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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

user:Kubura hiding my comments on RFC[edit]

I'm user from Croatian wikipedia who prefers to remain anonymous (i.e. not linked to my primary account). There are valid reasons for that since users are blocked on hr wiki if they write something against user:Kubura here on Meta. There is even an old RFC just for one such a case: Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura. On newest RFC, I added a section about white-washing of known croatian neo-nazi Velimir Bujanec, but Kubura deleted that section here on Meta. Could You please uncomment it? user:Kubura is behaving like he is at his own private wikipedia, just like he does on Croatian wikipedia, and just removes whatever he doesn't like. --Hrwikiuser (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:GregorB, thanks for fixing the problem! --Hrwikiuser (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:Hrwikiuser misusing the section titles for attacks[edit]

You (user "Hrwikiuser") show the behaviour pattern of the expendable sockpuppet created for doing the unpopular dirty tasks. Your comment has been commented [1] because it is a punch below the belt. You and your alikes remained out of arguments, so Your only method remained is attack, attack, attack and denigrate with "neonazi", blabla.
Comment section also contain the comment I wrote there, as a guideline.
"If "Hrwikiuser" wants to denigrate a true person from reality, he risks being sued, and did not want to involved because of his behaviour. Anyway, that has been explained on the talkpage Razgovor:Velimir Bujanec, and that "Hrwikiuser" has not mentioned that at all!".
We were explaining there that to some user named "Bojovnik".
Unlike this RfC, we are not poorly moderating. Insults and malign insinuations everywhere on that RfC. On we do not allow such low blows as the "Hrwikiuser" did here on Meta. is not the place for street grafitti. Kubura (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019[edit]

I'd like to show my opinion about the issue. Ceha (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to give an opinion so please allow me. Mikola22 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Silverije wants to comment on the content page, but can't. His account is over four days old. What could be the underlying cause of the problem? --Mateo K 01 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may also be a minimum edit count enabled on Meta. I'm not sure where to check this. @Xaosflux: are you aware? GMGtalk 23:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: our auto-confirmation is set to 4 days and 5 edits. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X mark.svg Not done @Ceha: your account is now autoconfirmed and you may edit the page directly. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone else: if you want to use the edit-request process, you must let us know what the edit is you would make, then someone can copy it for you. — xaosflux Talk 23:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Owner of site Matija Babić is convicted in court of law. "pleaded guilty at county court in Zagreb and got sentenced to a year in jail. The sentence was replaced by a year of community service"" [2] [3] [4] He is so relevant, so much. [5] 21:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019[edit]

X mark.svg Not done empty section. — xaosflux Talk 14:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threat via IP[edit]

This IP maniac [6] has a fixation on since August 2019. Early this night he was on from the other IP.[7] . Kubura (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I noticed that too, but from your link it shows he was only active on January 15. Btw I also noticed the IP address is from Split, which based on one of your posts it looks like you're also from, and the IP vandalism came only 45 minutes after your last post, with both of you posting after midnight, on a week night, when 99% of people are asleep. Coincidences? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, You posted late in the night too, when 99% of people are asleep.
That IP is from southern Croatia, not just from Split. At first the IP's were mostly from Neretva valley. Regarding the hours, that maniac appears in various time of the day/night. I have not counted when it usually appears, because previously the target was the user Tulkas Astaldo. Regarding the "time matching", it's not unusual. Actually, it should be expected to occur. In past we had trolls, grinches, annoying users, siccos that were appearing very late in the night to argue and insult, because their target was then active at that time of the night. Not in any hour, but the exact minutes when the target was active. They wait for the victim to arrive. This also happened during the daytime, but I intentionally mention You this case when there're less users active. The siccos usually track when their target is active, they hound the target, so it can get the message in the real time. That is the point. But we never had this kind of maniac.
Anyway, here (at 21:54) the sicco [8] threats with raping to death, here [9] threats with slaying and raping, here [10] raping to death.
This maniac does not stop. Kubura (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those diffs have now been revdeleted due to how grossly inappropriate they are. ~riley (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, an IP address from Split, same as you, and I notice these IP threats magically appeared here for the first time on January 15, just one day after you happened to mention "the IP maniac” in the discussion – again a pure coincidence? In my view yet another attempt at deliberate distraction, same as we’ve witnessed attempts to delete this page and other vandalism, plus a bunch of nowiki-experience folks appearing out of nowhere to lend you support, etc. But even assuming someone else is behind the IP stuff (and thus actually doing your bidding to distract and take your favorite pose as a “victim”), none of this justifies the many CW Admin violations of core WP principles outlined in the RfC, which continued in plain site during this discussion Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hello everyone there is a agency setup in india runned by a media house whose aim is to malign the image of his competitors . due the special admin rights the guy can block the anyone whoever questions him and he locks the wikipage and even try to block the websites. there is even a news article about him .what can be do in this case . his account is only 2 years old but when you see the rights he got and misusing .you will be amazednewslinger its his name . there is a news article about him too which exposes his misdeeds.newslink

