Jump to content

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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Per #Proposal to close (3). Everything has been resolved here, either by local or global means, and most possible actions have been taken. Any new developments should be addressed in a new RfC. I'd also like to say sorry, on behalf of the stewards team, for the extremely long time this has taken. However, this was also a very complicated case, which caused this.Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 05:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue

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.


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

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.


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

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

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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
  • A crystal clear summary, thanks for the insightful 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Did a bully punched other females?" That excuse does not work. He wrote it. Kubura (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • I volunteer to be candidate for a member of such Arbcom for sr wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @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)[reply]
              • [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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]
                  • 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 (edit: not "and", but "than"; here is supposed to be the comparison. Kubura (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)) than 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thhhommmasss, don't put to people the words they have not said at all. Noone denies the Holocaust. Holocaust is a fact. The problem our colleague is talking about is the problem of the certain entries in the database [7]. All these institutions are not immune to misinformations. There's a case of Croats who died in exile in El Shatt, Sinai, but they ended on US Holocaust Museum's site.[8] (article from Slobodna Dalmacija).
Also, "sabirni" and "koncentracijski" are synonyms in Croatian language.[9] "Logori mogu biti po namjeni; zarobljenički, sabirni(koncentracijski) i radni, te privatni i logori za provođenje masovnih silovanja, koji se manje spominju, a izrazito su okrutni. http://hdlskl.hr/o-nama/povijest-logora/ " Kubura (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First as I repeatedly noted, you quote convicted fraudsters and Holocaust-deniers, who deny 98% of the Jasenovac Holocaust victims, as per the US Holocaust Museum, and your Admins state this is the only “truth”, dismissing as “propaganda” the US Holocaust Museum, western and Croatian historians, etc (btw here's a Radio Free Europe article on the CW-cited, convicted-fraudster and Holocaust-denier Roman Leljak) The claim of Sinai victims on the Jasenovac victims list, also found on CW, is one more Holocaust-denier deception. The list they refer to is from Jasenovac.org, a private site in Brooklyn, unrelated to the US Holocaust Museum or the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial, which also clearly states that theirs is a named list of 640,000 WWII victims from across all Yugoslavia, so it is not just a Jasenovac list. Then on this list, clearly marked as not just from Jasenovac, these Holocaust-deniers make the "big discovery" that there are victims who are not just from Jasenovac, and go on to claim this “proves” Jasenovac was not a death camp.
I will not keep replying to this endless nonsense, since with committed ideologues, when someone disproves your arguments, you come up with 1,000 new, unrelated nonsensical arguments, and so on ad infinitum. In any case this isn’t the place to discuss the substance of these issues, this is the place to discuss the fact that you systematically violate core WP principles, when you cite convicted fraudsters and holocaust-deniers as “Reliable Sources”, while mass-reverting citations from truly Reliable Sources, then repeatedly block people when they complain, just because they dare cite sources you disagree with. Plus all the other violations of core WP principles, many perpetrated even here, like refusing to respond to questions you’ve been repeatedly asked, and instead ignoring them or claiming you don’t have to provide any proof, blocking people, name-calling and shouting “Serbo-Croatists” as the “answer” to everything, dismissing people’s views because of their nationality, changing the subject with yet new falsehoods, like this claim about the Jasenovac victims list, etc, etc Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • @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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I do not have anything in mind.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion and blocking for referencing reliable sources goes totally against WP principles, and as described here, I and many others have experienced it. I just want to mention that in this case, the goal is also to create alternative histories and myths. Specifically their claim that Bosnian kings were Croat, has been used to make “Greater-Croatist” (to use Kubura’s term) territorial claims on Bosnia, which in turn resulted in the WW2 Ustashe occupation of Bosnia, with massive crimes and genocides, and in the 1990’s Croat-Bosnian War, where the Hague Court determined Croat forces invaded Bosnia, with the goal of creating a Greater Croatia, committing many crimes against humanity. Thus, again we’re not talking here about run-of-the-mill biases or bragging rights, but the systematic spreading of myths, which all sides on the Balkans engage in, with very harmful results. It is shameful that this has been allowed to persist on WP. We’ve now been conducting this discussion for 3 months – how can we get to some resolution? Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Unfortunately, the oposite does apply. Tvrtko's father proclaimed himself as a Croat (and Dalmatian) king. His sovereign and senior was king of Croatia (and Hungary). To proclaim him as something else is...
Funny, to put it mildy.
And of course, medieval borders were not the same as current one, Bihać was capital of Croatia, most of today's western Bosnia/Bosnian Krajina was part of Zagreb Parish, and kingdom/banate of Slavonia, etc.
Today, Croats are one of three constitual peoples in BiH, to erase their history is highly nationalistic and NPOV.
To do it under the cover of ww2 is hypocriticall, at least. --Ceha (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.
Comment Comment Would you be so kind and sign your posts above. --Silverije (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strong support Strong support, for both sets of proposals: 1 through 6 by GregorB + additional 7 through 12 proposal by Nosebagbear (1-12). Post amended as per GregorB request under 18.1 Pinging the participants.--s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 22:02, 26 December 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}} 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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [10] (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)[reply]
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 [11] 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, [12] "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)[reply]
By diverting from the topic and comments like this, it tries to divert attention from the proposal to politics, which is not acceptable. Nobody talks about Yugoslavia, Yugoslavhood, communism and the like. I beg that the real arguments be raised against the proposal. Greeting! --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and Strong support Strong support to attacked admins of hr.wiki --Mateo K 01 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC) (striked as per diff --denny (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Simply placing symbol without arguments... I don't see anything concrete here. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss:, a correction: noone denies the "mass-terror" by Ustashi regime, You don't have to read Horstenau for that. But be precise: Serbs (they are mostly Orthodox Christians) were the target of the mass-terror and/or were mistrusted, but not the all Orthodox Christians; Bulgarians, Romanians, Ukrainians, Macedonians, Montenegrins (even they), even the Russians were considered as friends. Finally the Croatian Orthodox Church's priests from those ethnicities. Kubura (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

Please null and void my above comment. ~riley (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Comment 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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Strong oppose. To all proposals. There shouldn't be interference from outside.--Rovoobob Talk 02:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Meta is a project for coordination of Wikimedia Foundation's wikis. I do not see anything controversial in discussing the long-term issue about Croatian Wikipedia here. Best regards! --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On what bases do you call them the "best"? Violation of the administrator's rights and Wikipedia's basic rules is surely commendable. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree with Несмир Кудилович. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nesmir Kudilovic:, no good deed goes unpunished. Those hr.wiki administrators and hr.wiki at all, that are rudely denigrated here, showed You full understanding for You and several times gave You another chance. Not just second, but the third, fourth. We closed our eyes on Your previous behaviour when You reappeared under new accounts. On other project these Your accounts were blocked. Your previous incarnation was user:Bugoslav [13] [14], Imbris (Imbris~commonswiki) [15] [16] [17], [18] Rainman (renamed Rainman~commonswiki; from the time befor unified wikis, because there is also a Serbian user Rainman), [19] Reasons for blocking:Intimidating behaviour/harassment: general problem editor, causing disruption here, hr.wikipedia and other places. Kubura (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"If some user disagrees with wiki politics than he can gives up from editing" — If wiki policy is such as to impose one point of view over another and to block opponents... "Kubura, Zeljko and Speedy... are trying to save impartiality and objectivity on Croatian Wikipedia" — wrong and unfounded. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Strong support The last answer convinced me that CW will not change her violating issues against the five pillars. And CW will not change from inside too - especially if the problem stay since more than 5 years. Sammyday (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Strong support, that's systemic violations of our fundamental rules. --GrandCelinien (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose--Croq (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plain vote without arguments... --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Strong support I finally mustered the courage to take part in this discussion. Stewards should remove admin status to mentioned users, and of course ban them from reapplying. Removing bureaucrats and checkusers will be useful and effective. Violation of Wikipedia's basic rules, imposition of one point of view and blocking opponents must be stopped. I support the creation of ArbCom and want to volunteer in it (if there is room :)). Also, the user-victims of these administrators should be unblocked, and users who have left the project should be invited back to help restore a neutral point of view in the articles and help in further development of project. Allowing an easier method of reporting abuse will also be helpful. Best regards! --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are from Serbia, and You wrote this message in the eve of the anniversary of the occupation of Vukovar (Croatian city), that was occupied by Serb-led Yugoslav Army (and ideology of Serbocroatism is behind any Yugoslavism) and Serb paramilitars (after 3 months of shelling and bombing; the excuse was "liberating the city from "ustashas", "Croatian Neo-Fascists", "Croatian nazis"), as well as the anniversary as the slaughter on Ovčara (near Vukovar) and Škabrnja. You really chose the date. This shows who started this RfC, and what kind of people are supporting it. Kubura (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment had nothing to do with politics. In general, I think everything could have been settled without war, in a peaceful way. We do not need to attack each other for the past, but we need to look to the future. I have no intention of disputing the territorial integrity of Croatia and I do not hate Croats and the state of Croatia (I've actually been to Croatia several times during the holidays :)). Although this is off-topic. Greetings! --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Kubura for making this comment because it precisely describes what the problem is with Croatian Wikipedia and how hopeless situation currently is there. So, we have this RFC for 37 days already and users are adding their comments on daily basis. And, after Acamicamacaraca added this comment on November 17, Kubura instantly make insane consipracy theory saying

You are from Serbia, and You wrote this message in the eve of the anniversary of the occupation of Vukovar (Croatian city) [...] You really chose the date. This shows who started this RfC, and what kind of people are supporting it.

— Kubura
Despite the fact that this discussion lasts practically without interruption for 37 days, he just can't help himself and when a user from Serbia makes a comment on a day before an anniversary of the Serbian occupation of Vukovar, he instantly *sees a pattern*. This is paranoia. There is no other word for that then paranoia. It's not just he personally believes this. He actually thinks it's good idea to share his paranoia with community on Meta, believing that he can actually convince other users that the things he sees are real. Think about that! Take all the time you need and think about that! Kubura made similar statements zillion of times, and GregorB well documented it in signpost article and here. *This* is what Croatian wikipedia under Kubura looks like for more then 10 years. Whenever someone makes a logical argument, he doesn't react to an argument. Instead, he just thinks of another crazy conspiracy theory *why* user made that comments, what are his motives and how the user is connected to Serbian Secret Service. To make things worse, he is not alone. Croatian wikipedia is full of admins who, I'm sure, recognize this as paranoia, but pretend it's not because Kubura makes a dirty work of cleansing Croatian wikipedia of all the users that doesn't fit their preferred ideological profile. I beg WMF to finally solves this problem because it's just sad to what a wikipedia project turned into.
P.S. If this Kubura's comment alone doesn't show the scale of abuse of 5 pillars, specifically "Assume good faith", I really don't know what more proof You need. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hrwikiuser - excellent comment. Not only do we see paranoia, but obviously clear ethnic prejudice, since he attacked the commenter for his ethnicity, not the substance of his comments, and he has repeatedly made attacks on people’s presumed or real ethnicities, his main “argument”. Also, megalomania, since as is often the case with extreme nationalists, Kubura and the other CW Admins have designated themselves the only “true Croats”, systematically reverting and banning people they deem "anti-Croat". In the above comment, he even makes the ludicrous claim that people shouldn’t have the right to criticize CW Admins around certain national holidays and anniversaries. Thus they see every criticism of CW Admins as an “attack” on the entire Croat nation, and this despite the numerous criticisms of CW in the Croatian media, clearly indicating that they do not speak for all Croats. Yet further proof these guys violate every core WP principle, and thus should be removed forever Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of obvious croatian-national-holidays-related paranoia by Kubura here:

