao što znaš ako si čitao moj i wizardov primjer ja sam prvo dobio upozorenje o propagandi od administratora Roberta F. [3] i potom bio blokiran od administratora Šokac također zbog propagande [4]

Meni je normalno na hr wiki uvek bilo i ostalo smešno kako je za njih Hitler diktator i ništa više dok je Staljin ratni zločinac,ali to je već osjetljiva tematika--Rjecina2 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Opomena za propagandu je bila jer sam na stranici za razgovor ispod Seiyana komentara koji kaže više manje isto napisao što sam napisao. opisujući "borbu".

Blokada zbog propagande je bila jer sam na stranici za razgovor 8 tekstova napisao "preuzeto s sh wiki" [5].

U ovo moje blokiranje je bio uključen i "timski igrač" (čitaj flopy) koji je ako se dobro sjećam iskoristio sysop ovlasti za brisanje tih stranica za razgovor. Nakon administratorske rasprave stranice za razgovor su vraćene (flopy se izvinio), a moj blok od 6 mjeseci je ostao.

Wizarda neću objašnjavati jer sve imaš u njegovom RFC kao i meta odluku o meta nadzoru izbora hr administratora zbog velikog broja puppets na hr wiki. Jednostavno nije bilo meta enforcing te odluke.--Rjecina2 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Gledaj povijest šablona komunizam:

• 1) komunistički logori ulaze u šablon
• 2) Jasenovac izbačen
• 3) speedy ga vraća
• 4) i danas ga je netko anonimno izbacio.

,a pojmovi tamo napisani su fantastični počevši od neokomunizma jer po hr wiki logici ako postoji neoustaštvo postoji i neokomunizam zar ne, bez obzira na to što uopće nema izvora.

Normalno ako logori ne postoje treba ih stvoriti zar ne pa su u skladu s tim izmislili izvor hr:Hortobágy (izvor broj 2),a uz put malo i vandalizali en wiki u istom tekstu gdje od 2 izvora za logor niti jedan ne funkcionira.--Rjecina2 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Molim

Molim te javi mi se na mail. Hvala. Miranche (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Htio sam ti javiti da imam više informacija u vezi onog kriptičnog komentara. Miranche (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Na izravna pitanja ti na žalost nemam odgovora. Ono što mogu reći je da sam, zahvaljujući kontaktima u Zg ekipi koja zastupa slobodne sadržaje, s kojima sam između ostaloga organizirao Jimbovu posjetu Zg i Bg 2005, dijelom i ne htijući postao svjestan par dodatnih razina na kojima je na snazi WP:IAR. U tom kontekstu mislim da je postupak koji se vodi na Evidence stranicama a koji se ne oslanja na IAR još važniji. To jest, so far so good.

Moja razmišljanja o tome što se može dogoditi na hr.wiki vođena su općim dojmovima o tome kako se stvari i inače rade u Hrvatskoj. I Hrvatska i Wikipedija su rajevi za amatere, pa ni hr.wiki nije izuzetak. To između ostaloga znači da ni jedna struktura moći nije hermetički zatvorena -- uhodana da, ali uvijek nužno improvizirana. Dakle iako ne poznajem zajednicu dovoljno da bih znao što je konkretno moguće, mislim da u načelu ništa nije nemoguće.

Ono što je sigurno jest da je ovakav izvor podataka kakav postoji na Evidence stranicama bez presedana, i bilo bi mi drago da ga netko na hr.wiki iskoristi. Međutim, isto tako kao što je od naše ideje da postavimo tu stranicu do sada proteklo tek 20-ak dana, vrijeme nakon kojega bi mogli sa sigurnošću reći da ti podaci nemaju utjecaja na hr.wiki vjerojatno se mjeri u tjednima a ne danima (isto kao što se na razini WMF ono vjerojatno mjeri u mjesecima). Mislim da ima načina da s naše strane poboljšamo šanse da Evidence stranice imaju utjecaja na hr.wiki, a bar jedan konkretan prijedlog u tom smjeru već postoji na SzR. Miranche (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Meta Conduct

