Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.


Statement of the issue[edit]

Approximately for the last ten years, Croatian Wikipedia (CW) has had a number of major problems:

  • Far-right bias in a number of topics, most notably related to World War II, including outright historical revisionism and Holocaust denial.
  • Proliferation of grossly unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, and unsourced biased content.
  • Administrator abuse, manifested most importantly by blocking editors who try to fix the biased content or even express disagreement with it, while at the same time protecting and encouraging like-minded editors.
  • Mass departure of editors, largely due to blocks and inability to change the above-described circumstances, and, at the same time, a significant influx of new editors with extreme views.

Over the years, these problems have persisted or even gotten worse, and have been widely covered by the media in Croatia and abroad, chiefly in 2013 and 2018, making the general public aware of the situation.

This RfC argues that:

  1. The current state of CW grossly violates the five pillars of Wikipedia - namely, pillars #1 ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"), #2 ("Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view"), #3 ("Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute") and #4 ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). There is a persistent, major failure to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia.
  2. CW is a dysfunctional community, particularly when the general disposition of the majority of currently active admins and editors is taken into account.
  3. CW is, without outside intervention, terminally dysfunctional, because years of abuse and suppression have made the dissenting editors a powerless minority, and change from within is impossible.

Therefore, an outside intervention is both justified and necessary.

Evidence[edit]

This RfC stems from "The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia", a 1350-word article I've written on the topic, published in the August 2019 issue of The Signpost. The article gives an overview of the negative media image of CW, and provides a number of concrete examples of extreme bias, unencyclopedic content, and administrator abuse. "The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia" is crucial to this RfC both in terms of background and evidence, and should be considered an integral part of it.

A shortened Croatian-language translation of the article has been posted here. That version omits the discussion of the media coverage, focusing exclusively on the on-wiki evidence, as it - unlike The Signpost version - provides both the examples and the supporting diffs.

All of the incriminating examples in The Signpost article are directly linked to three long-time CW administrators:

  1. Kubura (named in the article as "K").
  2. SpeedyGonsales (named in the article as "Q").
  3. Zeljko (named in the article as "Z").

Of these, two have been desysopped before: Kubura was desysopped in 2010 through a Meta-Wiki RfC for misuse of admin tools, while SpeedyGonsales was desysopped and blocked for one year in 2009 for off-wiki harassment and abusive behavior towards other editors.

Reactions to The Signpost article[edit]

I announced The Signpost article and its Croatian translation in the CW's village pump. I was subsequently exposed to a number of rather crude personal attacks,[1] and, a while later, given an indefinite block, accompanied by more personal attacks.[2] A single editor expressed support for my views in the village pump; shortly after, he was given a three-month block under some pretense.

The three accused admins took part in the village pump discussion, but none them made any substantial attempts to deny or argue the accusations.

To my knowledge, none of the remaining admins (there are eight: Ex13, Fraxinus, Jure Grm, Lasta, Maestro Ivanković, Roberta F., Tulkas Astaldo, and Vodomar) have provided any kind of public or non-public comment or reaction on the issue, although it is not possible that they are all ignorant of it. This should be understood - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - as full support for the three accused admins. There is little reason to doubt such support generally exists, since there is no public record of substantial criticism of Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, and Zeljko from any of these admins. In particular, there is also reason to believe that, in this case, non-communication was chosen over open support in order to avoid self-incrimination.

In effect, the above-described aftermath merely provides additional evidence CW is severely dysfunctional.

Background[edit]

For context, here is a brief timeline of the CW:

  • CW was established in 2003.
  • In July 2009, local ArbCom was formed.
  • A group of editors, headed by SpeedyGonsales, campaigned for the dissolution of the ArbCom, arguing that it is too powerful. In the process, he was desysopped and blocked for off-wiki harassment that targeted the ArbCom members.
  • In January 2010, ArbCom was dissolved following a community vote. SpeedyGonsales was subsequently reinstated. Kubura and Zeljko, who both sided with SpeedyGonsales and helped him return, became administrators too. From that point on, a small group of admins assumed effective control over the project.
  • In September 2013, a large controversy erupted over the far-right content on the CW. More than 50 articles were published on the topic by the Croatian media.
  • In October 2013, a local vote to demote Kubura, SpeedyGonsales and Zeljko was narrowly defeated (40-46, 38-45, and 42-44, respectively). As a consequence, however, SpeedyGonsales was stripped of his checkuser status.
  • In July 2014, Argo Navis, Dean72 and Conquistador, three prominent dissenting editors, entered the RfA, but were narrowly defeated (58-62, 55-61, and 59-61, respectively).
  • In 2013 and 2014, many editors left the project in disappointment and frustration, among them some admins. Argo Navis, Conquistador and Dean72 left the CW in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively.
  • In 2017, Kubura was elected bureaucrat with a vote of 21-0.
  • In 2018, more than a dozen articles about the far-right bias and abuses on the CW were published by Croatian and foreign media.
  • As of September 2019, of 46 editors who opposed Kubura's demotion in 2013, 20 have left the CW, and 26 are active. Of 40 editors who had voted in favor of demotion, however, 38 have left, and only 2 are still active.

The following CW-related RfCs have been submitted in the past:

A pattern of issues consistent with the ones discussed by this RfC is readily apparent.

What this is not[edit]

For the sake of full clarity, here is what the CW issue at hand and this RfC is not:

  • A complete list of incriminating examples. Here is just one more: in the "External links" section of the CW article on Homosexuality, Zeljko inserted a link to an article titled "Homosexual couple adopted a girl - two weeks later, one of them killed her".[3] The list of similar examples could go on - dozens upon dozens more could be presented - but this is unnecessary, since the evidence already provided is both damning and irrefutable.
  • An exhaustive list of problems with CW. CW suffers from arbitrariness, cabalism, social engineering, sockpuppetry, lack of openness and transparency, poorly written and defective guidelines and procedures, lax attitude towards copyvios and plagiarism... but this RfC is not about all that: quite simply, there are even worse things more or less the same people are responsible for.
  • A list of cherry-picked, isolated issues, honest mistakes, or mix-ups on the part of the admins. I believe no elaboration is necessary here.
  • A reflection of the prevailing ideological positions and divisions among the general population in Croatia. It is rather a reflection of what happens when a large part of the population is systematically shut out from participating.
  • A problem best left to the consensus of the local community. From the above, it should be clear that there is no meaningful community anymore; it should also be clear why.

Proposed actions[edit]

The following actions are proposed to address the above-described issues (big thanks to DraconicDark for his original draft proposal):

  1. Remove the admin status from Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, and Zeljko, the three worst offenders.
  2. ... and give them a lifetime ban from reapplying.
  3. Dismiss all local admins.
  4. Remove bureaucrat and checkuser status from all local bureaucrats and checkusers.
  5. Set up a local ArbCom consisting of experienced Croatian or similar language-speaking editors from other wikis, to be appointed by the global community at Meta-Wiki.
  6. Solicit extra participation from the members of similar-language projects.

From these, one or more actions may be chosen, and other actions are possible too.

When considering what sort of action is the most appropriate, it is important to recognize that simple and quick-to-implement solutions are the most likely to have an immediate effect. On the other hand, it is vital to choose the actions which, on the whole, cannot be subverted, worked around, or even rolled back through local consensus.

Your comments and questions are more than welcome. (Pinging the participants of the previous RfC, in no particular order: Notrium, George Ho, Srdjan m, DobarSkroz, Rschen7754, DraconicDark, Sj, Ajraddatz, Rosguill, SpinningSpark, Nosebagbear, Kaldari, Daß Wölf, Santasa99.) GregorB (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • First of all, thank you to GregorB for putting in the legwork of raising awareness of this issue and mobilizing a response to it. For the most part, the proposed actions seem reasonable to me. However, I'm wondering if the motion to dismiss all local admins might not be a bit too drastic––one motivation for not speaking out that doesn't appear to be addressed above is fear of retaliation from the troika of the most problematic admins. Moreover, if other actions are successfully implemented (removing the worst offenders, setting up a local ArbCom, and adding a significant number of good-faith editors who are aware of the situation from similar language projects), it's not clear to me that any remaining problem admins hidden amongst those who haven't spoken up would even have that much power to derail things more than any other user, as their use of admin tools would presumably be subject to significant scrutiny and any wheel-warring would be extremely visible. signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A crystal clear summary, thanks for the insightufl and persistent attention to this. I second both of Rosguill's comments. I agree that something should be done that considers the depth and duration of the situation, but removing all admins does not seem necessary and may lead to avoidable confusion or backlash, including from the community that would otherwise provide extra participation. –SJ talk  02:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for the proposed action. The deselection of the 3 incriminated individuals has to be the cornerstone, and after that a moratorium. --Ivan VA (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for all that was written. The only thing I may waver on is dismissing the local admins--their inaction seems to be less of an issue than the rest of the points. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I support all proposed actions. At the very least, the three most problematic admins must be removed and banned from reapplying, as well as removing all local bureaucrats and checkusers. If the problematic three are desysopped without doing anything else, they will simply regain their powers within a few months and then it's back to square one. The other thing that needs to be addressed is, if the Croatian Wikipedia ArbCom is reestablished, how will its members be decided? If the consensus of this discussion ends up being in favor of setting up a new ArbCom, a new Meta-Wiki RfC may be needed to decide who is on the ArbCom. It is then important to choose people who will be as impartial as possible, and set up measures to ensure the ArbCom can't be dismantled, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating again. DraconicDark (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Rosguill: When you say fear of retaliation is also a possible reason for silence, you are quite correct: for some of them at least, it is actually plausible. While merely clinging to admin tools in the face of such obvious, severe and persistent violations of Wikipedia principles may in itself be seen as a major failure to do one's duty as an administrator, it is quite possible that there are also real-life concerns here. Moreover, I fully agree with you, and I'd even say it is the essence of the matter: other, long-term actions, such as setting up a local ArbCom in particular, make the removal of all admins redundant at best, and detrimental at worst. GregorB (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Revisiting message that Kubura gave me, I am more inclined to take sides with the blocked user VS6507 (Alex). Here are interactions between the two. Furthermore, using some mere 2009 incident to indefinitely block the user in 2015 is too delayed and very harsh. Also, the incident itself is mere attack neither intended to be perceived as sexual harassment that "K" claimed to be. That was just expression of frustration. A mere admonishment would have suffice if the admonishment occurred in 2009, but admonishment in 2015 for the 2009 incident is pointless. Still, there's no need to take grudge over just one incident. Disturbingly, "K" gave the blocked user a message saying never to insult Croatians (or something). This makes Alex's rationale for the other RfC more valid and sound.

    Back to the main proposal, I now Support Support proposals #1, #2, and #4. Since the hrwiki possibly contains biased, whitewashed content, those admins and editors with their similar (extremist?) views would be responsible for the state of the project. However, I agree with others that #3 is too excessive. Regarding #5, I don't know whether there will be enough active arbs@hrwiki in the future. Is the hrwiki community large or sufficient enough to have its own ArbCom? As you said, there is "no meaningful community" anymore. However, if ArbCom were to be reestablished, I fear that any admin or editor with extremist or extremely-biased views would become an arbitrator by majority vote. Furthermore, which part(s) of ArbCom voting process would be shared publicly? Would it be similar to enwiki's or what? About proposal #6, I can't decide whether inviting those members is necessary. If so, hopefully they can understand and communicate Croatian, right?

