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

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

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.

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:

• Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia - User Suradnik13 - blocking and deleting (2008)
• Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia - User:Dalibor Bosits case (2009)
• Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura (2010)
• Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia (2013)
• Requests for comment/Hard line nationalism on the Croatian Wikipedia (2015)
• Requests for comment/Consistency and bias across different language Wikipedias (Holocaust example) (2017)
• Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the Croatian Wikipedia (2016-2019; partially overlaps this RfC and is superseded by it)

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

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.

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 constisting 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)

• First of all, thank you to GregorB for putting in the legwork of raising awareness of this issue and mobilizing a response to it. For the most part, the proposed actions seem reasonable to me. However, I'm wondering if the motion to dismiss all local admins might not be a bit too drastic––one motivation for not speaking out that doesn't appear to be addressed above is fear of retaliation from the troika of the most problematic admins. Moreover, if other actions are successfully implemented (removing the worst offenders, setting up a local ArbCom, and adding a significant number of good-faith editors who are aware of the situation from similar language projects), it's not clear to me that any remaining problem admins hidden amongst those who haven't spoken up would even have that much power to derail things more than any other user, as their use of admin tools would presumably be subject to significant scrutiny and any wheel-warring would be extremely visible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• A crystal clear summary, thanks for the insightufl and persistent attention to this. I second both of Rosguill's comments. I agree that something should be done that considers the depth and duration of the situation, but removing all admins does not seem necessary and may lead to avoidable confusion or backlash, including from the community that would otherwise provide extra participation. –SJ talk 02:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the proposed action. The deselection of the 3 incriminated individuals has to be the cornerstone, and after that a moratorium. --Ivan VA (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support for all that was written. The only thing I may waver on is dismissing the local admins--their inaction seems to be less of an issue than the rest of the points. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• I support all proposed actions. At the very least, the three most problematic admins must be removed and banned from reapplying, as well as removing all local bureaucrats and checkusers. If the problematic three are desysopped without doing anything else, they will simply regain their powers within a few months and then it's back to square one. The other thing that needs to be addressed is, if the Croatian Wikipedia ArbCom is reestablished, how will its members be decided? If the consensus of this discussion ends up being in favor of setting up a new ArbCom, a new Meta-Wiki RfC may be needed to decide who is on the ArbCom. It is then important to choose people who will be as impartial as possible, and set up measures to ensure the ArbCom can't be dismantled, in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating again. DraconicDark (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. @Rosguill: When you say fear of retaliation is also a possible reason for silence, you are quite correct: for some of them at least, it is actually plausible. While merely clinging to admin tools in the face of such obvious, severe and persistent violations of Wikipedia principles may in itself be seen as a major failure to do one's duty as an administrator, it is quite possible that there are also real-life concerns here. Moreover, I fully agree with you, and I'd even say it is the essence of the matter: other, long-term actions, such as setting up a local ArbCom in particular, make the removal of all admins redundant at best, and detrimental at worst. GregorB (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Revisiting message that Kubura gave me, I am more inclined to take sides with the blocked user VS6507 (Alex). Here are interactions between the two. Furthermore, using some mere 2009 incident to indefinitely block the user in 2015 is too delayed and very harsh. Also, the incident itself is mere attack neither intended to be perceived as sexual harassment that "K" claimed to be. That was just expression of frustration. A mere admonishment would have suffice if the admonishment occurred in 2009, but admonishment in 2015 for the 2009 incident is pointless. Still, there's no need to take grudge over just one incident. Disturbingly, "K" gave the blocked user a message saying never to insult Croatians (or something). This makes Alex's rationale for the other RfC more valid and sound.

  Back to the main proposal, I now support 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)
  • In the message you've mentioned, Kubura says in the end: "[Your comment about the Croatian coat of arms] is an impudent stigmatization of the Republic of Croatia and Croatian insignia, practiced in the Greater-Serbianist aggression against Croatia". As bizarre as it may seem, it's actually fairly tame compared to one highly ludicrous recent example (Google Translate).

To be fair, user VS6507 said a very stupid thing, so perhaps it warranted a stupid response. I question the impartiality of a user who calls the centuries old Croatian coat of arms, "a washed out fascist movement symbol, chosen by hard line nationalist Tudjman, who prosecuted more than 200,000 people from Croatia." --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No contest there, even if the reaction looks more like ideologically motivated retaliation than upholding any Wikipedia policies. GregorB (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