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

— Kubura
It is impossible to reason with someone who is this paranoid. I don't think user:Kubura:Kubura should be just de-sysoped. I believe lifelong ban on editing any WMF project is more appropriate. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think similarly as Hrwikiuser, but de-sysoped, with some topic bans, and editors of such profile wouldn't pose to much of a threat anymore (?!). It is obvious that editors on these "small" wikipedias, at least in this case on Wikipedia in Croatian language, are really convinced that project somehow belong to people of that particular ethno-national group, then from there it gets narrower in ideological terms - they are convinced that they own it. One of these admins in question is on record stating that these activities surounding RfC is nothing less than "diplomatic incident", something like that. There is no arguing with that.--s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 08:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically regarding Kubura’s attacks on the commenter’s ethnicity, I believe there is a need to further clarify, and more vigorously and consistently enforce WP:NPA which forbids attacks on the basis of race, sexual orientation and religion. First, this should be expanded to proscribe attacks on the basis of ethnicity, the type of attacks we most frequently see among Balkan nationalists, in an attempt to discredit people, without dealing with the substance of their comments. Given Kubura’s pattern of repeatedly alluding to, and attacking people’s ethnicities, real or imagined, he should have been permanently blocked from WP long ago for this alone Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, You lie. I do not attack anyone's ethnicity - that's what You said, Thhommmasss. Do not input me the things I have not said. Ethnicity is not the same as citizenship. So, You are on the line of the Serbian leadership (Vučić, Dačić, Vulin). Some of them have compromised themselves during Croatian War of Independence. They use exactly the similar words. I respect if anyone is loyal citizen of his country, but that does not allow him to attack the wikiproject whose main contributors are from other country, the country who was attacked from the same country which now uses other means instead of guns and tanks - now, they are persistently trying to brand Croatia as "neonazi, fascist" etc. Leaving politics aside, it is shame for the Meta to allow to expendable dirty-tasks sockpuppets to require to decapitate and disrupt whole project, project that the attacker has never been co-building at all. Hey, a user with a username that is not normal, it looks like a name created from fooling around (as if he has no ideas for names anymore, after dozens of sockpuppets), without any effort invested to create a decent userpage, requires the elimination of several users, that are major contributors/maintainers to a certain project and to Wikimedian projects at all? Kubura (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kubura – you keep inventing your own WP “rules”. Where on WP does it say that a citizen of one country can’t participate or write on other language WPs? Given the Hague Court has determined that Croatia attacked Bosnia, and Croatian forces committed many crimes against humanity in Bosnia, then according to you, Croat citizens should be forbidden from participating on or criticizing Bosnian WP. And if by chance they still do, they should be instantly attacked as “apologists of Greater-Croatia crimes”, exact same as you’ve attacked others here as being “apologists of Greater-Serbia crimes”. Second, as a WP editor I've been contributing for years to enwiki and Slovenian WP, with hundreds of edits on each, and absolutely zero problems there. So obviously it is again a case were en, sl and other WPs, plus the whole rest of the world is always wrong, not you.
There are numerous articles in Croatian media that criticize CW for its extreme right-wing bias, obviously another mass “Serbo-Croatist” conspiracy. Not to mention all the “Serbo-Croatist” German officers, western and Croatian historians, whose citations you mass reverted, since they are also part of the entire “anti-Croat” conspiracy. Of course, online Croatian dictionaries and the entire .hr domain are in on this “conspiracy” too, since they define and use the Croatian language in a manner that is contrary to what you claim, etc, etc. Why don’t you put in your own RfC to remove the entire rest of the world, since they all dare contradict you Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kubura, the idea of Serbo-Croatian language is linguistic subject, not political. Croats can be patriots and call their language Serbo-Croatian in the same time. Croatian nation does not depend on definition of separate Croatian language. Americans call their language English, yet noone doubts they are separate nation. Irish too. Only people who themselves are not sure of their national identity feel the need to prove the Croats and Serbs speak different languages. Unfortunately, You are one of those people. That's why You harass anyone who speaks of Serbo-Croatian language and automatically take that as proof he is "enemy of the state", and consequently, of Croatian wikipedia. I would advise you to cool down a bit, bit You are long beyond that phase. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hrwikiuser, Croatian nation does depend on definition of separate Croatian language. That applies to all other national states. Remove them the language, and they lose their identity, then You can put there some other nation that speaks other language and expel the native nation or assimilate the native nation that got its language "removed" (by force or forgetting). When the native population loses the language, they lose the identity. Argument of "not sure of identity" is fallacy and switching of thesis: People who themselves are not sure of their national identity feel the need to suppress the difference of Croatian and Serbian and to use the "mixed" term (not to mention those that have agenda of forceful merging). You are the one from them. Maybe someone says that he or she speaks so-called "Serbo-Croatian", maybe they think that they are Croatian patriots, but they are on the wrong way. It will take them to patriotism to "Croatia", but what kind of Croatia? Non-Croat Croatia with the only thing that is Croatia is the sticker with the name "Croatia". Serbocroathood in its essence is against the Croathood, because it directly denies the separate Croat identity, it requires melting/assimilating the Croathood into something else. Kubura (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support It is important that WMF finally starts to take responsibility and breaks down the idea of the immunity of individual wiki-projects to external interventions. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the user from politically protected Serbocroatist project. Calling for external interventions (and that way limiting the sovereignty of wikiprojects) is terrible. Serbocroatism is in close ties with (Yugo)Communism, therefore it reminds on Soviet intervention in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Kubura (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly, once more, Support Support all of the propositions in this RfC, especially banning all of the responsible editors, since all of their actions can be interpreted as not being encyclopedic, right-wing biased and essentially malicious --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says the user from politically protected serbocroatist project, a project that serves as playground/sanctuary for neoyugoslavist discontents and mostly built itself as botopedia. And the very idea of Serbocroatism is in opposition with the idea of Croatian language, and Croatia at all. Serbocroatism is incompatible with anything that has the attribute of Croatia(n).
Also, this user above that supports this RfC (Edgar Allan Poe) has a sockpuppeteering history (on hr.wiki) with five known sockpuppets on hr.wiki, and before he had a ban on uploading pictures (he oversaturated with uploading copyrighted images, deleted pictures from Commons he uploaded on hr.wiki [20]). In later stages of his work on hr.wiki, he was (short period) blocked because of mistranslating; his edit looked like the playing the game with poor software translations. Kubura (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kubura: Aren't you now saying similar things about shwiki that you are blocking people for on hrwiki? --Rschen7754 02:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, please, give me the diff. Generally, people are being on hr.wiki if they show destructive behaviour; depending on the level of destructiveness and previous activity on hr.wiki, they get blocked shorter or longer, sooner or later or simply they get a warning. Kubura (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kubura: The reasons for block are the provocative disruptive edit on the national Independence Day, and calling hr.wiki as "neofascist propaganda site" (!!!) [21] --Rschen7754 06:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754:, I have not in the very first edit massively removed the content on the highly sensitive topic on biggest national holiday that celebrates independence, and I do not call them "neofascist propaganda site". Kubura (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support After long debating with myself to add my official stance to this, i've decided to support this. I feel bad for numerous editors who were expeled from community, and can't contribute to Wikipedia in their own language. I was not member of that community, and was blocked for referenced small changes to the article(s). That was just one small example, I can't imagine what they did to their regular users with whom they didn't share their POV. I encourage stronger scrutiny toward other wikipedias as well - bs, sr and sh. Time to rise above. --Mhare (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support For all proposed actions except #3 They shouldn't be punished for their inaction, especially in a community where a part of it has a history of intimidate its detractors. ~ℳɑrio (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken with many administrators and could not notice any "extreme nationalism", especially not with Kubura. He is an excellent personality, always friendly and helpful. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Nonsense. The three targeted admins are one of the best admins on hr.wiki, hard-working and determined to do their job. Keep on the good work guys! --Ceha (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose As far as I can see, the same story again. The same man, aided by more or less the same (little) group of supporters, for the n-th time attacks and obstructs the whole Croatian project because of his frustration and personal anger towards the administrators and lot of the other users he quarreled over because of his aggression. The actions he proposed prove what kind of person he is. Removing the admin status, dismissing admins and giving them a lifetime ban from reapplying? Really? Does somebody want to punish administrators harder than the worst vandals? Administrators, who enjoy the support of the majority of the community? It is worrying that someone wants to be a dictator in the 21st century, on Wikipedia, and silence the dissenters by totalitarian methods. Same thing with checkusers and bureaucrats. ArbCom consisting of similar language-speaking editors? Is this a joke? It is ridiculous to consider Croatian Wikipedia should be controlled by users who are incapable and unwilling to put their own projects in order, such as Serbian Wikipedia, which is full of nationalism, chauvinism and historical revisionism, complete with numerous forgeries. Or „Serbo-Croatian“ Wikipedia, mostly composed of articles directly copied and pasted from the Croatian Wikipedia. Please, get rid of the senseless stories and stop bullying the Croatian Wikipedia. IvanOS (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misconstrued some of the action points. It's "lifetime ban from reapplying for an admin position", not a block (I never asked for anyone to be blocked), so no, nobody wants to "punish administrators harder than the worst vandals" - even if the damage they have done far exceeds anything a vandal could have achieved. GregorB (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Very good admins, Croatian Wikipedia with them is very high quality and accuracy. I want to give them full support and that they continue to do this quality work. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Strong support I was active contributor back on 2011.-2014. on Croatian Wikipedia, active translator on Meta etc. However many acts of Croatian admins (including comments on IRC after they found I was from "leftist" Rijeka) discouraged me from contributing to Wikipedia anymore. It is sad what happened to Croatian Wikipedia. Even biggest portal in Croatia is writing how awful Croatian wiki is now. --Anton 008 19:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Allegedly „biggest portal in Croatia“ is a portal inclined to yellow press, sensationalism, exaggeration, communism nostalgia, Serbophilia, Yugoslavophilia and generally biased presentation of news. And just this portal is usually cited, when an attack on Croatian Wikipedia is in the timetable. Why not other portals? And who cites it? Mostly users without their own user page or those without any single new article created. Those users are often supported by sockpuppets or/and provocateurs, who only write/talk about removing, deleting, banning, blocking, dismissing etc. Some of them write, for instance, „remove both - Checkusers and Beurocrats, all of them“ or „lifelong ban on editing any WMF project is appropriate” or „there is terror of some paranoid right-wing admins“ or „hr.wiki is a neofascist propaganda site“ or „create a cross-jurisdictional ArbCom for the similar language projects” or „merge the bs-, hr-, and sr-wiki projects into the primary one: sh-wiki“ or „globally lock all of them“! and so on. It seems that their only mission is to destroy. --Silverije (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silverije, your entire comment questions the integrity and motives of the critics, without as much as a word about the issue at hand: the three above-mentioned administrators, did they do something problematic or not? Have you read the Signpost article or its Croatian version? It lists a number of examples. What am I getting wrong? Please provide concrete examples. GregorB (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might not be getting wrong, but rather one-sided. Admins on Croatian Wikipedia reacted on editing which they understood as arrogant, blatant, provocative or as vandalism. Their reactions were very similar to such reactions of admins on English Wikipedia (and other wikipedias as well). Users showing inappropriate behavior (like [22] or [23]) take the consequences for their behaviour. As for the Jasenovac concentration camp or similar issues, the number of victims is rather a question of sources than of editors or admins. And The Curious Case of Major Milan Tepić, whose desperate and disastrous terrorist act was awarded with the “Order of the National Hero” in Serbia, shows how things can be turned upside down. --Silverije (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC
Why don't CW Admins go on de.wiki and similarly cite as the "only truth" convicted fraudsters who deny 98% of Auschwitz victims, and then claim it's just a "question of sources", and see how far that will get them. Or go on enwiki and repeatedly rail, as they've done on CW and here, about how "unreliable" and part of a vast Serbo-Croatist/anti-Croat conspiracy are Encyclopedia Britannica, enwiki, western historians, Croatian historians, the sources these historians cite, the US Holocaust Museum, the official Croatian Jasenovac Memorial, Croatian and international linguists, mainstream Croatian media, the Austrian government, German public television channels, etc. And then instead of these "unreliable sources", claim that the only "reliable sources" are right-wing Croatian websites that promote Holocaust-denial, and celebrate as "heroes" convicted Croatian war criminals and mass murders of civilians, invent "language genocides" while denying real genocides, etc. See how far that will get you on enwiki, plus massive reverts and blocks of sources you disagree with, endless name-calling, repeat refusals to provide any proof for your claims, claims that all this abuse is just "a question of sources", etc, etc. Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I strongly oppose these proposals, because they are backed with very hollow arguments.--Ejnal (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose all of the proposals because these may harm Croatian Wikipedia community by presenting the wiki to the public opinion as an extremist wiki. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got to be kidding!!! In Croatia, hr wikipedia is seen as an extremist wiki already. This RFC might actually change the perception for the better! --Hrwikiuser (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Strong supportFor all proposals

Under the mentioned three admins and aided by a significant number of loyal accomplices the Croatian Wikipedia was knowingly and willfully transformed into a fully-fledged propaganda platform for croatian far-right nationalist ideas, regulary promoting the same mindset and even theories as adherists of other fascist and nazist ideologies. This conflicts directly with the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Following facts led me to this conclusion:

  • Administrator rights abuse §
    • All three admins - Kubura, SpeedyGonsales and Zeljko - misused their administrator rights by blocking users who conflicted their far-right viewpoints based on shallow explanations as vandalism or even under dubious premises as insulting some a non existing sacrality by editing during national holidays.
    • Several CW editors were blocked after they dared to speak out on this RfC. Furthermore some editors decided to use temporary accounts only for this RfC as they fear to be punished for their whistleblowing.
  • Blacklisting sources §
    • As Thhhommmasss has pointed out K, Q and Z seem to have a clear concept of who/what is credible as a source and who/what isn't. The fact that holocaust deniers, openly fascist extremists and revisionists as well as far-right news portals who cite proven manipulators of evidence seem credible, while a long list of scientific institutions or individuals, including the Croatian Supreme Court, lingvists and historians, both croatian and foreign, and holocaust memorial organizations are declared untrustworthy, speaks for itself.
    • Following this edits which were backed by trustworthy sources but contradicted the opinion of K, Q and Z were subsequently removed or altered.
  • Admin POV §
    • On several occasions at least one of the mentioned admins openly displayed extreme POV, accusing others of being neo-yugoslavists, serbo-croatists, anti-croats, communists, serbs and plotting against the croatian national cause. Even on this RfC some CW admins, including others than K, Q and Z, continue to use this terminology and showing their lack of neutrality. --ValterUdarnik (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support 1, 4, 5, 6. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support on 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Neutral Neutral on 3. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I support the proposal, obviously, but I never actually spelled out which actions: 1, 2, 5 and 13. There are some other solutions worth considering, but I'm certain these four would be quite sufficient in both quickly resolving the issues and maintaining a long-term stability. Please don't forget two things: 1) the egregious stuff discussed here and the editors behind them have plenty of supporters on CW, because pretty much only the like-minded editors are allowed to freely edit, and 2) the three admins in question are unrepentant and would absolutely do it again if given the chance. Measures that fail to address these two points will almost certainly be insufficient. GregorB (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This RfC is extremely unethical, lacking principles and morals. --Malatrad (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Malatrad Could you please specify what exactly is "unethical" about this RfC? GregorB (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Observing the dynamical communication patterns, given the similarity to social networks, this is a fertile soil for thriving passive-aggressive behaviour. Ideal for the persons with no sense of right and wrong, no sense of ethical and unethical. Eluding direct confrontation with a true person, they can express limitless cruelty. Internet trolls belong to that type. The bigger supporter's audience they attract, the more rude are their verbal punches. This RfC is started by inflammatory upsetting false claims and followed by similar upsetting comments. This is the basic definition of trolling. --Malatrad (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support I'm not concerned with what was written on hr.wiki, since I cannot read the Croatian language. But what the defending parties wrote here betrays their intent to uphold the patriotic character of hr.wiki, which is a violation of the WMF Terms of Use, and therefore demands that the defenders of the patriotic character of hr.wiki should appear on List of globally banned users. Hr.wiki is the private property of the WMF and by using it for patriotic propaganda purposes they have severely violated the Terms of Use and the mandate conferred by WMF to each and every of its wikis, which demands encyclopedic neutrality instead of patriotism. Hr.wiki was never meant to become the handmaid of patriotism and it should be restored to ethnic neutrality. Wikipedia should never become a tool for advancing ethnic quarrels and it was never intented to serve only one nation. Those who do not understand that hr.wiki is a global, internationalist project which is against discrimination and which obeys the mandate conferred by the WMF do not belong among us. As previously noted, there is the precedent of Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel, wherein a bureaucrat of am.wiki had openly discriminated against homosexuals. Openly discriminating against other ethnicities is a violation of the principles adopted by the WMF and those who have actively discriminated should be site banned. Wikipedia is not allowed to be nationalist, nor homophobic. These are the rules of the game. Wikipedia is not allowed to serve the national cause of any country/nation. All those who have enacted the ownership of an ethnic group or ethnic POV over hr.wiki should be globally banned. I understand it quite well: this was mutiny against enciclopedic neutrality. They regarded the requirement of neutrality as a worldwide conspiracy against their religion and their nation. They regarded ethnic and religious neutrality as the handmaid of the Antichrist, a lie from the pits of hell. This should be a lesson to all wikis: Wikipedia admins who choose to serve patriotism rather than neutrality are violating the Terms of Use. They have the liberty to be patriotic on all websites, except WMF servers. I say User:Kubura has to be globally locked since he has discriminated against serbocroatist and neoyugoslavist editors, which is prohibited by the Nondiscrimination resolution passed by the WMF. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support for 1, 2 and 4. I'm not inclined to support 3 as there's no alternate plan to deal with a large project and 0 sysops. Someone suggested earlier that it become a gs wiki and as a gs, I think it's a terrible idea since the community seems to be rife with conflict and GS position should never, ever be brought into that. Oppose Oppose 5, it seems overly bureaucratic and taxing on what is already dwindling participation across the board. 6 isn't really a proposal so I'm indifferent. I would amend the language of 2 to say "indefinite" since indefinite is not forever (in theory.) I understand that we should let each community resolve its issues but POV pushing and abuse of tools effects the integrity of all projects, regardless of language. Praxidicae (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment Global-sysops would not be affected by this, since hr.wiki opted-out of global sysop wikis (per local consensus). Therefore hr.wiki would become a stews wiki. Since that is not desirable solution for the affected group (or in the long run), and in connection with #3, stews could indefinitely promote only those new admins who have the necessary valid local consensus (measuring that consensus either here on Meta-Wiki for technical purpose of using SecurePoll, or on hr.wiki). If #3 is not implemented, then #5 is the only way to ensure that the future cases be dealt by the local ArbCom (WP:AO; rules for it are already locally in place), and if BoT of the WMF decides to set up this sui generis & temporary ArbCom it could be dismantled by the Board of Trustees, since the Board created it (if anything would go wrong). I propose that the local ArbCom be formed here on Meta-Wiki, where all cases would be handled, discussed, documented… in English and in Croatian, that would ensure the highest transparency of the ArbCom (and many more benefits). -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 22:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment CommentI agree that given the level of dysfunction, an ArbCom is absolutely essential. However, we do not seem to have consensus on this as of yet. I would therefore suggest that the action items on which there is a consensus, be first closed out, and then discuss separately the specifics of the ArbCom to see if we can get a consensus on that. This could be done by starting a new ArbCom section for the discussion here, so it is not all over the place, or create a separate new RfC for the ArbCom Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on any item. --Silverije (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bracodbk: you're an admin on the CW, so could you elaborate a bit on your reasons for opposing? GregorB (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support All those "strong oppose" !votes convincingly demonstrate that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I support all proposals (the 6 above and the 7 additional ones below). To remedy this festering situation, harsh measures are needed. As a ommunity we failed the Azeri WP, let's not fail here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First take the log out of your own eye and then look for the speck that is other's eye, if any speck at all. The involvement of outsiders with "support" votes indicates contrivance of a false appearance of virtue.--Gjiuh (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose --Gjiuh (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I had never any problems with any of the admins on the croatian wikipedia, they were always helpfull. Also I think just because there are a few people, who can't take over the croatian wikipedia through elections and become admins, they try it this way. Get a critical mass on the croatian wikipedia and take it over there. I think all this should stay in house. Cikola (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Actually, the opposite is true. There has never been any bias on hr.wiki. It's those who complain here are trying to impose their bias. The dissatisfied users that support this RfC are imprisoned in their narrowminded views that are so strong that they are incapable to act without bias or judgment. On the contrary, Hr.wiki is excellent because they help newbies a lot. Admins are friendly, warm and pleasant. Hr.wiki provides a clear focus on the objectives. The accusations against hr.wiki I find here are poorly based and terribly boring. There is no abuse and violations of WP:PILLARS. Peregrin Falcon (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peregrin Falcon (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet. As you can see in his edits by year, he appears always in time of some crisis, or out of nowhere when his vote is needed. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sockpuppet or not, doesn't really matter because it merely continues the pattern, so I'm not going to even bother with the questions. GregorB (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot stay with my arms crossed when I see injustice and I did what I had to do. For You @Hrwikiuser: I propose that You instead of attacking the arguer, talk with arguments. Please don't blame others for the thing You exactly do because it makes You feel less guilty. @GregorB:, You have used something in small portion of the element that is questionably flaw, as a description of the whole system. --Peregrin Falcon (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never claimed I was describing the whole system. Why would I do that in the first place? I'm describing what's wrong and who's responsible. And yes, things are seriously wrong. If by "small portion" you mean the number of articles affected is small - surely you are not implying that right-wing bias would affect articles about field hockey players, animals, or villages in Mexico? GregorB (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Peregrine, so other wikis should then feel free to follow the lead of CW - e.g. openly proclaim an “anti-GreaterCroatist” agenda, then cite “publicists” and convicted fraudsters to deny or minimize crimes against Croats, while inventing genocides that Croats perpetrated, where there were none. Of course, they should then also follow CW Admins, and systematically delete and block people who dare cite historians and other Reliable Sources to contradict these falsehoods, block people who dare post links to RfCs intended to address the abuse, etc, etc. I’m sure you will be first to defend such a wiki, claiming it affects only a relatively small portion of articles dealing with Croats Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support 1 and 2. There certainly is a right-wing bias on hr.wiki when it comes to political and history topics, as well as some social topics and users with different views. Let me give some examples, some of which may have already been mentioned before. Unfortunately, I did not see a will to improve the situation by the admins subject to this RfC.
    • Example 1: In June 2019, I posted about the commons:Wiki Loves Pride 2019 photo contest in the Village Pump - a simple invitation for interested contributors to participate in it. It was met with mostly neutral to negative feedback - from accusations of it being used to "promote someone's agenda" (Kubura) to questioning if LGBT rights are human rights (Mateo K 01) later. There were also weird responses by other users (e.g. Roberta F.). This certainly isn't the first time LGBT topics were met with negative feedback or right-wing bias (e.g. when the CW article on Same-sex marriage was renamed by SpeedyGonsales to roughly "Marriage and homosexuality" (2013) and "Same-sex legal relationship" (2016); or this edit by Zeljko).
    • Example 2: the whole situation regarding Roman Leljak, the Jasenovac concentration camp, etc. I was blocked by Zeljko while, in my honest opinion, trying to make the article about Roman Leljak more neutral. Maybe another user can provide their opinion on this situation - discussion about it can be found on my CW talk page.
    • Example 3: In August 2018, I nominated the CW article on Atheism for a featured article. The article is well-sourced, neutral and covers the topic well. SpeedyGonsales promptly nominated another article, Mihovil Kombol, which is far shorter and less deserving of being a featured article than Atheism. Not to mention that the article, at the time of nomination, was still a stub. On the Atheism article's talk page Roberta F. wrote how the article was allegedly systematically biased, and how the accuracy of the article was disputed, without giving any evidence of that except for the definition of "atheism" in Hrvatska enciklopedija (which, for the record, didn't necessarily conflict with the definition of atheism in the CW article). SpeedyGonsales also added how Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source because of the encyclopedia's 11th edition from 1910-1911.
    • Example 4: the situation with me being blocked by SpeedyGonsales after posting about GregorB's Signpost article, which you can read in this RfC's "Comment about "Hrwikiuser"" section. Although the block reason was "personal attacks" and "impeding the working of Wikipedia", I do not see where I was attacking anyone. A more detailed description of that event can be read in the aformentioned section.
    • Example 5: right-wing bias in articles about left-leaning politicians (e.g. Ivo Josipović, Vesna Pusić). Such articles often include sections with various information on "controversies" provided by suspicious sources and fringe groups. I'm not saying that we shouldn't include information on controversies, but the sources need to be reliable and unbiased.