    BTW, Croatian version of five pillars still exists. George Ho (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC); edited, 02:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
George Ho, that sentence written by VS6507 to a femal colleague is explicit and rude sexual harassment (violence against women): "come and suck my ... ". [4][5] (European Commission - Statement: "...Around half of women in the European Union have experienced verbal, physical or online sexual harassment.") Kubura (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Did VS do anything else to other females? Do you have proof that VS did such things to them? George Ho (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
"Did a bully punched other females?" That excuse does not work. He wrote it. Kubura (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, user VS6507 said a very stupid thing, so perhaps it warranted a stupid response. I question the impartiality of a user who calls the centuries old Croatian coat of arms, "a washed out fascist movement symbol, chosen by hard line nationalist Tudjman, who prosecuted more than 200,000 people from Croatia." --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No contest there, even if the reaction looks more like ideologically motivated retaliation than upholding any Wikipedia policies. GregorB (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
An ultra-nationalist statement like that carries a long shadow indeed (not to mention the comment on Roberta F. talk page). Whatever may have prompted VS into writing these things, someone who wrote that to/about e.g. British or Americans on en.WP would be quickly indefbanned as en:WP:NOTHERE. But I also don't see the wisdom of blocking someone 3 years post factum. Such "punishments for past crimes" on the whole must do much to inhibit both constructive as well as unconstructive editing. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Forming a strictly local ArbCom (members coming from CW only) would quickly run into several problems: 1) current admins (other than these three, of course) would normally be natural candidates, but given their conduct in the affair, they can't be trusted (whatever the reasons for that conduct are), 2) few qualified editors otherwise, 3) undue off-wiki influence, since it's a small community, where many editors socialize off-wiki, and know each other's real-life identities (cf. the 2009 ArbCom incident described in the CW timeline above). Editors from Bosnian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias will have no problem at all understanding Croatian, won't generally be vulnerable to undue off-wiki influence, and will make a greater pool of qualified and experienced editors to choose from. This could make them the solution for the ArbCom problem. How exactly should this ArbCom operate is a very pertinent question, perhaps to be discussed once a high-level plan of action is agreed upon. GregorB (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I would also support that this Arbcom have jurisdiction on any of the hr, sr, bs & sh Wikipedias. As these languages are mutually intelligible, there shouldn't be communication problems, and their editors are inextricably linked through recent political history. POV issues which are unlikely to go away are present to one degree or another on all of these wikis, and I feel we would kill two four birds with one stone this way, and also prevent such issues from escalating on other wikis in the future, and somewhat deflect the victim/siege mentality that will likely be exacerbated on hr.WP when actions are taken there and not on the other WPs. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I volunteer to be candidate for a member of such Arbcom for sr wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
          • @Daß Wölf:@Antidiskriminator: In principle, I support the idea of an ArbCom that has jurisdiction over all varieties of Serbo-Croatian. However, one concern I have about this idea is that there might be pushback from the communities of sh, sr, and bs if they feel it's being forced on them. Therefore, the next logical step would be to notify the communities of sh, sr, and bs that this discussion is taking place, so that they can both a.) provide input on what to do about hrwiki, since they understand the language, and b.) recommend candidates for the ArbCom. The discussion about who should be on the ArbCom should probably be a separate RfC, so that this discussion on a solution to the problems with hrwiki doesn't lose focus. DraconicDark (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
              • [6] Calling someone "far-right" and calling the hr.wiki as "neofascist propaganda site" is the dirty lie. Low blow, just to get what You want. Do You know what those words mean? (BTW, e.g. Croatian President, Primer Minister, Min. of Foreign Affairs, President of Parliament are also being called as "fascists", "supporters, protectors of fascists", "they take the bow to fascists" etc.) What is Your next "argument"? The work of Blagoje Grahovac about Yugoslavia as "unicate jewel"? Hr.wiki is not on the line of the apologets of Yugoslavia and Yugoslav and Greaterserbianist crimes. Kubura (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
                • Kubura, you seem to conflate Croatian Wikipedia with the country Croatia, when they're two completely different things. I never said anything about the country Croatia or its government officials; I only spoke of Croatian Wikipedia. That page you link to is an old draft that hasn't been worked on in a while, so the wording is obviously not very refined. I didn't use those same words I used before in my comment that you replied to, so, at this current point, in this current discussion, I am not using "low blows" to get anything.
                  You also miss the point of my comment: I was saying that if any proposed ArbCom is to have jurisdiction over bs, sr, and sh, that is something for a separate discussion, and would require the input of a lot more people. Calling all of those people "apologets of Yugoslavia and Yugoslav and Greaterserbianist crimes" is both poisoning the well and a false statement. DraconicDark (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • DraconicDark, the attacks/criticism are the same, same rhetorics, both toward hr.wiki, Croatia, Croatian officials. It is Your old draft, but You used those words. They are low blow. Second, I dislike those ArbCom over bs, sr, hr, sh. I more respect their untruths and the imposed truth by some "outer body". Historical science uses the opposing sources and puts pieces together, so does hr.wiki, they use and hr and sr and bs and others. The sources are good because they are opposing (even if they say untruth, because that indicates the direction of bias, intention, agenda, methods, proofs that compromises them), because the authors had no commisar nor censor above them. Kubura (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kubura - You the hr. Admins have set yourself up as Commissars on hr.wiki, massively reverting and blocking people you disagree with. I’ve had practically everything I edited, instantly mass-reverted – i.e. quotes of Nazi sources, widely quoted by many western historians, quotes of Zagreb University historians, quotes of concentration camp inmates, quotes from the US Holocaust Museum, etc, etc. You yourself mass-deleted my contributions, stating I can’t quote on hr.wp the same German sources western historians cite, since these multiple WWII German sources, per you, all “wrote against Croats”. You also deleted my quotes from the US Holocaust Museum, saying “they are not immune to fraud”. Thus it matters not what western historians or the US Holocaust Museum write, because Commissar Kubura has appointed himself judge of who is “anti-Croat”, or what info from the US Holocaust Museum can’t be quoted on hr.wikipedia. Yet holocaust-deniers and convicted forgers, like Roman Leljak, are freely quoted hr.wiki, with Commissar-Admin, Zeljko, declaring that Leljak’s Jasenovac victim numbers - which are 50 times smaller than those of US Holocaust Museum, the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and nearly all western historians – are the “only true number”, and “everything else is propaganda”. I.e. Commissar Zeljko has declared that Holocaust-denial is the only truth, the complete opposite to the US Holocaust Museum, Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and the vast majority of western historians, who all say up to two-thirds of Croat Jews were exterminated at your euphemistically-named, "Jasenovac Collection Camp"Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

            • I'd support such a cross-wiki ArbCom too. However, this would be a matter for a separate discussion and a separate set of arguments, as the other wikis do not have an immediate problem to be solved (at least not nearly of this magnitude). GregorB (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I fully support the proposal, but feel additional moves may be necessary.
@Rosguill:, @Sj:, @Jesuislafete:, regarding the qualms about dismissing all admins, you should understand that since Speedy and co. got rid of their ARBCOM and all opposition around 2009-2010, they have kept tight control of all hr.wikipedia.org activity, among other ways by blocking contributors as soon as they see the contributors would cause them trouble by "being anti-Croat" or "aligned with Greater Serbian interests". Basically, there is a single fringe clique and nobody outside it is allowed to edit or become admin.
Regarding those additional moves that may be necessary: because the CW editor and admin groups are all part of the single clique or approved by it, I think greater integration with other Wikis may be necessary. Basically, I think any admins from en, de, and fr Wikipedias should be allowed to act as admins and/or ARBCOM members for CW. Notrium (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I also fully support this proposal. Given the serious, now decade-long repeat violations of the most basic Wikipedia principles, I believe CW admin removal is the only possible solution. Personally, I’ve cited sources which leading western historians repeatedly cite, even state they consider these among the “best informed and most objective sources”, and while these same sources are extensively quoted on en.WP, the CW admins repeatedly reverted my citations with claims that these sources are “anti-Croat”, and therefore can’t be quoted on CW. Then when I complained, they banned me. They also deleted my citations from the US Holocaust Museum, with the explanation "the Holocaust Museum in Washington is not immune to fraud", plus they reverted my quotes of history professors at the University of Zagreb, and many others. Simultaneously, they themselves will include outrageous, Holocaust-denial information from convicted fraudsters, and when you challenge them on this, or challenge them instead to provide reliable sources for their claims, i.e. the most basic of WP principles, they respond that such a requests represent “an attack” and threaten to ban me. All this has resulted in highly biased articles on CW, particularly on historical issues.
I also agree with the proposal for a cross-wiki ArbCom. I think that it would be even better if longer-term some general policies were developed to require ongoing cross-checking and attempts to achieve greater consistency across all different language versions, instead of allowing “alternative truths” to flourish (for example, I imagine Indian and Pakistani WPs present quite different takes on some subjects. etc) As a first step I support Notrium's proposal that admins on en, de or other more reliable WP versions be provided admin rights on CW Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support 1 and 4, Oppose Oppose the rest. I don't think a special ArbCom is the way to go - I think it would result in those other groups pushing their POV on hrwiki. Two wrongs don't make a right. As far as the concerns about the three admins regaining their powers, because stewards would be granting the admin rights, they would have the ability to ensure that elections were done fairly. --Rschen7754 04:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Postscript: I now also support 3. Behavior like this from a hrwiki admin indicates to me that all the admins need to go. Still oppose 2, 5, and 6. --Rschen7754 00:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Rschen7754: When you say "those other groups pushing their POV", what do you mean specifically? I haven't a priori excluded anyone from ArbCom membership. I'd expect a public discussion with the ArbCom candidates, and I'd expect their history of adherence to WP:NPOV to be examined. POV-pushing is something that can and should be backed with evidence - it shouldn't be conjectured or presupposed. What will happen if 1 and 4 alone are implemented? Will other admins simply continue in the same vein? I see no evidence to the contrary. Will they be willing to revise blocks or restrain POV-pushers? I highly doubt it. Will those three get themselves reelected once more eventually? You bet. What will have been achieved by all that in the end? If nothing else, the lesson from both 2009-10 and 2013-14 (see CW timeline above) is that failed revolutions don't make things the same as before: they invariably make them worse. Therefore, the answer is not "nothing" - it's even less than nothing. I don't care one bit about the "fair" or "unfair" elections. Wikipedia is not a democracy, which means, specifically, that WP:5P beats "fair elections" and "consensus" any day of the week. Those three fellows very likely won't come here to defend themselves: they know that they can't, so they're hoping things will blow over, like many times before, and they're counting on us to play the democracy game. Let's not do that. This is no longer a matter of enough is enough, it's way past that. GregorB (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • As I stated in the other RFC - I'm aware that those nations don't always get along very well. And I'm not really sure what the purpose of such an ArbCom would be anyway. In terms of "Will those three get themselves reelected once more eventually? You bet." well, SpeedyGonsales had CU removed by a steward a few years back and still has not gotten reelected to that position. --Rschen7754 00:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
        • @Rschen7754: That's true, but Kubura was desysopped by a steward in 2010 for misusing admin powers, and that user ended up being voted back to admin. So, yes, "you bet" the problematic three will get reelected once more if too little is done. DraconicDark (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Wrong. Steward (that was on leaving from the steward position, so he had nothing to lose) did that by a wish of a single malcontent, despite the will of the community. The hr.wiki was furious because of that and reacted. Kubura (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
          • You miss the point: with no bureaucrats, stewards will be the ones determining whether or not an admin will regain their rights, and if there is tampering with admin elections, they will be able to take action. --Rschen7754 00:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Would we want a WP where de.WP and fr.WP present vastly different views of WWII, because at the time they did not get along well? That's where I have a problem with separate language WPs having total independence, thus we get hr.WP, azeri WP, etc. There is the separate issue that most linguists say that hr, sr and bs are not different languages, but one language, now increasingly referred to as BCS. Thus the creation of these separate WPs has enabled the propagation of different ethnic "truths", where hr.WP Admins decide what is pro-Croat or anti-Croat, and act accordingly Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Wrong. There's no "increasing referring as BCS", but the opposite. The only "increase" is by a group of persons (that do not understand Croatian at all + few cases that represent themselves) that by a brute force imposed their PPOV on en.wiki and pushed the agenda about so-called "Serbocroatian" That "BCS" has always been the political product by the serbocroatist remnants. Croatian is a separate and independent language, as such has been recognised in EU, and developing in its own way. Regarding "various ethnic truths", leave it. It is better that everyone has its own "truth" than to have an imposed "unified version", because the "unifiers" have always been heavily biased. Science is such - there is no unison saying, every scientist gives his thesis that is based on some fact. By nature of scientific works, all disagreeing scientists over the time "look over the fence at neighbours yard" and rethink and slightly and slowly change their attitudes. Kubura (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Not to offtopic, but since a cross-wiki Arbcom is talked about, u first have to locate the problem considered on the other 3 wikis before u pursue such action. The problem on hr.wiki has been clearly identified. I'll just ping @Antidiskriminator: here, since i can detect from the comment below that he's got something in mind. --Ivan VA (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not have anything in mind.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Having in mind all circumstances, the future members of the cross-wiki Arbcom should be selected only among the editors who were indeff banned at some of sh.wikis.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I was blocked as a vandal for a simple change to a Trvtko II article. I have provided 3 sources, from real actual books from Croatian authors (they have a habit of referencing anonymous websites like hercegbosa.org as a source.) and they blocked me as a vandal. Unacceptable. --Mhare (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried again (1) to do simple change with really good sourcing of that one claim, but they have reverted my changes, and refuse to even discuss the reason why they have reverted it. It's really anti-scientific and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. It is just unacceptable. Mhare (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Well done to GregorB for pulling this together. I agree that the three problematic admins have to go, and I believe their desysopping should be permanent. I would be very wary of a new hr ArbCom without strong oversight (which is self-defeating really, as it should be the final arbiter of user conduct), as there are likely quite a few supporters of these three there, and they may just elect a like-minded ArbCom and we are back at square one. I am very sceptical about a cross-wiki ArbCom for sh language variants, as there will be POV-pushers on all sides who will want to influence hr WP to their way of thinking rather than taking a neutral approach. Any such ArbCom would need to be very carefully selected, and members should not have been sanctioned on en WP or another of the sh WPs. It is editors like GregorB that are sorely needed at hr WP, including as admins. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I second the suggestion for admins like GregorB at hr.WP. Perhaps some Admins from en or other more reliable WPs, who understand the language, could also pitch in Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Good job GregorB for all the effort you've put into this! Based on the above, I also want to give my support to at least remove the three mentioned admins. Although other administrators actively or passively gave their support for the status quo and by doing this failed in their adminship, I think we should avoid the risk of a potential break-up of the community in case of removal of all. -- Edinwiki (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of having it on the record, my writing to the croatian wiki village pump to infrom the community that there is an ongoing discussion about the issues here and that they should participate, has been deleted. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