An ultra-nationalist statement like that carries a long shadow indeed (not to mention the comment on Roberta F. talk page). Whatever may have prompted VS into writing these things, someone who wrote that to/about e.g. British or Americans on en.WP would be quickly indefbanned as en:WP:NOTHERE. But I also don't see the wisdom of blocking someone 3 years post factum. Such "punishments for past crimes" on the whole must do much to inhibit both constructive as well as unconstructive editing. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Forming a strictly local ArbCom (members coming from CW only) would quickly run into several problems: 1) current admins (other than these three, of course) would normally be natural candidates, but given their conduct in the affair, they can't be trusted (whatever the reasons for that conduct are), 2) few qualified editors otherwise, 3) undue off-wiki influence, since it's a small community, where many editors socialize off-wiki, and know each other's real-life identities (cf. the 2009 ArbCom incident described in the CW timeline above). Editors from Bosnian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias will have no problem at all understanding Croatian, won't generally be vulnerable to undue off-wiki influence, and will make a greater pool of qualified and experienced editors to choose from. This could make them the solution for the ArbCom problem. How exactly should this ArbCom operate is a very pertinent question, perhaps to be discussed once a high-level plan of action is agreed upon. GregorB (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I would also support that this Arbcom have jurisdiction on any of the hr, sr, bs & sh Wikipedias. As these languages are mutually intelligible, there shouldn't be communication problems, and their editors are inextricably linked through recent political history. POV issues which are unlikely to go away are present to one degree or another on all of these wikis, and I feel we would kill (削除) two (削除ここまで) four birds with one stone this way, and also prevent such issues from escalating on other wikis in the future, and somewhat deflect the victim/siege mentality that will likely be exacerbated on hr.WP when actions are taken there and not on the other WPs. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I volunteer to be candidate for a member of such Arbcom for sr wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • @Daß Wölf:@Antidiskriminator: In principle, I support the idea of an ArbCom that has jurisdiction over all varieties of Serbo-Croatian. However, one concern I have about this idea is that there might be pushback from the communities of sh, sr, and bs if they feel it's being forced on them. Therefore, the next logical step would be to notify the communities of sh, sr, and bs that this discussion is taking place, so that they can both a.) provide input on what to do about hrwiki, since they understand the language, and b.) recommend candidates for the ArbCom. The discussion about who should be on the ArbCom should probably be a separate RfC, so that this discussion on a solution to the problems with hrwiki doesn't lose focus. DraconicDark (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
          • I'd support such a cross-wiki ArbCom too. However, this would be a matter for a separate discussion and a separate set of arguments, as the other wikis do not have an immediate problem to be solved (at least not nearly of this magnitude). GregorB (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• I fully support the proposal, but feel additional moves may be necessary.

@Rosguill:, @Sj:, @Jesuislafete:, regarding the qualms about dismissing all admins, you should understand that since Speedy and co. got rid of their ARBCOM and all opposition around 2009-2010, they have kept tight control of all hr.wikipedia.org activity, among other ways by blocking contributors as soon as they see the contributors would cause them trouble by "being anti-Croat" or "aligned with Greater Serbian interests". Basically, there is a single fringe clique and nobody outside it is allowed to edit or become admin.

Regarding those additional moves that may be necessary: because the CW editor and admin groups are all part of the single clique or approved by it, I think greater integration with other Wikis may be necessary. Basically, I think any admins from en, de, and fr Wikipedias should be allowed to act as admins and/or ARBCOM members for CW. Notrium (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I also fully support this proposal. Given the serious, now decade-long repeat violations of the most basic Wikipedia principles, I believe CW admin removal is the only possible solution. Personally, I’ve cited sources which leading western historians repeatedly cite, even state they consider these among the "best informed and most objective sources", and while these same sources are extensively quoted on en.WP, the CW admins repeatedly reverted my citations with claims that these sources are "anti-Croat", and therefore can’t be quoted on CW. Then when I complained, they banned me. They also deleted my citations from the US Holocaust Museum, with the explanation "the Holocaust Museum in Washington is not immune to fraud", plus they reverted my quotes of history professors at the University of Zagreb, and many others. Simultaneously, they themselves will include outrageous, Holocaust-denial information from convicted fraudsters, and when you challenge them on this, or challenge them instead to provide reliable sources for their claims, i.e. the most basic of WP principles, they respond that such a requests represent "an attack" and threaten to ban me. All this has resulted in highly biased articles on CW, particularly on historical issues.