Nema na čemu. Što sad slijedi? Je li prikupljanje dokaza o ponašanju i sadržaju na hr wik isada zaključeno? I da li ćeš ti još glasati na nekim primjerima (support, oppose ili neutral)?--Seiya (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I imaš li e-mail?--Seiya (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ne znam jesi li primjetio, ali danas je pokrenuto očitovanje o statusu tri administratora na hr wiki temeljem dokazana iznesenih ovdje na meti. Nakon samo četiri sata, Speedy, jedan od te trojice, je prekinuo glasanje [6] uz ovo objašnjenje [7]. I što se tu može? Ako ovo nije sukob interesa, ne znam što je.--Seiya (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Argumenti su doista čudni: "Nelegalno glasanje", "revanšizam", "nema argumenata"... Kako se može "inzistirati na konsenzusu" a istodobno zabranjivati zajednici da postigne konsenzus? Glasanje bi trebalo pozdraviti. Ako zajednica odluči da nema razloga za skidanje statusa administratorima, time bi se jednom zauvijek riješila ova afera i bio bi kraj priče. Čemu onda strah od suradnika?--Seiya (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hajde da se složimo da se retko slažemo. Voleo bih da hr.wiki sama se reši ovih_ne_mogu_da_nađem_pogodan_izraz. Očekivao sam da će raditi ircevi i elektronska pošta, samo ni na kraj pameti mi nije bilo da tamo ima toliko ljudi koji mogu bez srama reći da su ovi pomenuti dobri admini i da nikada nisu i nikada više neće zloupotrebiti privilegije. Ili da će DČ sabotirati sopstveno glasanje o nepoverenju. Pa zato bi trebalo automatski da ostane bez prava i da bude zauvek blokiran. -- Bojan  Talk  15:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ja bih najradije da se JW umesao odmah ili da se uopste ne mesa sada kada je pokrenuto glasanje. Ali ovo sto radi SG... Kažeš da su oni pamezni--- pa ne znam, ja na njegovom mestu posle svega ne bih zaključavao stranicu za glasanje ili sabotirao na drugi nacin -- mudar covek ne bi uradio nista sto bi kriticarima (tj. nama) dalo municije da pucamo po njemu. SG i njegovi puleni nemaju trunke obraza. Ja to gledam vec 5 godina, vec mi je muka od toga (iako od toga nemam ni puno koristi ni puno stete) -- Bojan  Talk  16:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ne slazam se da su pametni i izbegli zamke. Kada je glasanje pocelo, bilo je 2:1 za protiv, a Croq i Starcevicevanc su dali legitimitet. I onda dodje Speedy da zakljucava. Napravili su sebi stetu u ocima neutralnih. Speedy uopste ne moze da podnese da se glasa njemu jer misli da je nedodirljiv. Vidim da odmah idu da proveravaju doprinose onih koji su glasali protiv njih.-- Bojan  Talk  00:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

PS. Ni na jednoj wikipediji nisam video toliko trolova. Sa obe strane, ali pretezno njihove. -- Bojan  Talk  01:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Da, problem je u svima koji su glasali ili ce glasati protiv. Misim da je Vodomar sledeci kandidat za skidanje prava jer brise glasove za, a priznaje ponistene glasove protiv. Covek ne zna da cita pravila (najmanje mesec da pre pocetka glsanja) i izmislja nova. Da se prijavi to pod Conduct? -- Bojan  Talk  12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Kao Zergovi u Starcraftu. Ako si igrao. Ako ne, onda kolektivna svet, jednoumlje... Ti likovi su osramotili hr.wiki. A ako je hr.wiki ogledalo drzave, bice stigmatizovani i nevini. -- Bojan  Talk  13:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Please note that there wasn't "official" checking, but he still clearly and openly stated "I've checked users and there's no evidence for sockpuppetry" [8] and used such claim against other user, even accusing him for "pressure" and "misuse of wiki-rules". There was an argue about the same sockpuppet issue between administrators few days ago and one of them refered to upper SpeedyGonzales claim [9] against valid suspicions. I don't blame admin Braco, because checkusers are supposed to be trustable users and their statements are always highly convincing. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Yes, former admin Argo Navis has openly complained about Croq's sockpuppets because he used them for voting abuse against new admin election (Mario Žamić, Saxum, ManUsk), three weeks before desysopping case started. Funny case, you can check how Croq first voted "yes" [10], but after big boss has voted for "no" [11], then invertebrate immediately change his opinion [12] and even use sockpuppet for more votes against [13]. :) It's not much relevant, local case, solved. 2-3) Regarding this, he stated that he has investigated two accounts by using CU tool. This may be true or not, but in both cases he manipulated on Argo Navis' talkpage by claiming "ranges are different". If he used CU tool, he clearly found ranges are same, but he lied about difference. If the didn't use tools, he lied that he used them. Possibility that he really checked accounts and found different ranges is highly unlikely: both accounts are active for long time, and Croq is contributing from same place in Mitteleuropa. 4) Yes, checkuser investigation two days ago proved sockpuppety case, Croq and Kosmetic are same person [14]. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Lažne CheckUser provere