...coincidentally, by an editor who has gone on record saying that Ante Pavelić is "one of the greats of Croatian history". GregorB (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Further proof that these guys are totally incapable of adhering to the most basic WP principles and need to be permanently removed as Admins. You may want to post the RfC notice on sh.WP village pump, since some hr editors may have migrated there, given the abuse Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, if the situation is as egregious as it's being made out to be, I don't think these remedies will be enough. Obviously the three problem admins should be banned, but then what? If the Croat nationalist clique has entirely taken over the website, then won't they just reelect more trouble admins and/or continue resisting attempts to correct the content? I doubt that NPOV good faith editors will just appear out of the woodwork to return to the Croat Wikipedia after being bullied out over the course of several years. English Wikipedia has an essay called TNT for a reason. Might as well blow up this website and start over when there's shown to be enough interest from good faith users. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Here are my current expectations:
    1. The three above-mentioned admins will be demoted.
    2. The rest of the admins will either denounce the demotions or (more likely) have no comment.
    3. No substantial effort will be made to acknowledge errors, revise blocks, fix POV content, or subdue POV pushers. All attempts to do so will likely be quietly undermined. The takeaway from this RfC will be: don't produce on-wiki evidence which can later be used against you.
    4. There will soon be a RfA, where more admins vetted by the current clique will get "elected" (in the fairest of elections, no doubt - and I'm not being sarcastic here).
    5. At the earliest possible opportunity, the three will get elected back to their positions.
    6. Some time in 2020, I'll be writing yet another RfC on the same issue.
The only good thing about it is writing that RfC will be easy: everything is already documented and there will be nothing new to add. I'll just point to this RfC and the above 6 bullets - chances are I'll be batting a thousand with these predictions. GregorB (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It's obvious that an (reasonably elected) ArbCom has to bee the next step. If you grasp the whole problem. Btw, just for the record, i'v got blocked on HW indefinitely for going into an argument with one of the admins proposed for deselection about the deletion of the village pump info to join the discussion. --Ivan VA (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Or, hr.wikipedia will take it as a warning shot across the bow that if they don't step up and reform their wiki, a second RFC proposal will result in more drastic options. --Rschen7754 18:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
As per Gregor B's documentation, these guys have taken a whole series of warning shots over an entire decade, and persisted in the same old ways. They are total ideologues, totally incapable of reasoning or reasoned argument. The only solution is to remove them permanently since they are a disgrace to WP and everything it stands for. Would systematic deletion of sources quoted by recognized western historians, Holocaust denial, quoting of convicted forgers as "Reliable Sources", and then banning people who protest such practices be tolerated for 10 years on de or other Wikipedias? Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
But little was ever done about it those times - only 1 CU was removed. Escalating sanctions would send a stronger message (and is more consistent with the outcome of Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki, where stewards refused to remove all admins). --Rschen7754 00:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
You've seen their reaction to the Signpost article complaining of their behavior, where they immediately insulted and indefinitely blocked Gregor B, then blocked another user who spoke up in his defense, and later they also deleted the link to the RfC on hr.wikipedia. This is like a crook repeatedly accused of stealing, stealing multiple jurors' watches. Would you propose giving that guy another chance with a warning? The "best" that might be hoped for is that they will find less obvious ways to constantly harass and drive away everyone they disagree with Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that, but the problem is that this would be a hard sell for stewards who didn't act when the problem was more clear-cut and the wiki was smaller. And some might say that was justified, because stewards aren't a global ArbCom and it's difficult for them to take such an action. --Rschen7754 04:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support 1&4 per Rschen7754, and the strategy of escalating sanctions also per Rschen7754. —Ah3kal (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is my vote on this request for comment, split into numbers for each of the proposed actions by GregorB.

1. I Support Support removing the admin status from Kubura, SpeedyGonsales and Zeljko for their misuse in the RFC´s posted for the last 6 years. Issues prior to that where handled by the then-functional ArbCom.

2. I Oppose Oppose the ban from re-applying, mainly because the beurocrats that re-sysoped them no longer have that right. Kauburin was re-elected after an discussion on the Village pump and SpeedyG was elected after an 32-2 election. Luka Krstulović re-added Kaubin as admin and MayaSimFan re-added SpeedyG as admin. They both lost their bureaucratic rights due to inactivity in 2017.

3. I Oppose Oppose dismissing all admins. Their actions do not warrant that kind of response.

4. Support Support removing both Checkusers and Beurocrats, all of them. Beurocrats: SpeedyGonsales and Kabura are also beurocrats. RobertoF blocked GregorB unnecessarily. Denny has not made any action since February 2018 and not edited since August 2018. That leaves just de-crating Fraxinus for good measure.

Checkusers: I support removing Ex13´s checkuser rights. This is because of Ex13´s involvement in the ArbCom case, and for removing the site notice for an admin removal vote, as mentioned in the 2013 issues meta RFC. As Croatian Wikipedia can not have an single CheckUser, Vodomar would also have his rights removed until another CU is elected. CU requests will be handled on meta meanwhile.

5-6. Oppose Oppose With CheckUser requests on meta, I do not see the need for forcing an ArbCom upon the Croatian Wikipedia.

Additional: That the Croatian Wikipedia implements proper voting regulations on CheckUsers, and that they are stricter than the ones for admins. Explainations of what the CU is for, like is present on hr:Wikipedija:Provjeritelji is not enough.--Snaevar (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's meaningful to set up an ArbCom unless the community really have a consensus for do so. An ArbCom with only inactive or biased users does not make things better. Nor does someone be a arbitrator for life.--GZWDer (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the long history of repeat abuse, and some of the points raised by others above, I'd like to propose consideration of the following additional steps, which would also be applicable to other problematic WPs:

  1. Remove all blocks from everyone the 3 admins have blocked
  2. Send notification to all who’ve posted to hr.wp, or even better, post banner on hr.wp, telling everyone of Admin removal and other changes, and to invite back people who've been driven away from participating, since otherwise they may not learn of changes. This can help rebuild the hr.wp community, compared to what is likely now a POV-selected community, which could perpetuate the same abuses, even if 3 admins are removed
  3. Provide a very simple way to report any further abuse. E.g. in header of all hr.wp Talk pages add a “Report abuse” link which links to a Project page where everyone can report abusive behavior on any hr.wp article (on Project page hr.wp Admins can't block people who complain of their abuse, a major problem to date). This would provide a simple way to monitor and address issues across all hr.wp articles, instead of these issues being buried in many individual Talk page discussions
  4. Just as POV and other tags can be added to individual articles, a tag/notice could be added to all hr.wp Talk or Article pages, to indicate hr.wp is under bias and other abuse monitoring, and this notice remains until issues are deemed to be fully resolved
  5. Per suggestions by others, add an Admin to hr.wp from en, de or other reputable WP, who knows the language, and will be able to monitor behavior, and take immediate action Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Let me first thank User:GregorB for putting together this case, beginning with the excellent article at Signpost, and than compiling the following Rfc. I Support Support 1 through 6 (all of the above enumerated actions) in strongest possible manner. (Only, I have some doubts that at the end of the day, even those will be sufficient to hold that language version of the project in check - this, of course, by no means suggests that we should continue to sit, arms crossed, doing nothing.) Also, the additional steps, such as those proposed by User:Thhhommmasss, should be taken most seriously into consideration.--s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Strongly support 1~6 + globally lock all of them. - PlavorSeol (T | C) 20:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Support for 1, 2 and 4 Aνδρέας talk | contributions 01:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support items 1-2, 4 & 6. Weak Support item 3. I do not believe point 5 is viable - if it's locals there's too high a chance of the same individuals getting in and making it even harder to solve the problem. If it's similar communities, those individuals might speak the language but don't know the community. Points 1, 2, 6 are obvious based on the evidence. Point 4 will mitigate some of the issues. Point 3 will cause some collateral damage, if I believed it more significant I'd oppose, but I'm not sure removing worst contributors alone from adminning is sufficient Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Also support 10 (external sysops) - we need reliable sysops. Any lingually capable global sysops should be authorised, and admins on similar language projects who want to apply should be encouraged, with them vetted through either meta or Stewards. I suggest 2 year terms. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support 1, 2, & 6, I think 3 & 4 should be not universally applied, assess it per need by I guess it would have to be the Stewards. I agree with others that 5 is likely not possible nor entirely desirable. While here I will just say that several of the additional actions below have merit too. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I had some interactions with members of the Croatian community, and the worst thing is that few want to speak up. It is crystal clear that the community is heavily divided in two factions fighting each other (one being indeed around 'Q'), but I don't think desysoping everybody will really solve the problem. We did reach the point where an external intervention is really needed, but we need to do something with the divide itself. I would suggest doing the following:
    • Set up a communication channel where Croatian Wikipedians can provide feedback to a neutral party. You will probably get no feedback in the village pump. You will probably not get it here either. Wikipedians who left the project will probably not answer themselves either. However, one can perfectly contact them personally, and community members can provide useful feedback privately.
    • Identify most active members of either group and desysop those who have admin rights and were involved in abusive actions (with specific actions identified for each desysopped).
    • Identify users trusted by both groups who can be administrators during the transition period.
    • On the other side, involvement of participants from similar languages is a road to nowhere. I am confident that there are Croatian Wikimedians who are neutral and can govern this wiki. The problem with similar languages is historical antagonism: Croatians had recent and bloody wars with Serbians and Bosnians, and the current generation still remembers them. I don't think that having users who identify themselves as Serbo-Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian govern Croatian Wikipedia will be accepted by the Croatian community, but this will likely make things worse.
    • Set the goal of making the content accepted by Croatian general public, not by neighbouring language communities. Domovinski rat in Croatian Wikipedia will not become War in Croatia, we should accept it. However, having Croatian history written in a way heavily critised by Croatian media is not acceptable at all and should be the problem to solve.
    NickK (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @NickK If most people are afraid or won’t speak up, this points to a very dysfunctional community. However, I wonder how many objective-minded contributors are left on hr.wp, particularly among those writing on historical subjects like WWII. Like Gregor and others, I believe the problem goes beyond the 3 Admins. In my own experience, Dvanajsti igrac instantly reverted multiple edits where I quoted Zagreb University historians, the US Holocaust Museum, etc. When I protested their reverts of the western historians I quoted, Mateo K stated that “the interpretation of sources in this area of history is in many cases highly questionable. Especially when they are from the former Yugoslavia or from the US”. Thus he’s questioning all US sources, and went on to state that the Nuremberg Tribunal “freed itself of all proof requirements”, implying they proved nothing regarding Nazi crimes. When I asked Mateo K to document some other claims he made - i.e. the most basic of WP principles - I was instantly threatened with a block, for “attacking” Mateo.
In all these cases, plus others, absolutely no one else ever spoke up to differ with that crowd. Since per Gregor, just the 3 Admins blocked 1.000 people, this likely means hundreds have been driven away, as most people will not put up with repeat abuse. I know of excellent editors who left hr.wp because of abuse, and I’m sure others know many more. If after driving many away, Dvanajsti igrac, Mateo and their ilk are all that’s left of historical contributors on hr.wp, and they’re set to replace the 3 Admins, I have zero confidence they can make appropriate decisions now, or in the future. It may be true that those who’ve left have been so thoroughly disgusted and discouraged that they will never return, but strong efforts should be made to bring them back and recruit new editors, as well as put in place ongoing monitoring, including right away having an outside Admin step in at least temporarily, as many have suggested, sort of like a bankruptcy judge when companies go bankrupt, as well as hopefully put in place other strong, ongoing monitoring systems so such things do not occur again. This will all help support the good editors who still remain, and perhaps with some returns and new recruits the community can be rebuilt Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thhhommmasss: I fully agree that just removing all admins and letting the currently active community re-elect admins will basically lead to the status quo. This is why I think we need to start with some way to contact those who left the project and those who are still there but do not speak up, and find people who can be trusted to govern the project. I don't know any cases where an outside adminship succeeded without trust of local community — NickK (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
So, if you desysop everyone who is going to do the daily job? Stewards? Nope, we are probably not interested in such stuff. I am not elected to take care of daily business of one wiki which language I do not speak. Crats and CU — that's not that of a burden but daily admin work for hands of non–language-speaker, hell no. — regards, Revi 02:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @NickK:A big hurdle in trying to lure people back who’ve been driven away by abuse, and bring in new ones (including those who’ve stayed away entirely because of hr.wp’s poor reputation – I know many such cases, I’m sure others do too), will be convincing them substantial changes have been made. In particular after multiple failures to address this problem, there’s a lot of cynicism, and I’ve heard people say that it’s not even worth trying, since nothing will change. Saying that a couple of the worst offenders have been removed (which of course is needed), so now those who left are invited back to work it out with the remaining admins and editors, most of whom are likely very similar, is a very tall challenge, given the dysfunction and distrust, even if some outside mediator is involved.
I believe a temporary, outside Admin can provide an additional assurance that things have changed, particularly if they’re from a reputable WP, like en, where some editors who abandoned hr.wp in disgust, still contribute. Thus if they hear an en Admin has stepped in, they may be more assured that things will be run along the lines of the known en.wp, which despite some similar issues, has nothing like the abuse of hr.wp. This might be much more reassuring than new, untested processes. It might also help to further define the outside admin’s role - e.g. require all blocks, a key source of abuse, to be first approved by the outside Admin. Combined with robust new systems for continuous reporting, monitoring and dealing with abuse, I believe such an approach may stand the best chance of rebuilding a healthy community, which later, after some balance is restored, and people are reassured, can run itself.
Having largely given up on hr.wp, the above would go a long way toward reassuring me that it might be worthwhile to reengage on hr.wp. It’d be great to hear from others who’ve given up on hr.wp, what would it take to personally bring them back. Btw, I agree with trying to reach out to those who left, but in order to first find out what it’d take to bring them back, since I believe it will be a more protracted process to regain trust and rebuild a normal communityThhhommmasss (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It's worth considering that if we do opt for external admins they are going to have be even more resistant than normal admins, and be capable of dealing without that without losing control or mistaking unhappiness with abuse - otherwise the local community will never be able to rebuild Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Yes, I agree. That’s why I believe the outside Admin should be vested with extra powers, in essence make them a SuperAdmin, to act as Custodian, until things are straightened out. That’s what is done with bankruptcy judges and many other custodianships when individuals or organizations fail to perform their duties. Thus, in addition to granting the outside Admin the power to approve in advance all blocks, a key source of abuse to date, I think it’d help to give them the right to suspend any other Admins who abuse their power, as well as appoint new interim Admins from among those behaving responsibly. On top of that, I believe it would greatly help to add easy-to-use, robust systems for reporting, monitoring and taking action on any new abuse (like the instant, wholesale reverts of people’s contributions, another main source of abuse to date). Such systems could both support the outside Admin, since it will be difficult for them to track everything, while establishing systems that will help prevent such abuse, once the outside Admin relinquishes their role. Personally, I think it may take about a year of such outside Adminship, to reestablish trust and rebuild the community, after which it can revert to more normal processes, especially if, as mentioned new systems are put in place, to prevent the return of such abuse Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss:, for a start, the software won't support that, so there is the risk of basically a full out permissions war being wrought - I'd get very concerned by these users actually having more power (albeit locally) than our stewards do. They'd also be in a position to hold staggering influence even after their term and powers ended, depending on how they used them. The reasoning for them is obvious, but either we will have canned all the admins ourselves or we clearly can't even generate a meta consensus for removal, so we can't then hand power for unilateral de-sysoppings to individuals (or even a triumverate). I DO think it would make sense to let them unblock individuals, even if the other admins don't want them to be (i.e. their power can be grown to a "veto" but not unilateral authority).
Regarding timescale, 1 year is the logical amount. Certainly, even if it's not resolved by that point we should be stopping and thinking because clearly our actions have failed to help. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: I mentioned that trusted, experienced outside Admins should be brought in. I do not think that such people will run a mock, instead they can help instill more normal processes. Regarding software issues, perhaps they can coordinate with stewards on needed measures Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss: My major question is where such admins can be found. This requires a lot of daily routine (hrwiki currently has 6 very active and 3 moderately active admins) and a lot of work resolving really complex conflicts (otherwise we would not need a desysop). I would think that at least 3 very active people are needed, and all of them should speak the language and know local rules. I don't think we will have a lot of outsiders willing to do that.
Regarding users who left the project, I would rather be willing to have them suggest changes themselves rather than wait until they happen — NickK (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@NickK: From personal experience, I’d say a lot of their activity now is instantly reverting all quotes of Reliable Sources I contributed, then threatening to block or blocking me, while extensively arguing holocaust-deniers and convicted fraudsters have the only true answer, plus tons of similar nonsense. In any case, I believe the outside Admin should act as a custodian/supervisor. In bankruptcy, just the senior management is typically kicked out, and supervision imposed over the rest. While companies are in bankruptcy, they often still function, and the bankruptcy judge does not make all day-to-day decisions, just important decisions are kicked up to them – I mentioned some of these which I believe the outside Admin should control. Also as mentioned, appropriate new systems for reporting, monitoring and dealing with abuse can both support the outside Admin, to ease their burden, while creating the infrastructure to help prevent such abuse in the longer-term. Finding such a person will indeed be a challenge. Let me suggest one person – Peacemaker67, who is familiar with the subject-matter, I believe understands the language (although may have some difficulty writing it, but could write in English, since practically everyone understands it) is level-headed and fair-minded, etc. Perhaps others can suggest additional candidates Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss: That's not how adminship works. There should always be admins who block vandals, delete spam etc., no wiki can live without it. If existing admins are desysopped, someone should start doing this instead — NickK (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@NickK: So I was going here with the case where only the 3 admins are removed, and others stay in place to do the regular work, but supervised by an interim outside Admin. The alternative is remove all current Admins, and find new ones Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I Support Support all actions, especially 5 and 3. Similar actions should be done for some admins or bs.wikipedia and sr.wikipedia too. --Obsuser (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not comment on this request, because I'm not active on hrwiki. But I want to answer the charges of user Obsuser. Yes, I blocked the user Obsuser. Because I was the only one who had the courage to do it. He has for many years made a circus of the project, many things worked without consultation with the community, acted arbitrarily. Violated rules and many things. I have had problems with some administrators on srwiki in the past, but there is no need to even consider taking such measures on srwiki like for hrwiki what we are discussing here. Here are other users in the community to confirm my allegations: @Soundwaweserb, MareBG, and НиколаБ:. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Strongly support 1, 2, 4, 6. Oppose 3 because hrwiki is too large to function without admins and we would have little chance of electing enough new admins soon enough if all the existing admins were blocked. I would say, looking at block logs, there is however evidence of other admins supporting each other, and that a blocked user has no realistic recourse in an appeal. I would hope some new RfAs will fix this problem. Regarding 5, so far only tentative support because few people have come forward in its support and I think an ARBCOM msut be elected properly and in an NPOV way the first time around. I have in my mind some editors I could nominate for the ARBCOM but I have doubts if they'd be willing to take part in this affair, and I'm going to hold back for the moment to see if the mutual ex-yu ARBCOM gets support. I applaud GregorB for getting us to this point, he may not have much confidence in how this is going to pan out but I do. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting: the proposer refers to previous RfC, that was started in the eve of the biggest Croatian national holiday, when the victory in the war for defense, liberation and independence of Croatia is celebrated [7] (anniversary of Operation Oluja)! Usually these days the greaterserbianists, from the country that attacked Croatia, have escapades and denigrate Croatian major celebration and attack Croatia, with same "arguments" as GregorB, calling Croatia biased, nationalist, (neo)fascist etc.! Kubura (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. Here's the breakdown. GregorB requires the coup d'etat, without any support from hr.wiki. Since he cannot takeover the project, because he and alikes do not have support (nor on hr.wiki nor in Croatia), he abuses the RfC procedure to hostilely takeover the project and impose neoyugoslavist agenda. Just like in real life, to keep the captured project in his hands, he must eliminate the top users ("top", because community gave them the support) and users (without tools) that have high reputation in community.
And who is supporting this attack? Non-Croatian speakers, few Croatian-speaking venomous users (but not sure that they are from Croatia or Croats at all, they could be e.g. Vučić, Dačić and Vulin), and from ex-Yu republic that was hard supporter of Yugoslavia and Serbocroatism (not the Croats from that republic). And users with nothing on their userpages, behaviour pattern of the expendable accounts for dirty tasks while the true owner plays the rosebud.
1. Remove the admin status from Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, and Zeljko, the three worst offenders. This looks like this [8] Nužno je zabraniti rad partija koje su najodgovornije za najveći zločin u Evropi poslije Drugog svjetskog rata, a to je razbijanje Jugoslavije (="It is necessary to ban the activity of the parties that are most responsible for the biggest crime in Europe after WWII, and that is the breaking down the Yugoslavia.")
2. ... and give them a lifetime ban from reapplying. Yugocommunist method, eliminating all other parties as "burgeoisie" and "nationalist", especially those with the major support, otherwise in normal democracy these "burgeoisie" restore the voters support.
3. Dismiss all local admins. Paranoia goes on. Everyone is suspicious! Communists find socialdemocrats as the traitors of the cause.
4. Remove bureaucrat and checkuser status from all local bureaucrats and checkusers. Paranoia goes further. Even the secretaries, drivers, cleaners, janitors are suspicious. What is next? Restoring the star to Croatian flag, coat-of-arms and changing of roof tile on the Church of St. Mark in Zagreb?
5. Set up a local ArbCom consisting of experienced Croatian or similar language-speaking editors from other wikis, to be appointed by the global community at Meta-Wiki. Solicit extra participation from the members of similar-language projects. Imposing the commisariat made of from "confidential peoples" (supporters of Yugoslavhood; interesting, three users from bs.wiki applied here for that) to inobedient "nationalist" "fascist" Croatia that busted "beloved jewel Yugoslavia", silence and dismiss "nationalist" Matica hrvatska (=major Croatian cultural organization).
One more important thing. When this process started (somewhat before this RfC, around major Croatian national holidays), simultaneously started strange persistent rude attacks and threats on our wiki pointed to several users, not on Kubura, Speedy and Zeljko, but to other very active admins, as some kind of auxiliary line of attack. Fresh example, repeated many times before, [9] "name1 name2 fa*s I'll slay You all". As an attempt to additionally disrupt the project, intimidate and chase away the maintainers. Kubura (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose an Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support to attacked admins of hr.wiki --Mateo K 01 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is an attack of a marginal, extreme political direction in Croatia that represents only themselves in a very public manner. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mateo K 01: please correct me if I'm wrong - in the CW article on Ante Pavelić, you called him "one of the greats of Croatian history"? GregorB (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I was on a shared computer, logged off and left the PC for a few minutes. The cookies remained and a work colleague took a look at the recently visited pages and he made fun of me by writing this in the article. I have been asked about it countless times, and at some point it will be enough. I won't react to anything like that anymore.
And please, don't "ping" me anymore. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose IMHO each community should be able to decide whether they want to be left leaning or right leaning. Most language versions are probably left leaning (because people that tend to work voluntarily on an encyclopedia are likely left leaning). But if the Croatian Wikipedia is "right leaning" and the community has decided that that should be that way there should be no interference in that from outside...--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be left- or right-leaning, nor Croat- or Serb-leaning, but take an NPOV, quote Reliable Source, and allow the editors to engage and discuss things. That is not what is happening on hr.wikipedia, where Admins systematically, massively revert edits and instantly block users they disagree with, while allowing quoting of convicted forgers and other dubious sources, declare that holocaust-deniers have the only true answer, etc - all so that their POV will prevail. Here is just one of many articles from Croatian media criticizing hr.wikipedia, describing how its Admins, led by Speedy Gonsales, have systematically abused the system to drive away many other editors. Individual wikis should not have the freedom to violate the most basic WP principles, and WP would be entirely remiss if it did not take action Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I do unfortunately not speak Croatian thus I can't look through all sources and come up with a thorough conclusion. I do however doubt that a whole language community would for no reason at all (because all Wikimedians I've met are highly intelligent open minded people) turn into an authoritarian dictatorship that systematically blocks out opinions. I do however feel that this is an attempt to block out certain opinions. If this proposal goes through, then this will set a precedent to have this be done in other language versions. And it'll start with something big but slowly it will progress until there are more and more things that can't be said or written. I'm German. We've had this twice last century. I want neither a right wing nor left wing dictatorship. Both of those always started with a banning of free speech. And this is an attempt to ban free speech. People are agreeing here with the proposal because buzzwords are thrown around. Only few of those people actually speak Croatian and are thus able to understand the whole issue. I find this straight up horrifying. I thought we've been here already. But apparently people never learn. And people never understand what banning free speech leads to.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 20:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It is not free-speech when, as the above linked Croatian article notes, hr.wiki Admins systematically massively revert edits and block people they disagree with. Plus WP is not based on free speech, certainly not in the sense that everyone should be able to freely spout holocaust-denial, or flat-earth and conspiracy theories, etc. Instead it is based on NPOV, Reliable Sources, ability to discuss disagreements, etc – principles which these guys have systematically violatedThhhommmasss (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, @Thhhommmasss:. You are imposing Your point of view and You are systemacitally massively reverting edits. You got thorough explanation on Your talkpage about Your behaviour and the reason for (non)disputing the sources. You do not mention that here. You have not been permablocked nor banned. You're trolling. Misusing the RfC process (by disqualifying) to impose Your point-of-view and permaeliminate the opponent. You've been told that You can put the same text again, just do not use that heavily compromised biased source. Regarding the Holocaust, You've been explicitely told that that is very sensitive topic, that the victims of Holocaust must not be belittled by citing compromised sources, quack scientists/would-be-scientists. "Daklem, možeš unijeti isti tekst, ali pod uvjetom da se pozoveš na ozbiljni i nekompromitirani izvor! Ako ga nisi našao, onda ga ne unosi. Shvati da je holokaust ozbiljna tema koju ne smijemo omalovažiti pozivanjem na nadriznanstvene izvore. Zar bi želio pozvati se na izvor u kojem se za počinitelje krivi ljude-guštere? " Do not misuse buzzwords to get Your point. And others, who just to play along, supported this misuse of RfC process to impose a black myths, please do not interfere into something if You don't understand the language. You got selectively presented information. Kubura (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure Kubura, I'm imposing my POV, by quoting German sources whom the Croatian-American historian Jozo Tomasevich, author of the most widely-quoted book on WWII Yugoslavia, published by Stanford University press, deems the "best informed and most objective of sources", same sources quoted by many other western historians, yet you instantly mass-reverted all these quotes, because per you, these sources are "unreliable" and "anti-Croat". You wrote for example that these sources are "compromised" because they write of "mass-terror against Orthodox Christians", i.e. the same Ustashe mass terror against Jews, Orthodox Christians and Roma that the US Holocaust Museum, Croatian Jasenovac Memorial, and practically all Western historians write. Thus it is obviously one big global conspiracy by all these source, which is why you mass-deleted such quotes. Of course per you, English WP is also part of this "anti-Croat" conspiracy, since here is what you left on my Talk page after you mass-deleted all this information: "I would only advise you not to follow the lead of English Wikipedia. They do not work in a quality manner, they often cite sources who are compromised, writing unnaturally about Croats" Thus it is obviously you who on hr.wiki gets to decide who writes "unnaturally about Croats", and therefore can't be quoted, western historians and Holocaust Museums notwithstanding Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss:, do not misinform. The other author has been disputed. You have that explitictly written on Your talkpage. Kubura (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kubura - the Croatian authors you quote to dispute von Horstenau and western historians, also clearly dispute the "mass-terror against Orthodox Christians" that the US Holocaust Museum, Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and nearly all western historians write about. Since I can similarly quote you many Serb authors who dispute all Serb crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, and just like you claim that all who say otherwise are "unreliable" and "anti-Serb" - there is all the proof needed that no such Serb crimes occurred, and Serb wiki should follow your lead and mass-revert claims to the contrary Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sparrow: But there is a precedent, see m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel. What goes for one checkuser and admin goes for many checkusers and admins. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Support 1 and 4 per Rschen7754. ~riley (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The easiest thing in the world is to moan that everything is corrupt and disreputable. Should this RfC come to fruition as proposed above, CW itself will die, and users from similar-language projects, who have never lifted a finger to assist CW before, will be granted free reign on it, free to write whatever they see fit, with no regards for truth nor the credence and sentiments of Croatian people. In my honest opinion, this RfC is founded in malicious intent from members of similar-language projects, who wish to spread misinformation and sleaze for their own benefit. Everything listed here has been taken out of context and interpreted with malicious intent, in order to incriminate its authors. --Ivi104 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If this RfC succeeds, some of the many Croatian editors systematically driven away by the abuse on hr.wp, as described in multiple Croatian media articles, will have the opportunity to return, and create a more normal hr.wp. As someone of Croat ancestry, I truly resent a Wikipedia run by those who state convicted fraudsters and Holocaust-deniers have the only true answer, or proclaim "anti-Croat" those who dare criticize genocidal killers Thhhommmasss (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ivi104: When you say that "the easiest thing in the world is to moan that everything is corrupt and disreputable", I cannot but agree. But what precisely are you saying: 1) that there is nothing wrong with CW, or 2) that there may be something wrong, but no evidence has been presented? Also, please provide some examples of things "taken out of context and interpreted with malicious intent, in order to incriminate its authors". GregorB (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not a member of any similar-language projects, my only editing of note has been on en.wiki. Since this (sadly) appears to be a matter of importance, let it be known that I'm a Croat by nationality, ethnicity and residence. I hung my flag on 8.10. like everybody else. What I don't stand for is not even promoting and characterizing new Holocaust theories as if they were already culturally accepted and taught in school, I became aware of that long after I left hr.wiki. My main gripe is e.g. taking 6-7 edits to write an entire article with sources, upon which I was harassed for "flooding recent changes", despite other editors having far more edits on the recent changes page than me, after which I naturally lost interest in hr.wiki. Why should I put up with that kind of behaviour? When some years later I'm offered a chance to help make hr.wiki a place where I wouldn't feel like a 2nd class citizen because I'm not on "singular you" with the key people, why should I not make my grievances heard? And trust me, I would've dropped this a long time ago if every word I got from the hr.wiki crowd wasn't a template notice or an outright insult. Daß Wölf (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Support all proposals. Banfield - Reclamos aquí 19:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Per w:WP:NONAZIS Holocaust denialists should get banned by WMF. This does not require a vote. Find the evidence, submit it to WMF, and they get a lifetime ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @tgeorgescu – I’d certainly place proclaiming that notorious Holocaust-deniers, like Roman Leljak (who also happens to be a convicted fraudster), have the only "truth", represents Holocaust-denial, as Admin Zeljko did. Leljak wrote a book claiming - contrary to the US Holocaust Museum, the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and great majority of western historians - that Jasenovac was not a death camp, and instead of the 80.000 to 100.000 estimated victims, just 1.654 people died there. Thus he is decreasing victim estimates 50 times, or by 98% compared to these other sources. Since all these other sources also state that up to two-thirds of all Croat Jews exterminated in the Holocaust were exterminated by the Ustashe at Jasenovac, he is also denying 98% of these Jewish Holocaust victims. Yet quoting this convicted fraudster, here is what the Admin, Zeljko wrote: “We have an accurate list of the number of people in the camp (18,600) and the death toll (1,654). All other so-called sources are fabrications and lies”. Thus he is relying on a Holocaust-denier and convicted fraudster, to deny 98% of the Jewish Holocaust victims at Jasenovac, while claiming that “all other so-called sources” (i.e. the US Holocaust Museum, the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and the vast majority of western historians) “are fabrications and lies" Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't ask me to judge that. Tell WMF about it. I'm not in charge; I'm not boss over WMF servers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Support, although I worry that these prophylactic actions may not prove successful. After all, experience has shown that determined editors can evade bans. Secondly, even if the problematic editors are kept away, a new cabal may emerge that forces their own bias upon hr.wp. I can't believe I'm actually suggesting this, but we may want Trust & Safety to hire someone fluent in the language to serve as a disinterested observer while this project is assisted back into a healthy state. -- Llywrch (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support all proposals, but I also think WMF should appoint a supervisory group, including hired outsiders, with Arbcom-like powers, but over the arbcom (and less involved with the detail). This has been a festering sore of the global movement for years and WMF needs to exert itself to sort it. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. To all proposals. There shouldn't be interference from outside.--Rovoobob Talk 02:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not? There shouldn't be outside interference because everything is fine, or because there should never be any interference, no matter what? GregorB (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment It's undeniable that there are problems with bias on hr.wiki regarding certain topics/articles. I still have to read through the whole discussion, and decide which proposals I will support and/or oppose. --Hmxhmx 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - Nonsense. The three targeted admins are one of the best admins on hr.wiki, hard-working and determined to their job. Targeted admins, stay strong! --Dvanaesti Igrač (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong supportStrong support to all proposals. Project “independence”, “sovereignty”, “autonomy”… could be valid up to some degree, and only if Foundation principles (chiefly those listed from 4 to 6) are observed and fully implemented. Since that is clearly not the case, the wikimedian community (and WMF) should and must react. When Founding principles are concerned, the hr.wiki acknowledge their superiority over local consensus: m:w:hr:Wikipedija:Konsenzus#Iznimke (it is one of 10 main rules of hr.wiki). Stewards can follow only valid consensus, but are not obliged to implement anything in defiance to the said principles. I support also the ArbCom, which should be defined in the next RfC. -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 20:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment Regarding #3, I would recommend that Sokac121 remain admin, since he is one of the truly neutral ones. -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 13:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - I don't think that this kind of discussion is for Meta. If some user disagrees with wiki politics than he can gives up from editing. Kubura, Zeljko and Speedy are notable admins and users on Croatian Wikipedia and they are trying to save impartiality and objectivity on Croatian Wikipedia. -Kraljnnm (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Answer to falsified allegations[edit]