--Hmxhmx 19:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have time to analyze all this discussion, I will not comment on proposed measures. But, I must say I Strong oppose banning anyone from the project, especially Kubura and Zeljko, who are very productive editors and Kubura is very good in welcoming new users. --Suradnik A10 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suradnik A10: Note that proposals 1 - 6 do not suggest permanently banning them from making any kind of contributions on Wikimedia projects. It is proposed to permanently strip them of their administrator status (i.e. they would not be able to reapply for one, but they would still be able to contribute in all other ways). --Hmxhmx 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@suradnik10 - yes I'm sure he's good at welcoming users who are compatible with his openly proclaimed ideological campaigns against “serbo-croatism”, “neoyugoslavism”, etc, and also refrain from quoting from his hit-list of “anti-Croat” sources, like Croatian and western historians, and instead cite the “reliable sources” he's cited in this discussion, i.e. websites that claim genocidal concentration camps were mere “rest homes”, celebrate as heroes convicted Croatian war criminals, etc. If this is allowed on WP, then it might as well throw out NPOV, Reliable Sources and all other rules, and put self-proclaimed ideological warriors in charge of all WPs, give them the full authority to revert and block people they disagree with, including for daring to post links to Signpost articles and RfCs, etc Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Support for 1 and 4. Neutral on 2, because I don't think this step would be effective. Wary about 3, but eventually, {{support} because I don't think there's any other way to break up and perturb the clique sufficiently. Obviously, new elections for admins should come rather swiftly.
I lean toward support for 5, but I have not seen a doable way to implement it, and without such a proposal it is hard to decide on 5. I would be for 7 from the additional proposals, i.e. to start concrete discussions on such a proposal. I think this would allow for a long-term solution to the situation, which I don't see otherwise.
Neutral on 6, I don't believe in its effectiveness.
Finally, I am not sure how effective the implementation of any decision will turn out, and what would need to be done to get to a more unbiased situation. So many bridges have been burned, and so many well meaning contributors scared away, and so much groupthink groomed. I am honestly impressed by the work of the clique in the Croatian Wikipedia, and what it achieved, and I think it will be very hard to undo some of the damage caused by it without loosing the good parts. I wish something like 5 (or a path to that) could lead to such a resolution. I wish that 3 was not necessary, but I am afraid it is, or else there won't be a chance for an improvement.
I write this with a heavy heart. --denny (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Denny:, You have not been maintaining Wikipedia for over a decade and a half, You have been active only when it was necessary to evade the rule of two year inactivity. Otherwise You neglected the whole project. On the contrary, whome You attack with this message of Yours, have been dealing with all those vandals, trolls, graffiters, explaining to newbies, checking and revisiting them. Daily there is over 500 unpatrolled edits; if that is not solved, tommorrow is 1000. How many edits have You made in recent 15 years? Oh, sorry, 13? And You still use the tools that You've been stripped off by the community [24]. Have a look at Your activity in the mainspace.[25] If You follow just 80 (eighty) edits back, Denny's edits are (minor edits) from 2005.???!!! Not a single major edit!!! And after that Denny dares to say anything against anyone? Kubura (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I am thankful for the large amount of work that you and the others have put into the project. But as your answer to my vote here show, you have frequently found to be attacking other contributors. I wonder if, without these attacks, there would be a healthier and more diverse pool of contributors in the project overall.
The goal, at least for me, is not to get you removed from the project. But to allow for a larger diversity in point of view. Research has shown that such a diversity eventually leads to a higher quality of content. But you and others have been rather effective in reducing this diversity. With behavior, just as exemplified here, and in many other contributions that are linked to throughout this page and others. I fail to see that the goal of a larger and more diverse pool of editors on the Croatian Wikipedia can be reached with the behaviour you repeatedly demonstrate.
Nevertheless, my vote remains unchanged by the answer you have given to it. --denny (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In short, You have a right to Your opinions, but You are wrong. You are talking in demagogical phrases. Casting and repeating the phrases around like a politician that has no idea what's he talking about. Like politician that is repeating the words that certain group wants to hear.
Our pool is diverse. How can You say something about the certain project if You have not been present there for over 15 years? You can not judge a country from a postcard.
"Found to be attacking": wrong. The haters always like to present themselves as victims; their cherrypicking, misrepresentation and twisting the reality is not the argument, so it's not been exemplified.
Diversity is not affected. Those that are blocked are those that are militant, aggressive and disrespective. Every block has been thoroughly explained on the talkpages of the concerned users. The "exemplifiers" skipped that part. And You obviously have not read these talkpages. Read that before You judge someone.
It is easy to play "politically correct" and "play nice" when You do not maintain, when You do not confront aggressive and destructive users. When proper user is maintaining the project, he risks popularity, and also attracts weirdos on him, literally, even without any confrontation. The group of colleagues (power and ordinary users) that are maintaining hr.wiki have problems last 5 months with the IP that is threatening with the slaughter and rape; one of them have his privacy frequently exposed. You stood away. But treating rude destructive users is impossible with feather and tickling.Kubura (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Umuthi - So following the lead of CW, other Wikis should feel free to spread similar "love" by for example claiming that Croats committed genocides against Bosniaks and Serbs in the 1990's in Bosnia, and after Operation Storm, same as CW claims Serbs committed genocide at Ovcara, even though no reliable sources state any of this is the case. Also, following CW's lead, other wikis should feel free to cite convicted fraudsters, to reduce Croatian victims in various crimes by 98%, compared to reliable sources, etc. And should you and others try to fix any of this, by citing actual reliable sources, then Admins on these other wikis should instantly mass revert and block you, while endlessly ranting against "GreaterCroatists" and their lies. Of course you and other CW participants will then instantly claim that everything is perfectly fine with such other wikis that spread and enforce similar falsehoods against Croats, that CW insists on spreading and enforcing against others Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose There is a condition if and only if. Your theory is overstretched. Too many connected statements that require the truth of the other to be the true, and You fail. There's absence of necessary conditions to be the truth, and it does not get to the condition of sufficiency.--ImeldoMax (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
    • ImeldoMax, I don't understand what you're saying. Could you explain, preferably with some concrete examples? GregorB (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • GregorB, this can be explained with graphs and sets, but let's use good old math logic. Too many ifs, iffs, conditional chains and circular references. (If GregorB's claim1 is true) and (iff GregorB's claim2 is true) then step2. Step2, if reached at all, often is based on fallacies from step1, and step2 is equally formulated as step1. The mere international reputation of the source does not make the information as truthful. The infinitesimal fraction of these reliable sources check the facts themselves from the primary sources. Majority of them forwards someone else's information, and that someone else also was not checking the "ground zero", but it was just another link in the chain. --ImeldoMax (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • ImeldoMax, since you are referring to math, you should know one can't have "too many ifs" if one's logic is correct in every step. You are saying "if GregorB's claim1 is true". What does that mean? If you're implying some of my premises are false, please - I'm now asking for the second time - provide a concrete example. Regarding sources, you seem to be confusing reliability and truth value. If you ran into Joe Schmoe in the street, and he told you the Earth revolves around the Sun, he may be quite right, but you don't get to cite him in a Wikipedia article. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is an exaggerated request. This is not a request for comment. This is the request for demolition. Focusing on the particular users, FYI excellent contributors, is just a mean for the true goal of this request. It steals spotlight from the true intention. --TekstViler (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This place is out of competence for this RFC. Users outside of local wiki are totally incompetent to judge the others. This case belongs to the local wiki and discussion pages over there. The small handful of condemners play the role of a victim, obfuscating the true reasons why they were blocked on CW. --Stijenor NGC (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
  • Strong oppose Bad idea.--Hergel (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
  • Strong oppose I find it improper that army of non-contributors yesmans holds the trial to the most active users of a particular project. Yesmans that believe to and support calumniator's phabrications, although they don't know the matter that is he talking about.--Pasac (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pasac, surely "non-contributors" could be right and "most active users" could be wrong? GregorB (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • GregorB, A can not be the proper judge for the B. E.g., to a Westerner, the customs of some African tribes seem barbaric, violent and non-civilized, like drilling the neck of a with an arrow to extract blood for food. For those Africans, Westerners are barbaric, violent and non-civilized, because the Africans seal that cow's wound and that cow remains alive and that source of meal can be used multiple times, while the Westerners rudely slay the cow for a one time use. --Pasac (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Let's go back to the Statement of the issue. The writer wants the outside intervention. It is a method to make CW terminally dysfunctional, which is the ultimate goal of that Statement. --Šimungr (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support all proposals. Dismiss all current admins, put in a new set, carefully vet any new admins for a time until hrwiki finds its footing again. And why hasn't the Foundation bothered to close this one way or the other? Is there some procedure to raise this to their attention? If the Foundation thinks this is no big deal, so be it, but close the proposal then and say "not our problem we're hosting nationalist propaganda, nope, carry on." Anyway, agree with the above. The Wikimedia Foundation traditionally spends its money very poorly on boondoggle feel-good projects, but damn if this isn't a case for actual, paid staff. The existing hr Wikipedia user base needs to essentially be swept away and a new community needs to be built. That's an exceptionally hard task, maybe impossible. There needs to be multiple Croatian employees trusted by both the Foundation as well as any future user base to restore credibility on all sides. A project to scrupulously source and maybe use the English articles as a basis for contentious World War II stuff would also be in order. It's a hard task, but I feel that attempting it will be far more useful and impactful than any of the usual "let's hold an edit-a-thon!" style events the Foundation funds. SnowFire (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "use the English articles as a basis " Give us a break from colonialist civilizing mission. "The existing hr Wikipedia user base needs to essentially be swept away and a new community needs to be built." So You would eradicate whole community on ethnic basis and then hold speeches about extreme nationalism, Holocaust, other WWII mass crimes and so on.--Va Kozali morčić (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is part of why I think there needs to be a lot of staff, and their mission might well be impossible anyway. To be extra clear, I never said anything about getting rid of people on an ethnic basis, and in fact, if the Foundation decided to tackle this immensely difficult task, the core goal of any hired staff would be to build a genuine Croatian community for hrwiki from the ashes, rather than just straight port the Serbo-Croatian wiki's community or the like. In other words, a new community would need to be credible as not some sort of outsider import. I agree with you that would be bad.
      • Anyway, a thought experiment, Va Kozali morčić: suppose a band of Serbian nationalists took over hrwiki 10 years ago, banned anyone who disagreed with them, and put in lots of pro-Serb and anti-Croat material on the basis of fringe scholarship. Would this be a cause for action? Or should the Foundation do nothing in this hypothetical situation, fearful of going on some "colonialist civilizing mission"? SnowFire (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't "build a genuine Croatian community for hrwiki from the ashes". Current Croatian community is genuine and very functional. You can't eliminate whole body to please two single hairs for which You can't be sure that they belong to that body at all. "New credible community" means a couple of compradors. That is the colonialist action.
        • That is precisely what happened on en.wiki and de.wiki, more than 10 years ago. A band of Yugoslav nationalists and Serbocroatists (not a name calling, they replaced adjective "Croatian" with "Serbo-Croatian" and "Yugoslav" everywhere they got) mostly non-genuine community (not Croats at all), took over the Croat/Croatian topics on these wikis and put lots of pro-Yugoslavist and anti-Croat material on the scientifically misconcepted, politically apt and obsolete works of scholars, quack-historian journalists, all based on the wrong tenets. --Va Kozali morčić (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kozali, like all Balkan nationalists (including your Serb nationalist brethren), you guys keep claiming you're the “only genuine, true Croats”, when there are scores of articles in the Croatian media criticizing the bias on CW, plus Zagreb University historians criticizing the extreme bias on CW, particularly on WWII issues, etc. You guys repeatedly accused me and others of being “anti-Croat” because we dare cite respected Croat historians and linguists (the chief linguist behind the Declaration on the Common Language, that drives you guys crazy, is Croat, as are many signatories). Of course, you refuse to recognize these historians and linguists as Croats, because they contradict the Balkan-nationalistic propaganda, myths and lies that you guys peddle on CW, while at the same time, contrary to core WP principles, reverting and blocking people who dare cite Reliable Sources, like these same Croat and Western historians and linguists
          • You also repeat general accusations of bias on enwiki, yet when I asked you before to provide diffs proving this – i.e. that like CW, enwiki systematically reverts and blocks people who cite Reliable Sources - you failed to provide any proof. Kubura provided a diff proving I was blocked on CW for merely daring cite Croat and Western linguists. Not that abuse elsewhere justifies abuse on CW, but why don’t you at least provide diffs for your claims, although I'm sure that again you won’t, since this is a repeat pattern where you guys make unsubstantiated accusations, and then when people ask you for proof, you totally ignore them. Given this, any unsubstantiated, unproven claims you guys make should be considered prima facie false Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very interesting: „Dismiss them all“, „Sweep them away“, „Build a new community“ etc. Maybe invent a new hrwiki (?), … or… why not create a new Republic of Croatia (and give it the territory of Neverland). It all sounds like „Hang them all!“, or „Hang 'em High!, Hang 'em Anyhow!“, close this one way or the other (as the User:SnowFire says), „just Hang 'em!“. Or „Damn 'em!, at least“. And the perfection will be achieved (but not that of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry).
        • I wonder where such persons come from. Do they jump from time to time out of the film Hang 'em High (starring Clint Eastwood) or a similar one? Are such people aware of what they are talking about? Hard to believe.
        • Do such people come from the Wild or perhaps from the country where mass killings of children, students or other innocent citizens on the street, college or so occur almost every week or month? Nowadays, in the 21st century. Not a hundred or two hundred years ago. In Croatia there are no such mass killings. People in Croatia are tolerant and friendly. All other assertions are malicious propaganda. But people in Croatia cannot accept such an insulting spitting on them, like User:SnowFire has done. He probably hasn't heard that there are scientific researches and reports which prove that Croatia is a country with high inclusiveness and tolerance (e.g. [26] report from the University of Berkeley, California).
        • Thank God, members of the Wikimedia Foundation, who sit on the committees, councils etc., are clever and smart enough not to listen too much to those radicals and extremists. --Silverije (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note: I moved this reply down here, as you inserted this in the middle of a conversation and rendered it incoherent. Silverije, you misinterpt "close this now." I mean "close this proposal now, one way or the other." If the Foundation decides they don't care to take action, they should say so rather than letting this fester and kick up bad feelings, which is something you would presumably support. I am not suggesting that Croatian Wikipedia close.
          • For your other comments, yes, I am aware as to what I am talking about. Croatia is a lovely country. It is not true, however, that all of Croatia is on-board for historical revisionism and denialism, and that daring point drivel out means spitting on all Croatians. There's a perfectly valid Croatian Wikipedia to be had that isn't infested with this nonsense. SnowFire (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The more I see who supports this, the more I am convinced in obvious: that the Request and supporting messages are a cargo of rubble.--Va Kozali morčić (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kozali - The only ones making regular references to people's ethnicity are CW Admins like Kubura, who had problems with someone’s comments here, because as he wrote: “You are from Serbia”, plus he insults everyone he disagrees with as “a GreaterSerbianist”, and in his repeat “SerboCroatists” insults, it is clear that he has a big problem with the Serb part of the word. While Admin Zeljko complained that people are forcing the use of “Jewish sources”. Not to mention the nasty insult on an ethnic basis that I got on my Talk page, implying I was Serb and Bosniak, just because I dare comment here
