Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia - User Suradnik13 - blocking and deleting

The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.

Croatian Wikipedia - User Suradnik13 - blocking and deleting edit

Hi! I have been blocked indefinitely on Croatian Wikipedia (, with an explanation "He is here just to provoke". I am a Serb, and I have written an article related to Serbs on Croatian Wikipedia, and after a short (1 day, which is also 1 day after creating the article) argument about the article's relevancy, with no agreement found, without any rude words from my side, a user Suradnik13, who had previously said they didn't have to "suck Serbian propaganda" and advised me to "go to Serbian Wikipedia and edit there", blocked me indefinitely and deleted the page with words "I am personally taking responsibility for deleting this article and blocking this user".

I wouldn't try to plead here if I haven't tried first to contact administrators from Croatian Wikipedia, but after contacting two administrators there, asking them to just examine the talk page where blocking and deletion happened, I got no response after several days from any of them. Eventually, I told them I realized that I was just unwelcome there because of my nationality, I still got no response at all. I have no one else to complain to.

  • Administrators I asked to take a look at the event were Dtom and Saxum.
  • The talk page is located here (Ukradeno Kosovo) (English equivalent article, which is actually a complete translation of this one, is located here (Stolen Kosovo)).
  • All administrators from Serbian Wikipedia that I asked advice from (Dungodung, Obradović Goran, Micki, BokicaK), told me I have every right to complain and their personal opinion is that the administrator hr:Suradnik:Suradnik13 made a serious violation of their administrating rights.
  • My requests are: 1. returning the article until decision about relevancy is made 2. Giving the user Suradnik13 a serious warning about violating their administrating rights and 3. Unblocking my account in Croatian Wikipedia.

It is interesting that the article doesn't refer to Croatia nor Croatians at all, but I guess that they were simply offended by "mentioning" Serbs (by a Serb?). It is also interesting that the article is referenced and that it talks strictly about a documentary, without delving into real life events.

If translation is necessary of any part of conversation in the talk page, I am here to help, and I can ask some prominent and trustworthy administrators from Serbian Wikipedia to confirm it.

Please redirect me elsewhere if this is the wrong address. Thank you. --Дарко Максимовић 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darko mentioned me, so I'll just give my 2 cents here: I'm quite puzzled by the outcome of the events from the mentioned article's talk page. The article may or may not have been deleted justly (I'm not getting into hrwiki policies and practices) because of notability, but I don't think the indef block was warranted. --FiliP × 09:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My 2 cents (hi Dungo ;-)) as bureaucrat on hr wiki, procedure for resolving problems with some admin on hr wiki is following:
  • ask another admin for help
  • ask bureaucrat for help
We are relatively small community, as such we don't have arbcomm, but bureaucrats when trying to resolve any complaint usually ask 3-5 other admins for opinion/comments, so effectively it is unofficial arbcomm. If user have complaint, I suggest that he/she follow procedure. SpeedyGonsales 16:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, SpeedyGonsales. As I said above, I've already asked admins for opinion (namely Dtom and Saxum) and both of them completely ignored my messages. My last message to them was more than 15 days ago. No response yet. If you have an advice specifically who to ask for support on hr.wikipedia, I would be grateful, but if I haven't already been ignored I wouldn't have come here in the first place. --Дарко Максимовић 18:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple questions:

  • Where is/was written that you are a Serb? And why is your nationality so relevant? Maybe i am a Serb.
  • "I have written an article related to Serbs " - article is aboute some Checz documentary about Serbo-Albanian conflicts in Kosovo, that has never been shown and the documentary was published only on YouTube.
  • "and advised me to "go to Serbian Wikipedia and edit there" - please, show me where did i said that!!!
I apologize on that one. I misunderstood the sentence "Well if the two of you know what language this Wikipedia is (not "Vikipedija!") than please write in that language. Bye". However, that doesn't make the situation and your behaviour any different. --Дарко Максимовић 11:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but your only intention was to provoke and you show that with this RfC. Bye --Suradnik13 08:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of the article talk edit

I'm giving my translation of the article talk located here (Talk page:Ukradeno Kosovo). I would be grateful if anyone reading this would give me a hand in translating it better, I'm giving my best to translate it as close to the original as possible. I think that is better than arguing with Suradnik13 about who said what. The talk page was relatively short, so it will not take anyone too much time. --Дарко Максимовић 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stolen Kosovo??? edit

Okay, this article makes no sense. It was written half in Latin letters, half in Cyrillic and I request its deletion because it offends Croatian homeland!!!