Excuse my French, but this RFC is load of crap. First two points GregorB wrote above, namely "Far-right bias in a number of topics, most notably related to World War II, including outright historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." and "Proliferation of grossly unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, and unsourced biased content." are either straight lies, or falsification or misrepresenting the facts. In short:

  • During and after WWII communist government in then Yugoslavia did number of crimes, which are today abundantly documented, by scientists and researchers, and no scholar, domestic - meaning speaking the language and living in the country this crimes were committed, or foreign scholar, disputed that. I don't write about en:The Black Book of Communism, which is targeting communism in whole East Europe, and maybe somewhere it misses its target a bit, I mean books like: "Partizanska i komunistička represija i zločini u Hrvatskoj 1944.-1946. - Documents", ISBN 953-6659-20-4 etc, which are solely based on documents, which make no summarized judgement, but just state the atrocities communist government made. Resolution of European Parliament named "Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe" is by some criticised as unjust equalization of Nazism and Communism, but it could help in societies where WWII war criminals are still praised and laudated for their crimes, like mass killing is a good thing. Have in mind, this resolution restate that ALL crimes must be judged. That means, crimes of communist states are not smaller because countries opponents of Hitler did it. As US did their best to end WWII with as low bloodshed it can possibly be, Hiroshima & Nagasaki are still mass murders of civilians, but that happened before end of war, and had it's purpose. What to call murders of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands which happened after end of war, and had no purpose except killing all possible opponents of new government?
    • No holocaust denial is happening on Croatian Wikipedia. In Croatian society is active process of estimation of number of victims of WWII, scholars are doing it. Communist regime not doubled or tripled, but multiplied some numbers by 10 or 100, to get more money in reparations from Germany, which is also well documented, by Serbian historic Zoran Janjetović in his book "Od Auschwitza do Brijuna, Pitanje odštete žrtvama nacizma u jugoslavensko-zapadnonjemačkim odnosima", ISBN 978-953-6979-41-7.
  • Croatian Wikipedia is not perfect, I am not perfect, or users of our project are not perfect. But, we allow all valid sources. Some dispute books printed in Croatia after 1990, which is ridiculous, as scientists (historians) are doing their job same today as before 1990.

GregorB clearly lies (OK, misrepresents) about media coverage of our project, there was some media coverage of Wikipedia in Croatian language in 2013, but it was not taken by serious media, and in 2018 there was no criticism in Croatian media at all towards Wikipedia in Croatian language, except in Novosti, paper of Serbian minority in Croatia, which is well known as ridiculous, non-serious paper which exist purely as it is funded by state budget for minorities, and is allowed to publish rubbish as this is called freedom in democratic country.

In conclusion, number of users of Wikipedia in Croatian language is steady, and users would themselves raise an issue, if there would be an issue to be raised, but there is not. Sysops are often under pressure, I myself dislike that my volunteer work of 15 (going on 16) years is in this way denigrated, but, that is obviously the case, sysops are here to fight any ridiculous accusation anybody can issue, and GregorB is kind of serious; if you are not insider, you can easily trust this web of carefully crafted falsifications. But I ensure you, his statements are false.