To je očigledno, nisam ni na čijoj strani samo znam da CheckUser pamti IP adrese 7 meseci od poslednjeg logovanja. --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To znači da CheckUser provera uopšte nije bila od strane CheckUsera. --Kolega2357 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Mislim na glavnog vođu hr wiki koji najviše pominjan u javnosti. --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Da tačno tako tom prilikom CU alat nije korišćen. Postoje neki slučajevi koji ni do dana danas nisu rasvetljeni po pitanju sockpuppet naloga. --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Istorija uređivanja ne može dokazati zvanično da je neki nalog sockpuppet, ali se može povući hipoteza da je nečiji nalog od tog i tog korisnika. Što se još toga tiče o CheckUserima mogu samo reći da sam hteo biti ja CheckUser na sh wiki ali to je propalo jer nema drugog korisnika ko bi bio, a mora svaki projekat imati najmanje 2 ili nijednog. Svaka CheckUser provera se upisuje u bazu podataka i ne može sakriti od sistemskih administratora. Sistemski administratori su ti koji mogu nevidljivo proveriti svaki projekat. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Postoje korisnici koji globakani CheckUseri na svim projektima kao što su Wikimedia Foundation staff i Ombudsman commission. Postoji interfejz za pristup globalnim pravima kao što je za ove dve grupe:

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Staff
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Ombudsmen

to možeš pogledati na ovim linkovima. Stewardi nemaju direktan pristup CU alatima nego moraju prvo sebi dodeliti na Wiki projektu na kom vrše proveru. --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pojašnjenje

Da pojasnim, Croq je, bizarno, često iskazivao animozitet prema meni (i drugim ex-hr wiki suradnicima) samo zbog toga što smo -- počeli raditi na sh wiki -- te rekao da "nema respekt" prema meni [15][16]. Čovjek bi pomislio da će on kao Hrvat u inozemstvu imati više razumijevanja, ali eto...
Nakon što se otkrilo da Croq ima desetak sockpuppeta, a među njima je i "Sayya" preko kojeg je poskrivečki kopirao moje članke sa omražene mu sh wiki na hr wiki, napisao sam mu ironični komentar da očito ima respekt prema meni, valjda skriven, latentan [17]. Možda nisam to trebao reći, možda sam pretjerao. Ali barem se otkrilo kako neki suradnici smiju reći sve, i nemaju nikakve opomene, a drugi kada odgovore onda dobiju ohoho blok. Koga briga? Neka rade što hoće. Ja sam se već davno prebacio na drugu wiki i tamo sam zadovoljan, a ovo nisam ni primjetio do dva-tri dana.--Seiya (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Let's say it's an overkill for the rest of the wiki-World out of hr.wiki. Hr.wiki seems to have two factions with enough forces for a mutual destruction so hr.wiki will have no survival sysops for a practical internal reason. I'm meanwhile wondering about actions we should take but linguistic barriers already prevented me from an incisive action, ciao! --Vituzzu (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Zajednički prikaz lemma svih wikipedija na SH jeziku

Postavila sam prijedlog ne samo na sh, već i na bs. i sr.wiki; na hr. ne mogu jer sam blokirana, ali postavit ću ga za koji tjedan kad blok istekne. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ratovanje blokiranjem

1. 21:44, 27 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled)
2. 09:54, 27 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled) (osobni napadi (ili napadačko ponašanje))
3. 13:26, 26 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)
4. 13:20, 26 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (osobni napadi (ili napadačko ponašanje): ometanje rada wikipedije)
5. 13:03, 26 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)
6. 12:50, 26 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (osobni napadi (ili napadačko ponašanje): ometanje rada wikipedije)
7. 11:47, 26 November 2013 Zeljko (Talk | contribs) blocked Argo Navis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (osobni napadi (ili napadačko ponašanje): ometanje rada wikipedije)

Možeš li ovo u neku od kategorija svrstati? --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Meni se čini da korisnik Rschen7754 da je on protiv CheckUser provere na hr wiki ili se varam. --Kolega2357 (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Bok,

Jeste li ti ili Miranche "službeno" nekog obavjestili o kraju prikupljanja dokaza? Možda ne bi bilo loše tražiti od Jimba neki konkretni timeline? --Argo Navis (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Meta

Dobro jutro. Razmišljao sam da na stranici za sadržaj uklonimo tri primjera koji nisu skupili nijedan glas "za" i koji su prelabavi, najblaže rečeno, (Mihailo mitropolit, Novak Đoković, Split Pride) u odnosu na ostale koji su evidentno pristrani i problematični.