It offends Croatian homeland? This is not Croatian Wikipedia, but Wikipedia in Croatian language. It can eventually offend Croatian language, if you think one Cyrillic "i", involuntarily left, is a horrible offense. -- 22:09, 26. November 2008. (CET)

So, is any of administrators going to judge if this page is for deletion, or it will be put to vote? Or it will be, simply, left forever with this label? --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 00:54, 27. studeni 2008. (CET)

Obviously, the term is November 10. Explanation was "missing criterias - it's a film shown only on YouTube, it's not even in IMDb". In my opinion, films shown only on YouTube don't deserve a separate article in Wikipedia, because otherwise even Severina's porn movie could get an article in Wikipedia. No need to hurry. --Suradnik13 (talk) 09:04, 27. November 2008. (CET)

I agree with Thirteen, because really users should not waste their time on something like this. --frk@ 11:04, 27. November 2008. (CET)

I agree with you that the movie was only shown on YouTube, but that is exactly what makes it important. It is not, however, an amateur movie that exists on YouTube, but a film recorded in Czech Public Television which was because of its contents forbidden (censored), and which was the matter of numerous critics. All in all, it's a film made by professionals in a public institution, but a matter of numerous controverses. It can't be compared with Severina's porn movie which was made by an amateur camera and was never intended to be shown in public. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 11:08, 27. November 2008. (CET)

Darko, we also agree with you, but there is no room for that in wikipedia, it doesn't fit in encyclopedia criterias. --frk@ 11:31, 27. studeni 2008. (CET)

Okay, I understand. But, where can I find those criterias, so I know in the future? --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 11:48, 27. November 2008. (CET)

I apologize, I saw where criterias were. In section "What Wikipedia isn't", this movie doesn't fall under any of mentioned categories nor to any category that could be related to some of the mentioned. As for "Wikipedia criterias" section, it is very short and, true, this film is not politician nor a company, but neither are 90% of other articles are about a politician or a company. So, based on which criterias this article is not relevant? --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 11:52, 27. November 2008. (CET)

Here, read this (What Wikipedia isn't (translator notice)), maybe it will be more clear. Enjoy! ;) --frk@ 12:02, 27. November 2008. (CET)
I looked into that, and like I said above, "this movie doesn't fall under any of mentioned categories nor to any category that could be related to some of the mentioned". --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 12:19, 27. November 2008. (CET)

Please write in Croatian, because some of users find it hard to follow what you are writing in Serbian. The criteria is very clear: the film was not previously publicly shown, having in mind it wasn't shown neither on television nor in cinemas. If you see the Severina's porn case and her charges, you'll see the legal similarity. That's why I compared this movie with the porn. --Suradnik13 (talk) 12:13, 27. November 2008. (CET)

I apologize on my weak Croatian, but I'm doing my best so you can understanding as much as possible (above I said "tvrtka" instead of "firma", I'm writing in Iyekavian, etc.) But it's not clear to me where these criterias are written (or is it an unwritten rule?) There are many films not published on television nor in cinemas (e.g. only on film festivals, only for sale in video stores etc.) especially that this movie was intended (and planned in advance, officially) for Czech Public Television, but it was censored - which makes it more important. Although this isn't essentially important, it is interesting to me that there is no argument like this in Serbian or English Wikipedia... --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 12:19, 27. November 2008. (CET)

Well, you're the one that gives it on importance. I searched a little on Internet and it's not really that there's a big scandal for the movie being censored, i.e. for not being publicly shown. Showing a movie on a film festival is a form of publishing a work.
Why is it interesting to you that there is no such argument in English and Serbian wikipedia? We don't have to suck Serbian propaganda here. --Suradnik13 (talk) 12:34, 27. November 2008. (CET)
What sucking and what Serbian propaganda? I don't intend to get into nationalistic arguments; this is a film that Czech television entrusted to a Czech director which made it to its very end. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 12:41, 27. November 2008. (CET)
This is not Croatian Wikipedia, but Wikipedia in Croatian language. At least you should now that, Suradnik. It is not suitable for a n administrator to use so vulgar words. All the best! M!cki talk 12:42, 27. November 2008. (CET)

Well if the two of you know what language this Wikipedia is (not "Vikipedija!") (Serbian translation of Wikipedia (translator notice)) than please write in that language. Bye --Suradnik13 (talk) 12:46, 27. November 2008. (CET)

I think one could think someone has something against this article, but the point is only that it, as such, isn't in any way related to Wikipedia. I'll try to make it more clear, for example:
  1. premiere and audience and film critics reactions
  2. effects of the movie (on event)
  3. film critics analysis
  4. awards
these are just some of the criteria you can't get. Nobody has anything against this article, but without premiere this is just an ad and propaganda that belongs elsewhere. --frk@ 12:57, 27. November 2008. (CET)
I agree with Frka. One should probably wait a little more until this article is relevant. If it's about to get deleted, it can be moved to hr:Suradnik:Дарко Максимовић/Ukradeno Kosovo. This is just a proposal. M!cki talk 13:01, 27. November 2008. (CET)

First thing I have to say is I'm glad we are back to decent communication. I'm just interested is there anywhere in Wikipedia in Croatian language such a rule, voted by community and confirmed by an administrator? Because, if there is not, then we have to comply with "global" rules of wikipedia, and these are obvious in following examples:

I don't dispute the fact that other Wikipedias don't define rules for Wikipedia in Croatian language, but there is no such rule officially here, as I see it, and I showed you examples in other wikipedias. This movie could fall under category "Upcoming films" and "Unreleased films", and even if it was to be cancelled (which was not yet) it could fall under category "Canceled films". --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 13:16, 27. November 2008. (CET)