We can discuss about anything, content of articles, sysop actions, no problem here, but to state that sysops are biased without any serious base for that except things that are in 2013 invalidated is sad or laughable, or both. If Wikipedia would take statuses of sysops because one or few disgruntled users state their falsifications on meta, Wikipedia as a project would be long gone. As I stated in previous sentence, I am open for discussion of everything, but to loose precious time with users who are clearly ready to falsify facts, I am somewhat reluctant, I hope you understand that. Best wishes to you all! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Umm... you did edit the Croatian version of "Black Book of Communism", didn't you? Also, Croatian version of "holocaust denial" looks small-ish in contrast to English Wikipedia one, which is larger, more detailed, and GA-promoted. Also, English version says that those deniers would make "false statements", while the Croatian one (via Google Translate) didn't say much about the deniers. How do you explain the significant differences between the two versions? BTW, English article doesn't deem Novosti as unreliable as, say, en:Daily Mail and en:Breitbart News, both of which are forbidden to be used as source of facts due to mainly due to their content and accuracy issues. Moreover, I don't know why you accuse others of falsehood without substantial evidence. George Ho (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The main issue with hr.wp is that it repeatedly deletes citations of sources deemed authoritative and widely quoted by western historians, and when people complain, they block them. For example, I quoted the German general von Horstenau, whom the widely respected historian Jozo Tomasevich deems “the most authoritative and most objective of sources”, and is further quoted by numerous other historians, yet all quotes from him were instantly deleted from hr.wp, with the explanation that he is “unreliable” and “anti-Croat”, presumably because he dared criticize Ustasha atrocities. I guess that means in Serbian Wikipedia, they can declare widely quoted critics of Milosevic as “anti-Serb”, and instantly delete them, then block everyone who protests. I’ve also had quotations deleted from the US Holocaust Museum (with the explanation “they are not immune to fraud”), University of Zagreb historians, etc. For quoting these sources I was repeatedly blocked or threatened with blocks

While deleting widely quoted Reliable Sources, hr.wp simultaneously allows the quoting of the convicted forger, fraudster and Holocaust denier, Roman Leljak. Contrary to the US Holocaust Museum and most western historians, who put the Jasenovac death toll at 80.000 to 100.000, Leljak claimed the toll was 1,654, based on some Yugoslav document from 1946 he dug up, which at the time, in the chaotic post-war conditions, was able to document only 1,654 individual names of Jasenovac victims (many names were added later by subsequent efforts). I responded that in the Belsen trial, the Allied authorities in 1946 could document only 12 named victims, compared to the 50.000 victims of that Nazi camp, that most now estimate. I wrote to admin zeljko, that claiming that an obviously incomplete Jasenovac named-victims-list from 1946, is the only correct count, is like someone insisting that the only correct estimate of Belsen victims are those 12 named victims in the first post-war documents, and that the 50.000 Belsen victims that most now estimate, are all lies. Or that the Auschwitz known named-victims list fromm 1946 (perhaps only in the hundreds, or a couple of thousand), is the only true count, and everything else is "a lie". Yet zeljko and other hr Admins deleted my edits with US Holocaust Museum and other estimates of victims, with the claim “We have official Yugoslav ...names of all who were in [Jasenovac – i.e. the document dug up by Leljak with 1.654 victim names], and among those who was killed.... So everything else remains...malicious propaganda and unfounded charges”. Thus per hr Admins, the only true number of Jasenovac victims are the claims by a convicted fraudster, forger and Holocaust denier. This, combined with repeated deletions, attacks and blocks of editors who protest, makes hr.wp totally unprofessional, contrary to the most basic WP principles Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what is happening. They delete citations that are referenced by multiple authors, and that just hurts. I can just see how one would just give up if they delete your contribution. I wanted to make a little change of obvious misinformation that Tvrtko II was Croatian noble. You can't find any resource or book that would support that claim. I found at least 3 citations (2 by Croatian authors) that speak of Tvrtko II as a Bosnian king - nothing more, nothing less. I was banned as a vandal. Simply unacceptable and unscientific! --Mhare (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's the hrwiki version, just in case. George Ho (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It is Your PPOV, @Mhare:. First, You have not been permablocked or even banned, but 1 day block; further explained on the talkpage. You are misusing this RfC for imposing Your point-of-view, instead of using corresponding talkpage. Kubura (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
First of all, it's not my POV. It is recognized literature, and I believe they were all Croatian authors. Well, you said it all. I was blocked for 1 day for entering referenced information. Even quoted Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography. This is just sad. --Mhare (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Poštovani Thhhommmasss nijedan izvor o pretpostavkama i nagađanjima o broju žrtava u Jasenovcu nije obrisan. Pogledajte sami povijest članka i uvjerite se. Ako je ijedan uklonjen, ja ću ga vratiti. U stvari neke suradnike smeta što sam JA u tekstu dodao i podatke koje je naveo Leljak. A ti podaci su fotokopirani spisi koje je nakon rata otkrila OZNA ili UDBA i koji su se krili u Beogradu. Pa kakva je to bila nepristranost na Wikipediji ako se nesmije staviti ono što jednoj strani ne paše. Lip pozdrav iz Hrvatske. --Zeljko (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I said zeljko, there are Allied documents from 1946 showing only 12 named victims known at the Belsen camp at that point, hence per the convicted fraudster, Leljak, and you, "proof" that only 12 people were killed at Belsen, and the 50.000 claimed victims by most historians today, are just "propaganda". In the Jasenovac article, you quote these ridiculous claims by the convicted fraudster, Leljak, in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph on Victim Estimates, whereas a much briefer sentence fragment of victim estimates by the United States Holocaust Museum (which btw is also the consensus estimate by most Western historians), is buried some 20 or 30 estimates below that. Any objective approach would have reversed this, put the estimates by the consensus estimates by the US Holocaust Museum and other reliable sources at top, and most likely ignored ridiculous claims by fraudsters such as Leljak. And the problem is not only that, but the fact that you went and immediately deleted my quotes of University of Zagreb history professors, who dispute Holocaust deniers like Leljak, Igor Vukic and others whom you extensively quote. hr Admins also repeatedly deleted my quotes of many other sources quoted by western historians, then banned me, or threatened to ban me when I complained Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Procjena nije činjenica, a te procjene su takve da već postaju besmislene. Bio Leljak lažljivac ili ne, on u svojoj knjizi Mit o Jasenovcu bez komentara iznosi samo dokumenta koje je pronašla politička milicija poznata kao OZNA i koji su se od 1946. donedavno skrivali od očiju javnoasti u Beogradu. Čemu ta skrivanja dokumenata, osim da bi se moglo manipulirat sa brojem žrtava. U dokumentima su poimence navedene sve žrtve sa njihovim imenima, odakle su, šta su bili po zanimanju, i kako su umrli.

@zeljko - Leljak does not just present the 1946 document as "a fact". Here's a video of him claiming that Jasenovac was not not a place of mass killing, and then goes on to claim that the true number of Jasenovac victims was in fact 1.654, and everything else is made up, thus claiming that the number of Jasenovac victims was 50 times less than the number of victims given by the United States Holocaust Museum, the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and most western historians, who place the victim numbers at 80.000 to 100.000. This claim that you and Leljak made of 1.654 being the only true number of victims is also total Holocaust-denial, since the US Holocaust Museum and many other sources state that 13.000 to 20.000 Croatian Jews, i.e. up to two-thirds of all Croation Jews killed in the Holocaust, were exterminated at Jasenovac. Yet in the section on Victims Estimates you lead with this total misrepresentation and falsehood, and further you made claims that this totally false claim from a convicted fraudster is the only true number, and everything else - i.e. including the 50 times greater estimates by the US Holocaust Museum, the Croatian state Jasenovac Memorial Area and the vast majority of western historians - is "propaganda". Like I said, claiming that the document from 1946 is "a fact" is same as quoting the fact that that court documents from 1946 name only 12 known Belsen victims, and then using this to make the totally false claim that only 12 people were killed at Belsen, and not the 50.000 now thought by most historians. I.e. it is using facts to falsify, since there are many other facts which totally contradict Leljak's claims. The Srebrenica-denier Dobrica Cosic, similarly claimed there is a 1995 US document mentioning just 400 victims of Srebrenica, and thus claimed this is the true number. For all I know such a document may indeed exist (based on what someone may have thought at some point in 1995), since there are numerous documents that all holocaust-deniers - including Leljak, Igor Vukic and Cosic - continuously cherry-pick and selectively quote out of context to make their case. Yet if the Victims Estimates section of a WP Srebrenica article led with Cosic's claim of 400 victims, I'd say every last Srebrenica Admin should be kicked out. Particularly if, as in the case of hr.wp Admins, they repeatedly reverted and blocked people who quote the same sources as western historians, University of Zagreb historians, etc, in order to contradict the claims of the Holocaust-deniers quoted on hr.wp Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Ako postoji nešto bitno za članak sa potkrijepljenim izvorima vrati, budući da neznam o čemu se točno radi. To je bitno, jer kad istina izađe na sunce, onda će se vidjeti ko je muljao sa tzv podacima i tvrdnjama. Lip pozdrav --Zeljko (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@SpeedyGonsales: First of all: you said "GregorB clearly lies (OK, misrepresents) about media coverage of our project", and you claim that "in 2018 there was no criticism in Croatian media at all towards Wikipedia in Croatian language, except in Novosti". Yet, the Signpost article quotes and references, apart from Novosti, two more such articles. You should really know better than to accuse others of lies, when you clearly didn't bother to read the article with any degree of understanding, and it is your claim that is demonstrably false. In fact, a one-minute Google search finds two more such articles: one is titled "Croatian Wikipedia in the hands of the extreme right" and the other "Croatian Wikipedia reaches new low with a new Jasenovac article".
In more than 1/3 of your reply, you're talking about the communists, something that has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing here. It turns out that, whenever Croatian Wikipedia and you personally get accused of right-wing bias, the "communist" card is played, like, for example in this edit you made in 2013 in the English entry on the Croatian Wikipedia. Your edit summary was, and I quote, "rephrased to remove POV", so this also serves as a good English-language example of your approach to NPOV.
It's utterly useless to argue that my claims of "Far-right bias in a number of topics, most notably related to World War II, including outright historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." and "Proliferation of grossly unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, and unsourced biased content." are false, when the Signpost article presents a number of supporting examples (limited, obviously, by available space). What is more, it presents a number of examples where you, Kubura and Zeljko are directly responsible, all easily proven by diffs. This is the crucial issue here, but about that you didn't say a word. I'm sure you know why.
Finally, I'm certain that in the future you'll keep complaining that the accusations were trumped-up, unjust, false, or whatnot, but the fact is you had the time, means, and opportunity to respond, and you managed to say absolutely nothing of substance. GregorB (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As a general note to all, your arguments would be more convincing if you found the diffs to back up statements of alleged onwiki behavior. --Rschen7754 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As stated in the "Evidence" section above, all diffs pertaining to on-wiki actions discussed by the Signpost article, and ascribed to Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, and Zeljko, can be found in the article's partial translation to Croatian here. None of it has been challenged thus far. GregorB (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the diff that was used as reason to ban me. --Mhare (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
To clarify more - I just changed part of the sentence. "Croatian noble" was replaced with "Bosnian King". --Mhare (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This all is trolling as a method of attack on hr.Wikipedia. All these allegations have already been explained on the talkpages of respective users who complained here. Read them first. Not just these complaints with skipped sensible parts that compromise the complainters.
The attack on hr.wikipedia is like the case of minor and loud group (with no support in country) that cannot takeover the reign in the country from inside, so they choose the means of foreign intervention.
Also, this is again the attempt of jamming, so hr.wiki cannot grow, but to live in endless circle of senseless, low blow accusations.
Whenever hr.wiki shows nice growth and excellent editing atmosphere, than the jealous, envious and badintentional users attack.
BTW, this RFC was started just around the en:Independence Day (Croatia). Always at the time of the anniversaries and holidays related to Homeland War and WW2, or when some monument is unveiled, these things start.
Those users here who never talked to the questioned admins here, talk to them first.
The accusing sentence Far-right bias in a number of topics, most notably related to World War II, including outright historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." and "Proliferation of grossly unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, and unsourced biased content." pointed towards the hr.wiki actually is a projection of criticizers' behaviour on the attacked hr.wiki. These allegations are actually Hardline neoyugoslavist, serbocroatist and anti-Croat bias in a number of topics, most notably related to World War II and the attempt of "Proliferation of grossly unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, and unsourced biased content." of neoyugoslavist and serbocroatist colors (e.g. GregorB cited himself as a source).
Science by itself is revisionistic, so is the historiography. No conclusion and no historical document claim is determined "once and for all". It is always the subject to permanent testing, challenging, reexamining, improving etc.
The only ones who violate the principles of Wikipedia are these activists who use street language and political accusations, the same (low blows) ones used in political fight against current Croatian government (President, Prime Minister, Government...). Because of the dirty methods used last time (2013), the attacked Croatian users had to take court action and things ended on the court of law. Kubura (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure everyone should follow hr.wp's lead, where they prominently feature holocaust- and genocide-deniers like the convicted fraudster Leljak and Vukic - who completely opposite to the US Holocaust Museum, the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial and practically all western historians - claim that no mass killings of Jews, Serbs, Roma and others occurred at Jasenovac, that it was merely "a work camp", where people put on plays and played soccer. Following the lead of hr.wp, and your claim that "no conclusion and no historical document claim is determined "once and for all", then sr.wp should feel free to start off its Srebrenica Victim Estimates with Dobrica Cosic's claim of 400 victims, the US 9/11 article should give equal or even preferred billing to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, other articles on the Holocaust should prominently and equally feature Holocaust-deniers, while instantly reverting and banning people who seek to contradict these claims by quoting reliable sources. And btw all those Nazis who wrote with disgust of mass Ustashe killings of hundreds-of-thousands of civilians, women and children, wrote eyewitness accounts of the extermination of children in Ustashe camps, in 1943 from Zagreb reported the extermination of 100.000 people at Jasenovac, etc, etc - per your claims all these Nazis were also "hardline neoyugoslavist, serbocroatist and anti-Croat" - i.e. its all just one big global conspiracy against Ustashe innocents. That's why you instantly deleted my quotes of von Horstenau, since according to you he's "unreliable" and anti-Croat, no matter that Tomasevich and other historians extensively quote him, and consider him very well-informed and objective. I guess following your lead, sr.wp should put together a list of all those who dared criticize Milosevic and Serb crimes, claim they're unreliable and anti-Serb, and instantly revert all citations of such sources, and if people complain, block them Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@GregorB, no other paper media in Croatia except Novosti published in 2018 any critic of Wikipedia in Croatian language. Index.hr is not newspaper, and although it is not as ridiculous as Novosti, it is kind of yellow news portal, carrying over lot of rubbish, clickbait and such.