Nearly 10 months[edit]

This RfC is slowly entering its tenth month, and there is no resolution or solution anywhere to be seen, no action is taken, CW is sill making the same mistakes, and nothing has been fixed. This is entirely a Wikipedia problem, this whole issue could've been avoided if Wikipedia took action, removed the rights of the offending admins, given us what we want, closed this RfC and made all of this way, way, WAY less complicated than it needed to be. Somebody, anybody, I beg you to look into this RfC and finally give us a solution. At some point, this RfC will be closed for inactivity and nothing will be fixed. Imjusttherediting 22:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been MUCH longer than that. An ongoing RfC about the Croatian Wikipedia that was started in October 2016 was closed without conclusion and its discussion and issues moved to this one after this RfC was started over a year ago. I think that the ever useful Wikipedia long grass has by now grown long enough for the Croatian Wikipedia problem to be kicked into it and lost forever (based on past cases this RfC will be closed without action, with the problem passed back to Croatian Wikipedia administrators, who will all be told to do better.) --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to mark this as closed?[edit]

To be 100% clear, I supported firm action from the foundation within this RFC to reform hrwiki, and a close will presumably be a "status quo is fine" close which I personally would disagree with. It's been open for more than a year now, though, with no comment by stewards - not even a "we are aware of the issue but cannot currently take action for reasons we can't share" or "we need more time, we want to finish the global code of conduct first" comment. I'm all for being patient, but at some point, no action is itself an action, a en:pocket veto essentially. I'm not sure who would even have the "authority" to amend the RFC (Maybe User:GregorB as proposer?), but I would recommend sticking a "time limit" on this proposal - say that if no official response or update happens by XYZ Date (December 31, 2020?) then the RFC will be considered as failed. If the WMF genuinely intends to do anything concerning this proposal, all they have to do is say something, anything, to request an extension or the like. But if the RFC is still ignored by that limit, then this RFC should be properly treated as rejected by official silence. SnowFire (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I find the year-long inaction and stonewalling completely unacceptable, particularly on anything purporting to be “a community”, which requires as an absolute first prerequisite open, 2-way communication and transparency. This on the other hand has been an anti-community, non-communicative, totally non-transparent process, which in my view has demonstrated disrespect toward the community. If anyone disagrees, please say here that this is exactly how you expect true community efforts to function – e.g. by completely ignoring repeat community requests to close this RfC, as if the decision-makers owe absolutely no explanations and no accountability to anyone.
If this RfC were to close without any detailed explanation of the decisions, just like the previous RfC on this issue apparently ended up being ignored with no response, this would be a further perversion of community processes, where people invest time and effort and then no one deigns even a decent response. In any community process deserving its name, this would’ve involved 2-way communication from the very start, as part of RfC fact-finding, as part of open discussion of underlying WP rules and principles, etc. That is how true communities build common understanding, trust and consensus. Since nothing of the sort was done, then at least in closing the decision-makers owe the community a detailed explanation of their actions or inaction Thhhommmasss (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment, I'm against setting a time limit on the RfC. I can say the issues are significantly more complex than it appears from what is publicly known, and are currently being addressed through other avenues. Whatever the possible solution may be, I still believe this RfC will play a part in it.
Of course, there is very little of substance that can be added to the current discussion. I'd like the stewards to close the RfC. (I wouldn't mind if they closed it six months ago, for that matter.) It's messy, but I don't think there is a structural problem with it. Indeed, I too wish they publicly commented on its status. Do they intend to close it? We don't know. Is it actionable in the first place? We don't know that either. Are we actually waiting for something? Hard to say. Any sort of feedback - even a negative one - would really be a charitable act here, we're sitting in the dark for a long time now. GregorB (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know there is a POV problem on hrwiki sounds like music to my ears. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the closing needs to be as specific as possible, so people understand what was found and what were the resulting sanctions, both to understand this case and set precedent for behavior across WP. For example, specific answers are needed to questions like the following:

  1. Has it been proven that CW has Admins who not only cite, but claim that Holocaust-denying convicted-fraudsters have the only truth, and that all others - i.e. historians and Holocaust Museums - publish only "lies"? If so, what should be the sanctions for WP Admins who promote Holocaust-denial and blatantly violate Reliable Source rules on WP?
  2. Has it been proven, via proclamations in this very RfC by Kubura and many others, that they’re openly pushing a POV-agenda (self-described “patriotic”, “anti-neoyugoslavicists”, “anti-serboroatists”, etc) and have repeatedly insisted on their right to do so. If so, what should be the sanctions for Admins openly pushing POV-agendas on WP?
  3. Has it been proven, by diffs provided by Kubura himself, that he blocked an editor for merely daring mention what many Croatian and international linguists state, because this goes against his openly-proclaimed POV-agenda? If so, what should be sanctions for Admins who proudly block people on WP for daring cite Reliable Sources that go against their POV agenda?
  4. Has it been proven that Speedy, in response to a formal inquiry about the article “Collection camp Jasenovac”, falsely claimed that in Croatian the term “Concentration camp Jasenovac” is not used, despite mounds of instantly available evidence to the contrary, on the official Jasenovac memorial website, online official Croatian encyclopedia, online Croatian dictionaries as well as the predominant usage on the .hr domain, and that furthermore this is part of a pattern among CW Admins, including citing Holocaust-denying convicted fraudsters and “publicist” who deny Jasenovac was a concentration/death camp, and instead insist it was only a “collection-” or “work-camp”, where no mass killing took place. If so what should be the sanctions against such Admins?

These are just a few of the charges in the RfC, not to mention all the other abuses perpetrated during this RfC – blocking people for merely daring post links to the RfC, attacking people for their country of origin, hurling ethnically-based epithets toward anyone they disagree with, harassing minors for their sexual orientation, etc, etc. These require responses as well, along with a response to such a persistent pattern of abuse, plus unapologetic insistence that this is correct and that they intend to continue same Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any community or public enterprise, such a non-communicative, non-transparent process would be considered completely illegitimate, and in many cases probably illegal. Also decision-making processes unable to make decisions in a timely manner are useless and harmful, since they enable abuse to continue. In my view stewards should have participated in the fact-finding process, asking questions, like Rschen did in part. Even haughty Supreme Court justices actively participate in cases, ask questions and commit themselves to render, sometimes literally life-and-death decisions, within fixed timeframes
And once the facts are determined – e.g. extensive POV or Reliable Source violations - the sanctions for Admins should be clear and swift, i.e. permanent removal. This should not take a year to figure it, unless someone wants to argue that extensive violation of core WP principles, like POV and Reliable Sources, is OK or perhaps some grey area for WP Adminship. Certainly, for promoting extremely harmful falsehoods, like Holocaust-denial, which also heavily violates Reliable Source rules, the sanctions should be extra swift, without the need to deliberate for more than a year to figure out if Holocaust-denial-promoting Admins are OK on WP
If they don’t exist already, there should be pre-defined penalties, e.g. automatic, swift, permanent removal of Admins for all serious violations of core WP principles, particularly since they’re the ones who should be responsible for enforcing these principles, not violating them. Legal systems have prescribed penalties, instead of judges in each case coming up with their own custom penalties. The latter does not scale, since it’d take too much time, and as they say, justice delayed is justice denied, plus it’d lead to randomness and inconsistency, again detrimental to any rule-enforcing system
The way this process has been run is as if the purpose is to enable continuing violation of WP principles, continued harm to WP, while ensuring a lack of legitimacy for the process itself Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. One can only hope a hypothetical UCoC process will look more like an ArbCom case, and less like a loose discussion. Even if this RfC turns out to be non-actionable (I see no particular reason why this would be the case, though), it should be closed with some clear findings. Many of its basic statements of fact are fairly indisputable, and spelling them out is very important. GregorB (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see how this could possibly be non-actionable. Per what Georgescu posted, WMF can remove anyone in 2 seconds flat, even without cause, much less in a case like this where there is tons of cause. Thus through its inaction, WMF is consciously enabling gross violation of core WP principles, like POV and Reliable Sources, consciously enabling Holocaust-denial on WP, consciously enabling gross abuse by WP Admins who rail against "Jewish sources", attack people for their country of origin, hurl ethnically-based epithets and harass minors for their sexual orientation. This is a gross abrogation of duty and trust, and in any normal company, all responsible for oversight would have been long gone. Instead of hiding behind a wall of silence and thus showing disrespect and disdain toward the community, in response to repeat community requests that this be closed, someone from WMF needs to step up and say here how and when this will be closed Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Request for comment/Global ban for Kubura[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Request for comment/Global ban for Kubura. * Pppery * it has begun 21:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]