The only "global rules" are hr:Wikipedija:Pet stupova Wikipedije ("Five pillars" - translator notice). --Suradnik13 (razgovor) 13:19, 27. November 2008. (CET)

I agree. I think you are related to points 2 and 4, and this article is related to point 5. So, as long as there is no such a rule (voted and confirmed) to say not published moves are irrelevant, we can look upon English, German, Portuguese, Italian and other wikipedias, like in examples shown above. Isn't it? --Дарко Максимовић (razgovor) 13:26, 27. November 2008. (CET)

The part here was added after blocking me and deleting the article (as can be seen in talk page history) so I don't translate it

I take full responsibility for deleting this article and blocking the user. --Suradnik13 (razgovor) 13:32, 27. November 2008. (CET)

The explanation given for blocking was "jedini razlog dolaska je provociranje" ("the only reason for coming here was provoking").

--Дарко Максимовић 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability edit

While I understand that it is not the central point of this RfC, just a few notes about the movie notability.

Nikola 08:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (For full disclosure, I am an administrator and a checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia. However, I speak on my own behalf only.) For those who may not be up to snuff with Balkan antics, I would like to point out that, while Serbian and Croatian are now usually considered to be two separate languages, they have been part of a unified language for almost a century and there can be no reasonable discussion about whether these two languages are mutually fully intelligible. As a similar example, Language subcommittee has repeatedly rejected the opening of the Montenegrin Wikipedia on the basis of it being mutually intelligible with other South Slavic languages (see their comments here and here.) I do not wish to make a political statement here but only to point out that no Serbian/Croatian person can in good faith claim that they do not understand Croatian/Serbian. Insisting that Croatian spelling for "Wikipedia" be used on talk pages rather than Serbian, and making a fuss about one Cyrillic letter left in the text by mistake definitely does not qualify as good faith. The indef block of a guest editing in good faith and good manners is actually contrary to the five pillars of Wikipedia, namely to the fourth (behavioral) pillar and the third (open content) pillar. This block and the inaction of the hrwiki admin community which followed is, in my view, entirely unacceptable, and the administrator in question should be reprimanded by both the global community and the Croatian Wikipedia community. --Dzordzm 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the risk of carrying this discussion off-topic, I would also like to point out that this "We don't have to suck Serbian propaganda"/"Please write in Croatian, because some of users find it hard to follow what you are writing in Serbian" (which is about as absurd as "please do not write about chips because we only know about crisps") incident is emblematic of the kind of "patriotic" attitude at Croatian Wikipedia that we at srwiki have long been aware of. Few editors whose home wiki is srwiki — including some very experienced editors who are certainly very well aware of Wikipedia policies and standards - have found themselves welcome at hrwiki. The so-called notability criteria to which hrwiki admins have appealed specify, for example, that heads of both Croatia and other states are eligible for an article, but candidates for this position, or Government ministers, are eligible only if they are from Croatia. That is hardly neutral point of view. As of today, their Main page contains five news, all five of which are about Croatia (srwiki main page contains six news, not one of which is about Serbia). And I am not even going to touch upon articles on sensitive issues so as to not open a can worms. It is all nice and dandy to talk about a Wikipedia as a cultural and linguistic rather than a national project but deeds must follow words; also, it is hrwiki community prerogative to formulate their own policies but they should also be held aware that their little endeavor is financed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the thousands of contributors who support free knowledge. There is no denying that we at srwiki have our own faults and I plead guilty in advance to all accusations of this nature. But there is some soul-searching that hrwiki community - the same community which stood silent during this particular incident - needs to do and this may be an excellent opportunity. --Dzordzm 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding As of today, their Main page contains five news, all five of which are about Croatia (srwiki main page contains six news, not one of which is about Serbia):
This comment only shows your prejudice, Dzordzm, since this is not "as od today" but as of every day. The explanation is here: hr:Wikipedija:Novosti: U toj rubrici navode se one vijesti koje su na neki način važne za Hrvatsku (meaning: This section is reserved for news that are important for Croatia).
The comunity decided that way and is as legitimate as chosing to have world news, only sport news, only results of Lacrosee matches in Canada or not having that section at all. Your comparison to sr wiki and jumping to conclusion only shows your prejudice. --Ante Perkovic 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your ad hominem attack and a shining example of your willingness to engage in dialogue. I never attempted to deny the hrwiki community the prerogative to choose what you put on your home page. The choice you made, however, is indicative of your perceptions of Wikipedia. Would you perchance care to discuss the many other more serious points I have attempted to raise? My hope was that they just might encourage some constructive dialogue within your own community. I am not and do not wish to be hostile to your Wikipedia project. I do not desire to partake in it personally but I do believe in the right of all editors in good faith to do so if they wish, regardless of their background, and to do so in line with fundamental principles of Wikipedia, including an open community and neutral point of view. --Dzordzm 08:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]