I also agree with the proposal for a cross-wiki ArbCom. I think that it would be even better if longer-term some general policies were developed to require ongoing cross-checking and attempts to achieve greater consistency across all different language versions, instead of allowing "alternative truths" to flourish (for example, I imagine Indian and Pakistani WPs present quite different takes on some subjects. etc) As a first step I support Notrium's proposal that admins on en, de or other more reliable WP versions be provided admin rights on CW Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Support 1 and 4, Oppose Oppose the rest. I don't think a special ArbCom is the way to go - I think it would result in those other groups pushing their POV on hrwiki. Two wrongs don't make a right. As far as the concerns about the three admins regaining their powers, because stewards would be granting the admin rights, they would have the ability to ensure that elections were done fairly. --Rs chen 7754 04:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: When you say "those other groups pushing their POV", what do you mean specifically? I haven't a priori excluded anyone from ArbCom membership. I'd expect a public discussion with the ArbCom candidates, and I'd expect their history of adherence to WP:NPOV to be examined. POV-pushing is something that can and should be backed with evidence - it shouldn't be conjectured or presupposed. What will happen if 1 and 4 alone are implemented? Will other admins simply continue in the same vein? I see no evidence to the contrary. Will they be willing to revise blocks or restrain POV-pushers? I highly doubt it. Will those three get themselves reelected once more eventually? You bet. What will have been achieved by all that in the end? If nothing else, the lesson from both 2009-10 and 2013-14 (see CW timeline above) is that failed revolutions don't make things the same as before: they invariably make them worse. Therefore, the answer is not "nothing" - it's even less than nothing. I don't care one bit about the "fair" or "unfair" elections. Wikipedia is not a democracy, which means, specifically, that WP:5P beats "fair elections" and "consensus" any day of the week. Those three fellows very likely won't come here to defend themselves: they know that they can't, so they're hoping things will blow over, like many times before, and they're counting on us to play the democracy game. Let's not do that. This is no longer a matter of enough is enough, it's way past that. GregorB (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • As I stated in the other RFC - I'm aware that those nations don't always get along very well. And I'm not really sure what the purpose of such an ArbCom would be anyway. In terms of "Will those three get themselves reelected once more eventually? You bet." well, SpeedyGonsales had CU removed by a steward a few years back and still has not gotten reelected to that position. --Rs chen 7754 00:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Rschen7754: That's true, but Kubura was desysopped by a steward in 2010 for misusing admin powers, and that user ended up being voted back to admin. So, yes, "you bet" the problematic three will get reelected once more if too little is done. DraconicDark (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
        • 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. --Rs chen 7754 00:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Would we want a WP where de.WP and fr.WP present vastly different views of WWII, because at the time they did not get along well? That's where I have a problem with separate language WPs having total independence, thus we get hr.WP, azeri WP, etc. There is the separate issue that most linguists say that hr, sr and bs are not different languages, but one language, now increasingly referred to as BCS. Thus the creation of these separate WPs has enabled the propagation of different ethnic "truths", where hr.WP Admins decide what is pro-Croat or anti-Croat, and act accordingly Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

No, I do not have anything in mind.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Having in mind all circumstances, the future members of the cross-wiki Arbcom should be selected only among the editors who were indeff banned at some of sh.wikis.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was blocked as a vandal for a simple change to a Trvtko II article. I have provided 3 sources, from real actual books from Croatian authors (they have a habit of referencing anonymous websites like hercegbosa.org as a source.) and they blocked me as a vandal. Unacceptable. --Mhare (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried again (1) to do simple change with really good sourcing of that one claim, but they have reverted my changes, and refuse to even discuss the reason why they have reverted it. It's really anti-scientific and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. It is just unacceptable. Mhare (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Well done to GregorB for pulling this together. I agree that the three problematic admins have to go, and I believe their desysopping should be permanent. I would be very wary of a new hr ArbCom without strong oversight (which is self-defeating really, as it should be the final arbiter of user conduct), as there are likely quite a few supporters of these three there, and they may just elect a like-minded ArbCom and we are back at square one. I am very sceptical about a cross-wiki ArbCom for sh language variants, as there will be POV-pushers on all sides who will want to influence hr WP to their way of thinking rather than taking a neutral approach. Any such ArbCom would need to be very carefully selected, and members should not have been sanctioned on en WP or another of the sh WPs. It is editors like GregorB that are sorely needed at hr WP, including as admins. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I second the suggestion for admins like GregorB at hr.WP. Perhaps some Admins from en or other more reliable WPs, who understand the language, could also pitch in Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Good job GregorB for all the effort you've put into this! Based on the above, I also want to give my support to at least remove the three mentioned admins. Although other administrators actively or passively gave their support for the status quo and by doing this failed in their adminship, I think we should avoid the risk of a potential break-up of the community in case of removal of all. -- Edinwiki (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