Inače, jesi li primjetio da je Ex13 odbio izvršiti provjeru računa JohnnyXaver, optuženog da je još jedna čarapara Croqa? Ja bi i to dodao kao dokaz o ponašanju na meti.

Pokrenuo sam i pokret za ispravljanje i/ili brisanje navedenih spornih članak sa hr wiki, ali nisam optimističan. Kao da se mane moraju braniti i biti dio hr wiki: [18], [19], [20].--Seiya (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tportal

FYI, the guy who was intervjued here is me. Journalist is well informed indeed, he keeps track of this story from the start. --Argo Navis (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I do have some ideas, but I'm not really happy with idea of sharing it live, since I already saw my words being cherry-picked, sometimes even several years after they were written. If You want, You can send me an e-mail. --Argo Navis (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I left you a message on hr wiki. You are doing a great job. Just keep doing it and don't run back to en wiki yet :). --Argo Navis (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Five months later...

Couldn't help but overhear your discussion with Argo Navis, and I'm glad to see that, as I've hoped, you're considering taking up the hr.wiki challenge (the final frontier!). Anyways I'm about to put a formal end to the five-month evidence gathering saga, so I'd appreciate if you could chime in by sharing any final thoughts or suggestions you may find appropriate, or simply by signing off on it. Thank you very, very much for co-bottom-lining the effort for most of its active phase. I'm looking forward to continuing the collaboration in other ways on hr.wikipedia 😃. Miranche (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Da li možeš da mi se javiš ne email? --Kolega2357 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Response from Evertype

It isn't his place to judge the Montenegrins' opinions. So please do not hurt him, can you? --36.102.227.22 23:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean... GregorB (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia RfC proposal

Hi GregorB,

I have drafted a proposal about what to do with hrwiki's admin abuse at User:DraconicDark/sandbox. I would like some input on whether this proposal does enough/is the right move to make.

Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

An update

Since you're writing the proposal to resolve the admin abuse on Croatian Wikipedia, there is something I should tell you: As of today, I've been indefinitely blocked from Croatian Wikipedia, by "K" himself. Here's what I would assume is the reason why: [21], and here's "K"'s explanation why: [22].

I was basically indefinitely blocked for only ever making one edit to hrwiki, specifically in the article on Jasenovac concentration camp. All I did was remove a paragraph with blatant political propaganda that didn't cite any sources, while also adding a "Neutrality disputed" template (something that apparently no one had done before). On enwiki, this is a perfectly normal course of action when encountering content like this, but apparently not so on hrwiki, because my edit was reverted by "Z" without any explanation why.

In addition, in his reasoning for blocking me, "K" cites the ongoing Meta discussion (and my draft proposal) as the reason why, and presumes I am simply on hrwiki to make trouble because of it, which couldn't be further from the truth. "K" has made either a bad judgement call at best, or acted maliciously at worst (I think you know which one it is). His actions in this case are simply a repeat of his actions in this RfC that got him desysopped the first time. It amazes me that the hrwiki admins have gotten so arrogant that they keep doing things that essentially incriminate themselves, while not even bothering to defend themselves.

If admins preserving ideological bias and biting the newcomers is further enabled by the Wikimedia community, what does that say about the Wikimedia movement as a whole? Definitely not the right thing, that's for sure. That's why I decided to take action in the hrwiki case, even with the possibility that it could ultimately end up being futile. I still believe in Wikipedia's core values, even in the face of those who would throw them away without a second thought, but if my hrwiki incident proves anything, it's that sometimes, you can't "just edit the pages" like some hrwiki users had flippantly suggested back in 2013.

On that note, what are your thoughts on this, and how far are you along with your proposal?

Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

International and US press?

Hello Gregor, I came across your open letter sent addressed to JW sometime in 2018, so I wonder if you ever thought of sending a shortened version of that letter to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the HuffPost, and any other electronic and print media in the United States (or elsewhere), which you could think of, including PC and Internet magazines - that should be relatively simple, to scale-down existing one and include few important links (link to that letter to JW, links to RfC's, etc). They are, as you know, very sensitive to the Holocaust denial, and I'm sure they would have responded to the carefully written letter with an investigation and an article of their own. It would be good to describe the passivity of the WMF as well as the efforts of this community through these RfC's. I'm sure something would appear on their outlets, online and maybe in paper too, and if they were to deal with the passivity of WMF, I am certain that such media attention there would force the foundation to get involved in some way, something that no letter to JW could ever achieve. Cheers.--^{s a n t a | t a l k | p i t} 04:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)