On English WP people can cite Reliable Sources, and not get blocked. That is the opposite of CW where people get reverted and blocked from merely daring cite Croatian and international historians and linguists, who dare contradict the nationalist propaganda CW Admins are enforcing there, contrary to the most basic WP principles Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A passer-by wants us to kick out of the wiki our best men just because he "thinks" that his sources are unmistakable and non-biased. Get over it. GregorB's source is internationally considered as reliable, but 30 years ago it handled with false information as truth, and that information was internationally accepted as reliable, because GregorB's source had international reputation. But. The reliability of the source does not make the information as truth. The mere fact does. Katyn massacre was until 1990 internationally interpreted as USSR official historiography claimed, that Nazis had killed the victims. The number of deaths in Jasenovac camp was internationally interpreted as Yugoslavia claimed, and in 1990's the official number sharply declined. Serbian propaganda misused diplomatic channels and media connections at the beginning of Croatian War of Independence to blame the Croatia for neonazism, antisemitism, to becloud the true nature of events. Reuters forwarded the "news" about killed Serb babies in Vukovar. Intelligence Minister of Serb parastate in Croatia Savo Štrbac claimed that Croatian forces in the ample military Operation Storm have killed 2000 Serb civilians, HHO claimed it's 600, ICTY's Prosecution claimed it's 320, and the Tribunal concluded in the final verdict that there are only 44. No bombastic "we were wrong" from the persecutors, just some hidden line with correction, if any. What then? Oops? --Orašnik (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Orasnik - Just as Serb nationalist propaganda inflated figures for Jasenovac, so did Croatian nationalist propaganda massively inflate figures for Bleiburg, claiming 600.000 or more Croat victims, when demographic data show that altogether 190.000 Croats died in all WWII and post-war, and the same Croat demographers estimate around 50.000 victims of Bleiburg - ie. 12 times less than the inflated 600.000 figure - while government named-victims-lists show only 10.000 victims. Thus, these Croat nationalists inflate figures by same massive amounts as Serb nationalists, perhaps even greater
Same for the wars of the 90s. E.g. the Croatian government suit against Serbia claimed 123 Croat civilians killed during the Serb forces’ shelling of old-town Dubrovnik. Yet the International Court of Justice said that only 2 or 3 victims could be proven, since that is the number shown on Croatian police reports at the time, and they strongly implied that the other victims were falsified, via much-later produced documents. So again we have Croatian falsehoods, similar to Serb falsehoods.
So the question then is what is a Reliable Source when both sides engage in nationalist propaganda. Certainly NOT the convicted fraudster, Roman Leljak, cited on CW. Second, when Leljak, Vukic and other Holocaust-deniers are cited, at the very least people should be able to cite Croat and Western historians who dispute these claims, particularly when it can be proven that these sources, cited on CW, are massively lying. Yet on CW such citations by Croat and Western sources have been repeatedly reverted, and I’ve been blocked for merely citing what many Croat and Western linguists say about a common Bosnian-Croat-Serb language.
Thus the main problem is that CW Admins are enforcing their nationalist POV-agenda, while systematically reverting and blocking people who dare cite Reliable Sources which contradict this POV-agenda, totally contrary to core WP principles. Show me where other wikis are citing the above Serb nationalist lies, and then same as CW, systematically revert and block people who dare cite Reliable Sources, to contradict these lies. As with all such challenges to provide proof, I'm sure this too will go unanswered. But if for once you do provide proof of such similar systematic abuse on others wikis, I'll be the first to join in asking for sanctions Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thhhommmasss, the number of killed in Bleiburg and following massacres are not fully investigated and there was no resources and no possibility to neutrally research the matter on the site for 50 years, and some sites are still unreachable. For the Jasenovac issue Yugoslav regime had all that time available and they unused it and misused it for exaggerations. About Bleiburg, moronic nationalists will always inflate the numbers, but reasonable Croatian patriots will try to examine the case carefully. New mass graves from Bleiburg/Way of Cross with true bodies ever appear, unlike with Jasenovac, so there is a ground for the speculations. But the case of Bleiburg is not the issue here.
Homeland War Croatian victims are not the issue here. In any case, these are known by the name so there are very very few falsifications.
Roman Leljak might be convicted for fraud, which means that he lied in one segment of his life, but that does not mean that he lies constantly and in every segment of his life. Reasonably, the verdict decreases his level of confideniality, but I repeat: the verdict does not make the source (of information) as always truthful or deceitful. The mere fact of particular case does. High quality science investigates on a case by case basis. If a researcher (being professional in area or not) is a messenger that brought the news (result of a research) that You dislike, that's not a reason to disqualify him. Leljak and Vukić challenged previous results with their results that revise previous results. That's how science works. It's up to other researchers to challenge and test their methods and results. In scientific way. Not with logical fallacies like ad nauseam "it's not" and ad hominem disqualifications "Holocaust deniers". That rule applies also to opposing authors, both Croatian and other Westerners. Historiography is a science and it does not have tabooized dogmas that are not allowed to be researched or confuted.
CW Admins do not enforce any nationalist POV-agenda. They accuse You that You enforce anti-Croat POV agenda. You are biased (not bad intrinsically), You refer to the Croatian Homeland war with euphemism "wars of 90's". You equalize Croatian and Serbian war fabrications as if they were equal in figures. Scientific community is not homogenous, everyone has its own point of view (POV). POV per se is not something negative. The "nationalist POV" can be correct, and many times is, because they do not fall under the pressure and influence of the mainstream (ad populum, ex cathedra), because they see what others don't see, what others are not allowed or not enabled to see, or what others don't want to see. Neutrality or "let's meet on the half way" is not correct way, and that is proven in Old Testament times. Case of Solomon, two mothers and a child.
Remember the meaning of "if You could walk in my shoes". If You had Croatian experiences, You would have similar (if not the same) opinion.
Croatian users are systematically reverted, topic banned and even blocked on other wikis because they dare to cite Reliable Sources which contradict agenda imposed there. Mostly on en.wiki and de.wiki, but en.wiki matters, because misinformations from that project spread elsewhere.
AFAIS, You got a block for trolling, provoking, ignoring discutants' words and often imputing people the words they did not say. Not for mere citing "what many Croat and Western linguists say about a common Bosnian-Croat-Serb language", Your edits are in such spirit. You were guilty. Your block expired long ago and I do not see the reason why do You waste everyones time with antediluvian stuff. Happy editing, --Orašnik (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, Croat nationalists have repeatedly made massively-inflated victim claims for Bleiburg, even Tudjman wrote so. As for the convicted fraudster, Leljak, he’s claimed that an obviously very partial named victims list, from the first post-war chaotic year of 1946, represents the true number of Jasenovac victims. Why doesn’t the same convicted fraudster go to Germany, and try to make the same patently ridiculous claim that the only true number of Nazi Belsen concentration camp victims is 12, since only 12 named victims were known in 1946, as opposed to the 50.000 now estimated. Why doesn’t he go and claim that perhaps only a few hundred Auschwitz victims, on named-victims lists 1946, is the only correct victim number, and that everything else is a lie
Second, not only does CW cite a convicted fraudster, but Admin Zeljko stated that this convicted fraudster, who denies 98% of all Jasenovac victims and also the vast majority of Croatian and Bosnian Holocaust victims - has “the only truth”, and that everything else (including what Croatian Western historians and the US Holocaust Museum write) is “falsifications and lies”.
Third, when I specifically sought to cite Western and Croatian historians who contradict Holocaust-deniers like Leljak and Vukic, I was repeatedly reverted and blocked. Kubura stated that sources widely cited by Western historians, and considered to be “the most knowledgeable and objective” (e.g. German generals), can’t be cited on CW, because they are “anti-Croat”, because they dared write of massive Ustashe crimes. Kubura in this discussion explicitly stated, and provided a diff, showing I was blocked for merely daring cite what many Croat and western linguists say about a common Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian language. Show me a diff where I was "trolling"
If this is all OK then de wiki Admins should feel free to cite convicted fraudsters who deny 98% of Auschwitz victims, proclaim that these convicted fraudsters have "the only truth", that what historians and Holocaust Museums write about Auschwitz are "falsifications and lies", etc. If de Admins disagree with what linguists say about the German language, they should feel free to block people who dare cite these linguists. At the same time they should feel free to proclaim the're doing all this in pursuit of a "pro-German" and "anti-Slavicist" or "anti-EuropeanUnionist" agenda, just like CW Admins proclaim a Croat-nationalist, and "anti-SerboCroatist" and "anti-neoyugoslavicist" POV agenda. Of course Serb wiki Admins should also feel free to cite convicted fraudsters who deny 98% of Srebrenica victims, and deny 98% of Croat victims at Ovcara and elsewhere, declare this "the only truth". make hit-lists of all western historians who they consider "anti-Serb" and therefore can't be cited on Serb wiki, block people for citing western linguists who say things about the Serb language that goes against their nationalistic myths, openly proclaim a "pro-Serb" and "anti-Croatist" agenda, etc, etc, etc
Btw you wrote above „If You had Croatian experiences, You would have similar (if not the same) opinion”. Similar opinions are used by Balkan-nationalists on all sides, to promote collective guilt and ethnic hatreds (like whoever recently left an insult on my meta Talk page, calling me “Srbadija”, an ugly name for Serbs, and implying I'm Moslem, i.e. Bosniak) According to this collective guilt principle, then all Serbs and Jews would have the right to hate all Croats much more, given that contrary to the Holocaust-deniers cited on CW, most western historians state that the greatest genocidal killers in the region were extreme Croat-nationalists, the Ustase. Similarly the Hague Court determined that in the wars of the 90s, Croat forces carried out an aggression against Bosnia and committed many crimes against humanity. Thus, according to Croat-nationalist “logic”, of hating all Serbs because of Serb aggression and crimes, then all Bosniaks similarly have the right to hate all “GreaterCroatist” aggressors and criminals
I note this because some others have written here that some resentments voiced by CW Admins may be understandable, given the history. If so, then Serbs, Jews, Roma and Bosniaks certainly have a much greater right to profess much greater resentments targeted at Croats. But of course, none of this is right, since there is no such thing as collective guilt. And even if Balkan-nationalists on all sides continuously propound such hatreds, while minimizing and denying their own crimes and inflating the crimes of others (as is done over and over on CW), such behavior certainly has no place on WP, much less when it is practiced by CW Admins who repeatedly violate core WP principles. Thhhommmasss (talk)
  • Strong oppose I am political leftist and I contribute with leftist ideologies, parties and movements. My edits have never been reverted at all. The articles I created have never been reedited to unrecognizable condition. So Your claim about far-right bias does not stand.--Radion (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
    • Radion: so, what you're saying if that your articles "have never been reedited to unrecognizable condition", but other articles have, that's just fine? GregorB (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Radion, I glanced at your contributions, and the majority are categorizations, and where you did more it’s been mostly on international themes (War in Angola, other African issues, Max Adler bio, etc). I do not see a single contribution to WWII, 90s wars or other controversial historical subjects in the region, which are the main source of nationalistic distortions, and the main source of complaints in Croatia and elsewhere about CW bias (if this is not the case, can you provide an example of where you edited such articles). In any case, as GregorB notes, even if you personally did not experience problems, this does not justify other repeat, systematic abuse described here. To me it does not matter the least if anyone is a rightist, leftist or whatever, nor does their ethnicity matter, unlike CW Admins who complain about people from Serbia participating and “Jewish sources”. The only thing that should matter is that they follow WP rules, and clearly on nationalistic hot-button issues in the Balkans (history, language, etc), CW Admins have failed to follow the rules Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thhhommmasss, You judge a book by its package, neither by the cover. You just glance and make conclusions. Too many and too daring requirements You make just based on a glance. WWII is international theme, and I made cotribution on theme of rise of development of radicalisation in Pre-WWII Austrian society that led to nazism. When speaking about "Admins who complain about people from Serbia participating and “Jewish sources”", You use spins, or You are not able to understand the context. Being from Serbia has never been a problem on CW. But, Serbia and Serbs blackmailed Croatia throughout post-WWII Yugoslavia and now with Jasenovac myth. Exploited a lot to prevent international recognition of modern independent Croatia. When a user from Serbia engages in an RfC turned against the Croatian users that he finds as the major serious danger to that myth, because these users have scientifical background, than You have a problem with bias. Jewish sources are good, because their records helped unmasking the multiplications, as shown in one post here. The bad sources he meant were the activist wannabe-historians that misuse the major tragedy of Jewish people for their private goal, and some but not all of them do act according to "Ceterus censeo Croatiam esse delendam" and for that cause they choose no means. Cordially, --Radion (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • So obviously the German generals and Croat historians I cited also all “conspired” with these same Serbs you say conspire against Croats. That’s why my citations of these sources and historians were summarily reverted, and Kubura said I can’t cite these sources, because per him they’re “anti-Croat”, because they dared criticize Ustashe genocides. On the other hand, unlike Croat and western historians, holocaust-denying “publicists” and convicted fraudsters are AOK to cite on CW, because per CW Admins they have “the only truth”.
Like I said, there are similar Serb nationalists, who per your words also claim that people “misuse the tragedy of the 1990s”, to “blackmail and destroy Serbs”. Obviously, they need to follow the example of CW, to systematically revert and block people who dare cite historians and others who wish to "blackmail and destroy Serbs”, and instead cite Srebrenica-denying “publicists” and convicted fraudsters, who deny 98% of Srebrenica victims, as well as deny 98% of Croat victims of Serb crimes in the 1990s. Then Serb WP admins need only proclaim this as “the only truth” to bring Serb WP in to same “high quality” as CW
And to rationalize all this, same as CW Admins and editors, all they need to do is repeatedly cite Croat-nationalist massive, false multiplications of Croat victims, like the 10-times or greater multiplications of Bleiburg victims, or per the International Court of Justice the very likely 40- to 60-times multiplications and falsifications of Dubrovnik old town bombing victims, plus the very likely 20-times multiplication of Croat victims at Vukovar-Velepromet, or the estimates of more than 300.000 Bosnia 90s War victims by the UN, when these victims are now estimated at 100.000, etc, etc. This of course will justify citing convicted fraudsters on Serb WP who similarly disprove "the myths" of Srebrenica and Ovcara, and reduce the Bosnian and Croat victims by 98%, to follow CW's example
Btw, since as Prof. Klasic stated, “the scandalous CW” is widely referenced in Croatia, now on Jasenovac Commemoration Day one frequently sees in Croatian online media reader comments who cite the same holocaust-denying “publicists” and convicted fraudster cited on CW, to proclaim that Jasenovac is just a fraud. So when Serb WP follows example of CW, on the day commemorating Croat victims in Vukovar and Skabrnja, Serb-nationalist commentators will be able to similarly cite convicted fraudsters from Serb WP, to claim these Croat victims of Vukovar-Skabrnja are similarly just massive multiplications, frauds and inventions. In fact to follow CW’s example further, where CW gives lots of space to the massive lie of a “post-war Jasenovac”, where Croats were supposedly the major victims, Serb WP can cite “proof” that Serbs were in fact the major victims around Srebrenica (as some Serb nationalists claim), and that Serbs were also the major victims in Vukovar, so that this too can be repeated on Vukovar remembrance day, just like the CW-cited lies of a “post-war Jasenovac” are regurgitated on Jasenovac remembrance day. Because why should CW be the only one that gets to spread falsehoods and massive lies to promote ethnic hatreds and future Balkan wars Thhhommmasss (talk)
Thhhommmasss, You are a spin-doctor. When one tells You "brown, You say "I was told 'pink'". These "anti-Croats sources", when speaking about Jasenovac and other alleged locations, are not good because the ground for their claims is ipse dixit. You can not hide that much dead bodies, they are somewhere or they do not exist at all. When and if the forensicists find those skeletons, we will gladly correct the numbers.
In all circumstances, when 1,000,000 drops to 80,000, and still no skeletons found, that is the good reason to challenge the numbers. Contrariwise, the bodies in Vukovar and Škabrnja are found and majority of them are identified, some with 29 years lag. Their cause of death is forensically confirmed, no room for speculations. From fresh post-WWII history, the skeletons of persons killed in end-war and post-war killings are found in the tank trenches, coalmines etc. Why antifas resist to digging and identification of those skeletons and want to "get out of historical traps and move on to the future"? Why are they are so sure that these skeletons do not belong to e.g. Jasenovac camp victims?
Klasić acts as the attorney of the stereotypes and lies of the Yugoslav historiography and newer Serbian historiography, e.g. qualifies Serb aggression on Croatia as a "civil war", "because the Serbs were Croatian citizens". That is the unability to know the basis of law. Civil war is when all parties involved want to be the part of the same country, and in Croatian Homeland War rebel Serbs did not. Klasić qualifies the victims of end-WWII and post-WWI persecutions as guilty "in advance", with the presumption of guilt. Instead of using presumption of innocence, like civilized Western society. He said: "We can't speak about innocent victims on Bleiburg, because among them were, besides dead civilians, culprits for crimes." He blames in the lump and that way he justifies the killing of innocent persons. That is the way how totalitarist aparatchik thinks. It is scandalous that he spreads his way of rationalizing to Western civilizations.
Srebrenica is not the topic here. Serb nationalists You speak of have been using Jasenovac myth for decades to excuse their imperialist policy and crimes. "Croats killed zillion Serbs in Jasenovac, they must pay for that, we have a right to destroy Croatia, anyone who questions this dogma is extreme right nationalist, 'enemy of people', reactionary burgeoisie and he must be eliminated".
What will sr.wiki do on their project, it's their will.
Serb nationalists do not "follow the CW example", they have been doing that since 79 years ago. As if the CW is "guilty" for Serbian nationalists' actions. They did not need the existence of CW to spread and justify their POV agenda. You speak from Serbian nationalist stand, Thhhommmasss. --Radion (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Radion - sure "anti-Croat sources", like the University of Zagreb history professors I cite, plus German generals and Nazi sources who all wrote of hundreds of thousands of Serb victims of Ustashe genocides, and 100.000 victims of Jasenovac alone, plus describe their eyewitness accounts of Ustashe extermination of children in "work camp" Jasenovac, and their eyewitness accounts of the brutal slaughter committed by "Max's butchers", i.e. the genocidal killers of Jewish, Serb and Roma women and children at Jasenovac, whom extreme Croat nationalists like to sing praises to. That's why "anti-Croat" Croat historians, and German sources are summarily reverted from CW, while they freely cite holocaust-denying "publicists" and convicted fraudsters.