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

...coincidentally, by an editor who has gone on record saying that Ante Pavelić is "one of the greats of Croatian history". GregorB (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Further proof that these guys are totally incapable of adhering to the most basic WP principles and need to be permanently removed as Admins. You may want to post the RfC notice on sh.WP village pump, since some hr editors may have migrated there, given the abuse Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, if the situation is as egregious as it's being made out to be, I don't think these remedies will be enough. Obviously the three problem admins should be banned, but then what? If the Croat nationalist clique has entirely taken over the website, then won't they just reelect more trouble admins and/or continue resisting attempts to correct the content? I doubt that NPOV good faith editors will just appear out of the woodwork to return to the Croat Wikipedia after being bullied out over the course of several years. English Wikipedia has an essay called TNT for a reason. Might as well blow up this website and start over when there's shown to be enough interest from good faith users. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Here are my current expectations:
  1. The three above-mentioned admins will be demoted.
  2. The rest of the admins will either denounce the demotions or (more likely) have no comment.
  3. No substantial effort will be made to acknowledge errors, revise blocks, fix POV content, or subdue POV pushers. All attempts to do so will likely be quietly undermined. The takeaway from this RfC will be: don't produce on-wiki evidence which can later be used against you.
  4. There will soon be a RfA, where more admins vetted by the current clique will get "elected" (in the fairest of elections, no doubt - and I'm not being sarcastic here).
  5. At the earliest possible opportunity, the three will get elected back to their positions.
  6. Some time in 2020, I'll be writing yet another RfC on the same issue.

The only good thing about it is writing that RfC will be easy: everything is already documented and there will be nothing new to add. I'll just point to this RfC and the above 6 bullets - chances are I'll be batting a thousand with these predictions. GregorB (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that an (reasonably elected) ArbCom has to bee the next step. If you grasp the whole problem. Btw, just for the record, i'v got blocked on HW indefinitely for going into an argument with one of the admins proposed for deselection about the deletion of the village pump info to join the discussion. --Ivan VA (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, hr.wikipedia will take it as a warning shot across the bow that if they don't step up and reform their wiki, a second RFC proposal will result in more drastic options. --Rs chen 7754 18:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As per Gregor B's documentation, these guys have taken a whole series of warning shots over an entire decade, and persisted in the same old ways. They are total ideologues, totally incapable of reasoning or reasoned argument. The only solution is to remove them permanently since they are a disgrace to WP and everything it stands for. Would systematic deletion of sources quoted by recognized western historians, Holocaust denial, quoting of convicted forgers as "Reliable Sources", and then banning people who protest such practices be tolerated for 10 years on de or other Wikipedias? Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

But little was ever done about it those times - only 1 CU was removed. Escalating sanctions would send a stronger message (and is more consistent with the outcome of Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki, where stewards refused to remove all admins). --Rs chen 7754 00:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You've seen their reaction to the Signpost article complaining of their behavior, where they immediately insulted and indefinitely blocked Gregor B, then blocked another user who spoke up in his defense, and later they also deleted the link to the RfC on hr.wikipedia. This is like a crook repeatedly accused of stealing, stealing multiple jurors' watches. Would you propose giving that guy another chance with a warning? The "best" that might be hoped for is that they will find less obvious ways to constantly harass and drive away everyone they disagree with Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that, but the problem is that this would be a hard sell for stewards who didn't act when the problem was more clear-cut and the wiki was smaller. And some might say that was justified, because stewards aren't a global ArbCom and it's difficult for them to take such an action. --Rs chen 7754 04:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Support 1&4 per Rschen7754, and the strategy of escalating sanctions also per Rschen7754. —Ah3kal (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Remove all blocks from everyone the 3 admins have blocked
2. Send notification to all who’ve posted to hr.wp, or even better, post banner on hr.wp, telling everyone of Admin removal and other changes, and to invite back people who've been driven away from participating, since otherwise they may not learn of changes. This can help rebuild the hr.wp community, compared to what is likely now a POV-selected community, which could perpetuate the same abuses, even if 3 admins are removed
3. Provide a very simple way to report any further abuse. E.g. in header of all hr.wp Talk pages add a "Report abuse" link which links to a Project page where everyone can report abusive behavior on any hr.wp article (on Project page hr.wp Admins can't block people who complain of their abuse, a major problem to date). This would provide a simple way to monitor and address issues across all hr.wp articles, instead of these issues being buried in many individual Talk page discussions
4. Just as POV and other tags can be added to individual articles, a tag/notice could be added to all hr.wp Talk or Article pages, to indicate hr.wp is under bias and other abuse monitoring, and this notice remains until issues are deemed to be fully resolved
5. Per suggestions by others, add an Admin to hr.wp from en, de or other reputable WP, who knows the language, and will be able to monitor behavior, and take immediate action Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Let me first thank User:GregorB for putting together this case, beginning with the excellent article at Signpost, and than compiling the following Rfc. I Support Support 1 through 6 (all of the above enumerated actions) in strongest possible manner. (Only, I have some doubts that at the end of the day, even those will be sufficient to hold that language version of the project in check - this, of course, by no means suggests that we should continue to sit, arms crossed, doing nothing.) Also, the additional steps, such as those proposed by User:Thhhommmasss, should be taken most seriously into consideration.--^{s a n t a | t a l k | p i t} 22:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

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

• Requests for comments (open)
• Requests for comments in 2019