@Thhhommmasss, your complaints, if I see right are focused on one article, Jasenovac, not place, but war camp. When I last checked that article (3 or 5 years ago), in that article were present all alleged numbers of victims, ranging from around thousand and half to over one million. It is obvious that all that numbers cannot be correct, some are bullshit, some are facts, but my apprehension of Wikipedia is that we, Wikipedians are not arbiters of truth, but we are here to make encyclopedic content, to clearly present what valid sources state, and maybe even some invalid, if they have some merit, if not validity, but they can be (and often are) presented as evidence of mistakes done by people, and later corrected. It is sad that more than 70 years later there is no clear picture of number of war victims in Croatia, but that is mostly result of dark communist regime, and in last 29 years historians are doing big strides in analysis of that period. When final results will be known, I don't know, but it is clear here that some users are having preference for some works and historians, and are harshly criticizing others, as they have preferred version of facts, or as they know the facts as they were there. That's not encyclopedic, that's not Wikipedia approach, IMNSHO. Lastly, you are accusing Vukić as fraudster, but his works are (to best of my knowledge) heavily referenced by documents from WWII archive in Zagreb, which are also mostly available in Belgrade. Does that mean that anybody proved that Vukić falsified one or more documents? Or are you just accusing him without any proof? This have nothing to do with me, but I am curious, as I have read some of his works, as he is kind of widely present in Croatian media recently.

In other words, as I stated before, this RFC is load of crap. We can talk about sysop actions, I already stated, nobody is perfect, there can be even some grave mistake I don't know of, but if there really is some dubious sysop act, no such was presented to me until now. I see just a one or two angry users which couldn't push their bias. If GregorB's words would be right, I would be first to ask that something need to be done, but his words have no validity at all. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@SpeedyGonsales: Could you please comment on your on-wiki actions and comments as described in the Signpost article? If the RfC is indeed, and I quote, "load of crap", surely that's not going to be a problem for you, because you've done nothing wrong. Your actions and statements from the Signpost article, one by one, with your commentary. I insist. Since the accusations against Kubura and Zeljko are, presumably, also a "load of crap", please do refute these too, one by one, it should also be easy. GregorB (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@SpeedyGonsales I said the quoted Roman Leljak is a convicted fraudster, who defrauded 448 private Slovene investors and an Austrian bank, for which he spent 3 years in prison, starting in 2008. He claims the true number of Jasenovac victims is 50 times less than then the US Holocaust Museum and practically all western historians. As far as I know, neither he, nor Vukic has published in any peer-reviewed journal, and certainly not in western peer-reviewed history journals, unlike Ivo Goldstein, Tvrtko Jakovina and many other legitimate Croat historians, who btw have a very different view of Jasenovac. Igor Vukic claims that Jasenovac was merely a “work camp” where no mass killing took place, people put on plays, and for this he also quotes an inmate’s book, while “forgetting” to quote the portions of the same book which describe the most brutal extermination of tens of thousands of men, women and children at “work camp”, or per the hr.wp euphemism, “collection camp” Jasenovac. This too is total fraud
Yet when I tried to cite a University of Zagreb professor who directly criticizes Vukic, this was instantly reverted by Dvanajsti igrac, as were my quotes of Jasenovac victim numbers by ethnicity from the US Holocaust Museum, etc. Contrary to your claims, that you’re not “arbiters of truth”, practically everything I wrote was instantly reverted, and I consistently quoted sources used by western historians, University of Zagreb historians, the US Holocaust Museum, etc. Yet Admin Kubura declared all these quoted sources, which are also widely quoted on en and other WPs, as “unreliable”, and instantly reverted all my contributions, then blocked me when I complained. Admin Zeljko wrote that the only true Jasenovac victim estimate, is the 1.654 claim by the convicted fraudster, Leljak, and that everything else is “propaganda”. So don’t try to sell the notion that you’ve not set yourself up as arbiters, because you definitely have, and with a very particular bias. And it is precisely because of such behavior, totally contrary to WP principles of requiring Reliable Sources, etc., that many good hr.wp editors have left in disgust. Incidentally per your notion that WP should not be an arbiter, sr.wp should also provide equal billing to deniers of Srebrenica and deniers of Serb crimes in Croatia, Holocaust-deniers in general are welcome, etc Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
GregorB, Thhhommmasss, George Ho you get caught up in a pointless debate over content with someone in position of power, overseeing project appropriate use, and who has obviously abused that power and privilege for years - it's like debating with a bank robber if (s)he has / had an account at a bank (s)he just robbed, killing a bunch of workers and account holders in the process.--s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 00:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Santasa99, on the contrary. Here You have the case of malcontents that are abusing the RfC for the elimination of the persons whome they disagree with, by the method of political disqualification. These malcontents are indefinitely accusing, over and over again, selectively presenting the informations, repeating the same lies, calumnies etc., repeating endless times until someone believes that that is the truth and when the number of those who agree with him get the critical value.
There's a better comparison, like in a proverb "ljudi drž'te lopova". That robber runs away from the bank, and when the robbed person runs after the thief, the thief turns and points the finger towards the robbed banker and yells "People, get the robber!". Gregor, Thhhommasss etc. are doing the same thing, pointing towards the others and You bought that. Kubura (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kubura: Rather than call everyone a bunch of liars, could you provide any diffs to back up your statements? --Rschen7754 01:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rschen7754:, every of those disputed contents, edits, reverts and blocks have been thoroughly explained and discussed (and permanently new material is being provided to prevent editwars) on the corresponding articletalkpages and usertalkpages. The malcontents have not transferred those explanations and discussion. Kubura (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kubura: U're such a liar. U/u'r sockpuppet blocked me indefinitely just for disagreeing with u (2 weeks ago). U accused me of conspiring with the Serbian government against hr.wiki?!???? U literally violated the most basic wp.rules. I said it on the hr.wiki village pump then, and i'll say it again here, hr.wiki is basically a Kubura&sons enterprise, and it's been one for the last 6 years. --Ivan VA (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional Proposed Criteria[edit]

Various individuals are proposing other solutions, which is blurring the discussion section. Some have been discussed before, others have not. I thought I'd summarise the main ones and they could be added on or taken off as people think. I realise additional criteria discussion in a major RFC is somewhat disruptive; but since it's going to happen anyway.

I've manually made them number from 7 upwards so if people start wanting to !vote for them, they're easier to pick out. I've added any that at least a couple of individuals have mooted Nosebagbear (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • 7) Commence a cross-wiki discussion to create a cross-jurisdictional ARBCOM for the similar language projects
  • 8) Remove all blocks from everyone the 3 admins have blocked
  • 9) Review all blocks implemented by the 3 admins
  • 10) Enable the addition of croatian-speaking admins from other sources [global, en, de, similar language have all been proposed]
  • 11) Create an off-wiki method (surveys, etc) for individuals to provide their feedback and concerns with regards to Croatian wiki
  • 12) Create an on-wiki method to continuously report, monitor and address abuse, so that this does not reoccur

Discussion of additional proposals[edit]

  • 8 seems foolish because this would mean everyone they blocked gets unblocked, including vandals. --Rschen7754 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • In that case I'd say at least review those blocks before unblocking Saederup92 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The three admins have more than 1000 blocks between them. Some of these falsely claim "vandalism". This is going to be very difficult to review. On the other hand, it is important to review the blocks and reinstate the editors who were unjustly blocked. Other than individual appeals, I currently see no other solution. I'd volunteer to analyze and appeal the blocks myself (provided I'm unblocked in the first place), but I believe currently one cannot appeal blocks other than one's own, and the procedure is rather complicated and restrictive. A simpler, quicker procedure would be of help. GregorB (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
        • The 1.000 blocks by the 3 Admins sound abusive in themselves. Is it possible to get Block metrics for all the Admins? It'd also be interesting to compare the number of blocks on hr.wp with other comparably sized sh wikipedias, as well as randomly select some 10 blocks on hr.wp and then see what these blocks were for, all of which could better indicate abuse. Given the large number of blocks we could consider a “reset”, i.e. unblock everyone, and then give everyone notice that behavior will be more systematically monitored. In particular, since some incivility, while inappropriate, may have been prompted in reaction to the systematic abuse by the Admins. I think one of the objectives of the hr.wp Admins is to swarm and systematically revert everyone they disagree with, then block them at the slightest inappropriate response (although they block people even without such responses, as we’ve seen with the blocks of people who merely posted links to the Signpost article and RfC)
I know of very valued contributors on en.wp, who’ve been so thoroughly disgusted by such hr.wp Admin behavior that they’ve left the project. It will be very difficult to get them back, unless thorough changes are made, and everyone is informed of the changes. I believe it’d help to build public, proactive, systematic processes for this, instead of relying on ad hoc, after-the-fact, behind-the-scenes ones. One example would be the mentioned Abuse Reporting link on all hr.wp Talk pages, where users could go to a Project page and report abuse across all hr.wp pages, and hr.WP admins could not block them there. This would surface problems earlier and more systematically, instead of being hidden in many Talk page discussions, across many articles. Thus appropriate action to deal with problems could also be taken earlier, instead of after a decade of abuse, 1,000 people blocked, and many valuable contributors having fled. This approach is also easier to scale and apply to other WPs, as opposed to later trying to dig out all diffs and abuses across many years and many articles. Other, more systematic and proactive approaches could be taken to deal with the problems, to rebuild and maintain a healthy community Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
In regards to 8 I agree with Rschen7754 that it would be unwise to just auto unblock all of them, but as others have pointed out maybe they could be reviewed. To me this is a complicated and difficult situation. Having traveled to Slovenia and Croatia I am aware of the political issues in their history. As such I think great care and empathy for their situation needs to be employed to oversee this wiki appropriately. I am guessing we may need to find willing people with the language skills that are currently on other wikis, but great care should be taken with this. 12 years ago I was effectively driven off a wiki and I went back once the abusive admin was dealt with. I was welcomed back and am now a Crat on that wiki. People will come back if they see the changes that need to happen. Most people realise its not going to be perfect overnight. So I would encourage any that left the Croatian Wikipedia to feel they are welcomed back. They have to start from somewhere. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The current Admins do not speak for all Croats, in fact there are many other Croats who very much resent what they've done, and articles of outrage regarding hr.wp have appeared in the Croatian press – here is just one of many, where the author writes of the many editors who have abandoned hr.wp, because of Admin abuse, naming Speedy Gonsales among the chief perpetrators. The writer goes on to say that even when some changes were made, temporarily removing SpeedyGonsales and a couple of others, they managed to return and absolutely nothing changed, the abuse continued. So given this history, I truly doubt that removing Speedy and pals, Part 2, after a full decade of additional abuse, will convince anyone to return, unless other, much more extensive measures are taken. Nor will well-intentioned invites of "come on back" be enough. I know of excellent Croatian editors who've repeatedly said they want nothing to do with hr.wp, and while they remain engaged on en.wp, the fact that they have not even bothered to comment on this RfC to me indicates the total mistrust of hr.wp, as well as total mistrust that WP will ever adequately address this problemThhhommmasss (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about either de or en-wiki admins (language aside) being the chosen wikis. If there are any global sysops who speak croatian, then they'd be logical to allow (currently crwiki is opted out) and then some process of authorising similar language wikis, perhaps through either a meta process or some suggested set of names Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This just appear to be tricky situation, but it shouldn't be too inconvenient to deal with - unblock them all, and then deal with any "vandal" that might come back to disrupt articles on a case-by-case basis. Most likely, the vast majority of those who are blocked due to genuine vandalism will not return and probably won't even notice (IP's and single-purpose acc.) they are being unblocked. But even if they do notice and return, so what - now you are going to (re)build proper environment where any real transgression is going to be properly (re)evaluated.--s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 18:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just note for the last proposal, there are ways to reflect this, but I think what here means is to provide additional ways of reflection.--1233 T / C 03:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nije nikoga problem odblokitrati ako želi doprinesti svojim radom.