Per your Balkan-nationalistic reality-distortion of the 90s Wars, here's obviously another “anti-Croat” - the Yale international law prof. Damaska, a Croat who served on Croatia’s genocide suit against Serbia, and who says that basically no courts have determined a Serb aggression on Croatia (see answer to question 4), and that per the courts this was a civil war. That is in contrast to the Hague court's explicit judgement of Croatia’s aggression on Bosnia in the 1990’s, as can be seen in the case of Dario Kordic. Thus in typical Balkan-fashion Croat nationalists claim Serb aggression in the war in Croatia, where no Court determined an aggression, while denying the internationally-judged Croatian aggression on Bosnia. Obviously, these international Courts and prof. Damaska are all part of the same “anti-Croat” conspiracy that you and your CW cohorts constantly rail about.

Incidentally, the International Court of Justice denied Croatia’s claims of Serb genocide in the 90’s, noting among other things that 99,7% of Croats survived this “genocide”, while pointing to cases where the Croat side massively inflated Croat victim numbers, by much greater multipliers than Serb inflation of Jasenovac, even stated that there is absolutely no proof for some claimed massacres, and denied Croatia’s claim of 12,500 Croatian victims of the war, instead confirmed only a few hundred named victims (thus per one of your buddy's prior claims above of only 42 proven Serb victims of Operation Storm, the Hague then also proved that at most a few hundred Croats were killed during the entire 90’s war, since that is all they name, and per CW Admins everything else is “falsifications and lies”) .