  • Suradnik GregorB je blokiran 10 puta od 5 administratora i zbog učestalih svađa sa mnogim suradnicima. Njegov doprinos su uglavnom napadi na druge suradnike. --Zeljko (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Zeljko: We are aware of that, and it does not change anything. That how low the bar is for bans on croatian wikipedia is part of the problem.--Snaevar (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Zeljko the fact you blocked people just for posting a link and expressing views on the Signpost article, confirms the abuse
  • In therms of blocks, I think the most resonable thing would be to review blocks of users with decent number of edits, as it would cover established editors. There are over 3000 user blocks on the croatian wikipedia and over 200 ip blocks. When user blocks are limited to users that have more than 50 combined edits & actions, then the block list shrinks to less than 5%.--Snaevar (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Snaever, that may be a good start, but would not address people who could not become established editors, because they were immediately driven away by blocks and other abuse. Btw, is there blocks-per-Admin data, since that could further indicate the most abusive Admins? Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Snaevar:, You are editing small project with small traffic, so You and Your colleagues have plenty of time for maintaining the project. Hr.wiki is bigger and Croatian-language community is even more bigger than Icelandic. Therefore we have much more vandals. Vandals are persistent and stubborn. Once we recognize the pattern, we have to cut it at the start, otherwise You lose a lot of energy and time and still nothing. E.g., currently we have a psycho that threats that he will rape (with full details) and slay several users. He appears everyday twice since August this year, as IP and as registered. Kubura (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've participated at WikiProject Croatia for around five years now, and during that time I've interacted plenty with GregorB. He has helped me write en:WP:GAs and en:WP:DYKs and I've read some of his own DYKs and other work and have found no anti-Croat or yugonostalgic bias that you write about. If it weren't for this whole controversy the thought would never enter my mind. I've also found him to be a reliable, level-headed editor who on enwiki always remains tactful and respectful. He's contributed to countless articles and has probably the highest edit count of all Croatian editors on enwiki. He's well versed in English spelling & grammar and wikitext editing. If he were to run for an enwiki admin, I'm sure he would pass without problems. Hence the question is, is GregorB some kind of a Jekyll & Hyde character, or is something else going on here?
If this was just about one person and one matter (political), I might falter in my judgment here, but I can think of plenty of people on Forum.hr (the largest online forum in all of Southeast Europe and the only one of any significant size in Croatia), from all walks of life, most of whom aren't interested in politics, who act respectably on the forum, yet have been indef blocked, mostly for repeated altercations with admins. I would say that is pretty strong evidence that the hrwiki admins are the ones who are pushing some POV and talking to other editors in a manner that causes said editors to lash out. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You skipped those that are supporting hr.wiki. And those indef blocked have multiple accounts on that forum.Kubura (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
http://www.forum.hr/showthread.php?t=797091, especially the last few pages - it seems my "plenty" was actually an understatement. Daß Wölf (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The very fact GregorB has 10 hr.wiki blocks, but zero en blocks further proves what a renegade outlier hr.wiki is. That he persisted despite these blocks, and persisted with the RfC, despite a general sense nothing will change, just goes to his credit and I think he’d make a great Admin Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Has it ever occured to You that these blocks were for a good reason? Kubura (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • To bring up an example from my comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page: here an IP editor adds a lot of content to a list of episodes, including some malformed internal links. I could find no evidence you even tried to tell the editor what is he/she doing wrong and how to fix that, you simply protected the page, and wrote "had to protect because the editor doesn't know how to add links". Do you not see how a new editor can get insulted when they make a long, 60-80% useful edit and find that the the page protected without warning because of that bad 20-40%? Daß Wölf (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Daß Wölf, You want to impose major coup d'etat on hr.wiki, and You have nothing on Your userpage, but a redirect to the talkpage? That's not a behavioural pattern of the ordinary user. Such pattern is present at the accounts that are expendable and for the dirty tasks. Kubura (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Unindenting this personal attack which has nothing to do with the issues I raised in the comment that preceded it. Let's get back to the major problem at hand for me which is biting newbies. Is there no policy against that on hr.wiki? I see for example, hr.wiki admins are still harassing and blocking people for the crime of making multiple smaller edits where one big edit will do. Daß Wölf (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
      • One thing is when a new user shows the pattern of clumsiness, misorientation, or elderpeople's behaviour (shaking hands, typos) and similar. The other thing is when the new user writes graffitti, attacks others, removes massive content or references. Therefore, I find Your stance here as disruptive. You took the side of the destructive users. Wikipedia is not a social institution for integrating persons with unacceptable behaviour, there're specialized professionals for that. If someone enters the bank, store, government office, police station, medical ordination etc. and starts yelling, writing graffitti on the wall of the waiting room or kicking papers, there's no "don't bite the newbies". That newbie is not clumsy, misorientated, or very old but destructive.
      • Further, when I said something about Your userpage, that was not the personal attack. I dislike that sockpuppet (=owner exists under other name) or expendable account (=user's only account, "constructive" part of the usage is solely a disguise, the true intention of the account is to use it solely for editwars, arguing, unpopular actions) pulls me by the nose. True constructive editor almost always puts some effort to arrange a decent userpage. The userpage reflects the user's intentions, behaviour on contentpages and discussions, and finally his/hers personality - that's my experience. There're exceptions, but basically that's it. Are You a sockpuppet, expendable account or an ordinary user - everybody can make conclusion for themselves. It is indicative when a usertype (described above) attacks whole project and most active, constructive and higly appreciated users on that project. Kubura (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To !vote:

  • Strong support for 7 since there are persistent POV pages on other wikis too. So long as we can all agree to staff the ARBCOM with sane editors who can make a bona fide attempt to be impartial, I don't see where the problem would be. I appreciate that there is a sentiment (and surely not just in Croatia or ex-yu) to make X language wiki comport with the views of X ethnicity, but I think this needs to be balanced with the driving away of many users who would be accepted but for one disagreement in POV. Also strongly support 9 instead of 8 for the same reason I opposed action 3 above. Re: 11, 12 support and recommend involving T&S, I think they could be a useful asset here in teaching. Re: 10, I support attracting the attention of Croatian speaking admins from large projects to this discussion. Hopefully we can interest some of them into taking up a permanent role on hrwiki. Daß Wölf (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • #7-strong support. Ethnic-specific “truths” (e.g. deny/minimize crimes and genocides by one’s own side, and play up those perpetrated by the other) serve to inflame hatreds and wars in the region, so this is not just an academic debate. Support #9 if such a large review is practical, else #8 with #12. Strong support for #10, also support interim, extra powers for outside Admins (e.g. to approve blocks, remove additional misbehaving admins, add new interim admins), particularly if only 3 Admins are removed, and others can still cause trouble (extra powers need not be baked into software - e.g. if outside Admins must approve blocks, other Admins can ask them for approval, and if they violate new block process, outside Admins can work with stewards to de-Admin them, etc). #11 Support, and #12 Strong Support – believe latter will be essential, particularly if just 3 Admins are removed, while other like-minded Admins and editors remain. Systems to report, monitor and deal with abuse could’ve helped prevent problem, and can help address similar issues on other WPs Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Badava vi glasujete za njega. On kod nas jednostavno ne želi radit, i jedini mu je cilj isprovocirati blok. --Zeljko (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think, now that the meta community has seen the responses from Kubura, that u finally can see what we're dealing with here. For me, its perfectly obvious that he regards his work on hr.wiki as highly political . The more u dig in, the more u see that the stuff he talks about has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, but some political agenda he regards is the right one, everyone else being an intruder. The fact that this is a common, global project, where everyone is welcome to participate is completely lacking etc. This RfC was so much needed. --Ivan VA (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Misrepresentation of events, innacuracies, faking of the truth, malevolent RfC and extreme disrupting of Wikipedia.Lordluka99 (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lordluka99: Some concrete examples of "misrepresentations", "inaccuracies", and "faking of the truth", please. GregorB (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It is unnecessary to give examples, because the title and the basic idea of this RFC are wrong and fictitious. Questions of content have already been thoroughly discussed, explained and elaborated on the talkpages.
To emphasize it clearly, on the Croatian Wikipedia there is neither a postulated abuse of administrative rights nor violations of the five pillars. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Lasta's statement of facts[edit]

Dear GregorB, do not write assumptions and imaginations, especially about me. If you do not know the facts, please ask, do not spread lies around (at least, not about me). Your "quasi statement" is wrong and is based on your lack of knowledge of the situation. Namely, inserting my name together with other admins, you insinuated that nobody of us (me included) did nothing to change the situation and that all of us (again, me included) agree with the present mess. As you falsely accused me of lack of reaction (and you were able to recheck and find the right answer, either with me or with several admins on Meta) I am checking my options of giving you the chance to back up your accusations in front of the court of law. I am ready to accept that you were misinformed, therefore I am giving you the chance to remove my name from the list in next 48 hours, and inform me about that. Regards --Lasta (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case, please provide:
  1. A clear statement about the CW situation and the concrete responsibility of Kubura, SpeedyGonsales and Zeljko, as described in this RfC.
  2. On-wiki evidence (i.e. diffs) that shows you substantially disagreeing, criticizing or attempting to remedy the said situation.
  3. An explanation as to why you - being fully aware of this RfC - waited for one month before responding.
You don't need to give me any chances, I'm giving you a chance. GregorB (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
GregorB, it is too late for that kind of talk. That kind of talk was possible before the accusation, this is another game now. If you are sure of you accusations, you can send me your name, surname and data to my mail (or you can post it here), I will sue you for defamation and see you in court here in Croatia. If you are not sure, and you in fact was misinformed, you can withdraw your accusations against me, that will solve this situation. If you are not willing to do either, that will show me and all others that we are not dealing with honest person, having good intentions towards the community.
GregorB, kasno je za taj način razgovora. To je bilo moguće prije nego si me optužio, sada je ovo sasvim druga stvar. Ako si siguran u svoje optužbe, možeš mi poslati svoje podatke na mail (ili to isto možeš objaviti ovdje), ja ću te tužiti za objedu, pa ćemo se vidjeti na sudu u Hrvatskoj. Ukoliko nisi siguran, i zbilja si bio slabo informiran, možeš povući optužbe priotiv mene, to će riješiti ovuu situaciju. Ako ne želiš napraviti ni jedno, to će meni i svima ostalima značiti da ne komuniciramo s iskrenom osobom koja ima dobre namjere prema zajednici. --Lasta (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Before I respond in full, let's just make one thing clear: are you making a legal threat against me? GregorB (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I hope the above comment by Lasta, as well as all the other responses here by CW Admins, finally prove to everyone that extreme nationalist ideologues like them are incapable of rational thought or argument, since aside from railing against communist, neo-Yugoslavist, Serbo-Croatist, anti-Croat and who knows how many other conspiracies, they’ve been totally unable to offer any proof of their claims, or put together a single cogent argument. That is why on CW they systematically mass-revert edits, block and drive away numerous Croat editors they disagree with, even deleted and blocked people for posting links to the Signpost article and the RfC. Plus now instead of rationally discussing things, as is the WP-way, they threaten lawsuits. These guys are the total antithesis of everything WP, and should be forever banned from WP 06:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Neo-nazi whitewashing on croatian wikipedia?[edit]

Hi,

I'm user from croatian wikipedia, but I would prefer to remain anonymus (i.e. not linked to my primary account on hr wikipedia). I would like to ask for a comment on the case of, as I see it, white-washing of Croatian ex drug dealer/pimp/neo-nazi (source)/right-wing journalist Velimir Bujanec. His article (see history) used to have well-referenced section that included his drug abuse and drug-dealing past. In the next diff, that has comment "ispravak životopisa, wp:žžo, na zahtjev" (translation: bio correction, en:WP:LIVE, on request), done by Roberta F.. Here, admin Roberta F. beautifies his bio and completely deletes all controversial parts. Based on diff comment, I guess she did it on personal request of this neo-nazi. Later, user Bojovnik returns the part regarding drug abuse, but Roberta F. reverts it. Bojovnik then adds some {fact} templates, but SpeedyGonsales reverts it without explanation. hr:User:Carl Johnson again tries to add referenced claims of drug-related offences, but Speedygonsales reverts it. Carl Johnson is later blocked by SpeedyGonsales (for being rude). Carl johnson later opens a discussion on willage pump Velimir Bujanec vs Ante Tomić complaining about double standards claiming left-wing journalist Ante Tomić doesn't have the same WP:LIVE protection as Bujanec. The discussion leads nowhere. Admin user:MaGa focuses on Carl Johnson's rude comments, patronising him (calling him "my dear son"), not on aledged double standards, and discussion is derailed in that direction.

I would call upon croatian-speaking users to check this case and also Roberta F. and SpeedyGonsales to explain reverting referenced claims in the article. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)