Thus again we have in typical Balkan-fashion Croat nationalists falsely claiming genocide against their side (CW perpetuates that by falsely claiming a Serb “genocide” at Ovcara), while at the same time citing massively-lying “publicist” and convicted fraudsters who deny the true Ustashe genocide’s against Jews and Roma, with 80% and nearly 100% exterminated, respectively, down to newborn, and nearly one-in-five Serbs exterminated and killed. Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose The advocates of Serbo-Croatian cause want to abolish something Croatian.--Anfiets (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
  • Strong oppose I am shocked by outrageous proposals for blowing up whole project. It is easy to destroy the house You've not been building. --Dvastaorla (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
    • Current Admins have driven away many contributors with their systematic abuse, here is one story in the Croatian media of just one Wikipedian who was driven away, even naming the current Admins. The title of the article, published in one of Croatia’s largest circulation dailies is: 'Croatian Wikipedia has fallen into the hands of a handful of egoists who have destroyed its reputation'. The article further states that it “It is impossible to count how many potential contributors dropped out of the project because of aggressive reverts” by Admins who seek "to impose their political views”, which has transformed Croatian Wikipedia into “a shameful grotesque”.
If these abusive Admins are removed and the abuse stops, many of these contributors will likely return. In fact if these abusive Admins are removed, CW may well flourish, since as someone stated "most editors on sh-wiki are refugees expelled from hr-wiki. They diligently write articles and sh-wiki has 450,000 articles versus hr-wiki having 212,000 articles". That's what happens when people aren't mass-reverted and blocked, as on CW, contrary to all WP rules, for daring cite Reliable Sources, like Croatian and Western historians, to contradict the holocaust-denying lies peddled on CW Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here are some answers dealing with content and the author of „one story in the Croatian media“:„Court epilogue of persecution of administrators on Croatian Wikipedia“,„Močilac the Chemist has very shallow Biblical knowledge“, „Who is Pavle Močilac, a dangerous primitive man who attacked rector Boras?“.
And who really is Pavle Močilac? Egoist or much more than that? A threatener born in Serbia who wrote that „he would take a machine gun, poison gas, bomb or explosive and kill them (excrements) all“ (meaning Croats). How nice and polite, isn't it'? And such persons, who would really destroy its reputation, complain they cannot edit on Croatian Wikipedia. Certainly not; with a machine gun in their hands, poison gas etc.– by no means. --Silverije (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Silverije, here’s Vecernji list, a right-leaning newspaper, noting the Facebook post by the same Pavle Mocilac (who they say is a researcher at the Czech Academy of Sciences), wherein he responds to Zagreb University President, Boras’s, claim that the public Zagreb University should be founded on “Biblical values”. Mocilac responds this is contrary to the Croatian Constitution, which states that Croatia is a secular nation, even though he says Boras is “free to personally believe whatever he wants” (had a public university President in the U.S. proclaimed that the public university should be founded on “Biblical values”, the outcry would've been much greater).
I know you CW folks have tremendous problems with facts – like the facts in the Croatian Constitution, facts of what many Germans said about Ustashe genocides, facts of what Croatian and Western historians and linguists write, which is why CW mass-reverts and blocks people for daring write such facts. Regarding what Mocilac allegedly, separately, many months earlier commented on Facebook, I don’t see Vecernji stating this, only some unknown websites, so I won’t respond to that, and in any case that comment was specifically aimed at a Croatian political party, not as you falsely claim the whole Croat people (btw the same political party that the Hague International Court names hundreds of times as being responsible for the Croatian aggression against Bosnia, and numerous crimes against humanity),
What people with no WP official function write on Facebook about political parties concerns me much less than the holocaust-denying massive lies systematically, widely peddled to young people and others via official CW Admins, on official WP servers, contrary to all WP rules. Also instead of personal attacks on political parties on FB, I’m much more concerned when official WP Admins repeatedly rail against Serbs and “Jewish sources”, seemingly demanding an ethnically-cleansed CW Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you on something, Thhhhommmasss? CW was well flourishing before those media attacks performed in Stalinist manner. Many hr.wiki users left because of leftard media persecutions. Vecernji list is not the right-wing newspaper since 2012. The only thing that sh-wiki (that You glorify) does is to diligently copy articles from hr-wiki and sr-wiki and abundantly use bots. Sh-wiki is in handful of egoists who try to destroy the reputation of CW. Sh-wiki is the example of shamful grotesque by people who want to turn the wheel of history back, and to revive Demikhov-type political-language creature that has always been dead. Sh-wiki is a safe haven for those who justify notorious "health education" that includes Kinsey's "research" that is a NSFW content. In short, You justify terrorist Milan Tepić, Communist regime iudicial system (presumption of guilt) that resulted in mass murders (killed bodies exist), Tribunal that uses double standards (no pressure, no allegations regarding "exaggerated shelling" of Vukovar, Karlovac, Zadar, Gospić..., no persecution in whole vertical till the private soldier), Pavle Močilac (who misused FB for hate speech and call for violence, to "use the machine gun, bombs, battle gas" on the gathering of founders of HDZ; would he get away if he said so for gay parade?), armed attack on HDZ (as Močilac described) and international community whose policy that included non-recognising of independent Slovenia and Croatia, Croatian language and defense of Jasenovac myth encouraged Serbian aggression.--Dvastaorla (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dvastoria, you further made my point by among other things ranting against Kinsey “research” (putting research in quotation marks) and railing that sh.wiki should not be able to quote such research, along with Croat and international linguists, German WWII sources, Croat and Western historians, Croatian Supreme Court rulings against Croat war criminals (promptly erased by Speedy Gonsales), and infinite other facts that are mass-reverted from CW and people blocked, against all WP rules. So to prove your rantings, why don’t you show diffs where sh.wiki similarly blocked people for citing Reliable Sources, like CW Admins openly posted diffs, showing they blocked me for daring cite Croat and Western linguists. I and many others have repeatedly asked for proof your many allegations here, but as long as you refuse to give any proof, you’re obviously just falsely making stuff up, same as CW peddles holocaust-denying falsehoods and massive lies in its articles. Regarding what that guy, with no official WP role, may or may not have said on Facebook, you’re free to report him to FB, if indeed any of that is true, while WP should deal with official CW Admins spreading documented holocaust-denying lies and perpetrating abuse on WP servers (btw, instead of FB writing, WP might investigate who from a Split IP address faked here Cyrillic hate speech against Croats, and then from the same IP person insulted me, calling me an ugly name for Serbs and a Moslem, showing his true leanings) Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose How self-righteous can you be to utter such disgusting accusations against the project whose language You don't even understand and whose national history You don't know?--Kutni Rez (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support for any or all viable proposals above or in other sections below. The problems and evidence have clearly been piling up for years. The direct testimony and arguments presented here by the admins themselves is the most damning evidence of all. From legal threats to rabid paranoid nationalistic ranting, they are blatantly and grossly incompetent as editors, much less as admins. They have no understanding of Neutrality, and no grasp of the purpose of Wikipedia. They clearly do not understand that it is not a National-Croatian Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia that happens to be in Croatian language. Things like Neutrality are non-optional, and may not be overruled by any admin or any local consensus. In regards to this RFC I want to strenuously emphasize that consensus is not a headcount, the fact that these admins have so terrorized their wiki that a number of ideologically-purified users could be called in to cast worthless oppose votes should not undermine the clear consensus of the impartial global community. Not only are they destroying the reputation of Croatian Wikipedia, not only are they damaging the reputation of Wikipedia globally, we are failing in our core mission to serve readers if we fail to act here. Alsee (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read first the text a few centimetres above, where you can find some of the answers to your comment, before you start writing generally and broadly? --Silverije (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup to my !vote above: I am a long standing responsible EnWiki community member. Among my work, I am experienced RFC-closer. I closed a 10-vs-20 RFC[27] with consensus for the 10 because a closer is supposed to evaluate consensus by "judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".[28] The 10 were largely impartial uninvolved editors applying policy, and the 20 were largely canvassed Nationalistic POV-warriors with no knowledge or respect for policy. One side was supported by had few (if any) responsible Wikipedians. I just randomly checked on the most recent opposer, and I quickly found that they are a historical-revisionist Truth warrior citing an insane conspiracy theorist website as a source.[29] The source hrvatski-fokus.hr is filled with crazy conspiracy theories. Skimming the science section I found anti-vaxx conspircacy, evolution conspiracy, and climate conspiracy theories. Glancing at the Religion section I found that the church is being "infiltrated" by homosexuals, and that Corona virus and other pandemics are a retribution from god that can only be cured by prayer. That is not just crazy, that is deadly-dangerous. One of the Admins cited in this RFC, Kubura, also cites the same insane source.[30] This source is cited 121 times on HrWiki.[31] If we spent the time to examine all the opposes here, I have no doubt we will find few if any "responsible Wikipedians" among them. There is something seriously wrong if we can't do anything when AzWiki and HrWiki are taken over by obviously abusive ideological warrior admins. Alsee (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee, You are a long standing EnWiki member that in seven years have not written a single main space article [32][33] and has blank user page. There is a same mold of blankist users that like to play the role of supreme court that always condemns. The site You disapprove is highly esteemed. You rush to conclusions. No deep introspective, just by skimming. As if You judge the newspaper by the sections of caricature, leisure (usually contain those conspiracy theories) or horoscope section. You are in a confirmation bias. In the examples You presented; this source [34] You name as "insane" is the esteemed local historian, romanist, publicist and University professor [35]. The other source cited is a text by serious columnist [36] and her original text is not a conspiracy theory, but a serious publicist analysis [37]. FYI, the question of infiltration of homosexuals into the Church arose when in 1980's there was an outbreak of AIDS epidemia in monasteries in USA [38]90, 91. History like any science knows no permanent "truths" and revisionism is the necessity. You failed as the evaluator. Go and start doing something useful for a change, like writing main space articles. --Verud (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verud, on this very page Kubura cited as his “NPOV authority” on why Jasenovac should not be called a concentration camp, the website “braniteljski.hr”, as the title states, a website geared to 90s Croat war vets. Thus, according to him they should have the final word on defining how things are called on CW, not the Croatian official state Jasenovac Memorial, plus many Croat historians, as well as by far the predominant usage on the .hr domain, all of which call Jasenovac a concentration camp. Despite this overwhelming evidence, SpeedyGonsales on CW lied that the term concentration camp is not used in Croatia for Jasenovac. Obviously following this lead, Serb wiki should cite as their lead “NPOV, Reliable Sources” on Ovcara, Srebrenica and other Serb war crimes, Serb websites geared to Serb 90s war vets.
For like the Jasenovac revisionists, widely-cited on CW, Serb revisionists of Srebrenica also claim they’re way ahead of the “falsifications and lies” of western historians (to use CW-Admin Zeljko's words). And when they get around to similarly revising Ovcara, with the “truth” that Serbs were the main victims of Ovcara (just like Jasenovac-revisionists invent a “post-war Jasenovac” with Croats as the main victims), I’m sure you’ll be the first to welcome this “necessary revisionism”, and also congratulate them on the healthy impacts such Ovcara revisionism has on the entire region, when they publish these “truths” on Serb wiki
@verdun, I checked the sources, cited on CW by Kubura, that you claim are esteemed and serious, like Lili Bencik, whose total, self-described qualifications on her Linkedin page consist of: retiree, plus for 4 years as a self-employed editor. In contrast, there was a commission of Italian and Slovene historians who wrote a report on the events in Istria and Trieste, and this professional report differs substantially from the falsehoods peddled on CW, via Kubura’s citations of the self-employed editor, Bencik (e.g. the commission estimated a total 3.000, mainly fascists killed in postwar reprisals in all of Istria and Trieste, vs. Bencik’s claim of 15.000 killed in Trieste alone, etc) Regarding the claim that Tito ordered the bombing of Split, as proof the cited publicist, esejist and French language teacher, Frano Baras, cites the Ustashe newspaper, Novo doba. So following the lead of CW, obviously regarding “the truth” for the wars of the 90s, one only need similarly cite Serb French language teachers who cite Milosevic’s papers from that period, as comparable “NPOV”, “Reliable Sources”. All this Kubura cites from hrvatski-fokus.hr, a website that engages in Jasenovac- and holocaust-denial, and proclaims the convicted Croat war criminal, Slobodan Praljak “a hero above heroes” - i.e. perfectly in line with all the other holocaust-denying “publicists” and convicted fraudsters that CW Admins cite and insist have “the only truth”, while they systematically revert and ban people for daring cite Croat and international historians, plus other Reliable Sources Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are self-proclaimed experienced and long standing responsible EnWiki community members(!?), like User:Alsee, who have found that „almost all Croatian Wikipedians (precisely: few if any "responsible Wikipedians" among them) are irresponsible, inexperienced, canvassed Nationalistic POV-warriors with no knowledge or respect, historical-revisionists, deadly-dangerous Truth warriors citing insane conspiracy theorist websites as sources“, etc. etc. etc. How nice! Anything else, please? And all that from such allegedly responsible users with hidden identity, possibly secret agents with vague and troubled past, who most probably hardly speak Croatian language properly, but who have found themselves competent and relevant to discuss and to judge the matters they see through their extremist glasses. Thanks for the information anyway. --Silverije (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones who have successfully cleansed many Croats from CW are CW Admins. Many have simply departed because of the repeat abuse. CW Admins have repeatedly reverted citations of Croat historians and Croat linguists, proudly proclaimed here they blocked people for citing same, even reverted citations of the Croatian Supreme Court, plus flat out lied on CW to contradict Croatian state institutions, Croatian dictionaries and predominant language usage on the .hr domain (all 3 of which call Jasenovac a concentration camp), because obviously all these are not “Croat” enough for them - i.e. all these Croats dare contradict the extreme ideological propaganda and lies they peddle on CW. In fact, one of the biggest lies they peddle is that only they represent all Croats, when there is plenty proof that their extremist views do not represent even the majority of Croats. In any case, regardless of any ideologies, no WP Admins should have the right to trample on core WP principles, as they’ve repeatedly done Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose GregorB, Your personal beliefs are so strong that you can't tell them from the reality. You are detained in your beliefs. The reality cannot pour into your world, because all your neurons are occluded. --Žvane (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, as Admin Zeljko stated, the only “reality” are the holocaust-denying “publicists” and convicted fraudsters cited on CW, and everything else is “falsifications and lies” – i.e. everything written by Holocaust Museums, Croat and Western historians, German generals, Croat and international linguists, the Croatian Supreme Court, Croatian dictionaries, etc, etc, etc. That is why people who dare cite all the latter are reverted and blocked from CW. Like flat-earthers, Balkan nationalists insist the rest of the world is wrong, but that does not mean WP should also give free-reign to a flat-earth wiki, particularly when, as historians write, the toxic mess peddled on CW, via WP servers, produces wars and mass-killings 19:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Personal attacks? It seems to be vice versa. --Silverije (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. * Pppery * it has begun 00:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understading? Well, let me explain then what I meant. You've written above: „opposing reasons appear to consist primarily of personal attacks“, and I said „It seems to be vice versa“, meaning just the opposite, i.e. „supporting reasons appear to consist primarily of personal attacks“. Was I clear enough? --Silverije (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This RfC stands for Rant for Crap. It violates the five pillars of Wikipedia. #1 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a quasi-judicial body as this RfC. #2 This RfC is written from the partisan point of view. #3 It turns the Wikipedia into the limited content that only politically suited can use, edit, and distribute. #4 It treats unsuitable editors with disrespect. They are always on suspect's chair and exposed to uncivil accusations. #5 The messages of this RfC are: #5.1 The rules are strict and You must be straight on the line. #5.2: Be a coward, don't You dare to say anything if the Committee does not tell You that You can, and what You can. This RfC is a major endeavor to alter entirely the essence of Wikipedia.--Moderni futurist (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@moderni -another general rant, as we’ve now witnessed for over 6 months, without any facts to rebut the many specific charges against CW Admins. The message of this RFC is that you must follow WP rules, like NPOV and Reliable Sources, instead of citing massively-lying, holocaust-denying “publicists”, convicted fraudsters, “self-employed editors”, Croatian websites that also engage in holocaust-denial and celebrate convicted Croat war criminals, etc, while at the same time systematically reverting editors who dare cite Croat and Western historians, Croat and international linguists (then openly bragging here about blocking people for daring cite Croat linguists), even reverting citations of the Croatian Supreme Court, contradicting Croatian dictionaries and common Croatian usage, etc, etc. Plus just during this RfC blocking people for merely posting links to Signpost and the RfC, repeatedly attacking and trying to discredit people by finding infinite ways to call them Serbs (since per CW Admins such ethnic attacks are obviously greatest insult they can think of), railing against “Jewish sources”, proudly, loudly proclaiming a nationalist POV-agenda - all of which we’ve witnessed during this RfC, along with repeat vandalization and outright hate speech, intended to disrupt the RfC. They've repeatedly attacked and sought to drive away all who do not agree with them, and this endeavor is entirely to try to save WP from the massive abuse and violations of core WP principles, perpetrated by CW Admins and their cohorts Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Wise Dostojevski long ago wrote in his novel Idiot, through the character Yevgenij Pavlovich, "our liberals are not capable to allow that someone has own different opinion, without responding to the opponent with the sequence of insults, and with something much worse." The same applies here.--Neadin (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]
Again generalities, which hav nothing to do with the many specific charges against CW. The only ones systematically censoring, reverting and blocking people for daring cite Reliable Sources, are CW admins. And they’ve proudly proclaimed so here, even providing diffs to prove it, stating that people can’t cite sources they’ve declared as “anti-Croat” (e.g. Croat and Western historians, international linguists, etc), just like all totalitarians proclaim those they disagree with as being anti-this-or-that
And even if CW Admins were not systematically censoring, WP is not a free speech platform, where everyone gets to use WP servers to espouse any POV-agenda they wish, like the nationalist Croat agenda CW Admins have openly proclaimed, and many Croats disagree with. Instead all must follow WP rules like NPOV, Reliable Sources, etc. If you want to push your POV, get a blog, Facebook or Twitter account, where you can say pretty much anything, even delete and block those who contradict you, as CW Admins do Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is You who want to block those who contradict You. You even up the freedom of speech, freedom of scientific research with nationalist POV-agenda. The generalities from Dostojevski's novel do have many things with these charges against CW. If You want to push Your POV, organize a support group, take a drum and lament together over the exposed myths.--Neadin (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again generalities, zero specifics. I did not block anyone, instead the CW Admins blocked me for daring cite Croat and Western linguists and historians, because this goes against their POV-pushing agenda. Kubura even attached diffs proving this was the case. So they’re blocking my freedom to cite Reliable Sources, as per WP rules, while they themselves cite holocaust-denying convicted fraudsters and massively-lying “publicists”, as “the only truth”. They instantly reverted my citations of Zagreb University history professors who contradict these massive lies. There is no freedom on WP to cite massively-lying convicted fraudsters, in support of openly-proclaimed, POV-pushing, Balkan-nationalistic agendas. The holocaust-denying “scientific research” on CW, is same as the Srebrenica-denying “scientific research” pushed by your Serb nationalistic brethren. Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A request founded on "reliable sources". Not all written sources are reliable, no matter how strong the reputation of the source is. Established rating agencies with a century-long strong good reputation proved on daily basis also made major failures and errors throughout their history. For example they have been assigning the AAA credit rating to the junk securities for a long period of time, and the result was the the Great Recession in mid-late 2000s. Equal issue here. The reputation can not change the fact that junk information is always the junk, and junk argument is no argument to disassemble an entire language wiki.--Gretim (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more claims that CW should not be based on Reliable Sources. This goes with previous abundant proof and admissions that they've blocked people for daring cite Reliable Sources, open proclamations of POV-agendas by CW Admins, etc. Thus repeat admissions and proof that they've violated core WP principles like NPOV and Reliable Sources, and are proud of it. If this were a jury considering a case of self-confessed murder by someone standing over a corpse with a still smoking gun, obviously the jury would be still mulling things over after 7 months. In fact this is more like being an eyewitness to a murder, since they've continued with violations of core WP principles throughout this RfC - blocked people for merely posting links to to Signpost and RfC, insisted that POV-proclamations by their approved politicians are "the only truth", cited here as their "reliable sources" websites that engage in Holocaust-denial and celebrate convicted war criminals, complained of people being from Serbia while finding infinite ways to call someone a Serb as their main "argument", not to mention all the vandalization and even hate speech, intended to disrupt this RfC. So perhaps WP principles, like NPOV and Reliable Sources, mean absolutely nothing when it comes to CW Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Two months ago I cast a support !vote. Ideological admins have been disregarding Reliable Sourcing and NPOV and other Policies, and have abused their tools to create an ideologically-purified community that disregards (and doesn't understand) Reliable Sourcing and NPOV and other Policies. Since I posted my support, the HrWiki community has only further condemned itself by submitting the following oppose rationales:
    • Kumordinar Žorž: Opposes by equating this RFC to ethnic cleansing. That is about one millimeter shy of Godwin's law. Bravo!
    • Žvane: Sole rationale for opposing is that they disagree with others' "personal beliefs". Personal beliefs are irrelevant. You should be working from Sources and Policies instead.
    • Mala Truba: Gives no reason whatsoever for opposing, other than to complain about "holier-than-thou" tone.
    • Verud: Opposes because hrwiki is "ran by prudent approved users". The entire REASON this RFC is necessary is because the admins only allow ideologically "approved" users to edit.
    • Guburljuk: Doesn't give any reason for opposing, other than content-free personal attack "activistic marginals backed with deletionists want to feed their megaego". They combine that with a simply false claim that the RFC would "expunging a language wiki from the face of the Earth".
    • Moderni futurist: Opposes with a largely content-free and incoherent attempt to appeal to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Essentially they argues that this type of RFC is inherently invalid (simply false, as kind of RFC has been used before), and the rest argues from raw unsupported partisanship.
    • Neadin: Opposes on the basis of a work of fiction, titled Idiot, arguing they are being persecuted by liberals.
    • Gretim: Gretim argues from the clearest and worst sin of all, that Wikipedia is supposed to contain Truth. They flat out argue that sources with a "strong reputation" should be disregarded, because theoretically it could be wrong and because Gretin presumes themselves the arbiter of Truth. Gretim has decided to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to GIFT the world with Gretin's Truth. Tip for all editors: Wikipedia does not contain truth. Wikipedia is (or at least should be) an accurate summary of what Reliable Sources say. If all of the science textbooks say the moon is made of cheese then Wikipedia must accurately summarize those sources. Wikipedia is not a place to debate or resolve Truth, it is not a place for Truth-warriors. Alsee (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is both the reason why I postulated the CW community is dysfunctional and, in particular, why I stressed it is "vital to choose the actions which, on the whole, cannot be subverted, worked around, or even rolled back through local consensus". GregorB (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support 1, 2, 5, 6. Everything here is extremely troubling, and I think while banning all admins is too much, there should be some sort of committee to look at all the admins and ban them on a case by case basis--Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Bossy people want everything to be their way. They want to direct others, give orders, impose deadlines. To that cause they initiated this Request for comment. They speak with a lot of authority, as if Wikimedia is their ownership, but they represent no authority here and they do not own the Wikipedia. GregorB and Thhhooommmmmassss are not in charge of hr.wiki. --Hari Tre (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I support all proposals. The admins of Croatian Wikipedia have been abusing their powers for far to long, plus, while this isn't the place for it, they've done a lot of troubling and questionable stuff to not only me, but a bunch of other people. They have their own questionable mindsets. The Croatian Wikipedia is troubling and needs some taking care of. Imjusttherediting (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[39] (hidden edit) This is what You have done, and I protected Your identity and age (by hiding Your edit), and later I also showed You the confidence by candidating You for the status of the autopatrolled user. You returned with insults/provocations on the religious basis in the userspace and disrespect toward the adult person. That will not be tolerated. Kubura (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget about the fact that you tried to turn me christian, insulted all of the LGBT, tried telling me that I'm only bi because I was brainwashed, did everything in your power to make sure I feel about "choosing" to be bi, continued spreading christian propaganda VERY invasively, giving me bad anxiety, kept on getting all up in my business and then pretended you were the victim when I retaliated. Had you not almost given me a panic attack, I wouldn't have supported this. Imjusttherediting (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Imjusttherediting:, do not twist the words and do not forward the conversation without the explicit consent of all participants. Further, I did not try to turn You Christian, You know very well what's been written. When You say certain untrue or bad things about particular religion, expect that the believer of that religion will react and defend his religion. For Your (under)age You declared that You are [40] I am blasphemized that You post such stuff and that You are familiar with such iconography, terminology and expressions. Do Your parents know? These are not things for You to know and deal with at that age! Kubura (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since Kubura won't provide the context, which is expected, I'll give a quick TL;DR. Basically Kubura said some pretty nasty homophobic things about Imjustthereediting's bisexuality claiming that he's only bi due to the influence of the media. Then that conversation turned into Christians hating the LGBT Community. Then he abused his power on the Discord Server (who would have guessed?) by banning him and me (a different story, I'm in a hurry curently, I'll probably write more tomorrow). On that server you have to vote to get someone banned. I've informed him about this but he continued with kicking and banning without a voting. That was yesterday. This morning (it's almost 22 clock currently) Imjustthereediting jokingly awarded him with a LGBT-related award (the hidden edit). Because of this Kubura took away his autopatrolling right (could be called differently) and gave him a week ban. Just another typical abuse.

P.S. I got banned during the time spent writing this.Croxyz (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are "quoting" things from non-wiki site. Further, You are not allowed to proceed the conversation from any conversation without the consent of all other participants. You are not allowed to filter things You said and the way You misbehaved and disrespected other participants; e.g. tell who called whose ancestors as "faggots". Further, check the age of user Imjustthereediting. I never said anything against LGBT community. It is You who encourage user Imjustthereediting with that. By the way, check his (under)age and how much is he below the the age of consent!!! Tell his parents that You are encouraging him with certain things. And watch them in the eyes as You say that. Kubura (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the non-wiki quotes were necessary as they provided context for his argument to prove your abuse of power. Also, you're proving his point. One, if he's not supposed to bring up non-wiki things, why are you arguing them. Two, he can join the conversations, this is a free place to express your thoughts, let him be. Three, yes, you've said so much horrible stuff against the LGBT. Pertaining to but not limited to: "Kids shouldn't be encouraged to join the LGBT", "You're only LGBT because the media brainwashed you", "His parents probably force him to be part of the community", I could go on. Four, he hasn't encouraged me to join the LGBT, I was born bi and I'm happy this way. I don't need his or your approval. Furthermore, Croxyz was way less disrespectful and rude in those conversations, you wouldn't give up spreading christian propaganda, meanwhile Croxyz didn't try to spread anything. Also, why is it ok to spread christian propaganda, but the LGBT is off limits? Five, just because I'm underage doesn't mean I can't identify as bi, nor does it mean I can't chose not to be religious. I'm underage, bi and not christian and I'm proud, and you and Croxyz didn't play a part in any of that. Bottom line, you're biphobic and try forcing your beliefs on someone else, and abuse your power and block them (and in my case, take away all their rights to boot) if they retaliate. I hope this was a decent reality check Imjusttherediting (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[41] You do not qualify to have the ID, you are that young. Being bi is one thing, distributing such posts with being that much underage is completely other thing. Distributing conversations is not allowed, as well as misrepresenting told things, as well as hiding your misbehaviour. You have already breached several laws. Kubura (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear everyone,
Croxyz stood with Imjustherediting kept harassing, provoking, annoying and being dispolite and disrespectful towards Kubura, even after Kubura warned him twice.
Here are the examples. Kubura wrote on Imjusth talk page: "Here I suggested You for the autopatrol status. Don't let us down." After that, Imjusth answered "Thanks, I feel so accepted". Also, Kubura did not provoked Imjustthere in his userspace. Contrary to that, [Imjusthere provoked and insulted Kubura with anti-Christian edit on Kubura's userpage. He was not blocked, he got only yellow card. Additionally, Imjusthere after Kubura's warning posted a message "learn to joke a little, honey". Do I need to add anything more after this?
I am not even autopatrolled but he is because he tolerate him as a person and what he is but looks like Imjustthere he doesn't tolerate Kubura as a person and what he is.
Best regards, Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, first of all, everything I could tell Kubura has already been said. He's biphobic, pushes ideologies on other people, abuses his power and hates when people stand up for themselves. As for you Uspjeh, the good things Kubura's done do not outway the negatives. It doesn't change the fact that Kubura's given me severe anxiety over the past week, and has nearly given me a panic attack on two separate occasions. Sure, I wouldn't autopatrolled if it weren't for him. I would also not have anxiety over my sexuality and religion if it weren't for him, I also wouldn't be super insecure to join Croatian Wikipedia again if it weren't for him. If it weren't for him I wouldn't have lost a bunch of friends from Croatian Wikipedia. Kubura's surrounded by yes-men and sympathizers, which is why I think this change is necessary. Also, I wanna point out that Uspjeh isn't exactly innocent here. He threw himself into the situation Kubura and I were going through for no reason just to white-knight him, and then made fun of me when I was blocked. Both you and Kubura need to grow up and get off your high horses. Imjusttherediting (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, Imjusttherediting, your attack against Kubura was both unacceptable and unhelpful. You should immediately stop. Present evidence instead.
Second, does anyone have on wiki diffs of Kubura or any other admin making religious, sexual, or any other sorts of personal attacks? Note: if the diff is deleted from the page history, you can just link to that page history and we can get someone to check it anyway. Any attempt to conceal such edits would just demonstrate further abuse. Alsee (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I have evidence of Kubura removing my rights on hrwiki for no reason other than me doing something he didn't like. If you have a way for me to contact you I'll send you the evidence. Plus, if you just go to my talk page you'll see Kubura blocking me. Also, I don't see how saying that he gave me an anxiety attack is me being unfair to him, sorry, I guess I'll get an anxiety attack some other time. Maybe do some research before butting into a conversation when you think you have a valid argument. Imjusttherediting (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imjusttherediting I was referring to your edit to Kubura's user page. I am trying to get Kubura's admin rights revoked. No matter how much you thought Kubura deserved it, you made it a little bit harder to get their admin rights revoked when you did that. It is not helpful when the storyline becomes "Kubura blocked an abusive editor". If you want to succeed, it helps to play it smart and keep your cool and don't cross the line yourself. Alsee (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee, I fail to see how one case of me making a dumb joke makes me a harmful editor. I vansalised a user page, a warming would've done the job. And sure, I responded with a sarcastic remark, but I fail to see how thats punishable. Not only was blocking me u called for, but him removing my rights was way to far. I'm not that innocent, but neither is Kubura, and the abundance of examples fellow users have shared should prove how Kubura is definitely harmful too. --Imjusttherediting (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee, here is one example of Kubura attacking an atheist in 2014. That person left wikipedia, never to come back.

Znaš li šta je oksimoron? Stavljaš si u potpis "kontra mraku, kontra sili" (kao iz pjesme Olivera Dragojevića "Hajdučka"), a onamo predlažeš za izabrani članak ateizam...

— Kubura
Translation: Do you know what oximoron is? When You put "against the dark, against the force" (like in football klub Hajduk's fan song fom Oliver Dragojević), but at the same time candidate article "Atheism" for selected article. In the rest of the message, he goes on explaining how Hajduk fans are christians.
Few days later, she replies:

Nije mi jasno što te navelo na onu poruku, a još manje shvaćam što si točno htio reći. Ako mi objasniš što si točno mislio, vjerujem da ću ti moći odgovoriti.

— Svefnleysi
Translation: I don't understand what led you to that message, much less understand what exactly you meant. If you explain to me exactly what you meant, I believe I will be able to answer you.
She had one more comment 6 minutes later. Kubura never explained his comment. She never came back. She had over 900 edits on Croatian wikipedia. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee Just during this RfC Kubura sought to delegitimize people merely for their country of origin (i.e. “You are from Serbia...”), plus many times attacked his opponents with ethnic epithets, e.g. “Serbocroatists” (he obviously has no problem with the Croat portion of that, just the Serb), and finding many other ways to call everyone he disagrees with a Serb (GreaterSerbianists, etc). From anonymous IP addresses in Split Croatia during this RfC I've been also called "Srbenda", akin to the the N-word for Serbs. Also from a Split IP address someone wrote "Kill Croats", i.e. outright hate speech, written in Cyrillic script to appear as having come from a Serb, but most likely a provocation to generate anti-Serb sentiment, since person from same Split IP address called me an ugly name for Serbs (these IP vandalizations, some of which came after midnight local time, shortly after one of the apparently Split-based Admins also posted, were permanently deleted by Meta Admins). Likewise in the RfC Admin Zeljko complained of people supposedly trying to force citation of only “Jewish sources”, with clear implication that merely their ethnicity is somehow disqualifying. Attacking people because of their country of origin, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation should alone be grounds for IMMEDIATE revocation of Admin rights Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just browsing, looked at this page, and I saw how crazily long all of the discussion is. However, I believe this is needed, this kind of stuff needs a light shone upon it. I fully support all of the actions taken in this RfC (most of the points I have about this are already explained in Rosguill's response at the top of the section), and thank GregorB for being bold enough to put this on the table.

However, what I fear is whatever outcome is made, a very very large amount of shit is going to hit the fan. Blocks will be made, and dummies will be spit. Dibbydib (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed, there is a looming question of what is going to happen after the RfC, assuming it does result in concrete action. Some recent developments indicate the problem with Croatian Wikipedia is very deep and may be difficult to fix. I'm going to describe these concerns in a separate section in the bottom of this page.
Another problem is obviously the RfC mechanism itself. I don't think anyone who sees the discussion will conclude this RfC is a good example of how these things should be handled, but this is what we have at the moment. I'll comment further on this topic in a separate RfC, Requests for comment/How to improve RfC Process, and I'm hereby inviting others to do so. GregorB (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this RfC's going super slow, and my biggest fear is that, because of how long and clusterfu*ked up this RfC is, this will be closed silently and no action will be taken. As if someone's gonna go through all of this and make a decision. We could create like five subrequests for this. None the less, I really appreciate all the work you've put in. Imjusttherediting (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussion section break

Answer to falsified allegations

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Here's the hrwiki version, just in case. George Ho (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is, as I stated before. I don't now why you have a problem with Croatians in Bosnia. --Ceha (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
This is the diff that was used as reason to ban me. --Mhare (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And again, you have a problem with Croats in Bosnia, and you tried to provoke an edit war. --Ceha (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Ivan VA:, You are playing the game "I do not know what are You talking about (although everything has been explained to You), so explain me". That is trolling. This is insult on religious basis You wrote [42] and You got the other explanations on Your talkpage. Kubura (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kubura: What has been explained to me? That i'm a SPY?!? for the Serbian government??? What an insult on a religious basis? I don't even know what religion u are. U made the point that u regard yourself as a shepherd of the hr.wiki community. I just made the obvious association where the metaphor comes from. U blocked me INDEFINITELY for exercising freedom of speech. --Ivan VA (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult to follow some of these arguments if people are unfamiliar with Balkan nationalisms and history, but here’s one easily-verifiable item – Question #1 raised here by others, including Croatian media, as to why the CW Jasenovac article is titled “Sabirni logor (Collection Camp)” instead of “Komncentracijski logor (Concentration Camp)” as on en, de and all other wikis. The hr Admins first answer that is what the Ustashe called the camp. But all mass murderers use euphemisms, yet I doubt we'd want a WP article titled “The work-sets-you-free Auschwitz camp”. But beyond this, all their other claims are false. For example, their claim that “the Croatian language for collecting people in one place uses the word "sabiranje" (collection), it does not use word "koncentracija" (concentration), except sometimes for German camps". But contrary to their claim, the Croatian state Jasenovac Memorial indeed calls it “Koncentracijski logor (Concentration Camp) Jasenovac”. Googling “Koncentracijski logor Jasenovac” on the .hr domain, we get nearly 2,400 articles, vs. only 600 articles for the CW term “Sabirni logor Jasenovac” (most of the latter in holocaust-denier articles). The Croatian Language Portal not only lists the adjective "koncentracijski", but they define "Koncentracijski logor" (Concentration Camp) as a “place of mass detention for forced residence, forced labor, and the killing of political opponents and/or racially, religiously and nationally discriminated groups in totalitarian states” - thus, contrary to CW, clearly indicating Croatian uses concentration in this very sense, and not just for Nazi camps

I guess per Kubura this proves the Croatian Language Portal and the entire .hr domain must've been taken over by "anti-Croats". Actually, the CW Admins are not only inventing their own facts (e.g. who is “anti-Croat” and can’t be cited on CW), but their own version of the Croatian language, different from the Croatian Language Portal, the Croatian internet domain, etc. Yet this might still be considered just a case of semantics, but for the fact that the Holocaust-deniers they cite on CW insist that Jasenovac was indeed just a “collection-” or “work-camp”, where inmates put on plays and played soccer, not the concentration/death camp described by the US Holocaust Museum, the Croatian Jasenovac Memorial, countless western historians, etc. And when people try to cite these other sources to disprove the Holocaust-denial lies, they mass-revert edits and block people Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thhhommmasss, You are playing the game of playing "I do not understand". [43] "Sabirni (koncentracijski) logori su ...". Your "argument" is from ex-Yugoslavia, where the form in Croatian language was treated as nacionalistic (with further extending the accusations to "ustahi, fascist, nazi", especially when talking about military terminology and WWII. Kubura (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura, you're quoting one right-wing portal, which same as other genocide- and Holocaust-deniers, calls Jasenovac a "work camp", versus the concentration/death camp that is called by the US Holocaust Museum, most Western and many Croatian historians. Instead of one right-wing portal, I quoted the official Croatian state Jasenovac Memorial which uses "Concentration Camp Jasenovac", the entire .hr domain which in 80% of the cases employs the same term, plus the Croatian Language Portal, a publisher of Croatian language dictionaries. And all this is present-day usage, not from ex-Yugoslavia, as you falsely claim Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[44] Quoted page explicitly makes difference between "sabirni (koncentracijski)" and "radni". You cannot count all .hr domain; there is no such tool. The use of term of "koncentracijski" is because of intertion from previous system, and that system preferred internationalisms, which is the characteristic of Serbian standard language. Recently a scientific work has been published that had recension and that is the work in the historiographical magazine of national academy of sciences.[45] (Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru). Keywords: Croatian "...sabirni (koncentracijski) logor,..." English: "... (concentration) camp...". Kubura (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again proof as to why the CW Admins should have been long ago removed. Kubura is again citing a website geared toward 1990's Croatian war veterans, as “the authority” that the WW2 Jasenovac concentration camp should not be called a concentration camp, instead of the US Holocaust Museum, numerous western and Croatian historians, the official Croatian state Jasenovac memorial, who contrary to CW all call it a CONCENTRATION CAMP. By all means let's then cite Serb websites for Serb 1990’s war veterans, as the ultimate "NPOV, Reliable Source" authorities on Srebrenica, Ovcara and WW2 Serb war crimes, over numerous historians. As Zagreb University history prof. Hrvoje Klasic noted, CW is "scandalous", and it's an even greater scandal that WP has allowed these gross violations and total disregard of core WP principles to continue to this date

Btw, Kubura’s claim about usage on the .hr domain is also patently false, since anyone can quickly google the entire .hr domain for “koncentracijski logor Jasenovac” (i.e. concentration camp Jasenovac) vs “sabirni logor Jasenovac” (collection camp Jasenovac). They’ll see that the first returns 3 times as many pages, the top one being the official Croatian state memorial, which calls Jasenovac a CONCENTRATION CAMP, again contrary to the holocaust-denying falsehoods systematically peddled on CW, with WPs approval

btw#2 - unlike the holocaust-denying falsehoods that Wikpedia lets CW systematically spread via WP servers, the official Croatian encyclopedia also calls Jasenovac a CONCENTRATION CAMP, even a death camp, in which 70.000 to 100.000 people were killed. Here's the link: https://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?ID=32708 Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if I may add my two cents, it is kinda sus to me that CW refers to Jasenovac as a Collection camp as oppose to a Concentration camp, when I can't find a single other Croatian portal that refers to it as a collection camp. Also, CW seems kinda inconsistent when it comes to differentiating collection and concentration camps, but I'm still just a kid and maybe there's a difference that I'm not seeing so what do I know? Imjusttherediting (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason CW promotes deliberate falsehoods by insisting to call Jasenovac a “collection camp”, as opposed to concentration camp (which is what the official Croatian encyclopedia, the state Jasenovac memorial and majority of Croatian websites call it) is to engage in systematic genocide- and holocaust-denial, which they also peddle by citing convicted fraudsters and proven massively-lying “publicists”, who likewise falsely claim that Jasenovac was a mere “collection-” or “work-camp”, where no mass extermination took place. Simultaneously they delete and block people for citing Croatian historians, who say otherwise. But this has long ago stopped being the responsibility of CW, and is instead 100% the responsibility of WP, which in its continuing failure to act allows such massive lies on its servers, in total contradiction to its own professed rules, thus also perpetrating fraud – i.e. prominently promising to deliver encyclopedic, NPOV, reliably-sourced articles, while knowingly permitting the use of its servers to deliver the opposite
And given the total failure to act on these gross, socially-harmful violations of its own core principles, I think WP seriously needs to start looking at some very different ways of dealing with this, since current processes are not working. As I mentioned, the proposed RfC reforms will do absolutely nothing, if there is a core unwillingness or incompetence to act in defense of core WP principles. Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Proposed Criteria

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)[reply]

  • 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

  • 8 seems foolish because this would mean everyone they blocked gets unblocked, including vandals. --Rschen7754 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I'd say at least review those blocks before unblocking Saederup92 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • I see we agree that vandals and sockpuppets should not be welcomed with open arms. No argument there. I also think your admin corps has proven to be a bad judge of both, first for believing I'm a sockpuppet, second for templating, annoying and blocking users who are obviously not here to do damage to the project. To repeat my example: blocking contributors because they contribute in obvious good faith but in a way that annoys patrollers is biting newbies, creating an unwelcome atmosphere and driving away good contributors. Do you dispute that? I'll also add that I think the reason this goes on is because you're obviously all friends and it's easier to pretend that everyone who argues with you is a vandal and/or a Milošević troll than to disagree with a friend. That's why I give up hope of you listening to my reasons. Ending with a quote from Jimbo Wales about the project Nupedia:
The idea [behind Nupedia] was to have thousands of volunteers writing articles for an online encyclopedia in all languages. Initially we found ourselves organizing the work in a very top-down, structured, academic, old-fashioned way. It was no fun for the volunteer writers because we had a lot of academic peer review committees who would criticize articles and give feedback. It was like handing in an essay at grad school, and basically intimidating to participate in.
Daß Wölf (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • #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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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) SOCK comments stricken[reply]

@Lordluka99: Some concrete examples of "misrepresentations", "inaccuracies", and "faking of the truth", please. GregorB (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
GregorB showed us the opposite. Nor do I see any concrete argument here against the proposal. --Acamicamacaraca (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose the additional proposals due to the same reasons of the initial proposes above. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support Strong support # 7. Short of merging Croatian and Serbo-Croatian wikis (which would be my first choice), I think that this would be the best way at preventing further abuses. It will also help with other language wikis that have similar problems (eg Azerbaijan) and combat the tendency for ethnolinguistic groups to push their own POV on their wikis. Buidhe (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose All those additional proposals are just variations of earlier proposals, variations on the same theme, having the same goal: an attack on the Croatian Wikipedia, attack which causes only a confusion and mess, and could have severe consequences. There are some users from distant parts of the world who don't speak at least a few basic words of Croatian language and who would like to merge Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia. What about merging Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia too, which are also similar, or perhaps Spanish and Catalan? --Silverije (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverije: all these editors who have read the Signpost article and this RfC, and then decided to support some of the proposals - what are they getting wrong? What am I getting wrong? Please be as specific as possible - I do believe I was quite specific in providing evidence. GregorB (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GregorB: I've already answered such question, but I'll do it again (because Repetitio est mater studiorum [46]): „You might not be getting wrong, but rather one-sided. Admins on Croatian Wikipedia reacted on editing which they understood as arrogant, blatant, provocative or as vandalism. Their reactions were very similar to such reactions of admins on English Wikipedia (and other wikipedias as well). Users showing inappropriate behavior (like [47] or [48]) take the consequences for their behaviour. As for the Jasenovac concentration camp or similar issues, the number of victims is rather a question of sources than of editors or admins. And The Curious Case of Major Milan Tepić, whose desperate and disastrous terrorist act was awarded with the Order of the National Hero in Serbia, shows how things can be turned upside down.“ Now I only can add some more examples, to be specific as possible, hoping it will help you satisfy your requirements: [49], [50], [51]. --Silverije (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Tepic article represents abuse of WP for personal editorializing. By contrast, the CW articles on convicted Croatian war criminals, Mirko Norac and Tomislav Mercep, include no similar editorialized condemnation of their much bigger crimes, and not even one sentence om what they were convicted for. In fact when someone dared quote the Croatian Supreme Court verdict on specific crimes committed by Norac, this was instantly reverted by Speedy Gonzales, while the Mercep article sympathizes with the convicted war criminal, stating: "a media campaign was launched against him, to which they responded in his parents' hometown, expressing support for him". Thus additional, yet by no means the worst examples of CW bias, intended to promote ideological agendas Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverije: - you haven't answered anything. Specifically:
  • "Admins on Croatian Wikipedia reacted on editing which they understood as arrogant, blatant, provocative or as vandalism." Absolutely true - the thing is, they reacted on editing that was actually not arrogant, blatant, provocative, nor vandalism. That's precisely the problem, of which I gave a number of irrefutable examples.
  • "Their reactions were very similar to such reactions of admins on English Wikipedia". True again, their reactions were indeed similar (block threats, blocks, page locks), it's just that their criteria, judgment, rationales and apparent motives were vastly different. This is abundantly documented too.
  • "Users showing inappropriate behavior take the consequences for their behaviour." Could you name just one user whose sanctioning I mentioned in the Signpost article that was deservedly disciplined?
  • "As for the Jasenovac concentration camp or similar issues, the number of victims is rather a question of sources than of editors or admins." Blatantly unreliable sources such as Leljak must not be used in articles, and editors must not be blocked when they disagree with it, which is precisely what happened, as described in the Signpost article.
  • "And The Curious Case of Major Milan Tepić, whose desperate and disastrous terrorist act was awarded with the Order of the National Hero in Serbia, shows how things can be turned upside down" - I have no idea what are you saying here.
  • "I only can add some more examples, to be specific as possible, hoping it will help you satisfy your requirements: [52], [53], [54]" - these three so-called examples have absolutely nothing to do with the concrete issues I presented. Please refrain from the straw man tactics, producing irrelevant examples and passing them off as actual refutation is extremely dishonest.
Since your entire writeup is composed of non sequiturs, where you pretend to respond to my challenge, but in fact skirt around it, here it is once again in plain words and bold style: please take any examples of behavior by the three admins from the Signpost article, quote them one by one, and explain below why that behavior is not problematic. GregorB (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GregorB: I'm so sorry you can't understand what I've said (Major Tepić case), or you ignore naked facts (arrogant, blatant, provocative behaviour), or see the things quite opposite through your biased glasses (only your examples are relevant and other's are „so-called“ and irrelevant; highly problematic is not problematic for you and vice versa). It's very hard to talk to somebody like that, and any reasonable or modest talk, harmonisation or consensus seem to be impossible. It looks like a conversation between the deaf and the mute. --Silverije (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverije: The reason why my examples are relevant is because the case I'm arguing here is based on them, it's called evidence - it's not because I'm "arrogant" or "biased". You seem to be thinking that CW and its admins are just fine. My case - based on the Signpost article and concrete examples therin - argues they are not. So, if you are right, I must be wrong. If what I'm saying is false or nonsensical - well, that should only make the job easier for you, shouldn't it? But, instead of refuting my actual arguments, you produce some unrelated examples and deplore my tone. I know you find it hard to talk to me: that's because I have the evidence, it's incontrovertible, and you are well aware of that. My bold-style challenge above still stands - why wouldn't you take it? GregorB (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverije - you don’t understand. WP is not your personal opinion column. While I personally think that what Tepic did was despicable, in typical Balkan-fashion, your moral outrage is totally one-sided. Unlike your questioning of what type of nation are Serbs for building a monument to a terrorist, you do not question, as Croatian media have, what type of nation is Croatia, for building monuments and hero-worshiping Croatian terrorists, like Miro Baresic and Zvonko and Juliana Busic, who’ve all been convicted in the West for terrorist airplane hijackings and killings, including the killing of a policeman. As Croatian media have noted, the convicted terrorist Juliana Busic, was even used by one of the major political parties to record an endorsement for their presidential candidate. Plus there is not a single condemnation on CW of the Croatian war criminals Praljak, Mercep and Norac for what they did, nor any opinions on what type of nation gives honorary public positions, commemorates and invites to presidential inaugurals these criminals who are guilty of many more war crimes than Tepic. Unlike the multiple paragraphs describing Tepic’s crime in detail, there is not one single sentence on the specifics of the crimes of these Croatian war criminals, and when someone tried to add a quote of Norac’s crime from the Croatian Supreme Court verdict, this was instantly deleted by Speedy Gonsales. As I said, many historians have stated that these type of distorted “histories” - where the crimes of the other side are repeatedly emphasized and condemned with outrage, while crimes on one’s own side minimized, even genocides denied - this has been systematically used in the Balkans to generate a sense of victimhood and hatreds, which in turn have played a major role in starting wars. It is shameful that nothing has been done so far to prevent the promotion of such harmful, biased, ideological agendas, which go against everything WP stands for Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first, we were fighting against Sovietization. Bolsheviks let us speak our own language, but not what we want. Everything changed. Today we only hear the slogan Poland for Polish people. We got rid of Bolsheviks, but we kept our mutual despise for each other. Now we have an anti-Bolshevism with a Bolshevik face, that's why I am sad... What is nutured inside Poland is a kind of anti-humanism. Our government is supported by the Polish Catholic Church. What does our government tell us? That now comes the «gay pest», which is more or less the same as the «red pest». It is an idiocy which even Ceaușescu could not utter. In Poland, this Bolshevik mentality, a mentality of despise, of superiority, it remained... There is a great madness all over all post-Communist countries. We all think that our own people is noble, innocent, never did any harm unto others. According to this idea we judge those around us. If somebody says that that's not completely true, he/she is regarded as a traitor to the country

— Adam Michnik in Stefan Both, Disident polonez legendar, despre România post '89: „Iliescu a salvat țara pentru că n-a ales calea lui Miloșevici“
That's the problem: the lunatics have taken over the asylum. And Jimbo has to step in and speak out against nationalist lunatics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverije:,@GregorB: Mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Catalan is 55% (oral) and 86% (written intelligibility).[55]
Mutual intelligibility of Russian and Ukrainian is 70% (oral) and 80% (written intelligibility).
Mutual intelligibility of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian is 96-100%.[56] Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual the arguments of nationalists have nothing to do with facts or reason, and WP should not be abused for promoting nationalistic myths, particularly in the Balkans, where as many historians have noted, these myths have been employed to fan divisions, hatreds and wars (btw, there are many linguists, including Croatian ones, who state that the 3 variants of Croatian - Stokavian, Kajkavian and Cakavian - are much more different languages than standard Croatian and Serbian, which are both Stokavian. Thus per these nationalists, speakers of the 3 different Croatian variants are much more different nationalities than Serbs and Croats, and on linguistic, instead of political criteria, it would make much more sense have separate Stokavian, Kajkavian and Cakavian WPs) Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose To the original proposal and Strong oppose to the additional proposals. This is personal and has nothing to do with Croatian wiki.--Fleezer (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]

@Fleezer: same question for you - provide a good answer and I'll !vote "oppose" myself. :-) GregorB (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is apparently a recurring theme here: it's {{strong oppose}}, followed immediately by scampering off without providing any supporting arguments, despite repeated calls to do so. That's perhaps based on a mistaken assumption this is a majority vote rather than a discussion. GregorB (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GregorB: Your animosity towards CW is difficult to describe with words. But it's thick like a pudding. The recurring theme here is littering {{support}} about this page w/o proper explanation, but just repeated empty phrases. The only missing thing to those {{support}} is "Hear! Hear!" and North Korean-style standing ovation. --Fleezer (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually quite like CW and I'm interested in its wellbeing, otherwise I wouldn't be doing this. GregorB (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleezer, again not a single fact, not a single counter-argument on your part, or from any of your like-minded cohorts, to contradict anything, instead yet more name-calling. But in fact if anyone is acting in a North Korean fashion, it is the CW Admins who systematically delete and block people who dare quote Reliable Sources - Croatian and Western historian, Croatian and international linguists, etc – if these contradict their own, openly proclaimed ideology. Kubura pasted a diff above, stating that I was quite literally blocked for daring write the following sentence “The fact that Croatian-Serbian-Bosnian-Montenegrin language is one language s also stated by many well-known western linguists”. Thus just as people are systematically censored in North Korea for “insulting Dear Leader”, I was blocked for “insulting”, i.e. for daring cite Western linguists, because this violates the official “anti-Serbocroatist” or "Croat-patriot" (similar to "North Korean patriot") ideology enforced on WP, in total violation of the most basic WP principles 20:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose. It's a witch hunt. Some people don't agree with Croatian wikipedia, have lost the elections, and are trying to "grab power" in this way. There is nothing wrong with Croatian Wiki. This "suggestions" are just continuation of false accusing policy.--Ceha (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment @Ceha, you expressed your opinion already on 1st of December 2019 (at 23:33:08 (CET)). This is the second time you inserted your opinion here (in the same discussion). Thanks for your understanding of this comment. Hope this helps. Truly yours, -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 14:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment I see, this is under the additional proposals. My mistake. -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 15:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The request is issued by picky persons whome is impossible to please.--Uršul (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]

@Ceha:@Uršul: I am actually very easy to please: my challenge still stands for any supporter of Kubura, Speedy and Željko [57]. If nobody can do it, then that means that Croatian Wikipedia really is what the critics say it is.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This equals that old joke. In which a person can only answer with yes or no, and than you ass him/her do his/her parents know that he/she is gay.
If you have any trouble with that article, you have proper chanels to adress it. Comparing 2 wikipedias will lead you to what? --Ceha (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3E, Your rationalizing on hr.wiki is like medieval test for witches with the millstone around the neck, where in either outcome alleged witch ends dead. Put the millstone around suspicious woman's neck and dump her into the lake. If she sunks to the bottom, drowns and dies, then she is not the witch. If she does not sunk, then she is a witch and then she is condemned to burn alive on bonfire. --Arraque (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as the 3 Admins rail against “SerboCroatists”, there are similar Serb nationalist brethren who rail against all the “lies” against them, and they too have “the only truth” for Srebrenica, very different from reliable sources (i.e, denying it), just as CW Admins claim holocaust-deniers have the only "truth" about Jasenovac. They also see every Croat act as a genocide, even when it isn’t, just like CW invents non-existent “genocides” against Croats. They both see all criticisms of their “truths” as “witch-hunts”, “conspiracies”, etc. As many historians have noted, it is precisely these types of “alternative histories” - i.e. negating and minimizing the crimes on one’s own side, while exaggerating and inventing crimes by the other side, peddled by Balkan-nationalists on all sides - that led to bloody wars of the 90’s
The ONLY requirement here is to follow WP Rules – NPOV, Reliable Sources, WP:INVOLVED, etc – and not use WP servers as a personal propaganda tool to spread POV-based falsehoods, hatreds and inflame new wars, as CW has done. So I do not agree that it is up to CW Admins to try to fix any articles, instead the only solution is to get rid of the CW Admins for repeatedly violating core CW principles, including blatant violations during the course of this very RfC, and replace them with Admins who will actually follow WP rules Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3E1I5S8B9RF7: You were not the sort of thing I had in mind when I posted. I am not convinced in Your impartiality: You made no such challenges for opponents of Kubura, Speedy and Željko. You kind of, require the accused to prove their innocence. --Uršul (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I guess you are unfamiliar with the standard operating procedure of a trial. During a trial, the prosecution presents evidence incriminating the accused, and the defendant then has to challenge this evidence. And if the accused SpeedyGonsales and Kubura are not anwsering questions or disputing the charges, then by the end of this session their charges will be regarded as confirmed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The participants of this disscussion should be aware that, first and foremost, it is a discussion, not a show of hands. It is not really possible to challenge a 2,500-word case which contains concrete and detailed evidence by posting a single dismissive sentence, and then disappear despite being asked to provide clarification. Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, and Zeljko have been unable or unwilling (which is really the same thing) to mount a meaningul argument against the accusations as described in the statement of this RfC, which is particularly damning. GregorB (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3E1I5S8B9RF7:, very wrong approach. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a courtroom. This is just a RfC. Asking the questions is OK, but the non-answering does not makes the silent user guilty; otherwise, all persons trialed in absentia would be found guilty. Further, make difference between asking questions and posing requests/giving tasks. You are practically obliging one side, accused one by that, to do something contrary to his habits, interests. Why don't You do that for GregorB? Why don't You say to him or Thhhommmasss, "if You're neutral, write something positive about Croatian Homeland War by dismantling media spectacularization, misrepresentation and overmagnification (no good translation for preuveličavanje) of Croatian war crimes, and to on equal terms edit the articles about the war crimes commited against Croats in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro". Kubura (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Ordinary witch-hunt.--Arraque (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC) SOCK comments stricken[reply]

@Arraque: No, my test is actually based on the puzzle of two identical twins, which is an example of induction reasoning. Meaning that it is demonstrable and logical. So if you cannot solve my test [58], then that means that the Administrators of the Croatian Wikipedia are guilty. If you can solve it, what are you waiting for? It is meaningless when you cannot practice what you preach.
@Ceha: Comparing two Wikipedias will lead to identify which one of them violates the WP:PILLARS (hence the title of this topic). Since English Wikipedia is copied by hundreds of other Wikipedias (from Indonesia to the Netherlands) and considered the most ideal (for all of its flaws are constantly corrected), then you can compare how much Croatian Wikipedia deviates from it. If Jasenovac camp is a better article on Croatian Wikipedia, then please, try to insert such claims on the English Wikipedia article. If you cannot, and your claims are disproven, then Croatian Wikipedia is the one that needs to change and improve the said article. Hence, you have nothing to support your claims until you can meet my challenge. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3E1I5S8B9RF7:, a big no. English wikipedia is a wikipedia as any other, and you are suggesting it to be "an ultimate source"? You are using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum and there is nothing wrong with article on CW... Which claimes on it would be disputable? --Ceha (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't use straw-man argument on a man familiar with Godwin's law. If there are no disputable claims on Croatian Wikipedia, then my challenge would be easy to do: [59]. So what are you waiting for? You have a chance to prove that Croatian Wikipedia has no controversial claims nor deviations from WP:PILLARS. But if you cannot prove what you preach, then you have no argument.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As they’ve repeatedly shown, they will never respond with any specifics, just like they refused to respond when asked to prove that they did not block people for posting links to the RfC, instead they just blew off the questioners. We’ve now had nearly 5 months of general blithering (“everything’s great, these are just enemies of CW”, etc), deranged ranting against “serbocroatists” (i.e. Croatian and Western historians, international linguists, etc). 90% of what Kubura wrote has nothing to do with WP, instead it’s what politicians or government ministries said about this or that, totally unrelated to anything on WP. I’m sure they can continue not-responding, endlessly blithering and ranting for another 5 months and much longer
The Jasenovac article and all its holocaust-denying falsehoods cannot be resolved via this RfC. What's necessary is to first remove the Admins for repeat, gross violations of WP principles, including during this very RfC. Then it’d greatly help to set up, per the RfC, an ArbCom of people willing to follow WP rules, to resolve this. To provide transparency and ensure rules are followed, I believe it’d also help to create a separate coordination project page, where anyone can bring up any issues, and these can be discussed and resolved there, in a manner everyone can see (I think most of the discussion relating to improving individual articles, like the Jasenovac article, should take place on the article Talk page, so this extra project page would be where people can go if they think they’re not being fairly treated as per WP rules). Btw generalized blithering and distractions, merely labeling and ranting against “serbocroatists”, non-responses, plus all responses without reasoned arguments and proofs, should in my view be instantly deleted. Had this been followed here, this would have been a much shorter discussionThhhommmasss (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3E1I5S8B9RF7: People use English wikipedia not because it is good, but because English language is official in science and media. Most texts are available in English. English is worldwide understood language, and speakers of various languages "communicate" over en.wiki by posting there and translating from it. They don't have to learn each others' languages since they know English. Test with "will such claims survive on English Wikipedia article" is wrong. Some claims from en.wiki are disproven regarding that camp, and it is proven with references from all political spectra that Croatian Wikipedia is right. Instead of changing and improving English Wikipedia, discontent person that stubbornly believes in overwhelmed historic claims (proven to be wrong) starts RfC against Croatian Wikipedia.--Rikovers (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is only somewhat correct. The English Wikipedia is used by everyone because English is understandable to most of the global population, it was the first Wikipedia in history which established guidelines that other language Wikipedias must follow, but this also means that it has the highest standards and the most accurate criteria if it wants to sustain any order. Precisely because an English Wikipedia aticle is always among the first to pop up during Google search, it has the biggest threshold of scrutiny. And if it is the best we have, and Croatian Wikipedia allegedly follows its WP:PILLARS, then we can measure Croatian Wikipedia using English Wikipedia as a guideline. My challenge still stands, feel free to absolve Cro